Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:14 am
Time: 3:14 am
Results for hate speech
7 results foundAuthor: Polacek, Richard Title: Joining Forces to Combat Homophobic and Transphobic Hate Crime: Cooperation Between Police Forces and LGBT Organisations in Europe Summary: In the past years, we have witnessed some positive developments of the legal environment to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation in the European Union Member States, although a lot still remains to be done. The social situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, however, continues to be worrying. Homophobic and transphobic hate speech and hate crime are a common phenomenon in the European Union today. Derogatory or offensive remarks, as well as verbal and physical assaults testify to the widespread persistence of homophobia in our societies. We have to take a stand against such crimes. They do not only cause harm to the lives of the individuals concerned but to society as a whole. This handbook shows that there are a number of ways in which different actors can work together to make Europe’s cities and communities safer for LGBT people. Little by little, steps can and should be taken by NGOs and state authorities alike, regardless of whether or not they are explicitly obliged to combat homophobic crime by relevant laws. This inspiring publication shows the important role of fostering prevention, assistance in reporting and adequate recording of homophobic and transphobic incidents, as well as raising awareness among law enforcement authorities and their proper training. These are key elements in ensuring that homophobic and transphobic crime is investigated to the same high standard as other forms of crime. Finally, the handbook highlights how, through the involvement and support of LGBT organisations, it is possible to achieve significant change. It is therefore particularly important that serious and professional organisations such as ILGA-Europe and the many more throughout Europe are acknowledged by public authorities as key partners in their work. Details: Brussels: European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Intersex Association (IGLA), 2010. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://www.dayagainsthomophobia.org/IMG/pdf/ILGA_Europe_Homophobic_Hate_Crime.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.dayagainsthomophobia.org/IMG/pdf/ILGA_Europe_Homophobic_Hate_Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 123090 Keywords: DiscriminationHate Crimes (Europe)Hate Speech |
Author: Noriega, Chon A. Title: Quantifying Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio: A Pilot Study Summary: The considerable and often heated debate over hate speech has produced numerous reports, articles, and books. These studies have looked at the issue from a number of disciplinary perspectives, including those of journalism, law, linguistics, economics, history, and philosophy. These studies offer valuable theoretical, conceptual, interpretive, and descriptive insights into hate speech, but they often rest upon unsubstantiated empirical premises about the phenomenon itself. Indeed, to date there is limited research on hate speech using scientific approaches to medium, content, and impact. The main goal of this pilot study is to develop a sound, replicable methodology for qualitative content analysis that can be used to examine hate speech in commercial broadcasting that targets vulnerable groups—ethnic, racial, religious, and/or sexual minorities. This pilot study establishes data-driven descriptive categories for such speech and creates a preliminary baseline or reference point for future research. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: CSRC Working Paper: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/research/documents/WPQuantifyingHateSpeech.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/research/documents/WPQuantifyingHateSpeech.pdf Shelf Number: 125866 Keywords: Hate SpeechMediaMinority GroupsTalk Radio |
Author: Corn-Revere, Robert Title: Hate Speech Laws: Ratifying the Assassin's Veto Summary: Recently criticisms of religion have been met by violence and threats of violence, the most infamous being the murder in Paris of several editors of the satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo. The phenomenon of killing or threatening to kill those who insult you or your way of life has come to be known as the assassin's veto. These events raise anew a basic question for liberal societies: how much expression must a free society tolerate? The United States Supreme Court has generally restricted government limits on speech. Some speech, however, does not receive protection, including expressions closely tied to violence. In the past, "fighting words" were judged unprotected by the First Amendment; the development of Court doctrine has largely eliminated this exception. American jurisprudence is based on the assumption that protections for freedom of expression will not long endure if they can be abandoned when the message is particularly repellant or its target especially sympathetic. European law also protects freedom of expression, although in a less robust way than does U.S. law. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights subjects freedom of speech to important limitations understood generally as "hate speech." In contrast to the United States, officials may apply criminal or civil sanctions to prohibited political advocacy. The United States faces a choice. Should it defend the right to offend, or opt instead to champion a right not to be offended? We have learned from hard experience in the United States that free expression cannot long survive without protecting outrageous and offensive speech. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2016 at: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa791.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa791.pdf Shelf Number: 139541 Keywords: Freedom of ExpressionHate CrimesHate Speech |
