Hannah Banaian CS408-01

Assignment 5: Hate and the Internet

Click here to go to my Homepage

  1. How would you define "hate speech?"- A generalized definition from my point of view considers any statement that degrades a person or group of people based on the premise of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc to be hate speech.
  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 personally believe that with the increase in internet abuse we have to advocate for some type of limitations to be put into effect. While the right to exercise the liberties granted to us through the constitution are important the well being of individuals is more important. Hate speech may cause detrimental effects ranging from physical to mental abuse and that is in no way justifiable. All published material should be reportable so if found to be hurtful it can be reviewed and considered to be removed.
  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 reaching an international consensus on what is defined as hate speech and having a standard protocol is not realistic. Because of the different cultures practiced worldwide what is acceptable or the norm is not necessarily something that can be universally agreed upon. I believe that different societies will react differently towards hate speech and a general consensus is not necessarily needed.
  4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?- I believe that censorship and filtering of hate group websites is absolutely appropriate. Hate speech towards issues of race, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation should not have to be tolerated.
  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 not necessarily believe that the creators of the website should be held responsible for the actions of others but if something that is published is asked to be reviewed or reconsidered and they neglect to revise publications they are accountable for the hate crimes.
  6. Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)- While I do understand that children are easily influenced by what they are exposed to I do not believe that it is societies duty to protect children. Parenting needs to take place within the home and regardless of what restrictions are proposed by government there will be exposure to obscenities. It is inevitable that any barrier enacted with just be an obstacle that people find ways around and the ways around it would probably make more problems arise then the material itself.
  7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?- I do not think there should be a distinction between the two worlds. Currently i believe there is a false sense of distinction which is what allows people to act the way they do. If the two worlds had more parallels i think there would be less hate. Holding people more accountable for their actions on the internet by removing anonymity i believe would help to decrease the amount of hate 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?- Much like my opinion on a universal consensus of what is and what is not hate speech I don't think that standards can be generalized. Objectionable and hate-related material should have standards developed individually based upon the severity of the issue.