The issue of hate speech extends beyond the confines of the online realm. It is a problem with real-life repercussions, prompting most nations to formulate legal frameworks that classify hate speech as a punishable offence. These legal frameworks differ from one country to another, contributing to the big chaos that online platforms have to face when addressing reported instances of hate speech. With the definitions of hate speech falling short in introducing a robust framework, we turn our gaze onto hate speech laws. We consult the opinion of legal experts on a hate speech dataset and we experiment by employing various approaches such as pretrained models both on hate speech and legal data, as well as exploiting two large language models (Qwen2-7B-Instruct and Meta-Llama-3-70B). Due to the time-consuming nature of data acquisition for prosecutable hate speech, we use pseudo-labeling to improve our pretrained models. This study highlights the importance of amplifying research on prosecutable hate speech and provides insights into effective strategies for combating hate speech within the parameters of legal frameworks. Our findings show that legal knowledge in the form of annotations can be useful when classifying prosecutable hate speech, yet more focus should be paid on the differences between the laws.

Hate speech relies heavily on cultural influences, leading to varying individual interpretations. For that reason, we propose a Semantic Componential Analysis (SCA) framework for a cross-cultural and cross-domain analysis of hate speech definitions. We create the first dataset of definitions derived from five domains: online dictionaries, research papers, Wikipedia articles, legislation, and online platforms, which are later analyzed into semantic components. Our analysis reveals that the components differ from definition to definition, yet many domains borrow definitions from one another without taking into account the target culture. We conduct zero-shot model experiments using our proposed dataset, employing three popular open-sourced LLMs to understand the impact of different definitions on hate speech detection. Our findings indicate that LLMs are sensitive to definitions: responses for hate speech detection change according to the complexity of definitions used in the prompt.

We introduce the Guideline-Centered annotation process, a novel data annotation methodology focused on reporting the annotation guidelines associated with each data sample. We identify three main limitations of the standard prescriptive annotation process and describe how the Guideline-Centered methodology overcomes them by reducing the loss of information in the annotation process and ensuring adherence to guidelines. Additionally, we discuss how the Guideline-Centered enables the reuse of annotated data across multiple tasks at the cost of a single human-annotation process.

With the increasing role of Natural Language Processing (NLP) in various applications, challenges concerning bias and stereotype perpetuation are accentuated, which often leads to hate speech and harm. Despite existing studies on sexism and misogyny, issues like homophobia and transphobia remain underexplored and often adopt binary perspectives, putting the safety of LGBTQIA+ individuals at high risk in online spaces. In this paper, we assess the potential harm caused by sentence completions generated by English large language models (LLMs) concerning LGBTQIA+ individuals. This is achieved using QueerBench, our new assessment framework, which employs a template-based approach and a Masked Language Modeling (MLM) task. The analysis indicates that large language models tend to exhibit discriminatory behaviour more frequently towards individuals within the LGBTQIA+ community, reaching a difference gap of 7.2% in the QueerBench score of harmfulness.

Misogyny is often expressed through figurative language. Some neutral words can assume a negative connotation when functioning as pejorative epithets. Disambiguating the meaning of such terms might help the detection of misogyny. In order to address such task, we present PejorativITy, a novel corpus of 1,200 manually annotated Italian tweets for pejorative language at the word level and misogyny at the sentence level. We evaluate the impact of injecting information about disambiguated words into a model targeting misogyny detection. In particular, we explore two different approaches for injection: concatenation of pejorative information and substitution of ambiguous words with univocal terms. Our experimental results, both on our corpus and on two popular benchmarks on Italian tweets, show that both approaches lead to a major classification improvement, indicating that word sense disambiguation is a promising preliminary step for misogyny detection. Furthermore, we investigate LLMs' understanding of pejorative epithets by means of contextual word embeddings analysis and prompting.

