Unit 4 Paper

What motivates people to commit hate crimes against others? Why do some people publicize obscenities or prejudice comments online? Some suggest these verbal harassments take place because of the ignorance some people have regarding their beliefs and preconceptions of others. Hate speech (crimes) can often lead to more serious acts of violence against others. One such occasion was the incident in where a young, homosexual man, Michael Sands, was lured in on the Internet by three men to go out on a date. When the young man went to the specified location for the supposed “date,” the other three men proceeded to brutally beat him. The young man later died as a direct cause from the injuries he sustained during the beating (Hate crimes spread to Internet). This is a classic example that illustrates how the Internet can facilitate hate crimes and lead to brutal violence.
Hate speech crimes can be seen in many aspects of today's society. The Internet in particular, has facilitated the ability for some people to harass and intimidate others. Blogs, for example, have largely facilitated the spread of hate speech. Some blogs have posts that include racist and biased terms such as “faggot,” or “nigger.” These blog authors often believe that freedoms of speech laws permit such language - but what truly are the limits? One such instance of this would be the Kathy Sierra case. Kathy was receiving death threats through emails. Some blogs were also posting negative and offensive language and images about her. The issue went to such an extreme that she felt forced to cancel one of her speaking engagements (a speech she was to deliver) because she feared for her personal safety (Kathy Sierra). Many would consider this example a hate speech crime, while others would say that it lies within the realm of free speech rights. But what would cause a person to provoke such negative words toward another? Did they not approve of her life? Did they not agree with her working practices? Maybe it was it a gender bias?
These are the types of questions that need to be considered when trying to understand the cause and root of hate speech crimes. There is no primary cause for hate speech crimes; some people have different motives behind their hate. Some people also have different feeling about what should be considered a hate speech crime. For example, it might be acceptable in society for an African American to call his friend a “nigger,” but if a Caucasian person were to do so, it would be outright racism and completely inappropriate. Whether it be religious, gender related, cultural, or even sexual orientation-based; any form of such hate is harmful to not just one person, but to the whole community of people that define themselves under the same terms.
The freedom to post anything on the Internet has amplified the ongoing debate of determining the difference between allowable “free speech” and “hate speech.” Freedom of speech, as established in the First Amendment, allows people to speak or write anything they desire. While Americans do have the freedom to say or write what they want, the Government also has the authority to punish citizens for committing hateful speech acts if warranted. The only feasible way for humans’ freedom of speech to be removed would be to cut out everyone’s vocal cords and cut off the fingers of every individual, which would prevent any form of speaking or writing (Van Mill). Since this is obviously not feasible, there is a need to establish an order or a limit to freedom of speech on the Internet due to the growing number of “hate groups” and amount of “hate speech” posted on websites.
The Internet allows for anyone to post whatever he or she desires. While most information presented on the Internet is useful, informative, fun, advertisement-oriented, and/or interesting, other posts are sometimes hateful and frowned upon by many:
The Internet has allowed extremists to expand access to a potential audience of millions – including impressionable youth. It has also facilitated communication among like-minded bigots across borders and oceans and enhances their ability to promote and recruit for their causes anonymously and cheaply. In a criminal context, e-mail messages containing threats can be sent behind a cloak of anonymity or false identity (Kaplan & Moss).

