Sarah Blaisdell CS408 - Section 03 Assignment #5

Assignment 5: Hate and the Internet

How would you define "hate speech?"

I would define hate speech as a type of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. This occurs when people are speaking hate against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.
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?

In America I honestly feel as though the idea of free speech is much more valued than in other countries. I would, therefore, not choose to advocate placing limitations on free expression. We as a country must accept that although there are bad things that come with internet, there is also a lot of good. Bad things will always be said but it is, at this point, a part of society and not the government's problem. These kind of things should be dealt with on an individual level i.e. parents with their own kids.

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 find it necessary that each country collaborate when it comes to hate speech because each country has different laws when it comes to free speech. Our country has the First Amendment and we may not agree with those without our Constitution. I know that people in other countries can access websites from ours, and vice-versa, but it once again is not up to the governments to decide what to regulate and what not to. People who want to see horrible things will be able to see horrible things and people who want to say horrible things will say horrible things. But there are parental locks that can prevent youngsters from seeing such things and everyone else should be able to handle it. People can be offended by anything so it is impossible to make general regulations.

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

I find that the censorship and filtering is appropriate in three different situations. In school websites should be blocked that could prohibit learning or distract from the learning environment. Libraries should also take those filters into consideration because pornographic sites or hate sites should not be available in an area that is so public. And, finally, parental controls are probably the most popular kind of censorship and filtering. These can be necessary for parents who are truly worried about the content on the internet and the effect they could have on their kids.

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?

No, I do not believe that those who openly hate people on the internet should be blamed for those who take it too far into the real world. Those who have prejudices and hate against certain types of people are most likely only somewhat fueled by the hatred they see on the internet. Those type of people who take those things too far are clearly already faced with a lot of inner problems that should be pinned purely on them.

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

As I said in question #4 I believe in the restriction of certain websites in schools, libraries, and parental controls. It should be up to those type of district whether internet protection is important to them and the environment that they are surrounded by.

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

Yes, there should definitely be a distinction between real life and online life. In this generation the line between online and off line is very blurred and I think having different laws for what is said off line from things said or done online is a way of keeping the two separate. If things are said anonymously that it is almost impossible to find out who said it - things that are said in person are said by someone who can actually get in trouble that second. It is important that we keep children knowledgable about how to take things that are said online and how to handle the bullying that can occur.

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

Hate-related material is much harder to regulate than the pornography that is on the internet today. Pornography already has an over 18 limit, although loose, because it is easy to tell whether things are pornography or not. Hate-related material proves to be a lot harder to require things such as ages for because those kinds of things can be on regular websites such as Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace. It is harder to regulate these entire websites because they are more than just the hate that is on them.