Free vs. Hate Speech: Article Annotations, Part 1

Page

of 13

ZOOM

1

Hate Speech Should Be Criminalized

Civil Liberties

, 2013

From

Opposing Viewpoints

in Context

Research Database

Joyce Arthur, Founder and Executive Director

of Reproductive Rights Coalition

of Canada, a national

political

women's

health organization.

"Proscribing

hate speech

more broadly would, I believe, foster a more inclusive, tolerant, and

safer society."

The popular catchphrase of free speech defenders is a quote attributed to [French

writer]

Voltaire: "

I disapprove

of what you say, but I will

defend

to the death your right

to say

it

." Civil

libertarians often defend and support the notion that the right to freely express

offensive

opinions is a bedrock human right that should not be abridged except under very narr

ow

circumstances

typically for

hate speech

that directly incites violence against a person or group

of persons. However, I support broader prosecution of

hate speech

defined here as speech

that disparages a person or class of persons based on an immutable characteristic (colour,

race, origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age), or their occupatio

n, family or marital

status, and religion or lack of religion. Proscribing

hate speech

more broadly would, I believe,

foster a more inclusive, tolerant, and safer society.

The Criminalization of Hate Speech

Many western countries already do criminalize

hate speech

in a more encompassing way,

although enforcement is often weak and spotty. A typical example is Canada, whe

re it is illegal

to "expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt ... on the basis of a prohibited

ground of

discrimination" (Canadian

Human Rights

Act) and to "wilfully promote hatred against any

identifiable group" (Criminal Code of Canada). The United States, however, st

ands almost alone

in its veneration of free speech at almost any cost. The U.S. Supreme Court

insists that the First

Amendment protects

hate speech

unless it constitutes a "true threat" or will incite imminent

lawless action.

But societies should take action against

hate speech

without requiring that a few specific words

by themselves must directly and immediately incite violence, or be likely to. That se

ts a very

high bar and is difficult to prove. It also allows purveyors of hate to evade respon

sibility simply

by not making explicit calls for violence. Further, our new digital world raise

s the stakes

the

Internet has spawned a proliferation of

hate speech

along with useful information such as bomb-

making instructions or the home addresses of abortion providers. This has enabled ot

hers to

commit violence long after the words were first published.

Violent acts of hate are generally preceded by

hate speech

that is expressed publicly and

repeatedly for years, including by public figures, journalists, leading activ

ists, and even the

state. Some examples include Anders Behring Breivik's terrorist acts in Norway (June 2011

), the

assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (May 2009) and

other abortion

providers in the 1990s, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (1994), the ethn

ic cleansing of

Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), and the Nazi Holocaust.

2

Culpability for Violent Crimes

Courts of law should be able to look at broader patterns of

hate speech

in the culture to

determine whether a hateful atmosphere inspired or contributed to violence, o

r would likely lead

to future violence. When

hate speech

is relatively widespread and acceptable (such as against

Muslims), it's not difficult to see the main precursor to violence

an escalation of negative

behaviour or rhetoric against the person or group. Dr. George Tiller endured a pr

evious

assassination attempt and a decades-long campaign of persecution waged by the anti

-abortion

movement, which worsened over time, especially in the last year or two of the doctor's l

ife.

Anders Behring Breivik had actively opposed multiculturalism for years and had immersed

himself in Christian Right propaganda about the supposed threat of Muslim im

migration to

Europe, a view popularized only in recent years by a growing army of anti-Muslim

bloggers and

right-wing journalists.

As these examples illustrate, we can often pinpoint the main purveyors of

hate speech

that lead

to

violent crimes

. In the Norway shootings, the killer Breivik relied heavily on wri

tings from Peder

Jensen ("Fjordman"), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, [the websit

es]

Jihad

Watch

,

Islam Watch

,

FrontPage Magazine

, and others. Such individuals and groups should be

charged with incitement to hatred and violence. Similar culpability for the assassina

tion of Dr.

George Tiller should rest on the shoulders of the extremist anti-abortion gr

oup

Operation

Rescue

and Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly.

In general, anyone spewing hate to an audience, especially on a repeated basis, cou

ld be held

criminally responsible. This would include politicians, journalists, organizational l

eaders and

speakers, celebrities, bloggers and hosts of online forums, and radical

groups that target certain

categories of people. We also need to hold people in accountable positions to a higher

standard, such as government employees and contractors, ordained religious leaders, CE

Os

[chief executive officers], and the like.

