Craig Alaimo, CS408-02, Assignment 5

Go to my homepage

Assignment 5: Hate and Internet

  1. How would you define "hate speech?"
    I would define hate speech as any type of communication that is directed towards an individual or group that is derogatory or likely to provoke violence. Most of the hate speech in our society today consist of racial slurs towards specific ethnic groups, religious groups, sexuality, or gender. There are laws and policies that try to address this problem and punish those who take part in it.
  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 most definitely not advocate placing limits on free expression in order to deal with the problems posed by hate speech because it is our right as United States citizens to have freedom of speech. It is up to the person and their values as to what comes out of their mouth. While I would never personally take any part in hate speech, we do have the right to say what we want, given there may be consequences of this action. If laws were put into place placing limits on free expression, how would they be enforced? This would not stop people from saying what they want to and only might exasperate the situation.
  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?
    In my opinion, it would be extremely hard to reach an international consensus on how to define hate speech and the standards to be applied in dealing with it. There are hundreds of different cultures and ethnicities globally, and to get everyone to agree on an international consensus on how to define hate speech would be close to impossible. An attempt would likely result in failure and upheaval.
  4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
    I believe that censoring or filtering hate group websites depends solely on the website owner. The great part about the internet is that if a website offends you, simply exit out. If someone is offended by certain hate speech on a website, then you have the right to get out of it and not go back. However, if a website owner feels the need to censor their website, it is their right to do so.
  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?
    Since they are the owners of the website, they should be held responsible for actions of people who view these sites and commit hate crimes. Not only are they facilitating a place where hate speech is encouraged, but they are also responsible for any happenings that come as a result of their website.
  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 most definitely advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet. Children are extremely vulnerable while online because they might not be able to recognize websites that are used for hate speech. However, placing special restrictions on hate-related material on the internet would be highly difficult because of the huge amount of it. Whether it's a website, chat room, or another sort of communication means, there is always a way around restrictions. There is no monitoring what other people say online, thus making hate-speech always a concern when children are surfing the internet.
  7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
    There should be a distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline when it comes to hate speech and hate crimes. I believe that hate speech differs completely from hate crimes. Hate Speech is derogatory slurs towards an individual or group, while hate crimes stem from people that take action of their word. For example, calling someone a slur name is different from beating them up because of their ethnicity, gender, etc. Hate Crimes should no doubt be illegal, while Hate speech continues to be legal because of our right to freedom of speech.
  8. Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
    Hate Related material is completely different from other objectionable material such as pornography. Hate Material is derogatory to just about all of the individuals on the receiving end of it, while pornography is something that people can opt-in or opt-out of. If someone chooses that lifestyle to make money and it brings them happiness, so be it. Hate Material is disgusting in every way possible and thus should have different standards from other objectionable material such as pornography.