As Kaplan and Moss explicitly state in their research paper, “Investigating Hate Crimes on the Internet,” that the Internet also allows for bigots who post hateful speech to do so anonymously. The Internet has not encouraged hate, nor has it increased the amount of hate worldwide; however, the Internet provides a common ground, a platform, for bigots around the globe to conglomerate and express their hateful opinions to the general public. Before the Internet’s inception it was more difficult for hate speech to be spread and publicized to vast audiences around the globe. The next step is to establish a government committee responsible for censoring the posts on the Internet so hate speech cannot be so rapidly spread over the Internet, where young, innocent youths can see it and potentially become convinced of certain bigoted opinions. Meanwhile, there are social networking sites currently on the Internet that are designed for racists, bigots, and other extremists who want to express and share prejudice thoughts about certain demographic groups.
Most college students in America utilize some sort of social networking on the web. Be it MySpace, Facebook, AIM, or all three, they are making their voices heard and are hearing others at the same time. For today’s white supremacists or “pro-Christian” as some call themselves, there is a site called NewSaxon.com. It is similar to MySpace, but the users of the site are white extremists and racists. This website has been in commission since 2005 and its membership nears 3,000 people.
A post on blogger.com by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy says, “finally, a one-stop resource for hating and dating” and “if you're interested in being completely revolted and/or frightened to death — or in hooking up with a shirtless, tattooed, self-styled race warrior — click one of the profiles on the NewSaxon home page, and navigate through that person's friends” about NewSaxon.com (http://vastleft.blogspot.com/search/label/race). In a blog on the American National Socialist Workers' Party (ANSWP), website, there is a thread about NewSaxon and in it they are skeptical of the members as “stereotypes,” meaning they are not actually for the white-supremacist causes; they are merely racist. The user ‘88april88’ says ,“the site allows you to show your white pride” and “it's for whites only!!!!,” yet another user, ‘ImmortalNorseGoddess’ says that there are a lot of NSM (National Socialist Movement) supporters, but not necessarily anyone who would be an ally to the ANSWP (ANSWP Forum). This is interesting because although to us they are both the same hate-filled extremists; to each other they are different. However, on NewSaxon.com there are many people who do not think there is a difference between hate and hate groups.
The typical user of New Saxon is young and angry. For example, the main pages of ‘H88FUL_REVENGE’ and ‘Nazirandy.’ ‘H88FUL_REVENGE’ is 22 years old, married with one daughter, and from Tiger, Georgia. On his profile in the “About Me” section, he says “I have no hope for the rest of my family anymore they are hopeless. My sister is a race traitor so is my mother so when the day comes they will be swinging at the end of a rope, enough said, the drama and the backstabbing is a daily occurence in my family, i have my own family now.” (Newsaxon). He continues on to say that his sister married a black man when she was only fifteen, and his younger brother says that “he wants to be black, a regular wigger”. This man has taken his hate to an extreme to shun his own family. The “own” family he refers to is partly his wife and child, but also the NSM and white-supremacists in general. ‘Nazirandy’ is 23 years old and from Wisconsin. He is not married and has no children. In his “About Me” section, Nazirandy writes “I am a NSM member and unit leader.I hate all people that are not white. Jews are the spawn of satan! I also have alot of guns like ak47s.I like to hunt and fish. All fucking Gypies should be put in a work camp! They steal from other races and dont work!I will send them to work[dig fucker dig]!” (Newsaxon). The hatred that this man has for fellow humans is absurd. His pictures are him holding various weapons with Nazi flags and propaganda on his walls.
Nazirandy, H88FUL_REVENGE, and countless others all share their feelings and attitudes on NewSaxon, where other such extreme peoples agree with them and “share their plight”. This hate speech is posted for all to see and for all to understand that each member has his own reasons why he hates, who he hates, and what he does about his hate. This speech is still protected under the first amendment, and it raises the question, where does free speech cross the line to hate speech?
