HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: PERPETRATOR AND SERVICE PROVIDERS’ LIABILITY
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article investigates the phenomenon of hate speech on social network sites and gives an overview of the national and international legal instruments which are available to combat hate speech. After an overview of the nature of hate speech andthe early international attempts to curb it, hate speech in South Africa is investigated. The question is posed whether statements of hatred made on the Internet, especially if published from sites such as Facebook which is external to South Africa, can leadto liability for perpetrators in South Africa. International responses to hate speech in cyberspace are then investigated with specific reference to the possible liability of Internet service providers for hate speech posted by third parties on their websites. Itis shown that, although service providers in the United States enjoy more protection than those in European Union, Canada and South Africa, hate speech on social network sites can be legally curbed. It is concluded that the myth that the Internet as a godless, lawless zone can and must be dismissed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it