Mark Bumann 408-02

Home page

Assignment 5: Hate and the internet

1. How would you define "hate speech?"
   
   If it does exist, it is through opinions of those who use the internet. Hate speech-the speech which offends others or groups, through the talk about such topics of offensive nature.(political,religious, libelous, abortion, pornography, etc)
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 not put limits on the free expression, as I feel the internet is a choice and the information on it
   can be looked at but does not have to be. Do not get offended by information you chose to read
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 agree with an international consensus in that each country has differnet motive, directions, and views. Thus, an international consensus is not feasible and ruins the availability
   of information. Each country can create their own censorship because a consolidated version would essentially kill the internet in my opinion.
4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
   
   I have a similar opinion on this question as number 2, the websites are a choice to visit. You are not forced to vistit them.
   censorships of these websites will only stop a small portion of the informtion communicated
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?
   
   There is no base behind the prosecution of the creators of such webpages especially when it gave no specific instructions. That is similar to saying a teacher could be held reponsible for student commiting a crime that was discussed during a lecture
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 advocate for restrictions of hate material availability to children only if the material is illegal. If the material is not illegal it its up to the parent or guardian to ensure the child is going on sites they feel are appropriate.
7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
   
   This a difficult question to answer due to the difference with what can be done in each scenario. When it comes to speech the rules should be very similar.
   I believe this because of the first amendment and the only difference with on-line speech is the wide-spread audience that can be reached easily.
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 standards should be the same for different types of material because to those that are offended by these materials characterize them as "hate speech/ material".