Author: Gagliardone, Iginio Title: Countering Online Hate Speech Summary: Hate speech online is situated at the intersection of multiple tensions: it is the expression of conflicts between different groups within and across societies; it is a vivid example of how technologies with a transformative potential such as the Internet bring with them both opportunities and challenges; and it implies complex balancing between fundamental rights and principles, including freedom of expression and the defence of human dignity. As the UN agency with a specific mandate to foster freedom of expression, and its corollaries, press freedom and freedom of information, UNESCO is actively working to promote mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication, including the Internet in general, and social networking platforms in particular. The roots of the research presented in this current publication lie in UNESCO’s fulfilment of Resolution 52 of its 37th General Conference in November 2013, as agreed by the Organization’s 195 Member States. This resolution called for a comprehensive and consultative multistakeholder study, within the mandate of UNESCO, on Internet-related issues of access to information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, and the ethical dimensions of the Information Society. The research into hate speech served as a contribution towards the wider study.1 The present report provides a global overview of the dynamics characterizing hate speech online and some of the measures that have been adopted to counteract and mitigate it, highlighting good practices that have emerged at the local and global levels. While the study offers a comprehensive analysis of the international, regional and national normative frameworks developed to address hate speech online, and their repercussions for freedom of expression, it places particular emphasis on social and non-regulatory mechanisms that can help to counter the production, dissemination and impact of hateful messages online. The findings of this study can be grouped around four main tensions: definition, jurisdiction, comprehension, and intervention. ● Definition. Hate speech is a broad and contested term. Multilateral treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) have sought to define its contours. Multi-stakeholders processes (e.g. the Rabat Plan of Action) have been initiated to bring greater clarity and suggest mechanisms to identify hateful messages. And yet, hate speech continues largely to be used in everyday discourse as a generic term, mixing concrete threats to individuals’ and groups’ security with cases in which people may be simply venting their anger against authority. Internet intermediaries – organizations that mediate online communication such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google – have advanced their own definitions of hate speech that bind users to a set of rules and allow companies to limit certain forms of expression. National and regional bodies have sought to promote understandings of the term that are more rooted in local traditions. Against this backdrop, the possibility of reaching a universally shared definition seems unlikely, a shared interest to avoid violence and protect human dignity has made debates on hate speech a moment for different stakeholders to come together in original ways and seek locally relevant solutions. ● Jurisdiction. The Internet’s speed and reach makes it difficult for governments to enforce national legislation in the virtual world. Issues around hate speech online bring into clear relief the emergence of private spaces for expression that serve a public function (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), and the challenges that these spaces pose for regulators. Despite initial resistance, and following public pressure, some of the companies owning these spaces have become more responsive towards tackling the problem of hate speech online, although they have not (yet) been fully incorporated into global debates (e.g. the Rabat Plan of Action) about how to identify and respond to hate speech. ● Comprehension. The character of hate speech online and its relation to offline speech and action are poorly understood. These topics are widely talked about – by politicians, activists and academics – but the debates tend to be removed from systematic empirical evidence. The character of perceived hate speech and its possible consequences has led to placing much emphasis on the solutions to the problem and on how they should be grounded in international human rights norms. Yet this very focus has also limited deeper attempts to understand the causes underlying the phenomenon and the dynamics through which certain types of content emerge, diffuse and lead – or not – to actual discrimination, hostility or violence. This study offers various examples of research aimed at mapping the emergence and diffusion of speech online, but also highlights the lack of studies examining the links between hate speech online and other social phenomena, ranging from access to education to rising inequalities. Details: Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2015. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf Shelf Number: 144890 Keywords: Computer CrimesHate CrimesHate SpeechInternet CrimesOnline VictimizationSocial Media |
