This thesis analyses the question of the regulation, motivated by egalitarian concerns, of homophobic hate speech and homosexual pornography. I attempt to . critically evaluate what both liberal humanism and postmodernism can tell us about these types of speech, and how we should best treat them, in a framework that takes lesbians' and gays' equality as the underlying organising principle. Although homosexual pornography cannot be convincingly exempted from regulation by affirming that it is not, contrary to heterosexual pornography, implicated in gender oppression, the importance of free speech and the complexity of all pornography messages suggest that the state is not justified in suppressing sex expression relying on the reification of a single viewpoint about its harmfulness. The Law, in limiting pornography on the basis of the radical feminist rationale that assimilates it to hate speech, ends up making strong and arbitrary claims to truth, that are premised on doubtful assumptions, silence alternative knowledges, subjugate outsiders' experiences, and contribute to the creation of oppressive social identities. I advise against censoring pornography out of egalitarian concerns, and argue that, under certain conditions, engagement with court litigation and the deployment of the rights discourse can be promising strategies for lesbians and gay men challenging such obscenity laws. Hate speech seems more evidently linked to discrimination than pornography, and speech act theory suggests that it enacts a specific kind of subordination. However, the role played by homophobic hate speech in perpetuating inequality for queers is limited when compared to other social/discursive practices: thus hate speech laws are the easiest but also, taken on their own, a largely ineffective way of responding to homophobia. As such, these laws bear a presumption of being an unnecessary burden on freedom of expression, a liberty that minorities have a vested interest in keeping as intact as possible. Against homophobia a radical measure is required that, focusing on education, will actively promote equality values. This remedy will be consistent with free speech doctrine to the extent that hate speech will, setting apart some specific cases, escape regulation, and that the State will assume an attitude directed to reaching understanding.

Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Philosophy, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Linguistics, June 2003 / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

This thesis analyses the question of the regulation, motivated by egalitarian concerns, of homophobic hate speech and homosexual pornography. I attempt to . critically evaluate what both liberal humanism and postmodernism can tell us about these types of speech, and how we should best treat them, in a framework that takes lesbians' and gays' equality as the underlying organising principle. Although homosexual pornography cannot be convincingly exempted from regulation by affirming that it is not, contrary to heterosexual pornography, implicated in gender oppression, the importance of free speech and the complexity of all pornography messages suggest that the state is not justified in suppressing sex expression relying on the reification of a single viewpoint about its harmfulness. The Law, in limiting pornography on the basis of the radical feminist rationale that assimilates it to hate speech, ends up making strong and arbitrary claims to truth, that are premised on doubtful assumptions, silence alternative knowledges, subjugate outsiders' experiences, and contribute to the creation of oppressive social identities. I advise against censoring pornography out of egalitarian concerns, and argue that, under certain conditions, engagement with court litigation and the deployment of the rights discourse can be promising strategies for lesbians and gay men challenging such obscenity laws. Hate speech seems more evidently linked to discrimination than pornography, and speech act theory suggests that it enacts a specific kind of subordination. However, the role played by homophobic hate speech in perpetuating inequality for queers is limited when compared to other social/discursive practices: thus hate speech laws are the easiest but also, taken on their own, a largely ineffective way of responding to homophobia. As such, these laws bear a presumption of being an unnecessary burden on freedom of expression, a liberty that minorities have a vested interest in keeping as intact as possible. Against homophobia a radical measure is required that, focusing on education, will actively promote equality values. This remedy will be consistent with free speech doctrine to the extent that hate speech will, setting apart some specific cases, escape regulation, and that the State will assume an attitude directed to reaching understanding. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

This thesis highlights the complex ways in which hate speech operates online, which ties into more general debates on online hate speech as something special. One way of elucidating this complexity is by dividing online hate speech into overt and covert. In doing so, we can gain a better understanding of both motivations for hate speech as well as insights in how to prevent it. While overt hate speech is widely discussed, there is not much discussion on covert hate speech. This is especially so when it comes to covert hate speech in online contexts. The questions this thesis raises are how hate speech operates online, and how we can understand this in terms of hate speech being overt or covert. By introducing two different ways of understanding overt and covert, via slurs and dog-whistles respectively, this thesis shows that covert hate speech also has some harmful consequences. If ambiguous terms laced with negative attitudes as communicative content seeps into the mainstream, there is a risk of normalisation of these negative attitudes. Given the ambiguity of these terms or statements, it makes it difficult to take proactive measures. With these results, I conclude that covert online hate speech is a vital part of understanding the mechanisms of hate speech overall.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Political Science, March 1999. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

