Chelsea Brennan CS408 Section 02

assignment 5: Hate and the Internet

Homepage

1. How would you define hate speech
   I would define hate speech as someone talking to or about someone in a manner that is so offensive to the point where it is vicious. This type of speech is directed at someone in order to provoke violence. Hate speech could be regarding anything from a persons race, disability, sexuality, or religion.
2. Would you advocate placing limits on free expression (as most European countries do) in order to deal with the problems posed by hate speech? If so, how would you define those limits?
   I would definitely not advocate placing limits on free expression. I understand that there are numerous serious problems that are started from hate speech, but as American citizens, it is our right to have freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment. Placing a limit on free expression all depends on the people who are speaking and being spoken to. Placing limits would be extremely difficult because this is too broad and it would be very hard to come to a decision on what is appropriate and what is offensive.
3. Should we attempt to reach an international consensus on how to define hate speech and on the standards (if any) to be applied in dealing with it?
   As stated in question two, I think it would be much too difficult to place limits on speech in our own country. Coming to an agreement with other countries would be nearly impossible. I think this would cause too much fuss and confusion to even be bothered with.
4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
   I think this is entirely up to the person or group who is running the website. I am completely against making laws that restrict the freedom of speech. If a person comes across words on a website that they find offending, no one is forcing them to read them. They can end this problem with a simple click of a button.
5. Should creators of hate-oriented Web sites be held responsible for actions of people (such as the 'lone wolves,' people who commit crimes of hatred without specific instructions) who view those sites and then commit hate crimes?
   I do believe that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. They are responsible for anything that comes a result from their websites and I think should be aware of this while making the website. Someone who is making a hate-oriented website makes the website knowing that they are targeting a certain group and I think they should most definitely be held responsible for their actions.
6. Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)
   I would advocate doing so, however I believe that this would be extremely difficult to do because of how many hate-related websites there are out there. I think that it would be hard to deviate children away from these websites because there is a way around everything. I believe that it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children are not viewing these sites, and they can do so by putting filters on their computers.
7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
   I do think that there should be a distinction between what is legal online and legal offline. Some things online are just words, I understand that these words can be highly offensive and hurtful to people and I do not think this is right whatsoever. However, there is a major difference between hate words and hate crimes. Hate crimes can physically injure or even kill a person, hate words can be avoided.
8. Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
   I think that the standards should be different. Pornography is something that a viewer can choose to watch, however hate-related material is something that is meant to offend or hurt a person.