MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W179536926

Hate speech, fighting words, and beyond - why American law is unique

2012· article· en· W179536926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert M. O apos, Neil

Bibliographic record

VenueAlbany law review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPresidential systemDeclaration of independenceFaithSupreme courtState (computer science)SociologyPolitical sciencePoliticsTheologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the waning days of the turbulent presidential campaign of 2012, the issue of free speech was bound to emerge. Barack Obama chose this moment to declare to the United Nations General Assembly his abiding commitment to the uniquely American value of unfettered expression. (1) In diverse society, he reaffirmed, efforts to restrict speech can become tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. (2) The catalyst for this declaration was the appearance of a crude and disgusting (3) caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad which had triggered violent protests in more than twenty nations, mainly in the Middle East. (4) Obama made clear both his disdain for the video and his unswerving faith in the singularly American insistence on free expression. (5) Curiously (or some would say paradoxically) the Obama Administration only weeks earlier had actively supported passage of resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council to create an international standard restricting some anti-religious speech; the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations had lauded this measure by recognizing that 'freedom of expression has been sometimes misused' to insult religion. (6) Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had added her view that speech or protest resulting in the destruction of religious sites was not, she noted, fair game. (7) In recent and expansive analysis of these contrasting events, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley noted the paradox: President Obama's U.N. address last month declaring America's support for free speech, while laudable, seemed confused--even at odds with his administration's own efforts. (8) In fact, such asymmetries abound in the contrasting views of the United States and virtually all other western nations. Countries as geographically close and politically congenial as Canada view free expression in starkly different ways than do we in the United States. In mid-October of this year, Canadian officials barred from our mutual border Reverend Terry Jones, the notorious Koran-burning pastor who has been the target of venomous hatred but has not been charged with any crime in this country; Jones was interrogated at length by Canadian officials and eventually turned away, unable to attend Toronto gathering at which he had been invited to speak weeks earlier. (9) In sharp contrast, Obama, the Pope, and religious and military leaders have consistently implored Reverend Jones to abandon his Koran-burning, and his church's tax exempt status has been stripped for technical reasons, (10) But even under the rubric of incitement, (11) criminal sanctions and even civil penalties have not been imposed. (12) And just as timely reminder of how dramatically different is the U.S. approach to hateful speech, federal district court in the same week ruled that the Metropolitan Washington Transit Authority could not constitutionally prevent or delay the posting of controversial ad reading IN ANY WAR BETWEEN THE CIVILIZED MAN AND THE SAVAGE, SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MAN. SUPPORT ISRAEL. DEFEAT JIHAD. (13) District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that such message could not be barred or excluded from the bus and subway poster spaces simply because it might upset (or even inflame) some Metro riders. (14) Finally in this very recent overview, we might note the growing tension over restrictions imposed by U.S. internet providers upon expression in other parts of the world. Google, for example, is blocking access in two countries to crude and inflammatory anti-Muslim video, but without removing the video from the YouTube website. (15) And few weeks later, Twitter was reported to have blocked German Twitter users from accessing an account of the activities of neo-Nazi group that is banned in Germany, since the use of Nazi symbols and slogans and insignia is widely banned and subject to severe criminal sanctions. (16) The following day, however, French Jewish group reported that Twitter had removed the anti-Semitic postings and had reopened access even to German users. …

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.041
Scholarly communication0.0150.012
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlbany law reviewSame topicLaw, Rights, and FreedomsFrench-language works237,207