From legal to technical concept: Towards an automated classification of German political Twitter postings as criminal offenses

Advances in the automated detection of offensive Internet postings make this mechanism very attractive to social media companies, who are increasingly under pressure to monitor and action activity on their sites. However, these advances also have important implications as a threat to the fundamental right of free expression. In this article, we analyze which Twitter posts could actually be deemed offenses under German criminal law. German law follows the deductive method of the Roman law tradition based on abstract rules as opposed to the inductive reasoning in Anglo-American common law systems. This allows us to show how legal conclusions can be reached and implemented without relying on existing court decisions. We present a data annotation schema, consisting of a series of binary decisions, for determining whether a specific post would constitute a criminal offense. This schema serves as a step towards an inexpensive creation of a sufficient amount of data for an automated classification. We find that the majority of posts deemed offensive actually do not constitute a criminal offense and still contribute to public discourse. Furthermore, laymen can provide sufficiently reliable data to an expert reference but are, for instance, more lenient in the interpretation of what constitutes a disparaging statement.

[1]  D. Katz,et al.  A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States , 2016, PloS one.

[2]  Michael Wiegand,et al.  A Survey on Hate Speech Detection using Natural Language Processing , 2017, SocialNLP@EACL.

[3]  Jun-Ming Xu,et al.  Learning from Bullying Traces in Social Media , 2012, NAACL.

[4]  Henry Lieberman,et al.  Script-based story matching for cyberbullying prevention , 2013, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[5]  Preslav Nakov,et al.  SemEval-2019 Task 6: Identifying and Categorizing Offensive Language in Social Media (OffensEval) , 2019, *SEMEVAL.

[6]  Nikolaos Aletras,et al.  Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[7]  Benno Stein,et al.  Before Name-Calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation , 2018, NAACL.

[8]  Tomaz Erjavec,et al.  Legal Framework, Dataset and Annotation Schema for Socially Unacceptable Online Discourse Practices in Slovene , 2017, ALW@ACL.

[9]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Detecting Hate Speech on the World Wide Web , 2012 .

[10]  Björn Ross,et al.  Measuring the Reliability of Hate Speech Annotations: The Case of the European Refugee Crisis , 2016, ArXiv.

[11]  Stan Matwin,et al.  Offensive Language Detection Using Multi-level Classification , 2010, Canadian Conference on AI.

[12]  Florian Matthes,et al.  Predicting the Outcome of Appeal Decisions in Germany's Tax Law , 2017, ePart.

[13]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[14]  Ritesh Kumar,et al.  Benchmarking Aggression Identification in Social Media , 2018, TRAC@COLING 2018.

[15]  Ingmar Weber,et al.  Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtasks , 2017, ALW@ACL.

[16]  Felice Dell'Orletta,et al.  Hate Me, Hate Me Not: Hate Speech Detection on Facebook , 2017, ITASEC.

[17]  Michael Wiegand,et al.  Overview of the GermEval 2018 Shared Task on the Identification of Offensive Language , 2018 .

[18]  Prakhar Gupta,et al.  Learning Word Vectors for 157 Languages , 2018, LREC.

[19]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments , 2003, ICAIL.

[20]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Long Short-Term Memory , 1997, Neural Computation.

[21]  Hans van Halteren,et al.  N-Gram-Based Recognition of Threatening Tweets , 2013, CICLing.

[22]  Jonathan P. Kastellec The Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions and Legal Rules with Classification Trees , 2010 .