You can contact me at email lsm34@wildcats.unh.edu.
How would you define "hate speech?"
I think the hate speech is similar to the offensive speech. In chapter 3.2, the book said the offensive speech could be political or religious speech, pornography, racial or sexual slurs, Nazi materials, libelous statements, abortion information, anti-abortion information, advertising of alcohol beverages, advertising in general, depiction of violence, discussion of suicide, or information about how to build bombs. I think the hate speech focuses more on everything about opposite political opinions, opposite racial ideas, and violence information.
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 advocate placing limits on free expression in order to deal with the problems posed by hate speech. Although I think people have rights to do everything, we can not do something influence, insult or harm others. So, if a speech includes violence, the sentences of insult and harm others, or mislead the public, that speech should be prohibited.
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?
No, we cannot attempt to reach an international consensus. There are no two countries exactly same in the world. Each country differs in racial, origins, society, history and ideas. If they reach an international consensus, this world will not be united any more.
Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
No, censorship or filtering of hate group websites is not ever appropriate. We could not censors or filter the truth which we do nnt know. For instance, I am coming from China, our government censors hate group websites relating to China's Tiananmen Square or government's bribe . These webs are showing us the truth, so it can not be appropriate.
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?
Of course creators should be held responsible for actions of hate crimes. If creators are telling us the truth, why do nnt we need to care about hate crimes? Only when creators tell us the false, and mislead people who view webs, and I think these creators need to go to jail if they do it on purpose.
Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)
We need to restrict children from hate-related material .I think children are too young to understand what is meaning of hate-related. If children copy and spread it just for fun, we should be responsible for what they did because we are children's guardian.
Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
Yes, it should be. We can kill thousands of people online, but we could not even hurt a man offline.
Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
It shouldn ot be different. In first question, I mentioned there are no differences between hate-related material and offensive material. Why should be different?