Freedom of speech has been an inherent assumption in American society since the constitution was written and implemented. Our nation was founded on principles of freedom, namely the freedom of speech and religion. Throughout history American citizens have exercised this freedom and the results are evident in the form of speeches, books, articles, programs, and any other media medium. However, while many great works have been composed utilizing freedoms of speech, there have also been many people who have abused this freedom to express hate against certain groups, often in violent and derogatory ways. In examining hate speech, it becomes clear that there is no place in modern society for such speech to exist. However, the same freedom that protects everyday speech also protects hate speech and this is where the question arises; is hate speech deserving of protection under the first amendment?
There is a dilemma when someone exhibits a form of hate speech without any physical threats. In the past, Congress has attempted to pass bills to Senate that would enforce laws regarding limits to freedom of speech. In 1996 Congress initiated the “Communications Decency Act,” which would ban the communication of any “obscene or indecent” material to anyone under the age of 18 (Witmeyer & Gleser). Since anyone browsing the Internet can still access any page, regardless of his/her age, the act served little purpose (despite its benign intents). In 1999 there was a “Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” that enabled the Government to punish those who engaged in hate speech that included threats of violence (Senator Leahy). This Act does not prevent any form of hate speech that does not include physical threats, so hate speech could still legally exist. Similarly, in 2005, Congress tried to pass an “anti-hate” bill, which would limit citizens’ freedom of speech because it gave the US Government the authority to punish anyone they considered to engage in “hate speech.” Again, Senate did not pass the bill (Watson). There is a limit to how much the Government can regulate freedom of speech. Despite many attempts to pass bills and Acts that would punish those who are guilty of committing hate speech crimes, those bills have not yet been too effective.
An example of pushing the limits of freedom of speech is radio talk show host Don Imus, who referred to the Rutgers women basketball team live on air as “nappy headed hoes.” While many may claim that this is blatantly a racist comment (hate speech) and he should be punished, there is nothing that the Government can do. He has faced a great deal of criticism for the comment by the public. His boss can decide to fire him, because he the show will probably suffer a loss of listeners due to his racist comment, but that is not a legal issue. Also, some of his advertisement sponsors have decided to stop advertising on his show. Both Proctor & Gamble and Staples have decided to stop advertising on Imus’s show (Quixote). Some wonder if it is even feasible to truly censor and monitor hate speech and put an end to it.
Hate speech is generally group-directed vilification that is intended to insult or degrade a targeted group. Typically, this type of speech is not tolerated in public and is subject to criticism from most who hear it. Those who present such hate speech use the principles of free speech to defend themselves and argue that they are allowed to say whatever they desire, despite the effect it may have on others. This is not the case in that the majority of hate speech involves threats of violence and these “threats” are not protected by freedom of speech. Many people who engage in hate speech result in being under close scrutiny by their community and the government, and as a result, the integrity of complete freedom of speech comes into question. If certain speech is restricted, then the freedom that has been a founding principle is infringed upon and that can lead to a slippery slope. Hate speech is an individual’s expression of their own beliefs, and as twisted and ignorant as one may be, he/she is still allowed to express his/her views. It is only when the threat of violence occurs that turns allowable free speech into hate speech, and even a hate crime.
The Internet presents a wonderful opportunity for people to present thoughts and enter into discussions encouraging the growth and development of ideas. At the same time, however, some of these ideas and discussions can center on hate for a specific group or individual. While the majority of this speech is protected under the first amendment, there are instances when people question if hate speech should really be protected as free speech. While hate speech is generally criticized, the majority of it is still protected under the first amendment and as such people will continue to propagate hate speech, there will continue to be victims. So long as this hate is confined to being expressed by speech only (nothing further), there is no physical harm present; however, when threats of violence evolve, actions must be taken in order to ensure the safety of all potential victims.

