The Atlas of Online Harassment

From Gender and Tech Resources

Revision as of 18:59, 31 July 2016 by Dalia2 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with " === Introduction === === Tales of Online Misogyny === The selection of the case studies does contain bias, as it is based on our analysis of news reports on the stories. Th...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Introduction

Tales of Online Misogyny

The selection of the case studies does contain bias, as it is based on our analysis of news reports on the stories. This also means that the women who were harassed were able to report on their own stories and many tend to be journalists, activists, or public figures. We are using these case studies as a starting point to explore the field, we would like to expand to include further case studies from the Global South and from women activists.

File:Table_Finalized_21.07.16.ods

During our research a number of observations stood out to us with regards to the outcomes of many of the stories, we list our observations below:

Silencing of Women online: One of the reactions we've heard from women who suffered from online harassment and stalking is that they for at least some time period, if not indefinitely, have gone offline. Kathy Sierra canceled her speaking engagement at the time of her harassment, Carolina Perez deactivate her Twitter account and so did Leslie Jones and the list of names continues. However many of these stories have also inspired women to reclaim the online space and establish initatives that would counter harassment online and help build networks that would support other women.

Counterspeech and reclaiming the online space: Regardless of the harassment and initidmiation the women face, many of them featured here have internalized the need to online harassment through counter speech or by building helpful resources. Ten out of the thirty-four cases we identified led to the launch of a positive initiative (a campaign, a website, etc.) for victims to reclaim their online territories.

The hashtag #NaoSaoEllas or #MiPrimerAsedio (a trending topic on Twitter) in Brazil were launched after the harassment feminist blogger Lola Aranonovich and 13-year-old Valentina Schulz underwent. Danish journalist and activists Emma Holte started the project Consent after being subjected to Revenge Porn by her former partner. Consent aims to reclain the image of her body and to raise awareness around the importance of consent.

Legal Practices: Although in some of the case studies we list, some of the women decided to take legal action the legal framework around online harassment remains unclear. In the following section -The Atlas of Words – readers will be able to read through some of the legal and judiciary definitions surrounding both online harassment and hate speech. It is immediately clear that there is no universal legal definition of cyber harassment or cyber stalking and also a diversity of legal landscapes around these issues. Even more so the judiciary system does not seem a serious and efficient recourse for the harassed women. Stemming from the case studies, it appears that the traditional way of handling abuses and harassments offline is not applicable online. So far, some cases were heard after the women subjected to these abuses, spoke out publicly, organized their own form of justice such as Holly Jacobs with 'End Revenge Porn' project that gathers resources and legal information for victims of revenge porn.

Although there have been attempts to introduce new laws to combat online harassment and stalking, particularly in Western countries, there are still issues around authorities' reaction to cases of online harassment, the platforms' reaction and how legally there is still much to be done.


Platform Policies: Over the past four years online platforms have actively taken action to combat hate speech and online harassment. That made it to the forefront of the battle with the prominent case of Carolina Perez. As Carolina was bombarded with harassment on Twitter, the platform decided to take action and enable different features allowing users to block and filter accounts. Twitter is not the only platform to opt for blocking or filtering content, Facebook has also taken very recent steps to combat revenge porn and impersonations1, on the other hand their real name policy could have caused serious harm for the LGBT communites online2.

The question worth asking here is whether blocking and filtering content on these platforms is a powerful solution in combating harassment. Studying the impact and effects of content removal and filtering is definitely needed in this field along with the effects of counterspeech.

The Atlas of Speech

Much has been written academically and in the media about Hate Speech and particularly Online Harassment in recent years. With this vast body of literature and the legal shifts that have happened over the years translates into a number of definitions that have emerged trying to frame the field. It is for that reason important to dedicate a section that highlights these definitions in an attempt to explore all of the legal, online and universal definitions that exist in this field, if that is the case of course.

This section divides the definitions into two lists, one that focuses on Hate Speech and the other on Online Harassment. This is in no way an expansive list but rather reflective of the many terms linked to forms of online speech.  

Hate Speech

Hate speech has direct ties to free speech and has a long history from a legal perspective. Tracing this issue back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, while not directly addressed hate speech in the form of incitement to violence and discrimination made it's way into International Law. The following years saw a number of international conventions address hate speech in lieu with freedom of expression.

We have selected a few definitions from a legal perspective to be presented here:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 20 (2):

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

Online Harassment

Reclaiming Online Spaces

Over the years many projects, campaigns and tools have emerged to help women combat online harassment and misogyny. We wanted to dedicate a section towards the different initiatives from across the globe and highlight some projects that were started by women who had faced harassment. This section offers a starting point for us to further explore the field, what has been done, what is missing and what their impact is on other women.

At the moment the initiatives feature projects, campaigns, tools, research projects and guides.        

INSERT TABLE HERE    

And Now What?

Annex: Recommended Reads

A sample of readings that we recommend:

Amanda Hess: “Why does Hate Thrive Online?” (Slate Magazine)

Association Progressive Communication (APC):

* “Three key issues for a feminist internet: Access, agency and movements” * Kathy Sierra: “Why Trolls Will Always Win” (Wired Magazine)

Laura Thompson: “Is Online Misogynny a Threat to Free Speech?” (Columbia Journalism Review)

Marlisse Silver Sweeney, “What the Law Can (and Can't) Do About Online Harassment” (The Atlantic)

Mathias Schwartz: “The Trolls Amoung US” (New York Times)

Nathan J. Matias et all: “Online Harassment: A Resource Guide” (Wiki)

Soraya Chemaly, “Ten must read books about online harassment and free speech” (Women's Media Center)

Women, Action and Media (WAM): “Examples of Gender-Based Hate Speech on Facebook”

Women, Action and Media (WAM): “Twitter’s Abuse Problem: Now With Actual Solutions And Science”







Credits

The Atlas of Online Horrors was developed by the Tactical Technology Collective in collaboration with:

Reviewers

Maya Indira Ganesh

Special Thanks to

Alex Hache, Vanessa Rizk, Inti Maria Tidball.

Funding

This was developed thanks to the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency funding support. To note that Sida can not be regarded as having contributed to or vouching for the content.