Criteria by which to assign culpability could include a speaker's past record of prior

hate

speech

against a particular person or group, how widely and frequently the views w

ere

disseminated, and the specific content and framing of their views. In cases w

here violence has

already occurred, judges could determine how likely it was that the violent pe

rpetrators had

been exposed to someone's specific

hate speech

, and hand down harsher sentences

accordingly.

The Harms of Hate Speech

The apparent assumption of free speech defenders is that offensive speech is essentially

harmless

that is, just words with no demonstrable link to consequences. But questioning

whether speech can really incite someone to bad behaviour seems irresponsibly obtuse

.

Obviously, words have consequences and frequently inspire actions. A primary purpose of

language is to communicate with others in order to influence them. If that weren't

so, there

3

would be no multi-billion dollar advertising industry, no campaigns for politi

cal office, n

o

motivational speakers or books, no citizen-led petitions, no public service announcements,

and

no church sermons, along with a myriad of other proven examples where speech leads others

to act.

The majority of

hate speech

is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and

religious

minorities

. It's no coincidence that straight white men are generally the most ardent

defenders of near-absolute free speech, because it's very easy to defend

hate speech

when it

doesn't hurt you personally. But

hate speech

is destructive to the community at large because it

is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination. It sets the stage for violence by those

who take the speaker's message to heart, because it creates an atmosphere of perceiv

ed

acceptance and impunity for their actions. Left unchecked, it can lead to war and g

enocide,

especially when the state engages in

hate speech

, such as in Nazi Germany.

Hate speech

also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many year

s or a

lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportuni

ties, push them into poverty,

isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflic

t with

authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. In 1990,

the Canadian

Supreme Court stated that

hate speech

can cause "loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and

outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct

." The

court agreed that "hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners ... that m

embers of

certain racial or religious groups are inferior," which can increase "acts of discrimina

tion,

including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, servi

ces and facilities, and

even incidents of violence."

In democratic societies that stand for

equality

and freedom

often with taxpayer-funded

programs that promote those values by assisting vulnerable groups

it makes no sense to

tolerate

hate speech

that actively works to oppose those values. Further,

hate speech

violates

the spirit of human rights codes and laws, diminishing their purpose and effect.

A society that

allows

hate speech

is a society that tolerates prejudice at every level

politically, economically,

and socially

and pays the consequences through increased discrimination and violence.

Objections from Hate Speech Defenders

The most popular solution to the problem of

hate speech

is "more free speech." This seems to

make sense on the surface, and sometimes works well in practice. For example, there are many

outspoken atheists who do a good job of publicly defending themselves and their

fellow atheists

from the prejudice and hatred too often expressed by religious people. But even

if the targets of

hatred can ably defend themselves from verbal violence, why should they have to? Why

should

a democratic society privilege the right to free speech over the well-being and privacy of t

hose

with less privilege?

Most vulnerable groups, however, do not have a level playing field on which to respond

to

hate

speech

against them. They are often outnumbered, out-resourced, and out-funded by the

haters, simply because of their disadvantaged position in society. Sexism and

racism

are still

3

would be no multi-billion dollar advertising industry, no campaigns for politi

cal office, n

o

motivational speakers or books, no citizen-led petitions, no public service announcements,

and

no church sermons, along with a myriad of other proven examples where speech leads others

to act.

The majority of

hate speech

is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and

religious

minorities

. It's no coincidence that straight white men are generally the most ardent

defenders of near-absolute free speech, because it's very easy to defend

hate speech

when it

doesn't hurt you personally. But

hate speech

is destructive to the community at large because it

is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination. It sets the stage for violence by those

who take the speaker's message to heart, because it creates an atmosphere of perceiv

ed

acceptance and impunity for their actions. Left unchecked, it can lead to war and g

enocide,

especially when the state engages in

hate speech

, such as in Nazi Germany.

Hate speech

also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many year

s or a

lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportuni

ties, push them into poverty,

isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflic

t with

authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. In 1990,

the Canadian

Supreme Court stated that

hate speech

can cause "loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and

outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct

." The

court agreed that "hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners ... that m

embers of

certain racial or religious groups are inferior," which can increase "acts of discrimina

tion,

including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, servi

ces and facilities, and

even incidents of violence."

