Paul Burton | CS408-01 | Assignment 5

CLICK for my Homepage

Assignment 5: Hate and the Internet

1. How would you define "hate speech?"
   I would define hate speech as speech that attacks someone or a group of people because of their race, their beliefs, sexual orientation or gender.
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?
   Because there is freedom of speech in the United States, if somebody is insulted, they can rebuttal with an insult without breaking the First Amendment. But some things that are said cross the line and have serious effects on people's lives. The usage of those words that have serious effects on people's lives, for example suicide, should somehow be restrained, but unfortunately there is really no possible way to do so.
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?
   Although I feel strongly against hate speech and any other hate crime, I do not see a consensus happening. This subject is far too vast and everybody has a different opinion on it. There would be no way to come to a single conclusion on what is and is not hate speech.
4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
   Definitely. If there are websites that have videos of people being tortured or harmed because of a certain race, gender, religion or sexual orientation should absolutely be censored. But if nothing on the website breaches the First Amendment than there shouldn't be any reason for censorship.
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 believe that they should be held responsible for the actions of 'lone wolves' or any person of that nature. Although, there may not be any way to directly connect the lone wolf to a particular website, in which case nothing can really be done.
6. Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)
   I think that children should not have access to hate-related material, only because they are young and subject to changing their minds to any idea. A child seeing things like that could majorly alter their life and they attitude towards people in life.
7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
   I think that whatever is legal online should be legal offline. For example speaking your mind on the internet and speaking your mind out in a public park are both reasonable things that should not be looked at differently because of the setting.
8. Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
   I do not think so, only because it is a different subject. Pornography is for pleasure whereas going to a hate-oriented website is done so because of the strong belief of that person against a certain group of people. Pornography is a touchy subject, but I think that it should be considered to have different standards than hate-related material.