Explore the vast range of titles available.

Should \"hate speech\" be made a criminal offense, or does the First Amendment oblige Americans to permit the use of epithets directed against a person's race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, or sexual preference? Does a campus speech code enhance or degrade democratic values? When the American flag is burned in protest, what rights of free speech are involved? In a lucid and balanced analysis of contemporary court cases dealing with these problems, as well as those of obscenity and workplace harassment, acclaimed First Amendment scholar Kent Greenawalt now addresses a broad general audience of readers interested in the most current free speech issues.

Several widely used criminal risk assessment instruments factor a defendant's abstract beliefs, peer associations, and family relationships into their risk scores. The inclusion of those factors is empirically unsound and raises profound ethical and constitutional questions. This Article is the first instance of legal scholarship on criminal risk assessment to (a) conduct an in-depth review of risk assessment questionnaires, scoresheets, and reports, and (b) analyze the First and Fourteenth Amendment implications of attitude and associational factors. Additionally, this Article challenges existing scholarship by critiquing widely accepted but dubious empirical justifications for the inclusion of attitude and associational items. The items are only weakly correlated with recidivism, have not been shown to be causal, and have in fact been shown to decrease the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. Quantification of attitudes and associations should cease unless and until it is done in a way that is empirically sound, more useful than narrative reports, and consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Free Speech and Hate Speech in the United States explores the concept and treatment of hate speech in light of escalating social tensions in the global twenty-first century, proposing a shift in emphasis from the negative protection of individual rights toward a more positive support of social equality. Drawing on Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition, the author develops a two-tiered framework for free speech analysis that will promote a strategy for combating hate speech. To illustrate how this framework might impact speech rights in the United States, she looks specifically at hate speech in the context of symbolic speech, disparaging speech, Internet speech, and speech on college campuses. Entering into an ongoing debate about the role of speech in society, this book will be of key importance to First Amendment scholars, and to scholars and students of communication studies, media studies, media law, political science, feminist studies, American studies, and history.

This article considers machine methods used in the collection, processing, and application of vocal recordings for speaker identification and speech recognition between 1908 and 1970. The first phonographic archives featured collections of “vocal portraits” that prompted international investigations into the essential features of human voices for individual identification. Visual records of speech later found the same applications, but as “voiceprint identification” via sound spectrography began to achieve legal and commercial success in the 1960s, the procedure attracted more widespread scientific attention, which ultimately discredited both its accuracy and its rationale. At the same time, spectrogram collections spurred a new application—speech recognition by machine. The changing status of the speech spectrogram, from a record of unique features of individual voices to a model of fundamental invariants in speech sounds, was rooted in the demands of automated processing and a corresponding shift from the sound archive to the acoustic database.

Contemporary public discourse is saturated with speech that vilifies and incites hatred or violence against vulnerable groups. The term “hate speech” has emerged in legal circles and in ordinary language to refer to these communicative acts. But legal theorists and philosophers disagree over how to define this term. This paper makes the case for, and subsequently develops, the first corpus-based analysis of the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” We begin by demonstrating that key interpretive and moral disputes surrounding hate speech laws—in particular, surrounding their compatibility with the rule of law, democracy, and free speech—depend crucially on the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” Next, we argue, drawing on recent developments in legal philosophy, that corpus linguistics constitutes a distinctively promising tool for ascertaining the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” Finally, we offer a proof of concept, by outlining, and analyzing the interpretive and moral implications of, the first such study.

Abstract National governments now recognize online hate speech as a pernicious social problem. In the wake of political votes and terror attacks, hate incidents online and offline are known to peak in tandem. This article examines whether an association exists between both forms of hate, independent of ‘trigger’ events. Using Computational Criminology that draws on data science methods, we link police crime, census and Twitter data to establish a temporal and spatial association between online hate speech that targets race and religion, and offline racially and religiously aggravated crimes in London over an eight-month period. The findings renew our understanding of hate crime as a process, rather than as a discrete event, for the digital age.

Objective To qualitatively explore the impact of parental incarceration on children and families from the perspective of the incarcerated parent in a county jail. Background An estimated 5 million U.S. children experience parental incarceration. A limited number of studies have examined the impact of parental incarceration on the child(ren) and family from the perspective of the incarcerated parent. Methods A convenience sample of 26 parents incarcerated in an urban county jail were interviewed. Parents were asked about how their incarceration has affected their child(ren). Glaser and Strauss's constant comparative method was used for analysis. Results Five major themes were identified including parental incarceration creates a significant hardship on most children and families; there are many barriers for parents to communicate and maintain relationships with their children while incarcerated; incarcerated parents experience many challenges understanding and navigating the criminal justice system; the pervasive cycle of incarceration; and the need for more programs and services. Conclusion Parents generally perceive that their incarceration negatively impacts their children and family in a multitude of ways and express concern about their children's health and safety. Inmates have concrete suggestions for programming and policy changes that they believe would benefit their relationship with their children and lessen the negative impact of their incarceration on their children. Implications This study offers insights into the perceived challenges children and families face during parental incarceration in jail. The results provide both correctional facilities and community organizations with concrete ideas for how to better support families experiencing incarceration.

Digitization and open access to governmental data have made criminal justice information incredibly easy to access and disseminate. This study asks how law should govern access to criminal histories on the Internet. Drawing upon interviews with crime website publishers and subjects who have appeared on websites, I use legal consciousness theory to show how social actors interpret, construct, and invoke law in a nascent and unregulated area. The analysis reveals how both parties construct legality in the absence of positive legal restrictions: Website publishers use legal justifications, while those appealing to have their online record cleared resort to personal pleas, as opposed to legal remedy. Ultimately, I show how current data practices reinforce structural inequalities already present in criminal justice institutions in a profoundly public manner, leaving website subjects with little recourse and an inescapable digital trail.

According to the predictive coding theory, top-down predictions are conveyed by backward connections and prediction errors are propagated forward across the cortical hierarchy. Using MEG in humans, we show that violating multisensory predictions causes a fundamental and qualitative change in both the frequency and spatial distribution of cortical activity. When visual speech input correctly predicted auditory speech signals, a slow delta regime (3-4 Hz) developed in higher-order speech areas. In contrast, when auditory signals invalidated predictions inferred from vision, a low-beta (14-15 Hz) / high-gamma (60-80 Hz) coupling regime appeared locally in a multisensory area (area STS). This frequency shift in oscillatory responses scaled with the degree of audio-visual congruence and was accompanied by increased gamma activity in lower sensory regions. These findings are consistent with the notion that bottom-up prediction errors are communicated in predominantly high (gamma) frequency ranges, whereas top-down predictions are mediated by slower (beta) frequencies.

The act of criminalising conduct has been understood by many theorists as a form of communication. This paper proposes a model, based on speech-act theory, for understanding how that act of communication works. In particular, it focuses on analysing how and where wrongfulness can appear in this speech-act, if one were to argue, as many theorists do, that part of what is being communicated through criminalisation is the wrongfulness of the target conduct. I argue that the act of criminalisation is best understood as an indirect speech-act, which both asserts and declares normative facts, the utterance of which makes it the case that a conduct is now criminalised. Within this speech-act, wrongfulness can appear as an implicit assertion of the wrongness of the conduct, which has to be inferred by hearers from the context of utterance. The paper then briefly discusses the upshots of this model, mainly that it allows a clearer picture of how criminalisation conveys meanings, as well as leaving open the question as to whether it makes sense to think that the wrongfulness being conveyed is specifically of a moral kind.