J. Nathan Matias 🦣Apr 20, 2023

Should online stalkers who doggedly pursue and threaten women be held responsible for causing harm? Or if they won’t admit to intending harm should they be free of legal consequences, whatever the harm?

https://news.yahoo.com/constitutes-true-threat-online-major-194108644.html

Yahooist Teil der Yahoo Markenfamilie

TonyskiApr 23, 2023
Show threadJ. Nathan Matias 🦣

In oral arguments, Supreme Court justices asked a question that we can answer with science: do policies against harassment cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression?

In multiple large-scale field experiments, we have found that policies that restrict harmful speech actually increase the free exercise of speech rights.

Here's our latest data: https://citizensandtech.org/2022/08/harassment-prevention-across-communities/

Study Results: How well do harassment prevention interventions transfer between communities?

New findings across 3 communities reveal lessons about the effectiveness of social norms interventions across different communities.

Citizens and Technology Lab
Apr 20, 2023 at 11:32pmWeb
Show threadHeidi Li FeldmanApr 21, 2023
@natematias A fascinating study, filled with interesting data. @jaz
Show threadjaz  Apr 21, 2023
@heidilifeldman @natematias thanks for the cc 👍 We've been talking with Nathan and others on how to find ways to connect amazing research like this to the people and tools on the front line of community management, I'm happy to say we're moving ahead and will be announcing the activity soon!
Show threadHeidi Li FeldmanApr 21, 2023
@jaz Looking forward to hearing more. @natematias
Show threadPatrick BerryApr 21, 2023
@natematias @anildash I’m not sure it’s a question asked in good faith. A cynical person might think that the justices only care about a thin slice of the citizenry and their freedom of expression.
Show threadSerge from BabkaApr 21, 2023

@natematias

This is very important, because a very standard American argument (including that from the US courts) is that bad speech is countered by good speech.

I believe that this position is grounded in idealism and or privilege.

Show threadGrassroots JoeApr 21, 2023
@serge @natematias
It's a disingenuous if not a straight up bad faith argument to legitimize "bad" speech, in fact often hate speech, and delegitimize what the regressive-right used to dismissively call political correctness and now refers to as wokeism.
Actively curbing hate speech and hate adjacent speech has always promoted civility and made public spaces safer for marginalized people to participate.
Show threadJ. Nathan Matias 🦣Apr 21, 2023
@serge it's a great question. As you say, I think a lot of American approaches to governance (most recently around generative AI) focus on responding to problems after they cause harm rather than trying to prevent harms, and prevention is what we prioritized here.
Show threadJackie GardinaApr 21, 2023
@natematias I am adding this to my First Amendment syllabus - thank you!
Show threadJ. Nathan Matias 🦣Apr 21, 2023
@jackiegardina I'm glad you're finding it helpful!
Show threadTrevor - The Vitruvian MeepleApr 22, 2023
@natematias Now if only we had more than 3 SC judges who has any respect for science...
Show threadAdam MarcusApr 22, 2023
@natematias important question and accessible summary. Thank you for sharing this!