We present a novel corpus for subjectivity detection at the sentence level. We develop new annotation guidelines for the task, which are not limited to language-specific cues, and apply them to produce a new corpus in English. The corpus consists of 411 subjective and 638 objective sentences extracted from ongoing coverage of political affairs from online news outlets. This new resource paves the way for the development of models for subjectivity detection in English and across other languages, without relying on language-specific tools like lexicons or machine translation. We evaluate state-of-the-art multilingual transformer-based models on the task, both in mono- and cross-lingual settings, the latter with a similar existing corpus in Italian language. We observe that enriching our corpus with resources in other languages improves the results on the task.

We present an overview of the second edition of the CheckThat! Lab at CLEF 2019. The lab featured two tasks in two different languages: English and Arabic. Task 1 (English) challenged the participating systems to predict which claims in a political debate or speech should be prioritized for fact-checking. Task 2 (Arabic) asked to (A) rank a given set of Web pages with respect to a check-worthy claim based on their usefulness for fact-checking that claim, (B) classify these same Web pages according to their degree of usefulness for fact-checking the target claim, (C) identify useful passages from these pages, and (D) use the useful pages to predict the claim's factuality. CheckThat! provided a full evaluation framework, consisting of data in English (derived from fact-checking sources) and Arabic (gathered and annotated from scratch) and evaluation based on mean average precision (MAP) and normalized discounted cumulative gain (nDCG) for ranking, and F1 for classification. A total of 47 teams registered to participate in this lab, and fourteen of them actually submitted runs (compared to nine last year). The evaluation results show that the most successful approaches to Task 1 used various neural networks and logistic regression. As for Task 2, learning-to-rank was used by the highest scoring runs for subtask A, while different classifiers were used in the other subtasks. We release to the research community all datasets from the lab as well as the evaluation scripts, which should enable further research in the important tasks of check-worthiness estimation and automatic claim verification.

The reporting and analysis of current events around the globe has expanded from professional, editor-lead journalism all the way to citizen journalism. Politicians and other key players enjoy direct access to their audiences through social media, bypassing the filters of official cables or traditional media. However, the multiple advantages of free speech and direct communication are dimmed by the misuse of the media to spread inaccurate or misleading claims. These phenomena have led to the modern incarnation of the fact-checker -- a professional whose main aim is to examine claims using available evidence to assess their veracity. As in other text forensics tasks, the amount of information available makes the work of the fact-checker more difficult. With this in mind, starting from the perspective of the professional fact-checker, we survey the available intelligent technologies that can support the human expert in the different steps of her fact-checking endeavor. These include identifying claims worth fact-checking; detecting relevant previously fact-checked claims; retrieving relevant evidence to fact-check a claim; and actually verifying a claim. In each case, we pay attention to the challenges in future work and the potential impact on real-world fact-checking.

Propaganda aims at influencing people's mindset with the purpose of advancing a specific agenda. Previous work has addressed propaganda detection at the document level, typically labelling all articles from a propagandistic news outlet as propaganda. Such noisy gold labels inevitably affect the quality of any learning system trained on them. A further issue with most existing systems is the lack of explainability. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel task: performing fine-grained analysis of texts by detecting all fragments that contain propaganda techniques as well as their type. In particular, we create a corpus of news articles manually annotated at the fragment level with eighteen propaganda techniques and we propose a suitable evaluation measure. We further design a novel multi-granularity neural network, and we show that it outperforms several strong BERT-based baselines.

We propose a multi-task deep-learning approach for estimating the check-worthiness of claims in political debates. Given a political debate, such as the 2016 US Presidential and Vice-Presidential ones, the task is to predict which statements in the debate should be prioritized for fact-checking. While different fact-checking organizations would naturally make different choices when analyzing the same debate, we show that it pays to learn from multiple sources simultaneously (PolitiFact, FactCheck, ABC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and Washington Post) in a multi-task learning setup, even when a particular source is chosen as a target to imitate. Our evaluation shows state-of-the-art results on a standard dataset for the task of check-worthiness prediction.