Author: Sellars, Andrew F. Title: Defining Hate Speech Summary: There is no shortage of opinions about what should be done about hate speech, but if there is one point of agreement, it is that the topic is ripe for rigorous study. But just what is hate speech, and how will we know it when we see it online? For all of the extensive literature about the causes, harms, and responses to hate speech, few scholars have endeavored to systematically define the term. Where other areas of content analysis have developed rich methodologies to account for influences like context or bias, the present scholarship around hate speech rarely extends beyond identification of particular words or phrases that are likely to cause harm targeted toward immutable characteristics. This essay seeks to review some of the various attempts to define hate speech, and pull from them a series of traits that can be used to frame hate speech with a higher degree of confidence. In so doing, it explores the tensions between hate speech and principles of freedom of expression, both in the abstract and as they are captured in existing definitions. It also analyzes historical attempts to define the term in the United States, from the brief period of time when the United States punished hate speech directly. From this analysis, eight traits are surfaced that can be used for the development of a confidence scoring system to help ascertain whether a particular expression should be considered one of hate speech or not. Details: Cambridge, MA: Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, 2016. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882244 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882244 Shelf Number: 144891 Keywords: Hate CrimesHate Speech |
Author: Roshani, Niousha Title: Grassroots Perspectives on Hate Speech, Race, & Inequality in Brazil & Colombia Summary: Across Latin America, online and digitally mediated racist speech directed at Afro-descendant youth has intensified existing racial stigma and contributed to the marginalization of minority groups in both online and offline contexts. Racist speech is not a new phenomenon in the region. However, such speech is often amplified through digital media platforms, including social media, and some claim its increasing prevalence may be contributing to the normalization of racism. While racist speech online is prominent in both Brazil and Colombia, studies focused on Latin America are extremely limited and have addressed the overarching theme of online hate speech. Through interviews with leaders of civil society organizations (CSOs) and a review of existing literature, this study discusses efforts and interventions that CSOs have employed to counter racial stigma faced by the collective population of Afro-descendant youth in an attempt to understand and examine signs of impact related to hate speech in Brazil and Colombia, distinct from existing overarching studies of online hate speech. Informed by in-depth conversations with practitioners working in the field, and working closely with collaborating institutions that directly serve Afro-descendent youth, the case study presents an overview of the environment and context within which Afro-descendent youth impacted by racist speech exist. The interviews illustrate that most CSOs view digital racism as an extension of historical racial inequality. This case study documents the efforts of CSOs in the region who are helping to support the actions of young Afro-descendants to occupy roles historically denied to them, thereby deconstructing negative perceptions and re-claiming representations of their identities and realities. Details: Cambridge, MA: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research, 2016. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Publication No. 2016-18: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882234 Year: 2016 Country: Latin America URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882234 Shelf Number: 144912 Keywords: Hate CrimesHate SpeechInequalityRacial BiasRacial Discrimination |
Author: Chalmers, James Title: A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review Summary: In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale. Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017. Chapter 1 (What is Hate Crime?) explores what is meant by the term "hate crime", noting that different definitions may properly be used for different purposes. It notes that the legislative response to hate crime can be characterised by the definition offered by Chakraborti and Garland: the creation of offences, or sentencing provisions, "which adhere to the principle that crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice towards particular features of the victim's identity should be treated differently from 'ordinary' crimes". Chapter 2 (Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland) outlines the principal provisions of hate crime legislation, as identified in the Review's remit. These can be divided into two categories. First, sentence aggravation provisions, which do not create distinct criminal offences, but allow for offences aggravated by prejudice to be recorded as such and require the aggravation to be taken into account in sentencing. Secondly, substantive offences, which primarily consist of offences relating to the stirring up of racial hatred but also