Umati: Monitoring online  dangerous speech       Angela Crandall       Kagonya Awori
Umati Projecto Monitor dangerous speech onlineo The influence online hate speech had on the 2007  elections encouraged the...
Umati Project : Goalso To set a definition of hate/dangerous speech that  can be incorporated into the constitution.o To f...
Why dangerous speech?o Incomprehensive definition of hate speech under  the National Cohesion and Integration Act, 2008.  ...
Tenets of dangerous speecho Powerful speaker             with     influence   over   an  audience.o An audience vulnerable...
Umati : Methodologyo Use of human monitorso Scan blogs, forums, online newspapers and social media  pageso Record : speake...
Interesting findings1. Prominence of moderately dangerous speech       35%                         52%                    ...
Interesting findings2. Dominance of identifiable commenters      NOVEMBE            91%      R                            ...
Interesting findings   3. The call to discriminate is the main call to action                                             ...
Future Worko Project runs until the end of Aprilo Hosting more media events to promote  civic educationo Adding another mo...
?www.research.ihub.co.ke
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Umati presentation_uchaguzi_ushahidi

5,012 views
4,966 views

Published on

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,012
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,024
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We hope that the work of this project will lead to the inclusion of a more elaborate definition of illegal speech in the current constitution of Kenya, and that findings will be used to educate the Kenyan public on what type of speech has the potential to disrupt peace and security in the country. Eg for elections and referenda
  • We hope that the work of this project will lead to the inclusion of a more elaborate definition of illegal speech in the current constitution of Kenya, and that findings will be used to educate the Kenyan public on what type of speech has the potential to disrupt peace and security in the country. Eg for elections and referenda
  • Wrong Doer: Actor:‘Any person’ may be an individual human being or a juristicperson can be guilty of hate speech.Offending Act: Utterances. There has to be an utterance or spoken word. The wordsmay also be written in a book, a newspaper, a pamphlet, a brochure, or expressed ina public performance. Character of the utterances: the words, publication or form of expression has to beor involve threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior.Intent or likelihood: Not all abuses and insults are hate speech. Words only becomehate speech if the intention of the maker of the statement is to stir up hatred. Theintention of the person can be construed from the context, circumstances,environment and audience. When the maker of the statement did not have theintention to stir up ethnic hatred, but having regard of the circumstances, it is likelythat ethnic hatred is stirred up, then the person in question still committed a crimeunder section 13.Envisioned or likely effect: it concerns hatred against a group of persons on thebasis of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnicity or national origin.
  • Kajiado North, Ndhiwa, Kangema. 17th
  • Umati presentation_uchaguzi_ushahidi

    1. 1. Umati: Monitoring online dangerous speech Angela Crandall Kagonya Awori
    2. 2. Umati Projecto Monitor dangerous speech onlineo The influence online hate speech had on the 2007 elections encouraged the birth of Umati.o Also, growing internet use in Kenya: - 82.7% increase over 12 months betweenJune 2011 and June 2012. - Half the internet users are on Facebook.
    3. 3. Umati Project : Goalso To set a definition of hate/dangerous speech that can be incorporated into the constitution.o To forward incidences of dangerous speech to Uchaguzi to limit further harm.o To define a process for election monitoring that can be replicated elsewhere.o To further civic education on hate /dangerous speech
    4. 4. Why dangerous speech?o Incomprehensive definition of hate speech under the National Cohesion and Integration Act, 2008. (sections 13 and 52) o Ethnicity, nationality or race o Intent or likelihood Source: http://www.cohesion.or.ke/images/downloads/unpacking%20hate%20speech.pdf
    5. 5. Tenets of dangerous speecho Powerful speaker with influence over an audience.o An audience vulnerable to incitement. e.g. fearfulnesso Meaning of the speech acto Conducive social and historical contexto Influential medium of dissemination.(Prof Susan Benesch, American University)
    6. 6. Umati : Methodologyo Use of human monitorso Scan blogs, forums, online newspapers and social media pageso Record : speaker, influence, inflammatory, platform, contento Group into 3 categories: • Offensive speech • Moderately Dangerous speech • Extremely Dangerous speecho Critical incidents (calls for help) are forwarded to Uchaguzi www.research.ihub.co.ke
    7. 7. Interesting findings1. Prominence of moderately dangerous speech 35% 52% 43% OCT NOV DEC N= 774 N = 792 N = 432 34% 33% 31% 27% 21% 24%Offensive speech Moderately Dangerous speech Extremely Dangerous speech
    8. 8. Interesting findings2. Dominance of identifiable commenters NOVEMBE 91% R 6% ( n= 792) 3% 0.2% DECEMBER ( n= 432) 0.2% 5% 1%53% 6% 1% 0% 2% 0.005% 39% 92%1% OCTOBER ( n=769)
    9. 9. Interesting findings 3. The call to discriminate is the main call to action 1% 12% 2% NOVEMBER 6% 79% 1% 10% DECEMBER 1% 5% 87% 1% 84% 8% 1% 2% OCTOBERDiscriminate Kill Riot Beat Forcefully evict
    10. 10. Future Worko Project runs until the end of Aprilo Hosting more media events to promote civic educationo Adding another monitor to represent the Somali community + weekend monitoringo Sharing the reports: media events, mailing lists, iHub Research blog
    11. 11. ?www.research.ihub.co.ke

    ×