Research Project Presentation (News Article)

HATE SITES FROWNED UPON
By Billie Hiraishi

BELMONT – Hate sites should not be protected as freedom of speech under the First Amendment, that's according to a recent survey taken by college students at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont, Cali.

88% Of NDNU students believe that allowing individuals to write, post, and share their extremist views worldwide via the internet should be illegal and agree that “Such racist and judgmental sites should be removed and banned from any medium.”
For moral, personal, and/or emotional reasons, a majority of the students believe hate sites promote public misinformation.

Hate sites are websites advocating hatred towards other individuals or groups. These include social network pages, chat forums, and blogs. There are over 11,500 hate sites according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish h h uman rights organization that confronts hate and anti-Semitism.

Of the 26 students surveyed, 15 believe hate sites should not have the right to actively promote their beliefs online.

“It would be wrong to have a website recruiting individuals into their groups, but having a website where they just state facts about their beliefs would be acceptable,” said one student.

While 23 out of 26 students support freedom of speech as a Constitutional right under the First Amendment, it is speech specifically advocating hate that they do not support.

Over half the students surveyed believe that it is morally wrong for hate sites to create a social network page through sites like Facebook and Twitter. 16% of st udents believe that doing so would allow them to send their racist comments all over the world targeting prospective recruits.

But there are exceptions, says one student: freedom of religion. Adding that, “Catholic churches, along with other religions should be allowed to promote their religion online, but the idea of extremist groups promoting such racist beliefs is unsuitable for our society.”

When asked whether hate sites should have the right to post tutorials and video clips with bomb-making instructions, 21 out of 26 students said no.

Of the five who answered yes to posting tutorials, four of them were political science majors. All four students were in full support of freedom of speech for hate sites. One student commented, “We are a free nation, anyone should be able to write as they please.”

Research Project Paper

Billie Hiraishi
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics, & Society
December 2, 2010

Research Project:

Introduction:

According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism and promotes human rights and dignity reported that there are over 11,500 web sites, social network pages, chat forums, and blogs advocating hatred of extremist groups. The internet has become the primary media outlet most people in this generation use automatically, but anyone has the right to write their own opinion on a blog or create a website, and the issue is that under certain circumstances, individuals and groups take advantage of this right. I remember reading a short article in the spring of this year from the New York Times entitled, “Online hate sites grow with social networks,” which helped me come up with this topic. The article’s main point was to inform the public of how online hate sites are using online social networks to inform people about their group. The main online hate sites that I researched included American servers such as the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, Christian Identity, Black separatist, neo-Confederate, White Conservative, and pro-Jewish (Some countries such as European countries have strict anti-hate laws, making it hard to find online hate sites).

Question:

“Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)?”

* “Hate Sites” also known as “Hate Speech” is defined as any form of communication that “disparages” a person or group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Hypothesis:

Although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of freedom of speech, students will answer no because of their personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental hate site.

Method:

I surveyed twent-six students on campus using the format of traditional hard copy questioning, including yes or no questions.



Description of Survey Method:

I thought of ideas to approach this subject, “whether or not hate sites deserve protection from the First Amendment,” in a different way then others have approached it in the past. The idea that I came up with is to include a few personal questions at the top of the survey such as; what is your major? What ethnic group do you classify yourself as? If any, what religion do you practice? The reason I want to incorporate this into my survey is so I can get a better understanding of the surveyee and how their personal information may affect their answers to the survey questions.

Survey:

These are the questions that I used in my survey:

1. Do you believe the First Amendment, “Freedom of speech” should be in the constitution?

Yes or No

2. Should “hate sites” (websites used by people propagating hateful, racist, or terrorist ideas, beliefs, and activities) have the right to promote all their beliefs on their website?

Yes or No

3. Do you believe that it is right for hate sites to include tutorials and video clips of “bomb-making” instructions?

Yes or No

4. Should hate sites have the right to create a social network page, on Facebook and twitter, where the public can comment on “what they did during the week to deserve being in that group?”
(Some social networks have people sharing racist stories as an achievement of their week)

Yes or No











Results Summary:

Results for #1:

Yes – 23 students
No – 3 students

Results for #2:

Yes – 11
No – 15

Results for #3:

Yes – 5
No – 21

Results for #4:

Yes – 12
No - 14


Conclusion:

