Prohibition Of Hate Speech Research Articles

Classifying possible hate speech from text with deep learning and ensemble on embedding method

Hate speech can be defined as the use of language to express hatred towards another party. Twitter is one of the most widely used social media platforms in the community. In addition to submitting user-generated content, other users can provide feedback through comments. There are several users who intentionally or unintentionally provide negative comments. Even though there are regulations regarding the prohibition of hate speech, there are still those who make negative comments. Using the deep learning method with the long short-term memory (LSTM) model, a classifier of possible hate speech from messages on Twitter is carried out. With the ensemble method, term frequency times inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) and global vector (GloVe) get 86% accuracy, better than the stand-alone word to vector (Word2Vec) method, which only gets 80%. From these results, it can be concluded that the ensemble method can improve accuracy compared to only using the stand-alone method. Ensemble methods can also improve the performance of deep learning systems and produce better results than using only one method.

Beyond Non-bindingness: States’ Implementation of UN Human Rights Treaties Bodies’ Concluding Observations

ABSTRACT Insufficient scholarly attention has been given to how UN human rights treaty bodies can induce states to implement concluding observations (COBs). This is because previous studies tend to underestimate the treaty bodies as weak, and instead focus on domestic factors. A case study of the Japanese implementation of treaty bodies’ COBs, however, reveals that domestic mobilization does not always succeed in changing government policies because of Japanese authorities’ inadequate understanding of international human rights law in areas such as gender equality and the prohibition of hate speech. Exploring treaty bodies’ role in inducing such states’ implementation of COBs is therefore crucial. To tackle this, this paper applies the theory of Goodman and Jinks, and reveals that the treaty bodies’ design is aimed primarily at persuading rather than acculturating states. If acculturation is incorporated into their design, it follows that treaty bodies should coordinate with the Human Rights Council, and that the Human Rights Council should follow up COBs in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Because ‘enforcement’ of COBs by the UPR could undermine treaty bodies’ work, this paper suggests a modest solution: that the UPR should cover the concerns expressed in COBs.

PENDEKATAN DUALISTIK TERHADAP KASUS UJARAN KEBENCIAN BERDASARKAN PANCASILA

Abstract— The spread of hate speech is very dangerous for the life of the Indonesian state, so it must be seriously addressed through legal means. Law enforcement for the prohibition of hate speech must be oriented towards creating a just legal decision. The dominance of a monoistic approach in law enforcement against hate speech is criticized because it is very prone to abuse. A monoistic approach that emphasizes fulfilling the elements of the offense must be evaluated because the main subject being tested or tried in cases of hate speech is utterances or words. Utterances or words have an interpretation, therefore to ascertain whether the perpetrators of hate speech really intend or intentionally spread information that can cause hatred based on Ethnicity, Religion, Race and Intergroup (SARA), the perpetrator's mental attitude when conveying the message. The dualistic approach is important to clearly describe whether the elements of the offense are fulfilled and the perpetrator's actions can be legally justified. The dualistic approach in law enforcement against hate speech is more likely to present justice in accordance with the values ??contained in Pancasila.

Contextualizing Mill’s Idea on Freedom of Expression in The Indonesian Law on Prohibition of Hate Speech

This paper examines John Stuart Mill’s thoughts on freedom of expression as a part of human rights, especially to the extent it is limited by the prohibition of hate speech. Although this right is justified for philosophical, political, and individual reasons, it will be contextualized from Indonesia’s regulations perspectives. Tracing the background to the emergence of freedom of expression and the emergence of hate speech from developed countries such as Europe and America, the background for regulating hate speech is different from that of Indonesia, where hate speech is still regulated and prohibited in various regulations and subject to criminal sanctions. Freedom of expression initiated by John Stuart Mill is not absolute freedom as opinions lose their immunity when the opinions expressed become positive incentives for harmful actions.

