|
|
| |
| |  |
| |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Mira Costa College
Cyber Hate
ROUGH DRAFT 2
Political Science
Toni Christopherson
Tuesday, May 11, 1999
Leave this page blank
CONTENTS
THE BATTLE FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE FREEDOM TO BROWSE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PREVENTING CYBER HATE CRIMES 1
A. Controls And Mechanisms
B. Who Do We Blame
III. ADDRESSING CYBER HATE CRIMES 2
A. Exposing
B. Cracking
IV. ANTI CYBER HATE LAWS 3
A. California Assembly Bill
B. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998
V. FREE SPEECH OR NOT 4
A. First Amendment
B. Are We Protected
VI. EXAMPLES OF HATE SITES 5-6
VII. MY STANCE ON CYBER HATE..................................................................7
VIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................7
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 8
Internet Hate Crimes
Introduction
For the first time in human history, we have the means to connect people from every
corner of the globe, to talk to each other and share information at a cost that's far more
affordable than any other means of publishing in the world. There is nothing more powerful as
the Internet or the World Wide Web that has ever existed before.
Hate is scary. By definition, “Hate is an intense hostility and emotional aversion to
someone or something. It is displayed with words, harassment and/or acts of violence including
killing.” (Novick, para 4). Hate can be hidden from friends or family, but at other times it is
bragged about. Hatred can be motivated by the desire for political power, for the need to put
someone in their place, even by religious beliefs.
The Internet seems to have pushed all our buttons of paranoia, especially these days, when
we're already confused and frightened by all the violence and chaos in our world.
Preventing Internet Hate Crimes
Controls and Mechanisms
The first method is rebuttal, a technique long used by the anti-censorship or anti-hate
organizations. “Rebuttal allows for the unrestricted dissemination of hate and negates it by
offering a more insightful and historically accurate examination of political and social
history.” (Guide To Hate Groups, sound clip).This method eliminates the question of censorship
and the stigma of governmental control. But it does not compensate for the real human pain of
having swastikas, ethnocentric messages, or racial caricatures on one’s computer screen, nor
does it keep children from accessing the hate sites without understanding the true context of the
debates.
The second method is that of moral , a tactic which has been successfully used by social
activists and interest groups throughout the 20th century. “Moral persuasion would shift the
responsibility of eliminating cyber-hate from the government to non-governmental organizations,
special interest groups, and social activists, avoiding the problem of censorship and the
inadequacy of the anti-hate laws.”(Guide To Hate Groups). Concerned individuals and
organizations would consolidate and cooperate in a social movement to increase public
awareness and encourage economic sanctions against the Internet service providers who offer
access to hate groups.
Who Do We Blame?
“The current problem of cyber-hate is not one of technology, but rather one of public
policy.”(Censorship) The most common means for any government to deal with this problem is
either to modify existing legislation or to introduce new, more inclusive anti-hate laws. But
policy makers have not acted quickly enough to modify existing legislation to deal adequately
with the capabilities of the Internet. Hate groups have gained a formidable person on the Internet
and cleaning up cyber-space will be difficult. Blame policy, not technology
Addressing Cyber Hate Crimes
Expose It
While some governments already have laws limiting freedom of speech, and others
contemplate limiting what is allowed on the Internet, the culture of the Net has created its own
crusaders for free expression. Rather than consider censoring or banning Net sites that concern
them, they have, using their own time and money, begun building Web pages to expose or
contradict what they find repellent. Their philosophy is simple, let the free marketplace of ideas
decide what content is acceptable. Advocating censorship of these groups is not the answer. It
will do no good to force them underground. Linking to information that contradicts racism and
anti-Semitism on the Net is the goal of other anti-hates sites which use the communicative
powers of the Web to show alternatives to the hate-mongers' sites.
In the free marketplace of ideas, they will eventually make the right choices. (Hate Crimes)
Crack It
The cracking of Cyber Hate pages may represent an opening shot in a new way to
wage the war of information on the Net, now hackers can just deface Web pages they don't like.
“We may start to see opposing opinions begin to wage actual war in the internet world. The
hacker's attack bodes ill for the future of free expression on the Internet. (Cyber Hate)
Anti Cyber Hate Laws
California's Assembly Bill 295
This bill would expand obscenity and child pornography statutes to prohibit transmission of
images by computer. This basically covered all sites dealing with the illegal use of picture of
minors on the Internet.
California Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998, (Hate Crime Laws)
The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national
origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious problem.
Such violence disrupts the tranquillity and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem, such violence affects interstate
commerce.
Free Speech Or Not?
Freedom of Speech and the 1st Amendment
Freedom of speech is an inextricable part of the fabric of the Internet. So much so, that
no matter where you live, whether you point to the rights represented in the US by the First
Amendment, odds are that when you log on, you access a higher level of freedom of expression
than any off-line citizen. However, civil libertarians say that's only because to most
governments the Internet is still a mystery, and lawmakers haven't yet gotten around to applying
existing statutes or passing new ones. The very few arrests and prosecutions that make the papers
in the United States, they say, have dealt with high-publicity cases like child pornography and
hackers, not hate crimes. It is without a doubt the most democratic means of communication
that has ever existed”. (Censorship Opposing, para 12). It’s incredibly important to remember
that the people who founded the United States believed so strongly that free speech is the
cornerstone of democracy. By exposing wrong or dangerous ideas gets people talking about
them, so that they can reject them. The Internet has actually done more than any other means of
communication to get millions of people involved in talking to each other about issues and ideas
that they care about. We do have a problem here, but it is not the Internet. Now that the web has
made it possible for almost anyone to be a publisher, there is an enormous amount of electronic
junk out there, posing as fact. For example,
As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume
that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free
exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a
democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship. -- Justice
John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority .(CIEC, para 5)
As a society, we've gotten quite accustomed to having our information spoon-fed to us without
questioning it. We don't know how to tell good information from bad. Our own ignorance is
really the enemy here, not the Nazi revisionists and certainly not the Internet.
