Misinformation, defined as false or inaccurate information, can result in significant societal harm when it is spread with malicious or even unintentional intent. The rapid online information exchange necessitates advanced detection mechanisms to mitigate misinformation-induced harm. Existing research, however, has predominantly focused on the veracity of information, overlooking the legal implications and consequences of misinformation. In this work, we take a novel angle to consolidate the definition of misinformation detection using legal issues as a measurement of societal ramifications, aiming to bring interdisciplinary efforts to tackle misinformation and its consequence. We introduce a new task: Misinformation with Legal Consequence (MisLC), which leverages definitions from a wide range of legal domains covering 4 broader legal topics and 11 fine-grained legal issues, including hate speech, election laws, and privacy regulations. For this task, we advocate a two-step dataset curation approach that utilizes crowd-sourced checkworthiness and expert evaluations of misinformation. We provide insights about the MisLC task through empirical evidence, from the problem definition to experiments and expert involvement. While the latest large language models and retrieval-augmented generation are effective baselines for the task, we find they are still far from replicating expert performance.

Deep learning has made significant progress in the past decade, and demonstrates potential to solve problems with extensive social impact. In high-stakes decision making areas such as law, experts often require interpretability for automatic systems to be utilized in practical settings. In this work, we attempt to address these requirements applied to the important problem of legal citation prediction (LCP). We design the task with parallels to the thought-process of lawyers, i.e., with reference to both precedents and legislative provisions. After initial experimental results, we refine the target citation predictions with the feedback of legal experts. Additionally, we introduce a prototype architecture to add interpretability, achieving strong performance while adhering to decision parameters used by lawyers. Our study builds on and leverages the state-of-the-art language processing models for law, while addressing vital considerations for high-stakes tasks with practical societal impact.

Hate speech causes widespread and deep-seated societal issues. Proper enforcement of hate speech laws is key for protecting groups of people against harmful and discriminatory language. However, determining what constitutes hate speech is a complex task that is highly open to subjective interpretations. Existing works do not align their systems with enforceable definitions of hate speech, which can make their outputs inconsistent with the goals of regulators. This research introduces a new perspective and task for enforceable hate speech detection centred around legal definitions, and a dataset annotated on violations of eleven possible definitions by legal experts. Given the challenge of identifying clear, legally enforceable instances of hate speech, we augment the dataset with expert-generated samples and an automatically mined challenge set. We experiment with grounding the model decision in these definitions using zero-shot and few-shot prompting. We then report results on several large language models (LLMs). With this task definition, automatic hate speech detection can be more closely aligned to enforceable laws, and hence assist in more rigorous enforcement of legal protections against harmful speech in public forums.