- How would you define “hate speech?”
I found the sentence from our textbook “material on the Web that most people would consider inappropriate for children.” In my mind, “hate speech” is a kind of “bad”thing which is disliked by a group of people might because they think that information is harmful; for examples, parents don’t want their children to view violence material. All in all, it is some inappropriate material.
- 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?
Actually, I wouldn’t advocate it because I think hate speech is disliked by some people but those posters have their rights to do those. However, I think Internet needs some restrictions to limit users; for instance, some Web sites shouldn’t be viewed by users who are under a specific age.
- 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?
Personally, I don’t think we should attempt to do it because I think the standards are ambiguous for some fields, and it is so difficult to give a specific definition. For example, gays don’t like information about anti-homosexual. So, for them that information is hated. I think the standard is more depending on specific groups because different people have different standards about bad.
- Is censorship or filtering of hate group websites ever appropriate? If so, under what circumstances?
No, censorship or filtering of hate speech cannot be appropriate ever. I always believe that filtering will block a lot of useful information. But, also, I think censorship and filtering are good for children to stay away some harmful information.
- 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?
In my mind, they shouldn’t take the responsibility for those crimes. I think that hate-oriented Web sites are more like fuses. If a person doesn’t have criminal-oriented, those fuses cannot work at all. On the contrary, if people want to do bad things, they would do what they want eventually, without those hate-oriented Web sites.
- Would you advocate special restrictions on making hate-related material available to children via the Internet? (If so, what would you propose?)
Yes, I would advocate it. Children are so easy to be hurt, so they need some restrictions to protect them. I think some Web sites about violence and pornography should be prohibited for children. Besides, I think children also need some restrictions about computer games. Filtering and censorship are really needed to children.
- Should there be any distinction between what is legal online and what is legal offline?
Yes, I think it should. I don’t mean the law should be totally different, but I think there should be some distinctions between online and offline because the situations between online and offline are rather different.So, they need different ways to solve problems in specific area.
- Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
Yes or no, it is complex to say. I think objectionable material is a kind of hate-related material because it is bad think in most of people’s minds, but I think the definition of hate-related material is broader than that about objectionable material.
