Hate Speech Policies Research Articles

How harassment and hate speech policies have changed over time: Comparing Facebook, Twitter and Reddit (2005–2020)

AbstractSocial media platforms make choices about what content is and is not permissible on their platforms. For example, choices about if and how to deal with online harassment and hate speech are growing problems in many online settings. But these choices are often opaque, can vary from platform to platform, and can change over time with little notice. This study examines the ways Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have defined harassment and hate speech, as well as who they frame as responsible for dealing with harassment and hate speech over time. Using content analysis, the policy structures that house relevant policies, the policy documents themselves, and blog posts are examined. The results illustrate a phased approach to defining harassment and hate, which has become increasingly complex and nuanced over time. Additionally, this work shows a compounding view of who is responsible, which began with users but over time has come to include the platform itself, technology, and external actors such as civil society groups. This paper highlights continued opacity and increasing complexity while also providing contextual historical information necessary for both future research and platform governance decisions.

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Counterspeech

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Counterspeech

A deeper look at the 2020 Facebook boycott and related themes of misinformation: A text mining analysis of topics, emotion and sentiment

Facebook has repeatedly come under fire from consumers, companies and government agencies in recent years owing to the prevalence of misinformation on its platform as well as the way it handles information related to social justice and public health, among other things. Using a large data set of 604,269 social media mentions sourced from popular social platforms (eg Twitter and Reddit), this study set out to discover themes associated with misinformation and the Facebook advertising boycott that occurred in July 2020. To understand the discourse, a linguistic analysis approach called theme extraction was used. This method employs machine learning and natural language processing to reveal relationships in the data that may otherwise be buried in the mass of social media mentions. The most prominent theme identified among social media users was the desire that Facebook and other social media platforms actively stop the spread of misinformation. Other trending topics included #StopHateForProfit, lockdown protests, hate speech policy, news as spam, right-wing politics and suspended ads. Managerial implications for advertisers are discussed as they relate to social media management and how misinformation impacts brand engagement on social platforms.

Caste-hate speech and digital media politics

Campaigns against hate speech related to race, gender groups and sexual orientation have received varying degrees of acknowledgement and recognition in global contexts. However, the same has not been true for caste-hate speech that affects a fifth of the world’s population. This article advocates that global policy-makers should consider caste a protected characteristic related to hate-speech policies. It further calls for recognition and inclusion of caste as a protected characteristic in all international covenants related to human rights and hate speech. It also sets out action plans to mitigate hate speech in everyday conversations that are increasingly mediated by and saturated in digital platforms.

Gatekeepers of toxicity: Reconceptualizing Twitter's abuse and hate speech policies

Twitter has become the platform of choice for journalists, politicians, and citizens because of the ways that it encourages expression, participation, and debate. In recent years, however, Twitter's “zeal for free speech” has turned the platform into a breeding ground for abuse, harassment, and hate speech. Through a discourse analysis of Twitter's policies, rules, and enforcement guidelines, this project asks (1) What role do Twitter's policies, rules, and terms of service play in instances where Twitter does not successfully address online abuse, hate speech, and harassment? and (2) What role does Twitter's technological architecture play in both propagating or preventing online hate speech and abuse? By invoking traditional and contemporary gatekeeping theories, theories of deterrence, and responsibilization, this paper will demonstrate that Twitter's policies perpetuate abuse and hateful conduct by splitting the gatekeeping role between the platform and its users. The study sheds light on the blind spots in Twitter's policies, such as their permissive free speech rhetoric and their nondeterrent enforcement options, to provide an empirical basis for how Twitter can detoxify user experience through revisions to the platform's policy framework.

Beyond Takedown: Expanding the Toolkit for Responding to Online Hate

The current preoccupation with ‘fake news’ has spurred a renewed emphasis in popular discourse on the potential harms of speech. In the world of international law, however, ‘fake news’ is far from new. Propaganda of various sorts is a well-worn tactic of governments, and in its most insidious form, it has played an instrumental role in inciting and enabling some of the worst atrocities of our time. Yet as familiar as propaganda might be in theory, it is raising new issues as it has migrated to the digital realm. Technological developments have largely outpaced existing legal and political tools for responding to the use of mass communications devices to instigate or perpetrate human rights violations. This chapter evaluates the current practices of social media companies for responding to online hate, arguing that they are inevitably both overbroad and under-inclusive. Using the example of the role played by Facebook in the recent genocide against the minority Muslim Rohingya population in Myanmar, the chapter illustrates the failure of platform hate speech policies to address pervasive and coordinated online speech, often state-sponsored or state-aligned, denigrating a particular group that is used to justify or foster impunity for violence against that group. Addressing this “conditioning speech” requires a more tailored response that includes remedies other than content removal and account suspensions. The chapter concludes by surveying a range of innovative responses to harmful online content that would give social media platforms the flexibly to intervene earlier, but with a much lighter touch.

