Gonzaga University Repository
Not a member yet
2718 research outputs found
Sort by
Challenging White Supremacy, Settler Colonialism, and Dominant Narratives
No full textoai:repository.gonzaga.edu:icohs-1000Scott Finnie, Ph.D. will be the moderator for the panel on Challenging White Supremacy, Settler Colonialism, and Dominant Narratives.
Drs. Samudzi and Jereza are the two panelists:
Zoé Samudzi, Ph.D.: An assistant professor in Photography at the Rhode Island School of Design, a research associate at the Center for the Study of Race, Gender and Class at the University of Johannesburg, and a member of the Race, Medicine, and Social Justice research cluster at the Center for the Study of Slavery and Justice at Brown University
Rae Jereza, Ph.D.: A research assistant professor and a senior researcher at the Polarization and Extremism Research Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University. They are currently researching gun violence and how hate speech and free speech are constructed in the US
Criminalizing Hate: Law as Social Justice Liberalism
No full textMuch has been written about the purpose and justification of hate crime laws. Though not unequivocally settled, it is often claimed that hate crimes are pre-existing offences that “hurt more”, and under conventional theories of liberal criminal law, are therefore deserving of an enhanced punishment at sentencing. In this paper, I argue that such an approach to defining hate crime has restricted our understanding of the true nature and harms that acts of hatred cause. It has also enabled legislatures to focus their attentions almost solely on punitive responses to addressing what is a complex individual and structural problem. This paper challenges this conventional wisdom by outlining a new theoretical framework for conceptualising hate crime based on what I refer to as “social justice liberalism”. Using this framework I argue for the expansion of traditional conceptions of the harm principle – often restricted to measuring direct harms to other individuals – to include impacts that are directly causal to the social injustice of entire groups of people. Building on Young’s “faces of oppression”, the paper draws on empirical research to evidence how hate crimes directly undermine individuals’ interests and capacities to participate equally in society. I argue that if the law is to truly grapple with both the individual and structural impacts of hate, hate-based offences ought not just to be defined as “aggravated” forms of pre-existing criminal offences, but ought to be codified as distinct forms of criminality. It is only by conceptualising hate crime as a distinct type of wrong in law that can we begin to construct forms of regulation and criminal justice measures that adequately reflect and address its multi-layered harms
Spokane Community Against Racism: Community Organizing and the Platform for Change
No full textSpokane Community Against Racism Steering Committee Members Dr. Pui-Yan Lam, Rev Rick Matters, Rev. Walter Kendricks, Jac Archer, and Justice Forral will discuss the hurdles of local community organizing, what has worked for us, and how we help support grassroots and grasstop organizations from marches to legislative action. Discussions related to hearing directly from impacted community voices and empowering their voices, growing a community based organization, political advocacy from a grassroots to grasstop organizations, and community building and involvement. The Platform for Change 2.0 is a community driven document. The original Platform for Change had over 25 local organization sign on and has been used to craft other legislative demands and push for a more equitable system for our communities. For the Platform for Change 2.0 we have reach out to impacted communities to hear how they feel about safety and security in within their communities. This process has helped us gain a better understanding of what our local community members face and their immediate concerns
Online Hate, Gaming, and Higher Education
No full textThis session will provide college and university professionals with a framework for understanding and responding to online hate and harassment, especially within the gaming environment.
Social media and online platforms are increasingly becoming essential components of the campus experience and are now utilized every day by students, staff, and faculty alike to facilitate learning, conduct and share research, raise awareness of social justice causes, and to promote campus teambuilding. Accompanying this growth is an uptick in the circulation of hate speech through technology and in digital spaces, an escalation rarely accounted for in most campus’ incident reporting protocols and forms, free speech policies, or mental health support services. Indeed, with rapid advances in information technology and with security measures that become quickly outdated, current campus infrastructure is rarely sufficient to interrupt harmful algorithms or online behaviors.
In this session, we will consider how online platforms, from multiplayer games to dating apps, are transforming the campus landscape, the dissemination of hate, how we think about communication and security, and what constitutes lawful and unlawful online behavior more generally. Session leaders will offer an overview of trends in online hate speech and online harassment, discuss common iterations of hate in the gaming environment, and will offer tools for responding to incidents when they occur. Participants will then be led through a series of scenarios involving incidents of online hate and online harassment. These scenarios are designed to help participants more effectively use their campus’ social media and technology policies to reduce the likelihood of incidents escalating.
The session will answer the following questions: What constitutes online hate speech and online harassment on campus and off campus, especially in the gaming environment? What can campuses do to prevent and respond to online hate speech and online harassment, and what are some of the legal considerations to keep in mind? How can campuses more safely integrate games and other social media into the classroom and campus culture? What tools can campuses use to encourage the reporting of hate incidents that occur in gaming spaces? how can members of the campus community work with technology companies, scholars, and non-profit organizations to make online environments more secure and productive places for all members of the campus community?
