This thesis unites law and social science so as to give a comprehensive account of the phenomenon of racial hate speech in South Africa as an obstacle to transformation. Hate speech is presented as a form of violent language and an affront to the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, equality and dignity. To establish the nature of hate speech, the fluid quality of language is explored so as to show how language can be manipulated, on the one hand, as a means to harm, and employed, on the other hand, as a tool to heal and reconcile. This double gesture is illustrated through the South African linguistic experience of past hate and segregation and the current transformation agenda. It is through this prism that hate speech regulation is discussed as an uneasy fit in a country where freedom of expression is constitutionally protected and where language plays an important role in bringing about reconciliation, and yet words are still being employed to divide and dehumanise. This reality necessitates a clearly articulated stance on the regulation of language. The thesis accordingly interrogates the current legal standards in relation to hate speech with reference to international law that binds South Africa and the constitutional standard set for the regulation of language and the prohibition of hate speech. Thereafter, the current and proposed legislative prohibitions on hate speech, the residual common law provisions governing expression and the regulation of language in the media are outlined and analysed. These legal frameworks are explored in terms of their content and their application in various fora so as to ascertain what the South African approach to hate speech prohibition is, whether it is consistent and, ultimately if it is indeed suitable to the South African experience and the realities of language. This thesis concludes that contemporary hate speech measures lack a coherent understanding of what hate speech entails and a general inconsistency in approach as well as application is found in the treatment of hate speech complaints in South Africa. This is explained through the fallibility of language as a medium to regulate expression and solutions are offered to not only taper current and proposed hate speech provisions but to also consider alternative forms of resolving hate speech complaints

This thesis focuses on how well Hatescan, a hate speech detector built on the same Natural Language Processing and AI algorithms used in most online hate speech detectors, can detect different categories of antisemitism as well as whether or not it is worse at detecting implicit antisemitism than explicit antisemitism. The ability of hate speech detectors to detect antisemitic hate speech is a pressing issue. Jews have not only persevered through unparalleled historical oppression, but additionally, antisemitism is very much alive and kicking online, which poses not only a direct threat to individual Jews themselves (since there is a clear link between antisemitic expressions and antisemitic violence) but to the idea of liberal democracy itself. This thesis evaluated the efficacy of the hate speech detector, Hatescan, regarding its ability to detect antisemitism and to assess whether or not it was better or worse at detecting explicit antisemitism or implicit antisemitism, expressed in Swedish. Thus, the research questions posed for this thesis were: 1. How well does Hatescan detect antisemitism? 2. Is Hatescan equally efficient at detecting different categories of antisemitism? 3. Is Hatescan equally efficient at detecting implicit antisemitism and explicit antisemitism? To answer these questions, this thesis used the research strategy experiment, the data collection method documents, qualitative analysis methods (discourse analysis) for annotation, and quantitative analysis methods (descriptive statistics) for calculating performance metrics (precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy). A dataset was created using three other previously existing datasets containing hate speech expressed in Swedish on Reddit, Flashback, and Twitter. The data collected was collected used search terms presumed to appear in antisemitic content. The datasets were created by the supervisor of this thesis and her research team for use in previous studies. These datasets were combined and made into one dataset (in a spreadsheet). Duplicates were deleted, adn each remaining sentence was annotated according to hatefulness, category of antisemtism and explicit versus implicit antisemitism. Each sentence was manually run through Hatescan’s web interface to generate a Hatescan output and said output was documented in the spreadsheet containing the data. Based on a threshold of 70% for generated Hatescan output, the Hatescan output for each sentence was annotated as either being a true positive, false positive, false negative, or true negative using IFS formulas in the spreadsheet. Precision, recall, and F1-score were calculated for the dataset as a whole, and accuracy rates were calculated for all categories of antisemitism as well as for explicit and implicit antisemitism. Results showed that while performance metrics on the antisemitic dataset (precision 0.93, recall 0.85, F1-score 0.89) were similar to the performance metrics in the development of Hatescan (precision 0.89, recall 0.94, F1-score 0.91), there were significant differences in accuracy between the different annotated categories in the dataset (accuracy ranging from 27 percent to 92 percent).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people (LGBTI) are discriminated and subjected to violence in societies across the world, and ensuring their rights is on the international agenda. On a European level, nationalism, state-led persecution and rhetoric of hate have slowed down the process of ensuring human rights for LGBTI people particularly in Eastern Europe, where they are subject to violence, discrimination and hostility. One type of hostility targeting LGBTI people is hate speech. As literature has shown, hate speech can have harmful effects on its targets. Additionally, with the increased accessibility and use of the Internet and social media networks, hate speech has become more widespread and new challenges have appeared. Our research objective has addressed the gap identified by Brown (2018); to contribute to the research on hate speech and its harmful effects in general, comparing the effects of online and offline hate speech in particular. Additionally, by comparing the findings from Moldova and Ukraine, we have investigated if the context in which the hate speech is produced has any effect on the harmful effects experienced by targets. The research was conducted using a mixed method with a parallel convergent design, giving equal priority to qualitative and quantitative data. Data collection took place in Moldova (Chisinau) and in Ukraine (Kyiv) during Pride in the respective countries. Due to the nature of this research, results are not representative, and conclusions drawn can neither be applied to the entire LGBTI community in Moldova nor in Ukraine. Conclusions can, however, provide interesting insights for further research. Constitutive and consequential harms from online and offline hate speech are experienced by the LGBTI activists and community in both countries. In terms of constitutive harms, LGBTI community have suffered from harms like negative impact on self-esteem, silencing, psychological distress and restrictions on freedom of movement and association. Experienced consequential harms were negative stereotyping, physical violence and normalization of discrimination. Further, this research indicated that there is a difference in terms of harms caused by online and offline hate speech when it comes to the constitutive harms, as the harms from offline hate speech seemed to be experienced to a larger extent. Comparing results from Moldova and Ukraine, it can be concluded that the content of hate speech and harmful effects of hate speech are experienced differently depending on the context in which hate speech was produced. In general, hate speech in Ukraine seemed to be more violent and aggressive while in Moldova it was more related to the structural violence.