After conducting my research, majority of my results are in favor of my hypothesis. I have proven that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech, individuals personal and emotional beliefs drives them to disagree with the idea of extremist groups having the right to a racist and judgmental web page. Do you believe the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech should be in the Constitution is my first survey question. Out of the twenty-six students that I gave this survey to, twenty-three of them answered yes to the first survey question and three answered no. I assumed that everyone would automatically answer yes because Freedom of Speech entitles everyone to their own opinion and in this democracy everyone would agree that Freedom of Speech deserves to be in the Constitution. The second survey question is, should “hate sites” (websites created and dedicated for a certain group/belief) have the right to promote all their beliefs online? Eleven students answered yes and fifteen students answered no to this survey question. This was probably the most important survey question when answering my main question whether or not hate sites deserve to be protected by the First Amendment. Given these results, majority of the students agreed that these hate sites should not be allowed to promote their beliefs online. I’ve had a few additional comments on this survey question and one student said that it would be wrong to have a web site promoting, meaning recruiting individuals into their group, but having a web site where they just state facts about their beliefs would be acceptable. Another student stated that religious groups, such as “Catholic churches should be allowed to promote their religion online, but the idea of extremist groups promoting such racist beliefs is unsuitable for our society.” This made me think that religious groups are like cultures and they should be allowed to promote and practice their beliefs through any medium, but extremist groups are like a social group that has a certain goal in “making the world a better place” by eliminating others. Do you believe that it is right for hate sites to include tutorials and video clips of “bomb-making” instructions? This is the third survey question and there is a big difference in the results. Only five students answered yes and twenty-one students answered no. A vast majority of the students agreed that hate sites should not be allowed to have tutorials, such as video clips with instructions on how to make a bomb. In my opinion when answering this survey question, all students were morally obligated to answer no because bomb making is looked down on in society and stereotyped as something terrorist do. The last survey question is, should hate sites have the right to create a social network page, on Facebook and twitter, where the public can comment on “what they did during the week to deserve being in that group?” (Some social networks have people sharing racist stories as an achievement of their week). The results for this survey question were pretty even, having twelve students answer yes that hate sites have the right to create a social network and fourteen students answering no that these extremist groups should not have the right to create their own social networks because of various reasons. I thought that this was also a question that the students would answer based on their moral beliefs. Obviously it is immoral to promote an extremist group such as the KKK on to others by creating a social network in which they can make racist comments. In contrast, there are many others who have the mentality that there is nothing wrong with doing so, but that is based on their upbringing. Therefore, I believe given the results from the introduction questions before taking the actual survey, some students major(s), religion, or ethnicity affected their answers to the survey questions. For example, question three asked the students if they believe that it is right for hate sites to include tutorials and video clips of “bomb-making” instructions, and it has come to my attention that out of the five students who answered yes, they should have that right, four of those students are political science majors. This got me thinking that maybe because they have such a strong belief in the legal system, which includes the Freedom of Speech, because they are political science majors, they do not see a problem with this issue. Another example is the last survey question, where students had to answer yes or no to whether or not they believe hate sites have the right to promote their beliefs by creating a social network to target prospective recruits or make racist comments on their experiences. What I found from the students who answered this last survey question is that most of the students who answered no categorized themselves with a religion, being Catholic, Christian, Baptist, Buddhist, Mormon, or Agnostic. I thought this was interesting because nine out of the twelve students who answered yes to this question either put that they do not have a religion or simply left the religion section blank. In conclusion, do online hates sites deserve protection from the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech? Given my results from this survey I have proved my hypothesis that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech, students personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental site believe that “hate sites” should be removed because Freedom of Speech shouldn’t protect such cruel and racist beliefs.

Dangerous hatred in the U.S?

This weeks article focused on the idea of how in the United States of America there is a big controversy having Barack Obama as our President. Although it was a short article, there were many opinions stated about Obama that make this country seem very racist and cold. The beginning of the article started off by relating Obama’s healthcare reform proposals to a reason of why people do not like him and is being compared to Adolf Hitler because of his actions of taking over the country with proposals like this. Majority of this article were filled with quotes and opinions of citizens in the U.S. and what they think of Obama, mainly criticizing him. I found most of these quotes very disturbing to read, especially the racist opinions. The first strong “anti-Obama” quote I found was by Glenn Beck when he said on radio that “Obama is a racist with a deep-seated hatred for White people.” Tom Eisenhower compared Obama to Hitler and he said, “I’d take a gun to Washington if enough of you would go with me.” Pastor Steven Anderson from a church in Arizona even criticized Obama by saying, “Why I hate Obama, I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell.” All of these opinions were very disturbing to read but at the same time these people have the freedom of speech, but in my opinion the first two quotes were said by racist who don’t approve of Obama because of his skin color. When I read the quote from the pastor it made me second guesses if Obama is unsuitable for being President. The New York Times wrote in an article that “Some people just can’t believe a black man in president and will never accept it.” I thought this was a very strong quote because there are many extremist groups in the United States and also racist uninformed citizens who may not understand that having an African-American president will be different in many ways, so they choose to dislike Obama, instead of giving him a chance. Another idea that came up in this article was the idea of the South’s attitude towards having Obama as President. The African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country is the mentality of these Southern American citizens. In conclusion, I believe that all of these negative opinions are being said because of ones upbringing and that is how they judge whether or not Obama is right for the position of President of the United States. Therefore, I believe that everyone despite their personal opinion and beliefs should give Obama ad least a year before judging whether or not he is unsuitable.

Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting Our Culture?

Before reading this issue, I have already connected my research project to the idea of hate speech, or more specifically hate sites and whether or not they deserve to be protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Therefore, I already have a strong opinion on hate speech and I believe that just because freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment, does not justify if one’s cultural, religious, and personal beliefs are mocked and judged through the media. Being familiar with hate speech, I thought that after reading issue twelve it would be easy to agree with Henry Giroux, who argued that hate speech in the media is directly affecting our culture, but I found it difficult to understand him. In contrast, I found it easier to read Georgie Weatherby and Brian Scoggins research and examples focusing on the idea of how hate speech in the media is not affecting our culture. I believe that Giroux focused his research on the idea of culture cruelty and how entertainment media and information are creating violent behavior in our culture. The example that Giroux used was the beating of homeless people and how the National Coalition for the Homeless claimed that people on Youtube are posting videos with titles like “bum fight” and showing actual footage of individuals beating and mocking the homeless. I thought this was an excellent example of why hate speech (hate videos) in the media is affecting our culture in a negative way because people are judging and assuming that this is how Americans are to the homeless. The reason I found it easier to read Weatherby and Scoggins research was because they explained specifically what hate speech is in our society by using examples like hate sites of four extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, the Neo-Nazi, and the Aryan Nations. One of the main points that I thought was interesting that Weatherby and Scoggins brought up was the idea that these groups are trying more to inform the public about their beliefs versus recruiting them into their group. Another main point that they brought up was how the media, such as the internet allows the group to reach a wide range of people that may believe in what they do, and hopefully recruit them. Weatherby and Scoggins also mention that hate sites are not showing exactly what they want on their site because they want to appear “friendly” so individuals will join their group. In conclusion, all though Weatherbu and Scoggins brought up excellent points, I personally believe that hate speech in the media is affecting our culture, having individuals think its ok to beat a homeless person and discriminate against Jewish or Arabs.

Do Media Represent Realistic Images of Arabs?

Before reading issue three, I already believed that the media does not represent realistic images of Arabs because there are so many shows like South Park and Family Guy and movies like Harold and Kumar that stereotype and make fun of Arabs. After reading about journalist Gal Beckerman’s and Jack Shaheen’s opinions and research about this question, I believed that Gal Beckerman didn’t really give enough examples to persuade me that the media represents realistic images of Arabs. Gal Beckerman’s whole argument focused on the idea of how bloggers from the Middle East are writing about their lives and sharing that with the world so others have a better understanding about their lifestyle. This showed me that all Beckerman could come up with is how blogging represents realistic images of Arabs, but doesn’t talk about how other media outlets like television shows, movies, and even newspapers represent Arabs. I also believe that while reading through the blogs by Arabs in the Middle East, each of these blogs will be different, because all of these Arabs have the same beliefs, but may have a different lifestyle. In contrast, I believed that Shaheen came up with more realistic data and examples. The focus of Shaheen’s research was the idea of how Arabs have been stereotyped for being involved in disasters such as the terrorist attack of 9/11 that misinterpreted Arabs and Muslims. This misunderstanding between Arabs and Muslims were a big focus in Shaheen’s research. He used examples like videotaped beheadings and messages from al-Qaeda and how people automatically assume that those who are performing these gruesome acts are Arabs. Shaheen also mentioned that the profiling of Arabs has made it impossible for others to believe that they are real people because they are known as the enemy and terrorists. In conclusion, my own personal opinion with the comments from Shaheen’s research I believe that the media does NOT represent realistic images of Arabs because there has been too many situations in which Arabs are mixed up with other groups like Muslims or where Arabs are looked at as terrorists because of 9/11 and the media classifies all Arabs in the same category when they shouldn’t.