In democratic societies that stand for

equality

and freedom

often with taxpayer-funded

programs that promote those values by assisting vulnerable groups

it makes no sense to

tolerate

hate speech

that actively works to oppose those values. Further,

hate speech

violates

the spirit of human rights codes and laws, diminishing their purpose and effect.

A society that

allows

hate speech

is a society that tolerates prejudice at every level

politically, economically,

and socially

and pays the consequences through increased discrimination and violence.

Objections from Hate Speech Defenders

The most popular solution to the problem of

hate speech

is "more free speech." This seems to

make sense on the surface, and sometimes works well in practice. For example, there are many

outspoken atheists who do a good job of publicly defending themselves and their

fellow atheists

from the prejudice and hatred too often expressed by religious people. But even

if the targets of

hatred can ably defend themselves from verbal violence, why should they have to? Why

should

a democratic society privilege the right to free speech over the well-being and privacy of t

hose

with less privilege?

Most vulnerable groups, however, do not have a level playing field on which to respond

to

hate

speech

against them. They are often outnumbered, out-resourced, and out-funded by the

haters, simply because of their disadvantaged position in society. Sexism and

racism

are still

4

thriving in the 21st century, which means women and most minority groups have a harder t

ime

getting published and heard and taken seriously in mainstream society. Which bring

s us full

circle

perhaps one of the reasons sexism and racism are still so prevalent in modern society

is

because free speech is exercised largely by the privileged at the expense of the un

privileged.

A common objection to prosecuting

hate speech

is that it might

endanger

speech

that

counters

hate speech

. For example, a critique may repeat the offending

words and discuss their import, or it may subvert the hate message in a subtle or crea

tive way

that could be misunderstood by some. But context is everything when determining whethe

r

speech is actually hateful or not, so this objection seems nonsensical. Any rea

sonable judge

should be able to discern the difference in intent or effect behind a hateful messag

e and the

speech that critiques it.

Another objection is that prosecuting

hate speech

removes accountability from those who

actually commit the violence, turning violent perpetrators into victims of

hate speech

. But no-one

is suggesting that

hate speech

causes people to act against their will or takes away their

personal responsibility. Typically,

hate speech

creates an environment in which a person who is

already sympathetic to the views of the speaker feels validated and encouraged to

take action,

with a reduced fear of punitive consequences and even anticipation of praise and support f

rom

the in-group that shares their views. Nothing prevents a hate-inspired murde

rer from being

prosecuted in the same way as any other violent murderer

in fact, many countries mete out

harsher penalties for hate-motivated crimes. But those who inspired the murderer sho

uld also

be prosecuted separately under

hate speech

laws.

Existing Restrictions on Free Speech

Many people seem to treat freedom of expression as an almost sacred, inviolable right,

but this

is far from the reality. In constitutional democracies, free speech is alr

eady justifiably restricted

in a multitude of ways by law or policy, even in the United States. The quintessential ex

ample of

prohibited speech is falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Besides

hate speech

itself,

some other generally accepted prohibitions of speech include:

Sedition (advocating

force

as a way to change the government)

Threats

Defamation (libel and slander)

False or misleading advertising

Buffer zones around abortion clinics that prevent anti-abortion protesters from har

assing

patients and staff

Quiet zones near hospitals or schools

Municipal bylaws restricting the location, size, type, content, and display

of signs, posters,

objects, ads, etc.

Profanity on public airwaves

5

Publication refusal,

censorship

, and the right to edit enforced by news websites, online

forums and blogs, newspapers, magazines, radio, and other media

Company confidentiality policies (such as employees being prohibited from sharing trade

secrets or talking to the media)

Gag orders or publication bans in contracts, court cases, and settlements

In practice, courts will look at circumstances on a case-

by-case basis to see where a balance

should be struck between freedom of expression and some other value or right. No single r

ight

trumps another in all circumstances, not even the

right

to life

. For example, Canada's

constitution allows a fundamental right, such as freedom of expression to be li

mited to protect

someone else's fundamental rights, such as the right to life or liberty

or in the case of abortion,

women's right to safely access a necessary medical service, which courts have determined

outweighs the protesters' right to protest outside clinics.

