Tag: hate speech

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul Announces Police Unit to Combat ‘Hate Speech’

One of the governor’s executive orders instructs the State Police to establish a “dedicated unit within the New York State Intelligence Center (NYSIC) to track domestic extremism and increase social media monitoring at the Intelligence Center.”

“The unit will be responsible for developing investigative leads based on social media analyses focused on radical extremist activities motivated threats by identifying online locations and activities that facilitate radicalization and promote violent extremism,” it reads in part.

The issue, however, is the debate over what individuals consider “hate speech,” triggering fears of a slippery slope, given the fact that some radical leftist activists, for example, consider “misgendering” someone as a fundamentally hateful act.

“The horrific and despicable act of terror committed by a white supremacist this past weekend in Buffalo showed that we as a country are facing an intersection of two crises: the mainstreaming of hate speech — including white nationalism, racism and white supremacy — and the easy access to military-style weapons and magazines,” Hochul said in a statement.

Keep reading

Get Ready to Be Muzzled: The Coming War on So-Called Hate Speech

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.”—Benjamin Franklin

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech.

Especially be on your guard when the reasons given for limiting your freedoms end up expanding the government’s powers.

In the wake of a mass shooting in Buffalo, NY, carried out by an 18-year-old gunman in military gear allegedly motivated by fears that the white race is in danger of being replaced, there have been renewed calls for social media monitoring, censorship of flagged content that could be construed as dangerous or hateful, and limitations on free speech activities, particularly online.

As expected, those who want safety at all costs will clamor for more gun control measures (if not at an outright ban on weapons for non-military, non-police personnel), widespread mental health screening of the general population and greater scrutiny of military veterans, more threat assessments and behavioral sensing warnings, more surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities, more “See Something, Say Something” programs aimed at turning Americans into snitches and spies, more metal detectors and whole-body imaging devices at soft targets, more roaming squads of militarized police empowered to do random bag searches, more fusion centers to centralize and disseminate information to law enforcement agencies, and more surveillance of what Americans say and do, where they go, what they buy and how they spend their time.

All of these measures play into the government’s hands.

Keep reading

How Much Real-World Extremism Does Online Hate Actually Cause?

While calls to censor hate speech and violent extremist content on social media platforms are common, there’s little evidence that online incitement leads to real-world radicalization. Ironically, such calls may actually galvanize extremists, who interpret hostile media coverage, commentary, and censorship policies as confirmation of their victimhood narratives and conspiratorial thinking.

A 2018 journal article entitled “Exposure to Extremist Online Content Could Lead to Violent Radicalization: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence” scanned the content of more than 5,000 previous studies, but found that only 11 included “tentative evidence that exposure to radical violent online material is associated with extremist online and offline attitudes, as well as the risk of committing political violence among white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and radical Islamist groups.” The authors acknowledged that they could not conduct a systematic meta-analysis “due to the heterogeneous and at times incomparable nature of the data.” To the extent generalizations were possible, the authors reported that “active seekers of violent radical material [appear] to be at higher risk of engaging in political violence as compared to passive seekers.” If that is the case, then preventing extremist content from being published on large-scale social-media platforms is unlikely to be highly effective, as it is primarily being consumed by those who already have committed to its message.

In 2013, the RAND corporation released a study that explored how Internet usage affected the radicalization process of 15 convicted violent extremists and terrorists. The researchers examined five hypotheses generated by a review of the existing literature:

  1. The Internet creates more opportunities to become radicalized;
  2. The Internet acts as an “echo chamber,” in which individuals find their ideas supported and echoed by like-minded individuals;
  3. The Internet accelerates a pre-existing process of radicalization;
  4. The Internet allows radicalization to occur without physical contact; and
  5. The Internet increases opportunities for self-radicalization.

The researchers found that the Internet generally played a small role in the radicalization process of the individuals studied, though they did find support for the idea that the Internet may act as an echo chamber and enhance opportunities to become radicalized. However, the evidence did “not necessarily support the suggestion that the internet accelerates radicalization, nor that the internet allows radicalization to occur without physical contact, nor that the internet increases opportunities for self-radicalization, as in all the cases reviewed … the subjects had contact with other individuals, whether virtually or physically.”

The limited empirical evidence that exists on the role that online speech plays in the radicalization-to-violence journey suggests that people are primarily radicalized through experienced disaffection, face-to-face encounters, and offline relationships. Extremist propaganda alone does not turn individuals to violence, as other variables are at play.

Keep reading

Cowards at Twitter HQ Cite Foreign ‘Hate Speech’ Law to Punish American Company

Twitter shut down the account of the U.S.-based Christian Post for accurately describing President Joe Biden’s transgender assistant health secretary, Rachel Levine, as a man — and the social media giant cited a foreign law to justify its actions.

The evangelical Christian outlet told its readers on Monday that its Twitter account had been “temporarily limited” because of a tweet about Levine, a man who identifies as female.

The Christian Post said it was told by Twitter it no longer would be able to post anything new and could not like or follow other users or retweet posts.

The outlet was further informed that it would be suspended from Twitter for 12 hours.

The “offensive” tweet was the Christian Post’s March 15 message that read, “USA Today names Rachel Levine, a man, among its ‘Women of the Year.’”

Keep reading

South Africa enforces sweeping internet censorship law to tackle “hate speech”

The South African government has enforced a controversial internet censorship law that was passed in 2019. Legal experts have raised concerns about the law being abused.

On March 3, South Africa’s Film and Publications Board (FPB) announced that the law had come into effect on March 1. Internet users violate the law if they post prohibited content, which is defined as content that could be deemed incitement of violence, war propaganda, child pornography, and hate speech.

The law has raised concerns among legal experts as it could be used to restrict free speech and was became law surprisingly quickly.

