Assignment 6: Hate and the Internet

1. I would define hate speech as communication that is specific to a person or a group that purposely discriminates against certain characteristics they possess.
2. I would not advocate placing limits on free expression in order to deal with the problems posed by hate speech. However, in a perfectly ideal world, I think that would be fantastic! But in reality, America takes pride in the First Amendment and technically people should be able to say what they want as long as they do not put anyone in direct danger. I do think that hate speech is a huge problem but I do not feel as though we would be able to successfully limit people’s freedom of speech without huge repercussions from the people of the United States. If people choose to make the decision to say discriminatory things online, it will be them against the rest of the online community.
3. I do not think that reaching an international consensus on how to define hate speech would be successful. When you involve so many people, of so many cultures, we all have different ideas of what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to hate speech or cyber bullying. I don’t think an agreement would be able to be reached. Some cultures such as China are a lot more sensitive than say, The United States when it comes to what can be viewed online. I cannot imagine a legitimate agreement every being created between these two nations. We are too different.
4. Like I stated in the second question, I do feel that people should have the right to say what they want due to the laws of the First Amendment. However, if hate group websites provides any evidence of threatening or putting anyone in danger, there should be an immediate stop to their behavior. I think that would be an appropriate time to censor or filter their websites.
5. I do believe that creators of hate-oriented Web sites should be held responsible for actions of people who commit hate crimes. Those creators are putting their thoughts and their views out there for the public to see, and the entire reason behind that is to prove their points to online viewers. They want their viewers to get inspired to commit hate crimes. Why else would they make their Web site public? If they do not want to be held responsible for other people’s actions, do not make your vicious thoughts and opinions public.
6. I absolutely would advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet. Parents should block those pages or figure out a way for those websites to be blocked. Before a person enters that website, they should confirm that they are over the age of 17 or 18. Even if they lie to enter the website, at least the website is giving them the chance to leave if they aren’t over that age, they are preparing the children for inappropriate content.
7. Although this does seem bizarre as I type this, I do think that there should be distinctions between what is legal on and offline. I really think the legality of online and offline behavior should be the same, but unfortunately people are able to get away with a lot more “crime” online than they would be in person. Obviously what is being done offline, or in real life, deal with much more strict legal rules. The people you are dealing with are real people, in real time, in real life. There is no computer screen to distance you from them; therefore, it is crucial that people filled with hate do not offend people offline. When you are in the flesh, people can see you. It is much more offensive that way. People can see who they really are. Online, you can be anonymous, or under an alias name. No one will able to easily find you so people associated with hate-related material can hide behind their computer, and people won’t know who said it.
8. The standards should be the same between hate-related material and other objectionable material. They are both subjects that create controversy and should therefore be dealt with in the same way.