The regulation of hate speech online and its enforcement - a comparative outlook

ABSTRACT On the initiative of the British Association of Comparative Law, this issue develops a broad comparative perspective on aspects of the legal regulation of hate speech online in China, France, Germany, the UK, Europe and the US. This editorial introduces the key lines of debates running through the papers. First, contributors discuss the appropriate role of public and private actors in regulating hate speech, with extensive reference to the German NetzDG and consideration of the UK Online Safety Bill. They also consider the communicative environment in which hate speech or ‘vilification’ arises; the ‘intermediate’ regulation or restrictions that sit between inclusion and prohibition of hate speech; and the concerns about the control, or lack of control, exercised by private actors over the speech of governmental public figures. They finally remind us that different legal and political cultures ultimately shape regional approaches, even when they share apparently similar rules.

Unsilenced Employee Voice in South Africa: Social Media Misconduct Dismissals as Evidence of E-Voice

Social media has transformed various aspects of daily life, particularly influencing communication and interaction in both physical and digital spaces. The South African employment relationship is no exception. Social media also creates opportunities for the articulation of employee voice. Through the content analysis of 118 South African first-instance social media misconduct dismissal decisions, this paper argues that employees use social media as a mechanism to express dissenting employee voice. There is evidence of individual employee voice notwithstanding employers implementing rules and social media policies to curtail expressions of dissent. It also persists despite the dismissal of employees for expressing employee voice through social media. Significantly, employee voice in the form of racialised speech badmouthing and cyber-criticising employers continues in the digital realm despite the legislative prohibition of hate speech. Despite high power disparities, the sample reveals a perfusion of individual e-voice by South African employees.

NİFRƏT NİTQİNİN ANLAYIŞI-AVROPA ŞURASI VƏ AVROPA İNSAN HÜQUQLARI MƏHKƏMƏSİNİN YANAŞMALARININ MÜQAYİSƏLİ TƏHLİLİ

Providing an opportunity for society to develop and progress, freedom of speech is surely one of the vital conditions for sustainable democracy. Nevertheless, freedom of speech is not an absolute right and exhaustive list of limitations are delineated by many jurisdictions. In Europe as well it is still subject to accepted restrictions designed to prohibit incitement to hatred or conflict with other human rights. This article discusses approaches to hate speech as a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of speech. The article is dedicated to a comparative analysis of the case law of the ECHR and the provisions of the Recommendations adopted in the framework of the Council of Europe. In particular, the author tries to find a clear distinction between speech that is not welcome by the majority of society and the prohibition of hate speech. Key words: freedom of speech, hate speech, standards of Council of Europe, European Court on Human Rights, context of speech, call for violence

Hate Speech and Authentic Personhood: Unveiling the Truth

We often think that individuals should live their lives in ways they are convinced are most appropriate to their self-understanding and beliefs. However, we equally think that this idea of living according to one’s convictions and self-understanding does not mean endorsement of forms of speech that injure the person and dignity of others. So far, the debate on hate speech has revolved around the justification of its protection and prohibition. In this article, we examine the idea of hate speech through the lens of authentic personhood, the foundation upon which most arguments for and against speech restriction are based. The aim is to demonstrate that the state restricting speech may be as justified as the one protecting it, seeing that in reality, hate speech both violates and vindicates authentic personhood. Given the nature and structure of “autonomy” and “speech,” a balancing approach to free expression and equality is preferable to outright protection or prohibition of hate speech.

Hate Speech in Myanmar

Freedom of expression can be abused in concerning with race, religion or nation, politics and gender and it transfers into a hate speech. This research intends to investigate the gap between the legal ideals and actual practice, especially to understand effectiveness or impact of a draft for the Protection against and Prevention of Hate Speech Law in Myanmar. This paper analyzes the Domestic Laws such as the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2008 and the Penal Code, 1861 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discriminations against Women (CEDAW) and the Genocide Convention relating to international Conventions and international other documents. This research uses a qualitative approach research method, applying analysis of laws. The draft law is required to balance the right to freedom of expression and the prohibition of hate speech. International human rights laws and standards recognize all protected characteristics of human rights that should be comprised all protecting range of any actions to define “hate speech” in the draft law and should not be restricted to ethnicity, religion, nation, politic and gender. The Government should provide the upcoming Law Protection against and Prevention of Hate Speech in Myanmar urgently.