Ultimately, the goal of the session is to equip participants in their professional capacity--and potentially as a member of multiple teams--to both assess and strengthen their campus’ existing bias prevention and response initiatives. The session will particularly benefit professionals who are seeking to address, in comprehensive fashion, hate incidents in the campus environment. Participants who attend this session should have a working knowledge of or strong interest in policies and practices related to inclusive campus climate or bias incident response
AI4Dignity – Artificial Intelligence, Extreme Speech, and the Challenges of Online Content Moderation
No full textIn our research we refer to Udupa’s and Pohjonen’s (2017) anthropological concept of ‘extreme speech’ instead of using the commonly attributed term of ‘hate speech’. The extreme speech approach refers to expressions that challenge and stretch the boundaries of legitimate speech along the twin axes of truth/falsity and civility/uncivility. With developing this concept, the authors are departing from assumptions around civility, politeness, or abuse as universal features of communication with little cultural variation. Instead, they gesture towards the situatedness of online speech forms in different cultural as well as political backgrounds (Pohjonen, Udupa, 2017) and emphasize practice as in what people do that is related to media, in order to avoid predetermining the effects of online extreme speech as vilifying, polarizing, or lethal (Couldry, 2010).
Online extreme speech has emerged as a significant challenge for democratic societies worldwide. AI deployment to detect, slow down and remove extreme content is expected to bring scalability, reduce costs, decrease human discretion and emotional labor. But AI tools for extreme speech detection that are globally applicable, inclusive and still resource-efficient are lacking. The two key challenges in AI use for content moderation are that there is no catch-all algorithm that can work for different cultural contexts and that hate-groups have managed to escape keyword-based machine detection through misspellings, satire, and coded language.
Our proof of concept project ‘AI4Dignity’, funded by the European Research Council and hosted at LMU Munich with PI Prof Dr Sahana Udupa, proposes ways to develop context-sensitive frameworks for AI-assisted content moderation that are centered around human collaboration. Our approaches aim at evolving responsible practices and focus on the use of AI for describing and detecting problematic content online. We do so by building a process model for bottom-up coding through partnering with fact checkers from four countries (India, Brazil, Kenya, Germany) as critical contact persons in the fight against digital hate and to develop context sensitive responses to extreme speech (Udupa et al. 2021; Udupa et al. 2022; Maronikolakis et al. 2022). For that, fact checkers collected and labelled extreme speech passages (derogatory, exclusionary, or dangerous speech) and marked target groups for each instance of speech (e.g., caste, ethnicity, gender, language group, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation) to allow for a fine-grained analysis of different extreme speech discourses as per our dataset.
In my presentation I will explain the AI4Dignity project and the project steps, focusing on the explanation of the concept of ‘extreme speech’ and a brief description and analysis of the collected passages. Amongst other topics like anti-immigrant extreme speech, we found online misogyny to be prominent in our dataset
Emergence of Virtual Hate Speech: The Case of the Philippine LGTBQIA+ Community
No full textThe researcher analyzed the occurrence of hate and discrimination in the use of hate speech on Facebook against the LGBTQIA+ community members in the Philippines. Critical linguistic analysis was used to dive deeper into the problem and have a substantial understanding of the social phenomenon that LGBTQIA+ members experience virtually. The analysis of the data found out that there are dominant speech patterns in the discourses, and certain discourse makers were used in expressing netizens’ hate speech. Moreover, the researcher found out that the use of generalized hate speech patterns can be grouped into the following: archaic, class, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, and sex orient. These classifications determine the nature of racism, as evidenced by the context found in the selected discourses. Besides this, the researcher also discovered the use of discursive strategies in expressing hate against the social group. These are the nomination strategy, predicational strategy, argumentation strategy, discourse representation, and intensifying and mitigation strategies. After analyzing the collected comments against the LGBTQIA+ community on Facebook, the data show that hate speech patterns help identify the core of hate and discrimination against the members of the said community. Discursive components can be instrumental in determining how random individuals express their hate speech against a specific social group such as the LGBTQIA+ community in the Philippines
The State of Hate Index II
No full textThis paper presents the second iteration of the State of Hate Index (SoHI), an analytical assessment of the potential for hate-based violence in a given region. The SoHI II project maps out when hate has occurred and where it might be more likely in the United States. The January 6th insurrection and the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband are two examples of how political violence is increasing. The findings examine how hate manifests in the fifty states of the U.S. from 2021-2022, looking at multiple indicators for when hate might become more salient. These indicators include number/prevalence of hate groups, white supremacy incidents and state policies and laws regarding gender and sexual orientation. SoHI II adds two new variables—proposed and new, state abortion legislation, and police killings of blacks. SoHI II parallels other political assessment projects such as Freedom House’s rating of political freedom, Waller’s Genocide Risk Assessment, and the Minorities at Risk project. The overriding argument of the project is that if you increase the level of hate in a region, you increase the likelihood of violence. Or, the greater the salience of hate, then the greater the number of hate “triggers”, (Stern 2004); and, the greater the likelihood of activation of those triggers. Certainly we have seen this happen nationally during Trump’s administration (see Edwards and Rushin 2018 and Feinberg, Branton & Martinez-Ebers 2019), but it was also very apparent after 9-11 and even earlier, after the Oklahoma City bombing. SoHI II will hopefully inform policy makers and politicians, demonstrating that the potential for political violence is visible before bodies and properties are attacked