From My Broadband:

“However, media and civil society only learned that this had happened on the day the law came into effect because the Film and Publications Board (FPB) invited the press to attend a media briefing about it on 3 March.

This is because the Government Printing Works has not published gazettes to its website since mid-January, effectively cutting citizens off from essential information about what their government is doing.”

Dominic Cull, the founder of legal consultancy firm Ellipsis Regulatory Solutions, said: “One of my big objections is that if I upload something which someone else finds objectionable, and they think it hate speech, they will be able to complain to the FPB.”

“If the FPB thinks the complaint is valid, they can then lodge a takedown notice to have this material removed.”

Cull also pointed out that the FPB does not have elected officials; it is composed of government appointees, people who should have no authority to make decisions on constitutional and free speech issues.

Keep reading

Finnish Government Puts Christianity On Trial, Calls The Bible ‘Hate Speech’

Two Christian leaders in Finland stood trial in Helsinki on Jan. 24 for publicly stating the Bible’s teachings on sex and marriage. Longtime Member of Parliament Paivi Rasanen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola defended in court their decision to write and publish, respectively, a pamphlet explaining Christian teachings about sex and marriage.

In the trial’s opening arguments, which will resume on Feb. 14, Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as “hate speech.” Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court, said Paul Coleman, a human rights lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom International who is assisting in the Finns’ legal defense and was present during Monday’s trial.

“The prosecutor began the day by trying to explain that this case was not about beliefs and the Bible. She then, and I’m not kidding, she then proceeded to quote Old Testament Bible verses,” Coleman said in a phone interview with The Federalist after the trial concluded for the day. “Trial attorneys, Finnish trial attorneys who have been in and out of court every day for years, said they didn’t think the Bible had ever been read out like that in a prosecution.”

Never before has a Finnish court had to decide whether quoting the Bible is a crime. Human rights observers consider this case an important marker for whether Western governments’ persecution of citizens for their speech and beliefs increases.

Keep reading

Instagram says it will cut the reach of posts that are “likely” to contain “hate speech”

Instagram is introducing more vaguely defined restrictions on its users, this time acting “proactively” to lower Feed posts and Stories that “may” contain bullying or hate speech, or those which “may” encourage violence – as well as content that is “potentially upsetting.”

In a blog post, Facebook’s platform said that this means the already existing policy of reducing the reach of posts determined to contain misinformation by third-party “fact-checkers” – and all posts from accounts that are said to have shared misinformation “repeatedly” – is being expanded.

It is Instagram’s “systems” that will be tasked with making the distinction between what “may” or is “likely” or “potentially” contains hate speech and represents bullying. The blog post explains that (algorithms) will make these decisions by comparing captions – if a caption is similar to another that was already found to be violating the platform’s rules, then the post will be pushed down Feeds and Stories.

Instagram also said that the new policy, that smacks of shadow-banning, affects individual posts and not accounts themselves, and that posts Instagram actually thinks break its rules, rather than suspect them to, will be removed, as before.

Keep reading

Facebook’s ‘Race Blind’ Algorithm Found 90% Of Hate Speech Directed Toward White People And Men

We now know why Facebook decided to change its “race-blind” hate speech detection algorithm last year to allow more anti-white hatred.

The Washington Post reported last week that an “April 2020 document said roughly 90 percent of ‘hate speech’ subject to content takedowns were statements of contempt, inferiority and disgust directed at White people and men.”

They viewed this as a failure of the system because white people are supposed to be the targets of all hate.

Keep reading

Facebook Employees Pushed Company To Exclude Criticism Of White People, Men From Hate Speech Rules

Facebook employees urged executives to exclude criticism directed towards white people and men from the company’s hate speech policies, according to internal documents reported on by The Washington Post.

Facebook researchers tried to change the company’s content moderation algorithms that automatically delete hate speech, because they viewed the algorithms as inadequately protecting minority users, The Washington Post reported, citing internal memos and research. The effort came following a document from April 2020 which showed that around 90% of hate speech algorithms were detecting and removing content directed towards white people and men.

Researchers argued that these figures indicated bias in Facebook’s automatic deletion algorithms because the content reported to be the most “harmful” or “the worst of the worst” was more often directed at minority groups, the Post reported.

The employees then urged Facebook executives, including the vice president of global public policy, Joel Kaplan, to ditch Facebook’s “race-blind” hate speech algorithms which did not discriminate based on the race to which the hate speech was directed, according to the Post. Instead, the researchers pushed for algorithms that automatically removed hate speech directed only towards black people, Jews, LGBTQ individuals, Muslims and people of multiple races.

Keep reading

Democrats Need Systemic Racism To Exist So Much, They Fake It

After more than a century as the party of slavery and segregation, Democrats have come to embrace a new form of systemic racism in their race-baiting politics and widespread adoption of critical race theory.

Since dismantling the current state of racism has become such a fundamental pillar to the Democrat Party, conceding to reality on the issue would forfeit a lucrative political tool. That’s led the party to aggressively assert that systemic racism against non-white people is endemic, even present within liberal enclaves where Democrat rule is purportedly synonymous with liberation. That’s because, when systemic racism ceases to exist, so does the central mission of the Democrat Party and its favorite attack against Republicans.

The nation’s obsessive focus on race is a product of Democrat engineering, a party advertising “solutions” such as reparations and affirmative action branded as “social justice” with consequences far more detrimental than color blindness. With a lens solely fixated on race, an entire generation is now primed to seek out episodes of racism even where there are none. In a world where cereal boxes, Santa Claus, and even Jesus Christ are racist, what isn’t? When everything is racist, nothing will stop being racist. Under this ideology, the very denial of racism is also deemed racist.

Keep reading