Assignment 5 CS408-03 Evelynn Barclay

My Homepage

Assignment 5: Hate and the Internet

1. How would you define "hate speech?"
   I would define hate speech as hurtful comments that are not grounded in any facts or truth. Hate speech often makes broad, neagtive generalizations about a group pf people. The hate message itself is usually targeted toward something that cannot be controlled such as gender, race, or sexual orientation.
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?
   It is hard to place definate limits on speech. I would like to believe that people would treat others with the same consideration they expect to be treated with, but I know this is not always the case. I believe that there should be laws prohibiting discrimination. This said, I do not think we can really ban words. I value the ability to express myself. I beleive everyone is entitled to free speech.
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?
   I do not think that an international consensus could be reached. There are many countries that engage in hate speech directed toward Americans. There are also many countries that have much stricter laws than out country and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to all agree.
4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
   The circumstances where it is appropriate to ban hate sites is if they start doing more than talking. If they assult someone, or endanger lives in any way then they should be banned and prosecuted.
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?
   The creator of the site cannot be held responsible unless they were directly part of the criminal activity.
6. Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)
   The children's parents should talk to their children about the bad things in the world. The child should be educated about the dark parts of the past such as slavery, the holocaust, and times before women were allowed to vote. I believe that most children are concerned about doing the right thing, but they need to be taught why what they are doing is right, so that these values can be carried into adulthood. If this is done, the child will make educated choices, and will choose not to seek out hateful material.
7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
   I do not think so, as long as we are talking about speech. If you can say it in person, it should be suitable for the internet and vice versa.
8. Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
   The standard that I personally have for hate speech are also suitable for objectionable material such as pornography. If you expect to be treated a certain way, you should not treat others with any less respect.