1. How would you define "hate speech?"
- Basically, such stuff can be perceived as an inappropriate for our children is a "hate speech". Even you do not like some sort of ideologies which oppose against your thought on the Internet, those are not "hate speech". It is a further rudimental problem, which everyone thinks bad for children.
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?
-Personally, I believe that there should be some prohibitions. At the same time, such limits can be regulated by each nation in which there are different social, conventional values and assumptions with other nations. Although these limits can be customized, the foundation which is pretty basic notion of judging what is bad for children should be same.
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?
-Yes. As I previously said, all we need is just very elemental and essential provision. The rest of the limits can be subtle and other communities, institutions, companies and schools can make their own censorship for their particular purposes.
4. Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
-If the government is clever, censorship will be ever appropriate. For instance, in our country, South Korea, we cannot even access to some websites which admire the North Korea. At least in our nation's circumstances, even if a preference is a freedom of each person, we need to block such propaganda in order to protect ourselves.
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?
-Unless we eliminate all information about how to commit such crime, the criminals can still find out how to do so through other mass media. It is true that the Internet makes them to find more quickly but it does not mean it helps their crime. Moreover, there are many innocent citizens who are curious about how bomb or guns work. Also that sort of knowledge is an important treasury and deserves being shared. Hence, banning on hate-oriented Websites is not effective and we cannot connect the crime and the Websites.
6. Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)
-Yes. Even many years ago, in my country, we need our ID, e-mail or social numbers, to access aggressive materials. Children can use counterfeit ID, but it's really hard to make and the punishment of violation intimidates kids.
7. Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
-No. The Internet does not make us a lawless place. It is more difficult to catch the criminals on the Internet, but we still need same law enforcement in our second society.
8. Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
-Yes. Such pornography can be obscene material for everyone while hate-related material can be differently treated from each nation, even different community.