Are We Protected?
There are laws against slander and libel. These laws exist so that one can protect himself
against people who use speech as a weapon, rather than as a tool. What it comes down to is this:
A society built on free speech is a society that's willing to take risks. It's willing to risk that
unpredictable, individual expression may hurt or offend people, or give power to people or
groups whose rhetoric can catch hold and sway the population. In contrast, a society that's built
on free speech is also willing to have faith that free speech will allow the truth to prevail, and
that's more important than the risk of humiliation, and even more important than the risk that
someone might believe a lie. If the goal is to protect children, then parental empowerment
technology together with education provides the means. Making a law would only lull parents
into a false sense of security, into feeling that children were protected when they are not. We
know that at least 40% of the content that may be inappropriate for children is outside the US,
and beyond the reach of US law, said Bill Burrington, Assistant General Counsel of America
Online.(CEIC).
Many lies are being told today by hate groups, and maybe some people believe them. There
is nothing so powerful about them, that gives the government, or anyone else the power to decide
whose version of history, or whose version of the truth, should be allowed to travel along the
wires of our communications systems, including the Internet.
Examples Of Hate Sites
Hate group web pages are not difficult to find. Identifying an organization as a hate group
would be somewhat of a subjective task. Some individuals would broaden their list to include
organizations that manifest various levels of intolerance toward target populations, even though
the organizations would not advocate violence. Lists of hate groups generally include
organizations that advocate violence or unreasonable hostility toward target populations, for
example.
Racists
David Duke, a former Louisiana legislator and national leader of the Invisible Empire, Knights
of the Ku Klux Klan, is one example of those who are using the Internet to spread racial hatred.
On his website, he writes:
Our people (white people) will learn that our very survival is in jeopardy. We will
finally realize that our culture and traditions are under attack; that our values and morality, our
freedom and prosperity are in danger.( Creating Fear of Difference Online).
Several white supremacist groups use symbolism from Christian scriptures to assert their
racist and anti-Semitic agenda. One example is the Aryan Nations, which claims that
fair-skinned people with northern European ancestry are God's chosen people, to the exclusion of
all others. Such Internet messages propagate fear of difference by stereotyping, exaggerating or
making up figures, and spewing fear-filled language. They create an atmosphere of hate that
feeds violence. That is just one example of the many Internet sites that is steering up hate in our
society. The Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, Ku Klux Klan organizations and a number of
other groups assert that white people should not have to share a common culture with
non-whites.
Sex Discrimination
Many of these sex discrimination sites have gone under ground. These site are the weaker of the
hate sites. Many of the sites also lean on the same basis for rejecting the homosexual life. Here is
an example of one of the sites:
“Homosexuality is immoral and is therefore illegal -- despite the desperate attempts by
homosexuals to have homosexuality and homosexual marriages declared legal.”(Homosexuality)
My Stance
I believe we do have a severe problem on our hands. However I feel the problem is not with the
internet. I would have to say that the censorship of the internet is to be taken care of at home.
Many people rely on television, VCR’s, and toys to watch over their children. What happened to
family values? I think people have become very lazy when comes to care for their children.
Come on America, start accepting responsibility for yourself and stop blaming technology.
Conclusion
In conclusion, The decisions we make today about our basic freedoms will be ones we live
with for a very long time. We need to turn on the lights in the internet world, and expose the
darkness and the lies.
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allport, G. (1948, 1983). ABC's of Scapegoating. New York: Anti-Defamation League.
Anti-Defamation League (1994). Hate Crimes Laws: A Comprehensive Guide. New York:
Author.
CIEC. “Communications Defamation Act”, June 6, 1998. http://www.ciec.org
Cleary, E. (1994). Beyond the Burning Cross: The First Amendment and the Landmark R.A.V.
Case. New York: Random House.
Feminist Internet Gateway. “Sex Discrimination”,
http://www.feminist.org/gateway/sd_exec.html
Harris Raymond C. “Homosexuality.” http://www.primenet.com/~rayhar/p_homosx.htm
Jenness, V. & Broad, K. (1997). Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of
Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Matsuda, M., Lawrence, C., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words That Wound:
Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Boulder: Westview Press.
Media Awareness Network. “Parents Sholuld Be Responsible...”, June 16,1997.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/news/news/two/white.htm
Novick, M. (1995). White Lies White Power: The Fight against White Supremacy and
Reactionary Violence. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Response. “Creating Fear Of Difference Online”, 1998.
http://gbgm-umc.org/Response/articles/hateonline.html
Stay, B. (Ed.) (1997). Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.
WebActive. “Guide To Hate Groups”, October 6, 1996.
http://www.webactive.com/webactive/sotw/hate.html
Word Count: 1977
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Can't find your paper? Order it from us!
We offer best quality custom research paper writing services. You
can request
custom research papers on any topic or subject. Our writers will
be ready to help you with any form, level and number of pages.
Request your paper now by filling this
research paper writing ordering form!
|
| |
| |
