Course Webpage - Vivian King CS408

Assignment 6: Hate and the Internet

  1. How would you deffine "hate speech?"

    2. I would define "hate speech" as any speech, communication, writing, or other display that slander a person or a group on the basis of their characteristics; for example: gender, religions, sexual oriantation, and many others.

  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?

    3. Yes. I will advocate placing limits in free expression. In hope for the limits to be widely accepted, I will define the limits as the rules that protect the well-being of each despite the difference on the basis of characteristics.

  3. Should we attempt to reach an International consensus on how to defin hate speech and on the standards (if any) to be applied in dealing with it?

    4. The definition of "hate speech" above, in my opinion, is universally acceptable. However, I will not suggest further attemps to define it. People from different countries, differet religion, and different culutres may hold very different values. Instead of reaching an International consensus on how to define "hate speech," I believe educating the idea of respects towards different believes, values, and ideas will be a better solution.

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

    5. Yes. It is fairly appropropriate to fliter the hate group webdites when the topic discussed may be the potential cause of violences or disruptions.

  5. Should creators of the hate-oriented Web sites be held responsible for actions of people (such as the 'lone wolves,' people who commit crimes of hated without specific instructions) who view those sites and then commit hate crimes?

    6. No. The creator of the hate-oriented Web should not be held responsible for the crimes commited be others. However, it would be better if the creators could kindly remind the users or audience of the Web about the potential risks of posting or commenting on the site.

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

    7. There is no absolute answer for this question. The definition of hate- related material is too broad. In general, I would hope the children could understand the issues and developed their own perspectives before getting in touch with extreime ideas.

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

    8. No. It would be too complecated to lable what speech or acts are legal or illegal when offline, and what speech, comments, or posts are legal or illegal while online. Also, if too much limits are casted, people will question the government abount their freedom of speech.

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

    9. To some, objectionable material is in fact, what they consider as hate- related material. Therefore, there should standards that apply to hate-related material should be the same as those apply to objectionable material.

Other Assignments:

Assignment 7

Assignment 8

Assignment 9

Contact Information

For more information,contact vuq2@wildcats.unh.edu.

1