Mike Cullen CS408:Sec.03

Go back to my hompage

Assignment 5: Hate and the Internet

1. How would you define "hate speech?"

   The term hate speech is one that could assume different definitions, but is most commonly
   accepted as an offensive form of language that often targets people, groups, etc.

2. Would you advocate placing limits on free expression (as most European countries do)
   in oeder to deal with the problems posed by hate speech? If so, how would you ddefine those limits?

   I would not advocate any type of limit on free expression, it is part of what separates us from
   other countries; it is what makes us unique, apart, from those places that would limit free speech.
   Unfortunately, in the case of mean-sprited comments, it is that individuals right to say those things
   and that is the price we must pay for our freedom; however, I do believe that an individual should
   register in order to track who said what in the event of a hateful comment. I feel this would quell, or
   perhaps even remedy these unfortunate occurances.

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?

   To say that we should not try would be a trifle off key, it would be worth an attempt, but to think
   that we could ever achieve this universal definition would be folly. Other countries are simply not as
   willing as the U.S. to grant free speech, remember it took years of hard work and rivers of blood to
   achieve the freedom to have our own rights; war, political battles, and profound cohesion were necessary
   to achieve this nations right to freedom of speech. Each country should try to find an agreed upon definition
   of their own people first.

4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?

   It would be hypocritical of me to say that censorship of any hate group website is appropriate unless
   illegal activities, discussions, etc. were taking place on such a website. I feel that filtering is appropriate as it
   does not break the first amendment, also it can be a helpful tool in terms of privacy, convenience, and protection.

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 than commit hate crimes

   It would be troublesome to charge these 'creators' with anything criminal, they cannot all be held accountable for
   what others do after viewing the website, however, if there were criminal activities being promoted or perpetuated on
   these websites and one could prove that the operator of said site had knowledge or even had a role in any criminal
   activity, than they could and should be charged under the fullest extent of the law.

6. Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate related material available to children via the internt?
   (If so, what would you propose?)

   Yes, advertised hate related material on the internet should have restrictions for children, as we do with some
   of the current innapropriate websites. For that mattter, all advertised hate related websites should warn an individual
   of any age that there is hate related material on that particular website. It should be the responsibility of the website
   creator or maintainer to prompt the children with a pop-up first, after that the responsibility falls on the parents or
   legal guardians to moitor their own children.

7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?

   No, if it is illegal offline, than it should be illegal online. The internet should not be a refuge for the harboring of
   illegal activites; there should be no special ciecumstance that circumvents law, online or off, with regard to online acticities

8. Should the standards that apply to hate related material be different from the standards that apply to other
   objectionable material such as pornography?

   Yes, such other objectionable material should be subjugated to the same rules and regulations as hate
   related material. Crass though it may be, other similar websites should be allowed to operate as long as it
   is not breaking the law, as they have that right; though they should be operating under the same rules as the
   hate websites (disclaimers, pop-ups, registration, etc.) I think here, now, from Voltaire, "I dissapprove of what
   you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Seems a rather adequate way to sum things up; for
   though we may not agree, we all have the right to do so.