Some current legal restrictions on free speech are not on the above list because they

are clearly

illegitimate. One of those is insulting your country's head of state,

currently illegal in at least

eight countries, mostly in western Europe. This offence is called "lese-majesty," a hol

dover from

the days when kings were divine. But if political leaders are immune to cr

iticism or ridicule, they

have far too much power over the people and the country cannot be a true

democracy

. In

general, the public must be allowed to pass judgment on public figures, because the

latter owe

their position to public support in the first place, which should not be coerced or bou

ght. For

example, public figures in the U.S. are not protected from defamation unless it w

as done with

malice

knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

Many countries also criminalize blasphemy

the criticism of religious doctrines or practices. But

the desire to protect religion from criticism is simply a reflection of

the insecurity of believers

who doubt their own beliefs. Blasphemy laws have more in common with

hate speech

actually,

because they often result in hateful rhetoric and violent acts against the "blasphemer

s." Further,

many religious people have a tendency to confuse

hate speech

with dissent, such as Catholics

who hurl accusations of "bigotry" when someone criticizes Church policies or dogma. But

hate

speech

is personal

it is directed against

people

based on their identifiable characteristics.

Dissent on the other hand is speech against other

opinions, beliefs,

or positions

. Dissent is an

essential component of a free democracy, and it includes blasphemy. In other words, you

should be free to attack Catholic policies that protect abusive priests, but it would be hate

ful to

say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

Weighing Free Speech Against Other Rights

When people and courts defend

hate speech

against minorities or other often targeted grou

ps

as "protected speech," it must be asked: Why are targeted groups required to

risk their lives so

their persecutors can have free speech rights? Why does the right to free speech

allow

vulnerable minorities to be openly defamed and targeted for decades until the

y're finally

assassinated? And why do the families of the slain victims have to suffer in their

grief and loss,

because free speech was deemed more important than the lives of their loved ones?

6

The idea that vulnerable persons and groups should have to tolerate

hate speech

against them

in the name of freedom of expression

often over decades or a lifetime

is offensive. We're

talking about peoples' lives after all

this is not just a philosophical debate. The right to free

speech is a fundamental value, but it should not be allowed to outweigh the basic human r

ights

of other people, especially their right to life.

Source Citation

Arthur, Joyce. "Hate Speech Should

Be

Criminalized."

Civil Liberties

, edited

by Nol Merino, Greenhaven

Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints.

Opposing Viewpoints

in

Context

, ezproxy.cuyamaca.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cuyamaca.edu/apps/doc/EJ

3

010118293/OVIC?u=sdccd_cuyamaca&xid=70ea9ace. Accessed

30

Dec. 2016. Originally published

as

"The Limits

of Free Speech,"

RH

Reality Check

, 21

Sept. 2011.

Gale Document Number:

GALE|EJ3010118293

1

"Us vs. Them": American Democracy Threatened

by Hate Speech

Hate Crimes

, 2001

From

Opposing Viewpoints

in Context

Research Database

Sanford Cloud, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Conference for Comm

unity and

Justice, formerly known as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, an organization dedi

cated to

fighting prejudice and racism.

Appealing to hate, especially in times of economic insecurity, is a time-test

ed insidious tactic

increasingly being mainstreamed in modern American dialogue. Joe McCarthy did it, to se

rious

effect. The Neo-Nazis and white supremacists do it

witness the Montana Freemen. Certain

religious leaders do it, and gain media attention. And, recently, some of

our politicians have

done it. This effective technique drives wedges between fellow workers and neighbors,

and

alienates us from people we do not even know. At worst, it inspires hatred and violence.

The Modus Operandi

The modus operandi involves a leader appealing to segments of the population whose sense of

self is shaky, often due to tough economic times. Corporate downsizing, restruct

uring, re-

engineering, rising costs, diminishing quality of life and the threat of

lost jobs stir anxieties.

People fear that they won't be able to care for their families.

Recognizing this as a fertile breeding ground, a leader steps to the podium and ralli

es the fearful

and angry by blaming their troubles squarely or implicitly on some "other" ethnic, ra

cial,

socioeconomic or religious group. The leader then positions himself as the brave spokesper

son

of "truth," who will challenge the enemy

the "other"

who has caused the problem. With

someone to look down upon, the fearful feel empowered and define themselves as members of

a superior group, more valuable than those "others."

Historically, specific ethnic, racial, political and religious groups have been targe

ted as the

threat. For Hitler, it was Jews, Catholics, gypsies and homosexuals. Joe McCarthy's enemi

es

were liberals and communists, in particular, members of the Hollywood community. T

oday,

some members of that same entertainment community are maligning the Jews, whil

e films

stereotype people of color as violent youths.