Do Media Cause Individuals to Develop Negative Body Images?

Before reading issue 4, my personal opinion weighed more on the yes side when answering this question, do media cause individuals to develop negative body images because there are just so many advertisements, images, videos, etc that effects ones body image negatively. Answering yes to this question, both Shari Dworkin and Faye Wachs believe that different types of media, such as magazines, advertisements, commercials, etc are giving consumers a negative idea of themselves and their body because they show how a healthy body should look like. An example is that for advertisements, by selling their product, the business makes the consumers think that by buying their product you will look and feel like the people in their ads. Because my own opinion already agreed with the idea that negative body images are developed through the media, I found it really easy to read through Dworkin and Wachs examples, facts, research, and opinions. One of the examples that they used was the idealized body and how a body with no fat is featured on the covers of magazine ads giving the public the idea that this is how they should look like. In connection to this idea, Dworkin and Wachs mentioned that because the “fat body” is a sign of a “lazy, undisciplined, and poor member of the social body,” the ideal body becomes a fit and healthy image that is a sign of success and a good citizen. In contrast, Michael Levine and Sarah Murnen argue that the media does not cause individuals to develop negative body images because other cultural, social, and psychological issues play a much larger role in giving citizens a negative impact on their own body image. Already having strong support for the examples and research brought up by Dworkin and Wachs, I found that in the end Levine and Murnen didn’t really have evidence that showed that the “Media” doesn’t cause individuals to develop negative body images. All Levine and Murnen did through their research was state examples and facts of how things like eating disorders are caused by psychiatric issues, not an issue in the media, or how peers and people in general who have a “thin-ideal” body image influence others to diet in order to fit in with them. Overall, Levine and Murnen basically used other examples such as psychological and social issues as an influence towards the public to want to change their body image, ignoring the fact that the media is just another one of those influences. In conclusion, do media cause individuals to develop negative body images? I say yes because the media has just become so controversial through advertisements, websites, videos, etc, that only want to show the “ideal” body image of how people should look like, discouraging others lifestyle and making them feel like their body image is completely unacceptable in society.

Reading Analysis #3: Proposal for Research Project

Billie Hiraishi
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics, & Society
November 3, 2010

Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment?

According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism and promotes human rights and dignity reported that there are over 11,500 web sites, social network pages, chat forums, and blogs advocating hatred of extremist. The internet has become the primary media outlet most people in this generation use automatically, but anyone has the right to write their own opinion on a blog or create a website and the issue is that under certain circumstances, individuals and groups take advantage of this right. Therefore the question I came up with is, “Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)?” “Hate Sites” also known as “Hate Speech” is defined as any form of communication that “disparages” a person or group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Besides not reading much about online issues from the given text Taking Sides, I remember reading a short article in the Spring of this year from the New York Times entitled, “Online hate sites grow with social networks,” which helped me come up with this topic. The article’s main point was to inform the public of how online hate sites are using online social networks to inform people about their group. The main online hate sites that I will be mentioning in my survey and research include American servers such as the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, Christian Identity, Black separatist, neo-Confederate, White Conservative, and pro-Jewish (Some countries such as European countries have strict anti-hate laws, making it hard to find online hate sites).

Hate sites have always been an issue as the internet developed into an advanced resource for information and has started many debates in questioning the First Amendment; therefore, the questions I will ask on my survey will focus on ones belief in the First Amendment and their personal opinion on hate sites. I plan on surveying a variety of students on campus using the format of traditional hard copy questioning, including yes or no and multiple choice questions. An idea that I have is to include a few personal questions at the top of the survey such as; What is your major? What ethnic group do you classify yourself as? If any, what religion do you practice? The reason I want to incorporate this into my survey is so I can get a better understanding of the surveyee and how their personal information may affect their answers to the survey questions. I haven’t come up with the questions for the official survey that I am going to use for my research, but I have ideas of how I want them to be.

When answering the question, do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment? I believe people would automatically answer yes agreeing that online hate sites have the right to write whatever they believe because of their right to freedom of speech, allowing those hate sites to express information, opinions, and ideas free of government restrictions. In my opinion in relation to my survey, this is a very intense subject to research and when people take the survey they will be emotionally distracted of the kinds of disturbing information they have access to on these hate sites. Therefore, my hypothesis is that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of freedom of speech, people will answer no because of their personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental hate site.