Hate Speech dalam Masyarakat Post Truth

Hate speech is increasingly becoming a serious threat to the unity of the Republic of Indonesia which is very diverse. The characteristics of people in the post-truth era that are more influenced by personal opinion than reality cause their emotions and sentiments to be easily ignited which results in intolerance and strife. How bad is the Qur'an which in some verses forbids the utterance of hate speech, one of which is through verse 1 of Surah al-Humazah, which strongly denounces and cursing. This study aims to analyze the behavior of hate speech through thematic studies of the Qur'an by applying the thematic interpretation method offered by Hasan Hanafi. The reading of the text according to Hanafi needs to go through three phases namely historical, eidetic and practical criticism. From this research, it was obtained that historically the Al-Qur'an was an authentic book since it was revealed until now, its truth was believed and used as a guide to Muslim life. Through eidetic criticism, the Qur'an reveals the prohibition of hate speech even condemns it. To overcome this, synergy efforts between the government, consumers and information producers must be done in combating hate speech by adapting values ​​in the Qur'an such as the tabayyun attitude for the community, the principles of honesty, accuracy, fairness, and others for information producers.

How to Make Sense of the Civil Prohibition of Hate Speech in Terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000

In this article the authors offer a workable interpretation of section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. Many constitutional law and freedom of expression scholars have argued that section 10 is at least in part unconstitutional. The authors of this article analyse these scholars’ views and chart a path towards saving section 10 from unconstitutionality. Section 10 is analysed by interrogating each of the requirements for hate speech as set out in the section: ‘no person’; ‘publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words’; ‘based on one or more of the prohibited grounds’; ‘that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention’; ‘to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; promote or propagate hatred’ and the defences listed in section 12. The article concludes with a proposal for legislative amendments to section 10 to remove any doubt about its constitutionality.

The Constitutionality of the Prohibition of Hate Speech in terms of Section 10(1) of the Equality Act: A Reply to Botha and Govindjee

This is a reply to a critique by Botha and Govindjee (2017 PELJ 1-32) of our interpretation of the hate speech provisions of the Equality Act (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000) in Marais and Pretorius (2015 PELJ 901-942), in which we considered the constitutionality of section 10(1) of the Act, amongst other things. We address Botha and Govindjees' rejection of our view that hate speech is a form of unfair discrimination and that the most appropriate constitutional framework within which section 10(1) should be interpreted and assessed is sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution. We consider Botha and Govindjees' rejection of this point of departure, their opposing different interpretation of the role of the proviso in section 12 of the Act and, generally, their reasons for concluding that section 10(1) is unconstitutional. We maintain that Botha and Govindjee's proposals for reform unduly restrict the hate speech prohibition to cover exclusively expression that warrants criminalisation. In doing so, they fail to fully acknowledge the transformative obligation in terms of international law, the Constitution and the Equality Act, to prohibit and prevent unfair discrimination.

El discurso del odio: una lectura crítica de la regulación internacional

The paper analyzes the international regulation of hate speech frequently used selectively as an argument of authority to interpret Spanish legislation. The hermeneutic difficulties of the prohibition of hate speech in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are first examined, establishing the elements that make up the threshold of incitement. Next, hate speech in the Council of Europe and in the European Union is addressed, with special reference to the jurisprudence of the ECHR and the principles of intentionality, context and causality or probability of impact. To conclude, the limitations of these international standards are reviewed by proposing to articulate the concept of hate speech on the notion of incitement.

The Protection of Human Dignity in Hungarian Media Regulation

Most European legal systems have to face issues connected to the protection of human dignity. It is very difficult to make decisions, in terms of legislation and the application of the law, when the freedom of the press and the protection of human dignity are in conflict. Most European countries protect human dignity in media regulations through the general protection of honor and good reputation and the prohibition of hate speech against communities. However, this is not the only possible way to go. Our question is therefore whether we can assign a meaning to the right to human dignity that is different from the provisions guaranteeing the general protection of privacy. Every time a piece of media legislation expressly names dignity, we must presume that its meaning is different from that of the content of the right to honor and good reputation, which are also named in most cases. In this way we have the chance to examine the aspects of differentiation between this content and the specific provisions. Hungarian media regulations and the jurisprudence enforcing them tries to assign an independent meaning to the protection of human dignity (and human rights in general) in the media ever since 1996. Although the Hungarian media acts passed in 2010 triggered a considerable and Europe-wide debate, the question is not new at all. In most respects it is independent of the new Hungarian regulations. Accordingly, the essay below does not provide a general evaluation or analysis of the Hungarian media regulations. Instead, it focuses on the partial problem specified in this introduction and intends to provide a summary of the Hungarian responses to this question.