include offences of racially aggravated harassment and threatening communications intended to stir up hatred on religious grounds. Chapter 3 (Justifications for Punishing Hate Crime More Severely) considers the various possible justifications for treating hate crimes as more serious than parallel non-hate crimes. The possible justifications can be divided into three broad categories: harm-based justifications; culpability-based justifications; and denunciation-based justifications. Assessing the available evidence, it concludes that the argument that hate crimes are - compared to parallel non-hate crimes - more likely to cause harm both to the direct victim and to members of the group to which the victim belonged or was perceived to belong is particularly compelling. The argument that it is important to send a message to victims of hate crime that bias and inequality of treatment is roundly condemned by the State is also persuasive. Collectively, the harm argument and the denunciatory argument (and perhaps to a lesser extent the culpability argument) provide a compelling justification for punishing hate crime more severely Chapter 4 (Models of Hate Crime Legislation) considers two questions: first, how should hate crime be identified; and secondly, how should it be addressed - through substantive and distinct offences or the penalty attaching to general offences? In relation to the first question, it outlines two specific legislative models. The first is the discriminatory selection model (where a hate crime is committed where the victim has been selected because of their membership of a protected group). The second is the animus model (where the offender is motivated by, or demonstrates, prejudice against a protected group). It notes a clear preference for the animus model in legislative practice and strong arguments of principle in support. In relation to the second question, the chapter outlines three broad models: (i) the penalty enhancement model, (ii) the sentence aggravation model, and (iii) the substantive offence model, noting that jurisdictions may choose to combine these models rather than choosing one alone. It concludes by outlining the thresholds specified for a crime to count as a hate crime in a range of jurisdictions, and examines various questions about the precise formulation of these thresholds. Chapter 5 (Choice of Protected Characteristics) notes that the characteristics presently protected (in one form or another) under hate crime law in Scotland are race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The chapter considers the range of characteristics protected in a range of other jurisdictions, noting that the characteristics protected in Scots law are the characteristics that are most commonly protected in the other jurisdictions analysed and that the two characteristics that are not presently protected in Scots law, but are most commonly protected in other jurisdictions, are age and sex . The chapter goes on to examine the principles which should guide a decision as to which characteristics should be protected. It notes a range of possibilities which have been identified in this respect, concluding that the most persuasive accounts are those that focus on identify groups that experience unjustified marginalisation or possess forms of difference that have a justifiable claim to respect. Chapter 6 (Hate Speech and Online Hate Crime) acknowledges that significant recent work has been carried out in relation to hate speech by the Law Commission and provides a high-level overview of the legal issues related to hate speech in a comparative perspective, including the applicability of legislation to online hate speech. It considers two questions of principle - what is hate speech, and what is the harm of hate speech? - before detailing offences relating to hate speech in a range of jurisdictions, considering both the legislative models adopted and the range of groups protected. It then outlines certain issues which arise in relation to hate speech online. Chapter 7 (Hate Crime Legislation in Selected Jurisdictions) details the legislative provisions relating to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. The jurisdictions assessed are as follows: Australia (the six states and two territories are examined separately); Canada; England and Wales; New Zealand; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland; South Africa and ten jurisdictions in the United States of America (the jurisdictions selected for analysis being those which expressly protect characteristics which are not explicitly protected in any of the hate crime legislative provisions discussed elsewhere in the chapter). Chapter 8 (Approaches Taken in Other Jurisdictions Relevant to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012) examines section 1 of the 2012 Act, which is distinct because it applies only to behaviour that takes place in relation to a regulated football match. The chapter outlines the background to the Act, sets out the offences contained in section 1 and details analogous legislation in other jurisdictions including England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2017. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2017 at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/hate-crime/independent-review-of-hate-crime-legislation/supporting_documents/495517_APPENDIX%20%20ACADEMIC%20REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 147537 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimeHate CrimeHate Crime LegislationHate SpeechOnline VictimizationPrejudice |