Dangerous Speech and New Methods of Prevention
Download
1 / 19

Dangerous Speech and New Methods of Prevention Prof. Susan Benesch 16 th National Metropolis Conference March 15, 201 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 196 Views
  • Uploaded on

Dangerous Speech and New Methods of Prevention Prof. Susan Benesch 16 th National Metropolis Conference March 15, 20134. What is Dangerous Speech?. “Hate speech”

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Dangerous Speech and New Methods of Prevention Prof. Susan Benesch 16 th National Metropolis Conference March 15, 201' - hallam


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Dangerous Speech and New Methods of PreventionProf. Susan Benesch16th National Metropolis ConferenceMarch 15, 20134


What is dangerous speech
What is Dangerous Speech?

  • “Hate speech”

    • Large, inchoate, variously defined category. Usually offensive to members of groups it purports to describe, but may not increase the chances of violence being committed against them.

  • Dangerous speech

    • communication that may help catalyze violence by moving an audience to condone - or even take part in – such violence.


Five defining criteria for dangerous speech
Five Defining Criteria for Dangerous Speech

  • Powerful speaker with influence over the audience most likely to react

  • Audience vulnerable to incitement e.g. fearful

  • Meaning of the speech act: understood as call to violence

  • Conducive social and historical context

  • Influential means of dissemination


The audience
The Audience

  • Does the audience have the means or capacity to commit violence against the targeted group?

  • Is the audience experiencing economic insecurity, demonstrating excessive respect for authority, or fearful?


Meaning of the speech act
Meaning of the Speech Act

  • Was the speech understood by the audience as a call to violence ?

  • Did the speech exhibit hallmarks of dangerous speech?

    • Did it dehumanize its targets e.g. comparing them to vermin or insects?

    • Did the speaker use ‘accusation in a mirror’ or assert that the target group posed or poses a threat to the audience?


Means of dissemination
Means of Dissemination

  • Was the speech delivered through a particularly influential source such as music, social media, or a media outlet with no competitors?

  • Does the audience have access to alternate sources of information?

  • Was the speech frequently repeated?


New experiments to counter dangerous speech
New Experiments to Counter Dangerous Speech

  • NipeUkweli, “gimme truth” – an outreach campaign to encourage citizens to resist and speak out against dangerous speech online and in person

  • ViojaMahakamani– episodes of a popular Kenyan courtroom-based TV drama were infused with messages about dangerous speech.


The umati project monitoring dangerous speech
The Umati Project: Monitoring Dangerous Speech

  • Test a methodology to track and classify levels of inflammatory speech online.

  • Develop a process for speech monitoring in electoral contexts that can be replicated elsewhere.

  • Launch an online peacekeeping effort that encourages individuals to report and counter malicious speech.

  • Further civic education on dangerous speech in Kenya.


Notable findings overall increase in hateful and dangerous speech
Notable Findings:Overall increase in hateful and dangerous speech


Notable findings identifiable commenters most actively dangerous
Notable Findings:Identifiable commenters most actively dangerous


Notable findings minimal dangerous speech on twitter
Notable Findings:Minimal dangerous speech on Twitter


Kenyans on twitter kenyadecides
Kenyans on Twitter #KenyaDecides

  • Kenyans on Twitter (KOTs) frequently called out other users for hateful speech

  • In some cases, tweets were deleted and/or apologies were issued by original posters





@dawudwalid
@DawudWalid

  • Blogger and activist tweeted links to his post asking Muslims to stop using Arabic word ‘abeed’ (slave) to refer to Black people

  • Some backlash, some self justification. Some said ‘never thought about that’ and vowed to stop using the word. Some offered to campaign against it.

http://dawudwalid.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/responses-to-my-calling-out-the-term-abeed/


Jeffrey lin league of legends
Jeffrey Lin/League of Legends

  • Experiments to decrease “toxic” speech among gamers

  • Half of toxic messages do not come from ‘trolls’

  • Peer feedback and community-driven sanctions cause changes in player behavior - most sanctioned players are never reported again

  • Short messages during loading sequences, encouraging civil behavior, can reduce negative attitudes & behaviors

    • Small changes affect behavior greatly, e.g. font colors have dramatic impact on message effectiveness

http://gdcvault.com/play/1017940/The-Science-Behind-Shaping-Player


Inoculating against incitement
‘Inoculating’ against incitement

ViojaMahakamani:

Kenyan television programs to

teach resistance to incitement


Any questions?

Email [email protected]

or visit voicesthatpoison.org


ad