1. Introduction “Hate speech” or “dangerous speech,” as labeled by observers, has received much attention and concern in Myanmar over the last eight years. This research began from the axiom that approaches to such phenomena need to be informed by the ways people in Myanmar are already working to manage them. Identifying the strategies that people are using to avoid, reduce, or contest “hate speech” may suggest areas to support or build upon with campaigns and other activities, for example. These strategies are sometimes referred to as “counter-speech.” At the same time, better understanding counter-speech may also highlight obstacles that such efforts to offer support should account for, but which may currently not be noticed. But research with an interest in counter-speech involves three major risks. The first is practical: asking how people manage “hate speech” can require first making assumptions about the nature of such speech and why it is problematic. To formulate research in this way is to generate findings shaped by what “hate speech” has been assumed to be. But not everyone shares the same assumptions. “Hate speech” is a moral category, created to condemn certain forms of speech and, sometimes, to back this condemnation with the force of law. Even in western countries, where the term was developed, there are intense disagreements about its meaning and legal status. This is also true in Myanmar, where a Burmese-language version of the term (အမိုန်း် စက ်း) was only recently coined as a direct translation from English. Its usage is not widespread beyond civil society spaces in Myanmar; to the extent that it is in use, the forms of speech it condemns may not match those people in Myanmar find objectionable on other grounds. The second risk is social and political: beginning with a focus on “hate speech,” for research questions and for programming, is to rely on a semantic formula that makes all speech that fits the formula equivalent. If the definition includes dehumanizing language, for example, then all speech that says some humans are like animals can be classified as hate speech. But when a member of the military refers to a member of a marginalized community as a “dog” it is not the same as when a member of that marginalized community uses the same term for the military; these two examples involve radical differences in the power of the speaker and the vulnerability of the person labeled, “dog.” Classifying them as the same for research purposes imposes an equivalence that erases social and political differences. Because “hate speech” is a moral category, research that imposes an equivalence between examples necessarily also condemns them as equally problematic. This constructed equivalence and resulting condemnation does not exist only at the level of research: it can become social and political insofar as the research has influence or is used by people in ongoing struggles. Those seeking to punish criticisms of the military, for example, can bolster their position by citing research which defines some of this criticism as hate speech. Or, those seeking to position 3