The Klan burns its crosses and Moslems are attacked as the purveyors of

terrorism

, while some

African American leaders rail against white America. The Montana Freemen defrauded the

financial community as a statement against our government and in furtherance of the

ir view that

white male Christians are the sole intended beneficiaries of the U.S. Constitutio

n. For each, the

message is the same: silence, stop or eliminate the "other" and you

the unfairly victimized

will triumph.

2

Wedge Issues

It is relatively easy to recognize the appeal-

to-hate tactic in its extreme forms. But today, the

tactic is becoming ever more subtle, as leaders begin to use wedge issues that are silen

t

synonyms for targeted groups. Through insinuation, allusion and even clear statements,

certain

leaders, a number of elected officials and some who would have been president, have fanned

the flames of hate, by using wedge issues

such as immigration, welfare and affirmative

action

to divide. Creating a "them" versus "us," either/or mentality through

appeals to fear,

these leaders have offered simple, palatable explanations to the complex social, economic and

political changes rocking Americans today.

Regarding immigration, for example, we've recently heard talk about constructing walls at our

borders and, alternatively, about a new branch of the armed forces to keep out illegal

immigrants. Here, the wedge argument is simple: The real Americans must

stop the immigrants

who are taking the jobs of U.S. citizens, adding to crime, destroyi

ng our communities or, whe

n

they are not working, living off welfare. Forget that immigrants

take low-paying jobs that others

will not accept, that some clean the hotel rooms where presidential candidates stay an

d that

they pay taxes. Forget that they enrich our culture. Forget that America is, a

fter all, a country of

immigrants save for Native Americans. And forget to differentiate between illegal im

migrants

and those who legally come with special skills or to join family members. But, most

of all, forget

that the current arguments are not new. Almost 100 years ago they were

hurled at Irish, Jewish

and other Central European emigres.

With welfare, those who breed division play on the commonly held assumptions that most

welfare recipients are African American or Hispanic, have a large number of chil

dren to increase

their checks, regularly double their benefits through fraud, and readil

y stay on welfare for the

long haul because they do not want to work. Each of these beliefs is untrue.

But many

hardworking, taxpaying Americans believe them and are angry at those in need of

help. To

many, welfare reform now means eliminating support totally, rather than see

king a creative and

considered response toward those who can achieve self-support and those who might starve

without our help.

Insidious and Dangerous

While people of good will may recognize and condemn overt appeals to hate, they too oft

en

dismiss the use of the more subtle wedge arguments. But this method of gaining pu

blic

attention, relying as it does on fear and hatred, is insidious and dangerous. It dehu

manizes

whole groups and, in so doing, obfuscates complex issues so that realistic but humane

solutions

are left outside of the national debate.

It is time for us to take stock and call upon leaders in all walks of life and

, in particular, the

presidential candidates who will receive so much media attention, to meet their

obligation to

3

sharply, openly and honestly debate issues and avoid taking America down the path toward

division and suspicion.

We must remain mindful that, while the U.S. Constitution properly protects free

speech, history

shows that the rhetoric that preys on insecurities breeds a milieu receptive to ha

tred of some

"other." Americans can and should tolerate all points of view, even when distasteful.

What we

must not tolerate is the silence of people of good will, who by their passiv

ity allow the noxious

use of wedge issues to be mainstreamed, creating a vacuum into which the venom of hate is

welcome. We must join our voices, speak loudly, clearly and in a civil manner against

this tactic.

We must respond with facts to those who would appeal to the worst in us. And

we must

expressly condemn the conduct of those who would use direct or implied scapegoating

as a tool

for gaining public attention, power or election. If we do not, we will have endorsed

through

silence a climate that sanctions the language of hate, permits bias crimes and perhaps,

ultimately, crates random acts of group violence throughout our nation.

Source Citation

Cloud, Sanford. "Hate Speech Must

Be

Condemned."

Hate Crimes

, edited

by Tamara

L. Roleff, Greenhaven

Press, 2001. Current Controversies.

Opposing Viewpoints

in

Context

, ezproxy.cuyamaca.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cuyamaca.edu/apps/doc/EJ

3

010050214/OVIC?u=sdccd_cuyamaca&xid=79b36f09. Accessed

30 Dec. 2016. Originally published

as

"The People Shouldn't

Be

Swayed

by Appeals

to Hatred,"

People's Weekly World

, 7 Sept. 1996.

Gale Document Number:

GALE|EJ3010050214

4

++

1

Hate Speech and Hate Crimes: What is the

Relationship?