Body paragraph

i switched topics to hate social networking and found the facebook version for hate.

Most college students in America have some sort of social networking via the web. Be it MySpace, Facebook, AIM, or all three, they are making their voices heard and are hearing others at the same time. For today’s white-supremacists or “pro-Christian” as some call themselves, there is a site called NewSaxon.com. This is exactly like MySpace, except the overall clientele are not the every-day student, they are extremists and racists. This website has been up since 2005 and its membership nears 3,000
A post on blogger.com by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy says “Finally, a one-stop resource for hating and dating” and “If you're interested in being completely revolted and/or frightened to death — or in hooking up with a shirtless, tattooed, self-styled race warrior — click one of the profiles on the NewSaxon home page, and navigate through that person's friends” about NewSaxon.com (http://vastleft.blogspot.com/search/label/race). In a blog on the American National Socialist Workers' Party (NSWP), website, there is a thread about NewSaxon and in it they are skeptical of the members as “stereotypes” meaning they are not actually for the white-supremecist causes, they are merely racist. The user 88april88 says “The site allows you to show your white pride” and “It's for whites only!!!!”, yet another user ImmortalNorseGoddess says that there are a lot of NSM (National Socialist Movement) supporters, but not necessarily anyone who would be an ally to the ANSWP (http://www.answp.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-397.html). This is interesting because although to us they are both the same hate-filled extremeists, to each other they are different. However on NewSaxon.com, there are plenty of people who do not think there is a difference between hate and hate groups.
The usual person on New Saxon is young and angry. Take for example the main pages of H88FUL_REVENGE and Nazirandy. H88FUL_REVENGE is 22 years old, married with one daughter, and from Tiger, Georgia. On his profile in the “About Me” section, he says “I have no hope for the rest of my family anymore they are hopeless,my sister is a race traitor so is my mother so when the day comes they will be swinging at the end of a rope, enough said, the drama and the backstabbing is a daily occurence in my family, i have my own family now.” (http://www.newsaxon.com/H88FUL_REVENGE). It goes on to say that his sister married a black man when she was only fifteen, and his younger brother says that “he wants to be black, a regular wigger”. This man has taken his hate to the furthest extreme to shun his own family. The “own” family he refers to is partly his wife and child, but also the NSM and white-supremecists in general. Nazirandy is 23 years old and from Wisconsin. He is not married and has no children. In his “About Me” section, Nazirandy writes “I am a NSM member and unit leader.I hate all people that are not white.Jews are the spawn of satan!I also have alot of guns like ak47s.I like to hunt and fish. All fucking Gypies should be put in a work camp!They steal from other races and dont work!I will send them to work[dig fucker dig]!” (http://www.newsaxon.com/nazirandy/). The hatred that this man has for fellow humans is absurd. His pictures are him holding various weapons with Nazi flags and propoganda on his walls.
Nazirandy, H88FUL_REVENGE, and countless others all share their feelings and attitudes on NewSaxon, where other such extreme peoples agree with them and “share their plight”. This hate speech is posted for all to see and for all to understand that each member has his own reasons why he hates, who he hates, and what he does about his hate.

Body Paragraph

The freedom to post anything on the Internet has amplified the ongoing debate of determining the difference between allowable “free speech” and “hate speech.” Freedom of speech, as established in the First Amendment, allows people to speak or write anything they desire. Hate speech can be defined as “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis or race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation” (Dictionary.com). While Americans do have the freedom to say or write what they want, the Government also has the authority to punish citizens for committing hateful speech acts. The only feasible way for humans’ freedom of speech to be removed would be to cut out everyone’s vocal cords and cut off the fingers of every individual, which would prevent any form of speaking or writing (Van Mill). Since this is obviously not feasible, there is a need to establish an order or a limit to freedom of speech on the Internet due to the growing number of “hate groups” and amount of “hate speech” posted on websites.
The Internet is a vast space that allows for anyone to post anything he or she desires. While most information presented on the Internet is useful, informative, fun, advertisement-oriented, and/or interesting, other posts are hateful and frowned upon by many:
The Internet has allowed extremists to expand access to a potential audience of millions – including impressionable youth. It has also facilitated communication among like-minded bigots across borders and oceans and enhances their ability to promote and recruit for their causes anonymously and cheaply. In a criminal context, e-mail messages containing threats can be sent behind a cloak of anonymity or false identity (Kaplan & Moss).