The legal restriction of hate speech – i.e. speech that expresses contempt for people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or sexuality – is now commonplace in liberal legal systems outside the United States. This thesis takes up the question of whether restrictions on hate speech are generally justifiable. I begin by explaining why liberals should not dismiss anti-hate speech law from the outset as an intolerable violation of free speech. My analysis of the case for anti-hate speech law is thereafter framed by two main concerns. Firstly, I stress that if we are to impose legal restrictions on hate speech, we must establish not just that there are harmful outcomes associated with hate speech, but that those who engage in hate speech are responsible for those outcomes. Secondly, I argue that restrictions on hate speech should be assessed in two distinct classes. Inquiries into the justificatory bases of anti-hate speech law are typically conducted as if informative generalisations can be made about how the law should respond to anything that is properly called hate speech. Against this approach, I argue that while the liberal state can and should impose restrictions on directly harmful hate speech (in which hate speech is used to threaten, harass, and incite violence), restrictions on indirectly harmful hate speech – in which hate speech (allegedly) contributes to identity-based social hierarchies and their concomitant harms – are not justifiable. The problem with restrictions on indirectly harmful hate speech is not the structure of the liability-ascription framework under which they operate. Rather, I argue, the problem is epistemic: we cannot confidently judge that hate-speakers are in fact responsible for contributing, more than trivially, to the harmful patterns of identity-based inequality and disadvantage in light of which restrictions on indirectly harmful hate speech may be defended in principle.

No description available.

This essay is about the hate Ghostbusters (2016) has received. To find out why the film is hated, a reception study has been done. YouTube and IMDb are the two websites used in this study to collect the hate-comments and reviews. Ghostbusters (2016) is a remake of the original film with the same name from 1984, the original solely has men in the main roles. A big difference between the two films is that the remake contains women instead of men in the main roles. The trailer of Ghostbusters (2016) got many “downvotes” on YouTube and there after the hatred streamed in. Why is the film hated?The theories used in this study contains subjects of representation, attraction and fat studies. As a method Stuart Hall’s Encoding/decoding was used to analyze the reception of the film. This essay contains content which can be connected to cultural studies and feminism.

