William Daher, CS 408, section 02

assign5: Hate and the internet

1. How could you define hate speech?
   One could define hate speech as communication that humiliates or degrades others based on personal features or characterisitcs that people might posses.
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 advocate placing restriction on freedom of speech if the speech directly hurts others. For example, bullies in schools should not be allowed to say whatever they want to the other children because great harm could come come from it.
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 think we should have a consensus on how to define hate speech and I think that the standards should be that there can be no discriminatory comments or names said that target one particular group.
4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
   I think that censorship of hate groups is only necessary if the group's speech starts to get out of control and cause emotional distress on others. However I do think that hate groups should be filtered on the internet because children should not be subjected to hear what these groups have to say especially since a lot of it might contain explicit material or language.
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 that the sites should not be held responsible for inciting or encouraging people to commit actions that are unactceaptable because although these websites or groups sometimes encourage bad behavior in people, every individual citizent is responsible for their own behavior.
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 definitely advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the internet. I would propose that people be required to rate their web sites and that there be fine for those who do not rate them correctly.
7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
   There should definitely be a distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline. The reason I say this is that harrassment, or name calling is somewhat less serious online because of the fact that online communication is less persoanl than face to face interactions. I other words since online activity and offiline activity are two completely different worlds, they should be treated differently under the law.
8. Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
   answer
The standards that apply to hate material and the standards that apply to pornography and other objectionable material should be treated differntly because although they are both potentially harmful they are two completely separate things and most certainly should be treated differently.