Censoring Hate On The Internet

Author's Note: This is just my own personal observations, some reseach and an opinion. Hopefully stir some interest or at least some thoughts =) Enjoy.

-----------------------------

All Americans learn in Elementary School about their basic rights, given to them in the Bill of Rights, we are taught from a very young age that we have Freedom of Speech, the Right to Assemble, and the Right to bear arms. Ku Klux Klan rallies are shown on TV as they exercise their right to freedom of speech, marching proudly down the street and waving their flags; history classes show tapes of Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X exercising their right to free speech as they protested against the treatment of African Americans in the U.S.; and the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq rallied hundreds of people behind her to protest the Iraq War in the nation's capital. We know that we have the right to speak, to let our ideas be heard, to shout out our beliefs... but what happens when people begin abusing that right? The internet is rife with websites that advocate hate, violence, harm towards individuals based on nothing more than their skin color, their religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation... etc. etc. There is a prejudice against every person, and you can find all of them on the internet. Some of these sites are just stating the beliefs, spreading their ideas, but other sites take on a more dangerous spin... advocating violence and harm, giving out names and addresses, putting people in danger. Is censoring these sites going against free speech... or are we censoring the abuse of one of our most fundamental rights?

The internet allows groups of people with similar ideologies to find each other, even if they are separated by vast physical distance, they can congregate and come together, finding solidarity in numbers, exchanging tactics and beliefs. No matter what the community around their home is like, they can always find others with similar mind-sets with just a mouse click. Nowhere is really safe; events can be organized simultaneously, news and recent happenings are available instantly, and there is very little regulation. Messages are being spread without guidelines, violence promoted without censure, and it is all protected by the government.

There are instances where websites were protected by the government becuase they did not specifically say to go out and commit violence. One such website - by the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) provided names, pictures, and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. When one of these doctors was injured their background was shaded gray, when they were killed or died they were marked off with a big X. That meant that if someone looking at the website could easily find one of these doctors and hurt or kill them, and then have their act validated and celebrated online so that millions of people could have access to their deed. Not only that, but they would be congratulated because they had helped get rid of one of these evildoers. This website was protected by the American government because it was considered free speech since the website did not actually state the intention that anyone should be hurt. It just celebrated the aftermath. This seems particularly appalling and irresponsible, posting people's personal information, celebrating their demise... and they're protected by the government? The website was taken down by the server after the lawsuit, but that is at the discretion of the server, the government would have allowed it to continue running because they claimed the right of Free Speech.

There are two contrasting ideas when it comes to free speech, most clearly defined by Evelyn Kallen: "1) The "libertarian" view holds that freedom of speech takes precedence over all other rights and freedoms because all rights and freedoms depend on the existence of an effective right of dissent. From this view, the harmful effects of hate propaganda are not deemed to be sufficiently grave to justify the imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech - especially legal/criminal restrictions. 2) The opposing "egalitarian" view holds that restrictions on hate-mongering are necessary in order to protect minority groups from pain and suffering and in order to promote inter-group harmony in the society. From the egalitarian point of view, all persons and groups much be equally protected against the willful promotion of hatred and against defamatory attacks which deny their right to human dignity. Freedom of speech, from this view, does not mean the right to vilify. Insofar as hate propaganda has no redeeming social value and is inherently harmful both to target groups and the societal order, restrictions on freedom of expression explicitly designed to curb hate-mongering represent 'reasonable limits'. As proponents of this view, egalitarians generally support legislative means of curbing the activities of hate propagandists, including the use of criminal charges and public trials". Both viewpoints bring up very important points for consideration. On one hand, how is it possible to restrict speech and still keep an open flow of ideas... right now hate-mongering is considered detrimental to society and therefore should be restricted, but it brings up the question of what else could be restricted as being "detrimental to society"? Talk against war could be considered detrimental, some people already make that claim in their effort to silence war oppositionists. Laws restricting speech are dangerous, once steps are taken down that road it becomes easier and easier to take more steps, justifying why this should be censored or that should be illegal...

However, some speech - such as threats - is not condoned or protected by the First Amendment, and it is already possible to prosecute internet threat-makers although only on a very narrow basis. It seems to be easier to convict an individual who made specific and direct threats using the internet, but only if these threats were very narrowly directed at specific people. So an emailed threat is easier to prosecute than one posted on a website, often because an email is to a specific person and so fits the narrow definition of what constitutes a real threat. Implied threats on websites (even if the website gives out names and personal information such as in the case of the ACLA) are not considered direct enough to constitute a direct threat. There are more than one website that has done this, in 2001 the website usqueers.com posted the names of prominent people against homosexuality, giving personal information. However, the site also posted a disclaimer which stated, "usqueers.com does not authorize, ratify, or directly threaten acts of violence toward the people or organizations on this list." The website is very similar in its approach to the ACLA website and lawmakers are having similar troubles fighting it.

Although public outcry is often successful in convincing servers to remove offensive websites, there are so many that it is almost impossible to keep track. And unless they garner immediate public attention, these websites go unchecked, giving out ideology, ways of attack, plans, and possibly personal information of "enemies". They abuse the First Amendment by only giving veiled or implied threats, putting people in danger without giving a violent directive... how is this any less dangerous or criminal than a direct threat? Websites reach out to millions of people, it's not the same as standing in front of your house and pointing at your neighbor, it's information that spreads over vast distances and land mass. The abuse of Free Speech should be stopped, not by indiscriminately censoring all hate-sites, but by finding those which provide personal information of "enemies" or constitute some kind of real threat to another person's well-being. The people who run these websites should be considered accomplices to whatever crime is committed with the information that they give out, this does not censor Free Speech but merely stops the abuse of a fundamental right.