MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082114791

Hate speech under the South African Constitution: How should South African Courts interpret ‘incitement to cause harm'

2025· other· en· W7082114791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncitementInterpretation (philosophy)Meaning (existential)ConstitutionHarmInternational lawHuman rightsInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates the meaning of the phrase ‘incitement to cause harm' under section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution. In order to determine the meaning of incitement to cause harm, I utilise section 39(1) of the Constitution which provides that when interpreting the Bill of Rights, “a Court (a)must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, (b)must consider international and (c) may consider foreign law”. First, I examine the role of international law in the interpretation of incitement to cause harm as required by section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution. This exercise involves an examination of international conventions relevant to restrictions on freedom of expression, hate speech, case law and academic commentary. Particular focus will be accorded to whether interpretations of Article20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can provide a guide or framework to interpreting incitement to cause harm as it closely resembles section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution. Second, as per section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution, I evaluate three foreign jurisdictions, namely Canada, Germany and the United States to assess how useful their interpretations of “incitement” and “harm” are for interpreting incitement to cause harm. Thirdly, I attempt to determine the meaning of ‘incitement to cause harm' in its constitutional setting by adopting a generous, purposive, and contextual interpretation of the right in terms of section 39(1)(a) of the Constitution in conjunction with a comparative analysis of section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act which gives effect to the right. Lastly, I return to South African domestic law to see whether incitement to cause harm can be determined by resorting to its meaning in South African criminal law to regulate the extreme anti-democratic expression enumerated under section 16(2)(c). This chapter will also involve an evaluation of the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act and other legislation regulating hate speech. Ultimately, the purpose of this thesis is to determine the meaning of ‘incitement to cause harm' by relying on the tenets of constitutional interpretation as well as international and foreign law.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.026
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town)Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207