Regulating cases of 'extreme hate speech' in South Africa : a suggested framework for a legislated criminal sanction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution investigates the merits of the introduction of a legislated criminal sanction for cases of extreme hate speech in South Africa and discusses the key parameters of a potentially new legal framework to do so. The distinction between hate speech and hate crimes is explored, followed by an analysis of the existing legal framework regulating hate speech in South Africa and a consideration of international law and the legal position in the European Union, the United States and Canada. The authors argue that a legislated hate-motivated crime serves a dual purpose. It protects the rights of the victim and the target group and also ensures that society is informed that hate speech is neither tolerated, nor sanctioned. The threshold test for the criminal sanction must, however, be strict in order to protect the integrity of the right to freedom of expression. Only the advocacy of extreme hatred in public against a group of persons on five prohibited grounds, namely race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and religion, and which constitutes the wilful incitement to cause severe harm to the target group, should be criminalised. A criminal sanction for cases of extreme speech is needed to overcome the grave and substantial threat that pervasive hatred and discord causes to the achievement of the constitutional mandate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".