Democratic theorists have influentially argued that inclusive deliberation, where citizens voice their concerns and exchange justifications, is crucial to democracy. However, this deliberative ideal has come under sustained attack for being excessively utopian. As a result, to make this ideal more relevant and action-guiding, the present thesis investigates what norms should govern deliberation in political settings marked by severe social divisions. After motivating this project (Chapter 1), I defend the following account of deliberation. Although the requirement that deliberators appeal to shared reasons is morally attractive, even the weakest variant of this norm risks excluding too many considerations from the public deliberation of divided societies. To offset these exclusionary tendencies, I argue that public deliberation should give a greater role to emotionally-charged forms of speech, such as narrative (Chapter 2). Now, this last suggestion might seem overly inclusive, by opening the door for intensely angry narratives and for narratives expressing degrading or disrespectful views. In response to this 'overinclusiveness' concern, I argue 1) that degrading or disrespectful public speech is best countered through state-backed counterspeech, rather than through coercive legal norms that forcibly eliminate it from public discourse (Chapter 3) and 2) that narratives expressing anger in fact have a crucial epistemic role to play in divided societies, by enhancing our understanding of persisting injustices (Chapter 4). The final two chapters address a pressing worry: that the deliberative norms I advance demand too much of actual citizens. One might think that if citizens distrust each other and are highly ignorant about politics, they will be unable to deliberate fruitfully. But these problems are not decisive against my account. Chapter 5 investigates how the kind of public dialogue I defend offers important resources for rebuilding trust and goodwill in divided societies. As for political ignorance, Chapter 6 demonstrates that it is equally problematic for other political systems, democratic and non-democratic. Since this ignorance threatens all accounts, the solution is not to abandon inclusive deliberation, but rather to tackle political ignorance itself.

Free speech and free expression are values that are highly prized in western society. The mention of removing or altering that right creates great debate. In 2004 a Select Committee was set up to inquire into what New Zealand's stance on Hate Speech should be. The submissions to that committee made it clear that free expression was a highly held right in New Zealand. While the submitters were overwhelming opposed to any legislation, it was clear that many had no understanding of what hate speech was, and why people would want to restrict it. The select Committee needed to provide the public with more information about what was intended and what the international situation is. If nothing else this thesis should provide that comprehensive background information to ground any further debate. This thesis makes a policy recommendation for the New Zealand Government. The policy that is examined and contrasted with international experiences is that of hate speech legislation. What should New Zealand do in regards to hate speech? The general debate is examined and the free expression versus legislation debate is analysed to provide a comprehensive background to the topic. The reasons why free expression is important to society and democracy are examined. Alongside free expression, the harms of hate speech are also analysed in order to demonstrate what harm occurs and if such harms should be legislated against. The international situation is contrasted with the New Zealand experience. The legislation of the United States, Canada and Australia, is analysed in order to compare and contrast with New Zealand's legislation. These three countries are closely aligned with New Zealand in terms of language, politics and culture. These countries provide equivalent characteristics and are therefore the most useful for comparison. The United States is especially important as it has no hate speech legislation and provides a valuable baseline from which the effects of legislation can be compared against. The New Zealand situation is then examined to point out its strengths and weaknesses. Where there are weaknesses this thesis recommends changes that could be made in varying political circumstances. Hate speech and free speech issues are not largely discussed in New Zealand literature and scholarly work. This thesis follows some work that has been previously done on the topic in New Zealand. The bulk of the work written about hate speech and free speech issues has been completed internationally and needs to be adjusted to fit the New Zealand situation. This recommendation has gone some way to doing that. An area of particular interest in this paper is the categories of people that deserve protection. Historically just 'race' has been provided protection from hate speech in New Zealand and this thesis examines why. Central to this investigation is why other categories are not protected.

This dissertation investigates the broad area of social hate discourse. It interrogates the intersections between sexuality and race, and in particular, the intersections between the practices of antisemitism and heterosexism in New South Wales. Using a specifically designed database (Tracking Violence), 1227 complaint files from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, the Lesbian and Gay Anti-Violence Project and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry lodged between 1995 and 1999 were analysed for the features common to antisemitic and heterosexist maledictive hate. Of particular interest to this dissertation is the text and context of malediction, and whether the regulation of maledictive hate is an appropriate strategy in the elimination and prevention of hate violence.

This dissertation investigates the broad area of social hate discourse. It interrogates the intersections between sexuality and race, and in particular, the intersections between the practices of antisemitism and heterosexism in New South Wales. Using a specifically designed database (Tracking Violence), 1227 complaint files from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, the Lesbian and Gay Anti-Violence Project and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry lodged between 1995 and 1999 were analysed for the features common to antisemitic and heterosexist maledictive hate. Of particular interest to this dissertation is the text and context of malediction, and whether the regulation of maledictive hate is an appropriate strategy in the elimination and prevention of hate violence.