Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language

A key challenge for automatic hate-speech detection on social media is the separation of hate speech from other instances of offensive language. Lexical detection methods tend to have low precision because they classify all messages containing particular terms as hate speech and previous work using supervised learning has failed to distinguish between the two categories. We used a crowd-sourced hate speech lexicon to collect tweets containing hate speech keywords. We use crowd-sourcing to label a sample of these tweets into three categories: those containing hate speech, only offensive language, and those with neither. We train a multi-class classifier to distinguish between these different categories. Close analysis of the predictions and the errors shows when we can reliably separate hate speech from other offensive language and when this differentiation is more difficult. We find that racist and homophobic tweets are more likely to be classified as hate speech but that sexist tweets are generally classified as offensive. Tweets without explicit hate keywords are also more difficult to classify.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of ICWSM 2017. Please cite that versio

Hate Crime Legislation

[Excerpt] On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, as Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84; H.R. 2647). This law broadens federal jurisdiction over hate crimes by authorizing the Attorney General to provide assistance, when requested by a state, local, or tribal official, for crimes that (1) would constitute a violent crime under federal law or a felony under state or tribal law, and (2) are motivated by the victim\u27s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In other words, hate crimes are traditional crimes during which the offender is motivated by one or more biases considered to be particularly reprehensible and damaging to society as a whole. Prior to enactment, however, hate crimes were not separate and distinct offenses under federal law. Furthermore, federal jurisdiction over hate crime was limited to certain civil rights offenses. Although there is a consensus that hate crime is deplorable, determining the definitive federal role in addressing hate crime has proved contentious, as reflected in the legislative history and congressional debate. Legislation to widen federal jurisdiction over hate crime was passed by the Senate in the 106th and 108th Congresses, by the House in the 109th Congress, and by both chambers in the 110th Congress. Opponents of hate crime legislation view separate federal offenses for hate crime as redundant and largely symbolic, arguing that separate hate crime offenses would be in addition to the legal prohibitions for traditional crime that already exist under either federal or state law. They also contend that in most cases the federal nexus is tenuous, and that such offenses are best handled at the state and local level. Proponents for creating a separate and distinct federal offense for hate crime maintain that there is a fundamental difference between ordinary crime and hate crime. They believe that hate crimes are often perpetrated to send a message of threat and intimidation to a wider group, and that the effects of hate crime extend beyond the particular victim and reflect more pervasive patterns of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and other characteristics. In the 111 * Congress, the House Judiciary Committee amended and ordered reported a hate crimes bill (H.R. 1913; H.Rept. 111 -86) on April 23, 2009. The House passed H.R. 1913 on April 29, 2009. Senator Reid, for Senator Kennedy, introduced the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) on April 28, 2009. Senator Leahy successfully amended the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) with language that is similar to S. 909 on July 16, 2009. The Senate passed S. 1390, amended, on July 23, 2009. The hate crime provisions were included in the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647; H.Rept. 111-288). The House passed the conference report on H.R. 2647 on October 7, 2009; the Senate passed it on October 22, 2009. In addition, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced three hate crime-related bills (H.R. 70, H.R. 256, and H.R. 262), and Representative Maloney has introduced a hate crime statistics act (H.R. 823). At issue for Congress is whether the prevalence and harmfulness of hate crimes warrant greater federal intervention to ensure that such crimes are systematically addressed at all levels of government. Another related issue is the completeness and comprehensiveness of national hate crime data. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced (H.R. 3419), which would amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to require data collection on crimes committed against homeless persons. Senator Benjamin Cardin introduced an identical bill (S. 1765). On several occasions, the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to mark up this bill during the 111th Congress, but consideration of this bill was postponed

Hate Source: White Supremacist Hate Groups and Hate Crime

The relationship between hate group activity and hate crime is theoretically ambiguous. Hate groups may incite criminal behavior in support of their beliefs. On the other hand, hate groups may reduce hate crime by serving as a forum for members to verbally vent their frustrations or as protection from future biased violence. I find that the presence of an active white supremacist hate group chapter is associated with an 18.7 percent higher hate crime rate. White supremacist groups are not associated with the level of anti-white hate crimes committed by non-whites, nor do they form in expectation of future hate crimes by non-whites.hate crime, hate groups, white supremacist

Race riots on the beach: A case for criminalising hate speech?

noThis paper analyses the verbal and textual hostility employed by rioters, politicians and the media in Sydney (Australia) in December 2005 in the battle over Sutherland Shire¿s Cronulla Beach. By better understanding the linguistic conventions underlying all forms of maledictive hate, we are better able to address the false antimonies between free speech and the regulation of speech. It is also argued that understanding the harms of hate speech provides us with the tools necessary to create a more responsive framework for criminalising some forms of hate speech as a preliminary process in reducing or eliminating hate violence

A tale of two anomies: some observations on the contribution of (sociological) criminological theory to explaining hate crime motivation

This paper argues that hate crime is simply an inherent and normal component of contemporary society. Regardless of a concerted intervention – legislative, situational and social crime prevention – against this significant social problem in the USA and Europe in recent years, there remains a ubiquitous, albeit often latent, continued existence of hate motivation throughout society which remains at a considerable and increasing risk of actualisation as individuals come into contact with other likeminded individuals. This is particularly an issue in the information age which has greatly enhanced the spatial proximity of these hate-minded people to each other. It is shown that an established body of sociologically informed criminological theory – in particular that founded on the European and US anomie traditions – can be adapted to explain and understand the existence and persistence of hate motivation at all levels of the social world. This provides the basis for an extensive educative - and thus preventive - programme to tackle pervasive cultures of hate

Analyzing the Targets of Hate in Online Social Media

Social media systems allow Internet users a congenial platform to freely express their thoughts and opinions. Although this property represents incredible and unique communication opportunities, it also brings along important challenges. Online hate speech is an archetypal example of such challenges. Despite its magnitude and scale, there is a significant gap in understanding the nature of hate speech on social media. In this paper, we provide the first of a kind systematic large scale measurement study of the main targets of hate speech in online social media. To do that, we gather traces from two social media systems: Whisper and Twitter. We then develop and validate a methodology to identify hate speech on both these systems. Our results identify online hate speech forms and offer a broader understanding of the phenomenon, providing directions for prevention and detection approaches.Comment: Short paper, 4 pages, 4 table

Regulating hate speech online

The exponential growth in the Internet as a means of communication has been emulated by an increase in far-right and extremist web sites and hate based activity in cyberspace. The anonymity and mobility afforded by the Internet has made harassment and expressions of hate effortless in a landscape that is abstract and beyond the realms of traditional law enforcement. This paper examines the complexities of regulating hate speech on the Internet through legal and technological frameworks. It explores the limitations of unilateral national content legislation and the difficulties inherent in multilateral efforts to regulate the Internet. The paper develops to consider how technological innovations can restrict the harm caused by hate speech while states seek to find common ground upon which to harmonise their approach to regulation. Further, it argues that a broad coalition of government, business and citizenry is likely to be most effective in reducing the harm caused by hate speech