Hate Speech Online: an (Intractable) Contemporary Challenge?

Internet users generate billions of pieces of online content weekly across a number of social media platforms, and that content includes hate speech. How to respond to hate speech online is a question that is troubling democracies all over the world and there is no easy solution in sight. The question of hate speech has long given rise to dispute in international human rights law, a dispute that arises because the protection of freedom of speech on the one hand and the prohibition of hate speech on the other are rooted in different normative principles that need to be accommodated. This enduring dispute makes it particularly difficult to design solutions to the problem of hate speech online. The article describes and assesses the current rules regulating hate speech online in four jurisdictions, the USA, the UK, Europe and Germany and suggests that it is not clear that any of the systems satisfactorily address the issue of hate speech online.

Striking a Balance: Freedom of Expression and the Prohibition of Hate Speech and Offensive Remarks

Freedom of expression is an important fundamental right because the right to speak one’s mind freely on important issues in society, access information and hold the powers that beto account plays a vital role in the healthy development process of any society. At the heart of the hateful and offensive speech restriction is the tension between individual liberty and social good or the collective interest of the public. Hate speech touches on contested issues of dignity, free expression, liberty and democracy. Thus, there is a conflict between the right to freely advocate however distasteful the idea may be and the right to be free from prejudice and discrimination. In some circumstances, speech is restrained and the right to non-discrimination is preferred over free speech. It is in that sense that the title of this work “Striking a Balance” is justified. This paper uses philosophical, practical and constitutional facts to illustrate the difficulty in striking the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and other legally prohibited speech or remark. The paper will explore extensively the complexities brought about by the restriction of the right to freely express in this context against the backdrop of the provisions of the Constitution, international instruments and the approach of national and international Courts.

Editorial

This edition of PER consists of one oratio, 13 articles and one book review dealing with a variety of themes.
 The first contribution is an oratio delivered by Lourens du Plessis at a colloquium hosted by the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, on 2 October 2015 to celebrate his life and work, in which he aptly refers to himself as a "learned jackal for justice".
 The first of the 13 articles is by Lonias Ndlovu, who uses the 2013 Supreme Court of India case of Novartis AG v Union of India to argue for legislative reform by SADC members in the granting of patents for new versions of old medicines. Secondly, Lunga Siyo and John Mubangizi consider whether the existing constitutional and legislative mechanisms provide sufficient judicial independence to South African judges, which is fundamental to democracy.Leah Ndimurwimo and Melvin Mbao trace the root causes of Burundi's systemic armed violence and argue that despite several UN Security Council Resolutions and peace agreements aimed at national reconciliation and reconstruction, mass killings and other heinous crimes remain unaddressed. In the fourth place, Marelize Marais and Jan Pretorius present a detailed contextual analysis of the categorical prohibition of hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (the Equality Act). Phillipa King and Christine Reddell discuss the pivotal role of the public in water use rights, especially in the context of theNational Water Act 36 of 1998 in the fifth article. The difficulties surrounding the tripartite scheme of statutory, constitutional and living law in a pluralistic system such as South Africa are the focus of the article by Rita Ozoemena. She uses the case of Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC) as an example to illustrate the difficulties experienced in trying to balance this scheme. Angela van der Berg critically discusses and describes from a legal perspective the potential and function of public-private partnerships (PPPs) between local government (municipalities) and the private sector in fulfilling the legally entrenched disaster management mandate of municipalities. André van der Walt and Sue-Mari Viljoen argue that there are sound theoretical and systemic reasons why it is necessary to keep in mind the differences between property, land rights and housing rights when analysing, interpreting and applying any of these rights in a specific constitutional text. The special procedural measures which must be considered in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 in order to decide if a contract is procedurally fair are analysed by Philip Stoop in his article. Liz Lewis also scrutinises the judicial development of customary law in the case of Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC). She pleads for a judicial approach which take cognisance of the norms and values with reference to their particular context and audience instead of those embedded in international and western law. Water security, which is dealt with by Ed Couzens, remains a highly topical theme in a country such as South Africa. He explores ways to circumvent the effects of the Constitutional Court in Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg 2010 4 SA 1 (CC) with regard to the allocation of water to the poor. Izelle du Plessis discusses some of the existing opinions regarding the incorporation of double taxation agreements into the domestic law of South Africa. Last, but not least, Koos Malan deliberates on the rule of law and constitutional supremacy and comes to the conclusion that they are, from the perspective of the factual dimension of the law, more susceptible to the volatility of unpredictable changes and instability than the doctrine of the rule of law and constitutional supremacy purport them to be.
 In the last contribution to this edition, Robbie Robinson reviews the book "International Law and Child Soldiers" written by Gus Waschefort and published by Hart Publishing (Oxford) in 2015. He is of the opinion that the book is asine qua non for studies of children in international law.
 

