Unmasking Hate on Twitter

Author(s):  
Diana L. Ascher ◽  
Safiya Umoja Noble

Notions of free speech and expectations of speaker anonymity are instrumental aspects of online information practice in the United States, which manifest in greater protections for speakers of hate, while making targets of trolling and hate speech more vulnerable. In this chapter, we argue that corporate digital media platforms moderate and manage “free speech” in ways that disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. After being targets of racist and misogynist trolling ourselves, we investigated whether new modes of analysis could identify and strengthen the ties between the online personas of anonymous speakers of hate and their identities in real life, which may present opportunities for intervention to arrest online hate speech, or at least make speakers known to those who are targets or recipients of their speech.

Author(s):  
Cherian George

The United States has exceptionally strong Constitutional protections for free speech, but also for religious freedom. This chapter considers how this unique legal framework affects hate spin in the country. It finds that although hate speech can be expressed with a high degree of impunity, strong anti-discrimination laws limit the harms caused by such speech. Hate spin can, nonetheless, succeed in fostering fear and cultivating prejudice against minorities. The chapter examines how a network of anti-Muslim activists have used hate spin to campaign against mosque building, to oppose multi-cultural textbooks, and to introduce legislation protecting states from the fabricated threat of encroaching Muslim law. Beyond their stated goals, which may be frustrated by courts, these campaigns often have the symbolic purpose of spreading Islamophobia.


Author(s):  
Jan Hoffman French

Reports on violence against journalists in Brazil have captured the concern of international human rights organizations. This article discusses a case involving another such concern: the use of criminal defamation laws in Brazil to punish journalists for criticizing public officials. At the same time, Brazilian media sources regularly report on crimes of racism, which most often involve derogatory name-calling and hate speech. By examining the intersection of these apparently contradictory concerns, this article sheds new light on speech rights in Brazil and the United States and argues that a comparative perspective is crucial to contextualizing and harmonizing free speech and its limitations under modern democratic constitutions. By considering the infusion of traditional notions of honor and status with post-World War II views of dignity, this article argues for a comparative consideration of how best to combat racism and whether hate speech regulation in the U.S. should be reconsidered. As such, the type of law often used to protect the powerful in Brazil could come to be used to protect the vulnerable in the United States and opens the possibility that the irony of free speech could become more than just a scholarly debate.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Tara Schoeller-Burke

<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Tara Schoeller-Burke

<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>


Author(s):  
Jane Kotzmann

This chapter explores the real-life operation of six higher education systems that align with the theoretical models identified in Chapter 2. Three states follow a largely market-based approach: Chile, England, and the United States. Three states follow a largely human rights-based approach: Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. The chapter describes each system in terms of how it aligns with the particular model before evaluating the system in relation to the signs and measures of successful higher education systems identified in Chapter 3. This chapter provides conclusions as to the relative likelihood of each approach facilitating the achievement of higher education teaching and learning purposes.


Author(s):  
Esteban Correa-Agudelo ◽  
Tesfaye B. Mersha ◽  
Adam J. Branscum ◽  
Neil J. MacKinnon ◽  
Diego F. Cuadros

We characterized vulnerable populations located in areas at higher risk of COVID-19-related mortality and low critical healthcare capacity during the early stage of the epidemic in the United States. We analyze data obtained from a Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 database to assess the county-level spatial variation of COVID-19-related mortality risk during the early stage of the epidemic in relation to health determinants and health infrastructure. Overall, we identified highly populated and polluted areas, regional air hub areas, race minorities (non-white population), and Hispanic or Latino population with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death during the first phase of the epidemic. The 10 highest COVID-19 mortality risk areas in highly populated counties had on average a lower proportion of white population (48.0%) and higher proportions of black population (18.7%) and other races (33.3%) compared to the national averages of 83.0%, 9.1%, and 7.9%, respectively. The Hispanic and Latino population proportion was higher in these 10 counties (29.3%, compared to the national average of 9.3%). Counties with major air hubs had a 31% increase in mortality risk compared to counties with no airport connectivity. Sixty-eight percent of the counties with high COVID-19-related mortality risk also had lower critical care capacity than the national average. The disparity in health and environmental risk factors might have exacerbated the COVID-19-related mortality risk in vulnerable groups during the early stage of the epidemic.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta N. Lukacovic

This study analyzes securitized discourses and counter narratives that surround the COVID-19 pandemic. Controversial cases of security related political communication, salient media enunciations, and social media reframing are explored through the theoretical lenses of securitization and cascading activation of framing in the contexts of Slovakia, Russia, and the United States. The first research question explores whether and how the frame element of moral evaluation factors into the conversations on the securitization of the pandemic. The analysis tracks the framing process through elite, media, and public levels of communication. The second research question focused on fairly controversial actors— “rogue actors” —such as individuals linked to far-leaning political factions or militias. The proliferation of digital media provides various actors with opportunities to join publicly visible conversations. The analysis demonstrates that the widely differing national contexts offer different trends and degrees in securitization of the pandemic during spring and summer of 2020. The studied rogue actors usually have something to say about the pandemic, and frequently make some reframing attempts based on idiosyncratic evaluations of how normatively appropriate is their government's “war” on COVID-19. In Slovakia, the rogue elite actors at first failed to have an impact but eventually managed to partially contest the dominant frame. Powerful Russian media influencers enjoy some conspiracy theories but prudently avoid direct challenges to the government's frame, and so far only marginal rogue actors openly advance dissenting frames. The polarized political and media environment in the US has shown to create a particularly fertile ground for rogue grassroots movements that utilize online platforms and social media, at times going as far as encouragement of violent acts to oppose the government and its pandemic response policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document