Civil Liberties

, 2004

From Opposing Viewpoints

in Context Research Database

Laura Leets, Assistant Professor

in the Communications Department

at Stanford University

There's been a groundswell in the past several years to increase diversity in journal

ism, both in

news coverage and in newsroom staffing. The goal of several diversity initiatives is to increase

the number of voices that regularly appear in our newspapers, magazines, broadcasts an

d Web

sites.

It's important to seek different perspectives and ideas, and the goal of such initiativ

es is an

admirable and productive one. There are some voices, however, that have demonstrably

adverse effects. So while the journalism community, judicial system and Am

erican public

generally support tolerance of diverse viewpoints, some perspectives and types of speech stil

l

warrant concern.

The Rising Incidence of Hate Crimes

One problematic voice is that of hate. Whether it is the dragging death of an Af

rican-American

behind a pick-up truck in Texas, a gay student's murder in Wyoming, a racially

motivated

shooting spree at a Los Angeles Jewish community center or a bloody rampage by two high

school students enamored of Hitler's fascism, the rising incidence of hate cri

mes and the groups

who appear to encourage them is attracting public interest (1). In part

icular, the World Wide

Web has provided marginalized extremist groups a more notable and accessible public

platform. The Internet has put the problem of incendiary hate into sharp relief.

In several research studies where I have focused on short-term message effects of hate

speech, it is difficult to demonstrate with certainty the linkage between hate expression

and

violence or harm (deterministic causality). In a recent study, I asked 266

participants (both

university and non-university students recruited online) to read and evaluate one of 11

white

supremacist Web pages that I had randomly sampled from the Internet. Sim

ilar to previous

studies, the data showed that the content of the hate Web pages was perceived to be

in

keeping with the Court bounds for First Amendment protection. Yet the

participants

acknowledged an indirect effect that, on the other hand, may suggest hat

e speech effects are

more slow-acting

and thus imperceptible in the short term (probabilistic causality).

Specifically, participants in the cyberhate study rated the indirect threats fr

om the World Church

of the Creator (WCOTC) [a white supremacist organization] Web page as very high (Mea

n=6,

on a seven-point scale where seven represented the highest score). Is it coincidental that

a

former WCOTC member ... shot 11 Asian Americans, African-Americans and Jews,

killing two,

before committing suicide? Or that two brothers associated with WCOTC were charged

with

murdering a gay couple and fire-bombing three Sacramento synagogues? While WCOTC

leader Matthew Hale does not endorse this lawlessness, neither does he condemn it. Part

of

their ideology is that all nonwhites are "mud people," people without souls,

like animals eligible

for harm.

2

The Real Harm

Current legal remedies may be missing the real harm of racist indoctri

nation, which may not be

immediately apparent or verifiable. For instance, hate expressions tend to encourage

a set of

beliefs that develop gradually and that often can lie dormant until condit

ions are ripe for a

climate of moral exclusion and subsequent crimes against humanity. Moral exclusion is define

d

by Susan Opotow, an independent scholar affiliated with Teachers College at Col

umbia

University, as the psychosocial orientation toward individuals or groups for whom justice

principles or considerations of fairness are not applicable. People who are morally excluded are

perceived as nonentities, and harming them appears acceptable and just (e.g., slavery,

holocaust).

It is not the abstract viewpoints that are problematic. Rather, it is the

expressions intending to

elicit persecution or oppression that often begin with dehumanizing rhetoric. I

n my research, I

argue that communication is the primary means by which psychological distancing occurs.

Arguably, it may be the long-term, not short-term, effects of hat

e expression that are potentially

more far reaching.

Examining the Internet

Even though prevailing First Amendment dogma maintains that speech may not be

penalized

merely because its content is racist, sexist or basically abhorrent, Internet law is

a dynamic area

and as such is not completely integrated into our regulatory and legal system. Consequently,

many questions remain about how traditional laws should apply to this new and uniq

ue medium.

The Internet can combine elements of print (newspapers and magazines), broadcast

(television

and radio) and face-

to-face interaction. Moreover, unlike users of previous media, those on the

Internet have the power to reach a mass audience, but in this case the audience must be m

ore

active in seeking information, as cyberspace is less intrusive than other mass media.