As Kaplan and Moss brilliantly state in their research paper, “Investigating Hate Crimes on the Internet,” the Internet also allows for bigots who post hateful speech to do so anonymously. The Internet has not encouraged hate, nor has it increased the amount of hate worldwide; however, the Internet provides a common ground, a platform, for bigots around the globe to conglomerate and express their hateful opinions to the general public. Before the Internet’s inception it was more difficult for hate speech to be spread and publicized to vast audiences around the globe. The next step is to establish a Government committee responsible for censoring the posts on the Internet so hate speech cannot be so rapidly spread over the Internet, where young, innocent youths can see it and potentially become convinced of certain bigoted opinions.

Online Hate and Free Speech

This interesting article discusses the "fine line between hate speech and free speech." It also delves into the topics of the limits of free speech in different environments; there is an ongoing discussion and debate as to what the true difference is between freedom of speech online versus freedom of speech in the real world.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/hate_and_free_speech.cfm

This document discusses the issue of hate crimes that take place on the internet through a more political point of view. Senator Patrick Leahy examines how we as a country should be able to control and protect people from such heinous crimes by enforcing laws, including the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Senator Leahy is commenting on the fact that these crimes might not be prosecuted so easily because of the rights that the First Amendment allows people to have on free speech, but that there is still an effective way in which the government can help protect people against such predators. He also goes on to suggest some ways in which this can be accomplished through the government and the people, as a whole.

Leahy, Patrick. Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing on "Hate Crimes and the Internet." leahy.senate.gov. 1999 September 14. 2007 April 1. <http://leahy.senate.gov/press/199909/990914.html

This article is about hate crimes that take place within the realm, of the internet. This document was prepared by two professors from the University of Southern Maine and they specialize in prevention of hate crimes. This document talks about how hate crimes can start and how they can be prevented as well as providing laws that provide jurisdiction in cases of hate crimes. These two professors, James and Moss, also identify the motives for such hate crimes and what actually constitutes as an internet hate crime. James and Moss cover how hate crimes begin, are carried out and what can be done about them.


Kaplan E. James and Margaret P. Moss. Investigating Hate Crimes on the Internet. www.homeoffice.gov. 2003 September. 2007 April 1. <http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/publications/investigating_hc.pdf >.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2242

On this page, the author of the thread talks about a local radio show that is always “ranting about Sodomites”. The thread continues with replies from various people who try to console the original poster by offering advice on how to deal with the radio station by calling the advertisers, producers, local LGBT groups, etc. This page is important because it shows how hate speech directly affects people on a personal basis and what there response can be.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/11/56294

This article refers to 2002 when British parliament passed a bill outlawing ate speech on the internet. British parliament defined hate speech as "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors." The article then goes on to state how the British fear that passing this legislation will only force authors of these sites to move to the U.S. since the U.S. doesn’t have any laws regulating speech online. This was also cited as a problem for other countries who have banned hate speech online and had to resort to blocking U.S. sites because they did not correspond with their own national laws.

Hate Speech Laws

http://infowars.net/articles/october2005/311005hatebill.htm

This article, written in October of 2005, discusses the new (at the time) bill that was passed by the House of Representatives that discredits certain amendments that protect our rights as humans living in America, specifically contradicting our right to "Freedom of Speech." Read the article, it is very interesting and makes some great points as to why freedom of speech should not be limited, and why criminalizing certain spoken words is ludacris.

Neil. "Hate Speech/Hate Crimes."
Wordpress. 04 Apr 2007.
4 Apr 2007. http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/hate-speech-hate-crimes/.

This site displays a blog post in which the author discusses the different forms of hate crimes and racism. He writes about freedom of speech and liberal blogs, while he offers his interesting perspective on the fine line between what is truly considered "hate speech" or "racism." Some people may consider it "hate speech" when Democratic college students post on a blog, "We hate Bush," while others may argue that it is only an opinion. He receives all sorts of interesting responses, which all pertain to our topic.

Unit 4

Okay, so this is our blog, post links to your resasercah, suggest questions, etc.