Internet Hate Groups Essay Example For Students

Internet Hate Groups Essay For the first time in human history, we have the means to connect people fromevery corner of the globe, to talk to each other and share information at a costthats 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 hasever existed before. Hate is scary. By definition, Hate is an intensehostility and emotional aversion to someone or something. It is displayed withwords, harassment and/or acts of violence including killing. (Novick, para4). Hate can be hidden from friends or family, but at other times it is braggedabout. Hatred can be motivated by the desire for political power, for the needto put someone in their place, even by religious beliefs. The Internet seems tohave pushed all our buttons of paranoia, especially these days, when werealready confused and frightened by all the violence and chaos in our world. Preventing Internet Hate Crimes Controls and Mechanisms The first method isrebuttal, a technique long used by the anti-censorship or anti-hateorganizations. Rebuttal allows for the unrestricted dissemination of hate andnegates it by offering a more insightful and historically accurateexamination of political and social history. (Guide To Hate Groups, soundclip).This method eliminates the question of censorship and the stigma ofgovernmental control. But it does not compensate for the real human pain ofhaving swastikas, ethnocentric messages, or racial caricatures on onescomputer screen, nor does it keep children from accessing the hate sites withoutunderstanding the true context of the debates. The second method is that ofmoral , a tactic which has been successfully used by social activists andinterest groups throughout the 20th century. Moral persuasion would shift theresponsibility of eliminating cyber-hate from the government to non-governmentalorganizations, special interest group s, and social activists, avoiding theproblem of censorship and the inadequacy of the anti-hate laws.(Guide To HateGroups). Concerned individuals and organizations would consolidate and cooperatein a social movement to increase public awareness and encourage economicsanctions against the Internet service providers who offer access to hategroups. Who Do We Blame? The current problem of cyber-hate is not one oftechnology, but rather one of public policy.(Censorship) The most commonmeans for any government to deal with this problem is either to modify existinglegislation or to introduce new, more inclusive anti-hate laws. But policymakers have not acted quickly enough to modify existing legislation to dealadequately with the capabilities of the Internet. Hate groups have gained aformidable person on the Internet and cleaning up cyber-space will be difficult. Blame policy, not technology Addressing Cyber Hate Crimes Expose It While somegovernments already have laws limiting freedom of speech, and others contemplatelimiting what is allowed on the Internet, the culture of the Net has created itsown crusaders for free expression. Rather than consider censoring or banning Netsites that concern them, they have, using their own time and money, begunbuilding Web pages to expose or contradict what they find repellent. Theirphilosophy is simple, let the free marketplace of ideas decide what content isacceptable. Advocating censorship of these groups is not the answer. It will dono good to force them underground. Linking to information that contradictsracism and anti-Semitism on the Net is the goal of other anti-hates sites whichuse the communicative powers of the Web to show alternatives to thehate-mongers sites. In the free marketplace of ideas, they willeventually make the right choices. (Hate Crimes) Crack It Thecracking of Cyber Hate pages may represent an opening shot in a new way to wagethe war of information on the Net, now hackers can just deface Web pages theydont like. We may start to see opposing opinions begin to wage actual war inthe internet world. The hackers attack bodes ill for the future of freeexpression on the Internet. (Cyber Hate) Anti Cyber Hate Laws CaliforniasAssembly Bill 295 This bill would expand obscenity and child pornographystatutes to prohibit transmission of images by computer. This basically coveredall sites dealing with the illegal use of picture of minors on the Internet. Georgia Regions Study Guide 3rd GradeRacists David Duke, a former Louisiana legislator and national leader of theInvisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, is one example of those who areusing the Internet to spread racial hatred. On his website, he writes: Ourpeople (white people) will learn that our very survival is in jeopardy. We willfinally realize that our culture and traditions are under attack; that ourvalues and morality, our freedom and prosperity are in danger.( Creating Fear ofDifference Online). Several white supremacist groups use symbolism fromChristian scriptures to assert their racist and anti-Semitic agenda. One exampleis the Aryan Nations, which claims that fair-skinned people with northernEuropean ancestry are Gods chosen people, to the exclusion of all others. SuchInternet messages propagate fear of difference by stereotyping, exaggerating ormaking up figures, and spewing fear-filled language. They create an atmosphereof hate that feeds violence. That is ju st one example of the many Internet sitesthat 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 peopleshould not have to share a common culture with non-whites. Sex DiscriminationMany of these sex discrimination sites have gone under ground. These site arethe weaker of the hate sites. Many of the sites also lean on the same basis forrejecting the homosexual life. Here is an example of one of the sites:Homosexuality is immoral and is therefore illegal despite the desperateattempts by homosexuals to have homosexuality and homosexual marriages declaredlegal.(Homosexuality) My Stance I believe we do have a severe problem on ourhands. However I feel the problem is not with the internet. I would have to saythat the censorship of the internet is to be taken care of at home. Many peoplerely on television, VCRs, and toys to watch over their children. Whathappened to family values? I think peopl e have become very lazy when comes tocare for their children. Come on America, start accepting responsibility foryourself and stop blaming technology. Conclusion In conclusion, The decisions wemake today about our basic freedoms will be ones we live with for a very longtime. We need to turn on the lights in the internet world, and expose thedarkness and the lies. BibliographyAllport, G. (1948, 1983). ABCs of Scapegoating. New York: Anti-DefamationLeague. 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 FirstAmendment and the Landmark R.A.V. Case. New York: Random House. FeministInternet Gateway. Sex Discrimination, http://www.feminist.org/gateway/sd_exec.htmlHarris Raymond C. Homosexuality. http://www.primenet.com/~rayhar/p_homosx.htmJenness, V. Broad, K. (1997). Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and thePolitics of Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Matsuda, M., Lawrence, C.,Delgado, R., Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words That Wound: Critical RaceTheory, 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 ReactionaryViolence. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Response. Creating Fear OfDifference Online, 1998. http://gbgm-umc.org/Response/articles/hateonline.htmlStay, B. (Ed.) (1997). Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: GreenhavenPress. WebActive. Guide To Hate Groups, October 6, 1996. http://www.webactive.com/webactive/sotw/hate.html