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.”
Thursday, December 2, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)