This thesis contributes to the debate on hate speech by arguing for a compromise solution. It breaks with the absolutist solutions under which either all hate speech should be banned or all should be protected. The prohibition of some hateful expressions is assumed to be legitimate. This follows the European constitutional tradition. However, the prohibitionist norm should be reconciled with the right to political speech. This flows from the normative importance of free political expression that is widely endorsed. The research relies on three theoretical pillars. First, it defines the strongest democratic justificatory case for political speech in liberal democracies. Then, it argues for a richer understanding of what should count as political speech. The proposed approach assigns more weight to the political circumstances than to the sheer content of speech. The argument then proceeds through investigating the strongest objections against protecting hate speech. These prohibitionist arguments assert that hate speech incites against, silences or vilifies vulnerable groups, moreover that hate speech harms democracy. The thesis disputes these objections as applied to political hate speech. The conclusion is that political hate speech narrowly defined should be an exception from the otherwise legitimate ban on hate speech. In the final two chapters, the theoretical findings are applied to the case law of the ECtHR and to the United Kingdom's statutory hate speech regulation. The critical evaluation of hate speech judgments and statutes is coupled with suggestions how to reform the broadly prohibitionist position that these jurisdictions had come to endorse.

Social media has become an important place for modern people to conveniently share and exchange their ideas and opinions. However, not all content on the social media have positive impact. Hate speech is one kind of harmful content that people use abusive speech attacking or promoting hate towards a specific group or an individual. With online hate speech on the rise these day, people have explored ways to automatically recognize the hate speech, and among the ways people have studied, the Bert-based approach is promising and thus dominates SemEval-2019 Task 6, a hate speech detection competition. In this work, the method of fusion of sentiment features and Bert-based approach is proposed. The classic Bert architecture for hate speech detection is modified to fuse with additional sentiment features, provided by an extractor pre-trained on Sentiment140. The proposed model is compared with top-3 models in SemEval-2019 Task 6 Subtask A and achieves 83.1% F1 score that better than the models in the competition. Also, to see if additional sentiment features benefit the detectoin of hate speech, the features are fused with three kind of deep learning architectures respectively. The results show that the models with sentiment features perform better than those models without sentiment features. / Master of Science / Social media has become an important place for modern people to conveniently share and exchange their ideas and opinions. However, not all content on the social media have positive impact. Hate speech is one kind of harmful content that people use abusive speech attacking or promoting hate towards a specific group or an individual. With online hate speech on the rise these day, people have explored ways to automatically recognize the hate speech, and among the ways people have studied, Bert is one of promising approach for automatic hate speech recognition. Bert is a kind of deep learning model for natural language processing (NLP) that originated from Transformer developed by Google in 2017. The Bert has applied to many NLP tasks and achieved astonished results such as text classification, semantic similarity between pairs of sentences, question answering with given paragraph, and text summarization. So in this study, Bert will be adopted to learn the meaning of given text and distinguish the hate speech from tons of tweets automatically. In order to let Bert better capture hate speech, the approach in this work modifies Bert to take additional source of sentiment-related features for learning the pattern of hate speech, given that the emotion will be negative when people trying to put out abusive speech. For evaluation of the approach, our model is compared against those in SemEval-2019 Task 6, a famous hate speech detection competition, and the results show that the proposed model achieves 83.1\% F1 score better than the models in the competition. Also, to see if additional sentiment features benefit the detection of hate speech, the features are fused with three different kinds of deep learning architectures respectively, and the results show that the models with sentiment features perform better than those without sentiment features.

This thesis calls for a reconfiguration of hate speech as a primarily normative phenomenon. All hate speech strives to weaken the social-moral normative status of its targets and in doing, justifies violence against its target. In light of this normative function, the harm of hate speech is reconsidered. Against traditional defenders of hate speech regulation, I claim that individual and collective harm is a highly likely, but not a necessary consequence of hate speech, while intrinsic harm and reckless risk necessarily follow from hate speech’s normative capacity. In light of the normative origin of such harms, a societal response with normative clout is required. However, while individual responses are insufficient to block the normativity of hate speech, I suggest that the legal system is characteristically well-suited to do so. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

The aim of this study is to research freedom of expression and its content and value. The focus has been to find answers to where freedom of expression has its limits, if it has any. This study has three aims: to research what freedom of expression means; to research the arguments for it; and to research if there are any limits to freedom of expression. Due to the aim of understanding the limits for freedom of expression, two questions regarding whether freedom of expression shall be restricted by prohibiting racist organisations and hate speech are being answered. Political philosophers Ronald Dworkin, Elena Namli, Thomas Scanlon, and Jeremy Waldron’s theories on the limits of freedom of expression are analyzed through the eyes of the theorists John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin. My conclusion from the research is that freedom of expression should not be limited by forbidding racist organisations, but instead that it shall be limited by prohibiting hate speech.