A Contextual Analysis of the Hate Speech Provisions of the Equality Act

The article presents a detailed contextual analysis of the categorical prohibition of hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Equality Act. It is argued that this provision is not primarily intended to describe and effectively regulate the extreme expression that falls within the narrow ambit of "hate speech" as defined in section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution. Rather, it is concerned with the promotion of equality in the broad societal context. It acknowledges the hurt and harm that discriminatory expression may entail and it condemns the reinforcement of systemic discrimination by means of expression. Therefore, the principal interpretive frame of reference for the analysis of section 10(1) of the Equality Act is the explicit constitutional obligation in terms of sections 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution to enact legislation to prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination, and not section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution. The fact that section 10(1) categorically prohibits hate speech, instead of premising its prohibition on the unfairness analysis generally applicable to discrimination in other contexts, however, implies that only expression with no reasonable prospect of meeting the constitutional fairness standard ought to be covered by section 10. Put differently, the prohibited expression may in no way promote rather than jeopardise the achievement of equality. The interpretation takes into account that section 10(1) applies only to engagement in expression that, in terms of an objective reasonableness assessment, is clearly primarily aimed at hurting or harming others, or at inciting others to hurt or harm, or at promoting hatred based on group identity. Furthermore, bona fide expression in accordance with the essential characteristics of the freedoms of expression mentioned in section 16(1) of the Constitution is explicitly excluded from its ambit. An analysis of the expression covered by section 10(1) leads to a conclusion that it prohibits only low-value discriminatory expression that obstructs the constitutional quest for the healing of our injured society. It manages to achieve this without jeopardising the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, construed in the light of the foundational values of the Constitution.

Blasphemy in a secular state: some reflections

Anti-blasphemy laws have endured criticism in light of the modern, secular and democratic state system of our time. For example, Ethiopia’s criminal law provisions on blasphemous utterances, as well as on outrage to religious peace and feeling, have been maintained unaltered since they were enacted in 1957. However, the shift observed within the international human rights discourse tends to consider anti-blasphemy laws as going against freedom of expression. The recent Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 calls for a restrictive application of these laws for the full realisation of many of the rights within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Secularism and human rights perspectives envisage legal protection to the believer and not the belief. Lessons can be drawn from the legal framework of defamation which considers injuries to the person rather than to institutions or to the impersonal sacred truth. It is argued that secular states can ‘promote reverence at the public level for private feelings’ through well-recognised laws of defamation and prohibition of hate speech rather than laws of blasphemy. This relocates the role of the state to its proper perspective in the context of its role in promoting interfaith dialogue, harmony and tolerance.Keywords: Blasphemy, Secular, Human Rights, Freedom of Expression, Defamation of ReligionMIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 7 No.1, September 2013

Gender and the Prohibition of Hate Speech

This article examines the current absence of legal regulation of gendered hate speech in Australia. Drawing on contemporary examples, the article compares hate speech directed towards women as women with other forms of hate speech, in particular racial hate speech, which is currently the subject of legal regulation in all Australian jurisdictions. The various laws regulating hate speech in Australia, civil and criminal, are discussed. Possible reasons for the failure to recognise gendered hate speech are canvassed and recommendations made for legislative change to recognise the harm it causes.