My CS course Shouyang Wu CS408

Contact information

email to:sqy7@wildcats.unh.edu

11.jpg

“Assignment 6: Hate and the Internet.”

  1. How would you define “hate speech? Answer: Hate speech means that some words are unfriendly and rude, which are used as insulting other people.
  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? Answer: I agree with placing limits on free expression to prevent some problems, caused by the hate speech. Hate speech is harmful and dangerous. It will cause many unnecessary problems. I will define the limits by protecting basic people’ rights. For example, I will ban some words, which are insulting the people directly.
  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? Answer: Yes, I think so. Internet is worldwide, and Internet users can be anyone who has computers in any places. We can not change other people’s culture. So the only limits and rules are very necessary, which will diminish the rate of unnecessary conflicts on the Internet.
  4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances? Answer: The censorship and filtering are very necessary. Because hate group websites will bring some bad influences to the atmosphere of Internet. Good atmosphere is so important for internet users. If internet users see some hate websites, which have not been deleted, they will be confused by the standard of using internet. The result of that is there will have more and more hate group websites. What I believe the circumstance of censorship of hate group websites is that if the hate group websites cause some social and religious problems, directors should delete it as soon as possible.
  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 think it should depend on different situations. If the purpose of creator is to spread the hate-speech or some bad words which will cause the social problem, the creators should get the punishment. If some hate-speech is posted by the Internet users, I do not believe that the creator should take the response.
  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 this decision is very necessary. Because whether a sentence or word is a hate-speech or not is depending on different people. Everyone has different standard to judge, especially for children who do not ability to distinguish every good or bad things. For example, I will propose that children must use Internet with their parent.
  7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline? I believe that there should not be distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline. Online and offline world should be based on the same rules and restrictions. Only in this way, people will obey the restriction and rules well wherever they belong to.
  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 believe that objectionable material should belong to the hate-rated material. If we move the restriction and rules of hate-related material to the objectionable material, it will also work well. So the standards of the hate-related material and objectionable should be same.

    9. my homework links

    Assignment #7

    my homework links

    Assignment #8