Negotiating the Contours of Unlawful Hate Speech: Regulation Under Provincial Human Rights Law in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has examined more than half a century of operation of provincial and territorial hate speech laws in Canada. This examination has confirmed that free speech sensitivity has long been an integral and enduring feature of the administration and interpretation of legislative regimes for the regulation of hate speech—a finding that should come as a shock to no-one. What is surprising is the way in which free speech sensitivity has impacted on the operation of hate speech laws, and the effects of that influence on the quality of the protection provided to victims by existing provincial and territorial laws.... One of the chief objectives of hate speech prohibitions in provincial and territorial human rights statutes is to draw a line between free speech which must be protected (or at least tolerated), and hate speech which must be outlawed and sanctioned because of its harmful effects. Such line-drawing exercises are never simple and almost always controversial. However, the extent of the uncertainty and controversy has been exacerbated in Canada by the multi-layered influences of free speech sensitivity described above, as well as ongoing differences amongst decisionmakers regarding the legitimate scope of hate speech prohibitions. The net result is that the contours of unlawful hate speech in Canada are anything but sharp. On the contrary, the boundary between free speech and hate speech remains contested and fluid.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".