Combating Hate Speech at the Local Level: A Comparison of East Asian and European Approaches

ABSTRACTAlthough existing research on hate speech law and policy has focused on the national level, there have been relatively few studies of local government approaches to the issue. This paper takes a step toward filling this gap by comparing hate speech policies in three European cities (Graz, Barcelona and London) with those developed in four East Asian cities (Osaka, Kawasaki, Seoul and Bucheon). These cities were chosen for study because in each case local governments have explicitly engaged with the issue of anti-hate speech policy. For each city, I focus on the type of anti-hate speech policy that has been developed, the motivations behind it, the challenges and opposition faced, and where relevant the diffusion of local anti-hate speech policy to and from other jurisdictions. This research is the product of a review of primary documents and media commentary, supplemented in one case by an email interview. I then analyse the common elements and notable differences between local anti-hate speech policies in the two regions and conclude with observations on the different forms that local anti-hate speech policy has taken and suggestions for further research.

Media Sosial Dan Kebijakan Kapolri Mengenai ”Hate Speech” (Ujaran Kebencian)

The developments of information technologies affect the life of democracy in Indonesia. Information technology such as social media has caused social change. Social media should be a public space to establish relations and public information centers. The user submits a message to create a closer ties with the community and convey information about social problems. The public get information faster from social media rather than print media, radio and television. But there are some people who spread false news (hoaxes) or even attack the other party through hate speech. Such actions lead to defamation toward certain people then lead public opinion to worsen the socio-political situation, causing a split. The insult to the President by a citizen through a message on social media which continues to the proceedings reminds us to be more concerned about the ethical consideration of communication in public spaces. This issue should be a shared responsibility between the organizers and users of social media in order to maintain a cultured communication behavior and ethical understanding. The policy from the head of Indonesian Police regarding hate speech in social media is the firm stance of the government against violators who deliberately spread messages of hate, violate the values, norms, manners and ethics. The act of spreading the message of hate speech is against the law. Hate speech message ruins the conduciveness of social and political situation. This kind of violation could threaten the mentality of younger generations as users of social media in creating a civilized communication in Indonesia.Keywords: hate speech policy, messages of hate, and social media.

Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate (review)

Reviewed by: Speaking back: The free speech versus hate speech debate by Katharine Gelber Mousa A. Btoosh Speaking back: The free speech versus hate speech debate. By Katharine Gelber. (Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture 1.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. Pp. xiv, 177. ISBN 1588111881. $59 (Hb). Gelber presents a new hate speech policy whereby victims of hate speech can speak back whenever such speech occurs. Throughout the book (which consists of six chapters, with abstract, introduction, conclusion, notes, references, and appendices), G argues convincingly that her ‘speaking back’ policy is better than the punitive hate speech legislation used in New South Wales, Australia, and some other Western countries. In the introduction (1–11), she provides a rationale for her study by stating the deficiencies of the hate speech laws and the inconsistencies between the goals of securing free speech and ameliorating the negative effects of hate speech. Such deficiencies and inconsistencies, according to G, justify the urgent need for a new balanced proposal. The introduction also presents an overview of the rest of the book. The first chapter, ‘The problem: An example of racial antivilification laws in practice, 1989–1998’ (13–27), familiarizes the reader with the reasons behind the legislation of the New South Wales’s racial antivilification law, the structure of the legislation, and three empirical problems resulted from its application. The second chapter, ‘Expanding speech liberties: A capabilities approach’ (29–47), sheds light on two proposals that differ in their assessments of free speech, hate speech, and speech policy. The first represents the current deficient major arguments in defense of free speech, which emphasize the quantity of speech: the more the better. The second represents G’s view, which aims to empower people to respond to hate speech rather than to be silenced by it. Another area of difference between G and defenders of free speech appears in the third chapter, ‘Speech as conduct’ (49–68), which analyzes speech conceptions within the framework of speech act theory and communicative action theory. Unlike many free speech adherents, G argues that hate speech is a kind of conduct and that any proposed distinction between speech and conduct is highly challengeable. The fourth chapter, ‘Hate speech as harmful conduct: The phenomenology of hate-speech-acts’ (69–91), presents an analysis of a number of hate speech utterances in terms of the validity claims model by which it has become feasible to identify and understand hate-speech-acts. Trying to investigate whether the weaknesses in the application of hate speech policy is universal or just a state-specific issue, G, in the fifth chapter entitled ‘Australia, the UK and the USA compared’ (93–115), adopts a com parative method, whereby she investigates hate speech policies in all three countries. The final chapter, ‘A policy of speaking back’ (117–34), deals with the core value of the book, G’s ‘capabilities-oriented hate speech policy’ which provides the institutional, material, and educational assistance that victims need to respond to hate speech. In brief, this policy suggests that hate speech should not be banned, but rather be answered. This book makes an important contribution to the field of discourse studies, providing a consolidated hate speech policy whereby the goals of both securing free speech and ameliorating the negative effects of hate speech are achieved simultaneously. Mousa A. Btoosh University of Texas, Arlington Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

The Precedent That Wasn't: College Hate Speech Codes and the Two Faces of Legal Compliance

This article undertakes an empirical investigation into the development and persistence of college hate speech codes, asking why so many elite institutions of higher learning either retained or created speech policies that contradicted a national series of court cases. The method is both quantitative and qualitative, looking for broad patterns of response among the schools and also explaining why individual institutions did or did not comply with the court decisions. In the end, the article not only teases out the why of compliance decisions but also provides a greater understanding of the relationship between legal compliance and judicial impact.