It is unclear whether content-based restrictions found in other technological

media may be

permissible for the Internet. For example, the FCC [Federal Communications Commissi

on] ruled

that indecency was unsuitable for broadcast media because of ease of access, invasiveness

and spectrum scarcity, yet cable and print media are not subjected to this form of cont

ent

regulation.

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Telecommunications Bill, which in

cluded the

Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA regulated indecent or obscene material

for

adults on the Internet, applying First Amendment jurisprudence from broadcast and

obscenity

cases. Later that year, the Supreme Court declared two provisions unconstitutional in

Reno vs.

ACLU. Congress and the Court disagreed on the medium-specific constitutional

speech

standard suitable for the World Wide Web. Congress argued that the Interne

t should be

regulated in the same manner as television or radio, but the Court decided not to ap

ply that

doctrinal framework. Instead, the Court viewed the Internet as face-

to-face communication,

deserving full protection.

Is Regulation Possible?

Issues of Internet regulation naturally lead to the question of whether

such regulation is even

possible. Cyberspace doesn't have geographical boundaries, so it is difficult to determ

ine where

violations of the law should be prosecuted. There are enforcement conflicts, not only bet

ween

different countries' legal jurisdictions, but also among federal, state and local

levels in the United

3

States. Although Americans place a high premium on free expression, witho

ut much effort most

people can find Internet material that they would want to censor.

Some argue that cyberhate oversteps this idea of "mere insult" and warrants liabilit

y. The

Internet is a powerful forum of communication with its broad (world-wide) reach, i

nteractivity and

multi-media capability to disseminate information. These features inevitably result i

n concerns

about impact, especially when viewed as empowering racists and other extremists. It is co

mmon

for people to wonder whether white supremacist Web pages cause hate crime. Thi

s question is

similar to people's concerns regarding whether TV violence causes aggression in viewers.

The

issue of causation (claim: x causes y) is an important one to address.

It is important to differentiate between language determining (or causing)

an effect and

language influencing the probability of an effect. In terms of a strict soci

al science approach

(deterministic causation) we can't say language has an effect unless three conditions are m

et:

(a) there must be a relationship between the hypothesized cause and the observed effect, (

b)

the cause must always precede the effect in time (x must come before y), and (c)

all alternative

explanations for the effect must be eliminated. The problem with making a stron

g case for a

causal effect lies with the second and third conditions. For example, most media (televisi

on,

Internet etc.) effects are probabilistic, not deterministic. It is almost i

mpossible to make a clear

case for television or cyberhate effects because the relationship is almost never a simple causal

one. Instead, there are many factors in the influence process. Each factor increases the

probability of an effect occurring. The effects process is complex.

The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally viewed speech effects in te

rms of short-term,

deterministic consequences, and has not considered more far-reaching effects.

While more research is needed on the long-term effects of hate speech, it

may be worth

considering some very limited restrictions on some hate expression. American jurisprudence

has not fully realized the harmful nature and effects stemming from ha

te speech, which has the

ability both to directly elicit immediate behavior (short term) and to

cultivate an oppressive

climate (long term).

Footnotes

1.

In 1998 African-American James Byrd was chained to a pick-up truck and dragged to death. Ga

y

college student Matthew Shepard was beaten and then tied to a post and left to die in Wyom

ing in

1998. In 1999 Buford O'Neal Furrow entered a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and opened

fire, wounding five people, including three young children. At Columbine High School i

n Colorado in

1999, students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on a shooting rampage, killing fifteen a

nd

wounding twenty-three others.

Source Citation

Leets, Laura. "Hate Speech Should

Be

Regulated."

Civil Liberties

, edited

by Auriana Ojeda, Greenhaven

Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints.

Opposing Viewpoints

in

Context

, ezproxy.cuyamaca.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cuyamaca.edu/apps/doc/EJ

3

010118241/OVIC?u=sdccd_cuyamaca&xid=73824c74. Accessed

30

Dec. 2016. Originally published

as

"Should All Speech

Be

Free?"

The Quill

, vol. 89, May 2001,

p. 38.

Gale Document Number:

GALE|EJ3010118241

1. For each article,summarize the author's argument in 2-3 sentences.
2. For each article,select one quote you think was particularly important/representative of the author's argument? Explain why you think this quote is significant.
3. For each article,in a short paragraph (5 or so sentences), tell me what you thought about the article. Did you agree or disagree with the author? Did you think he was convincing? Did anything surprise you or make you feel some sort of way?

My suggestion would be to write down the title of the specific article and answer the three questions on it, and then move on to the second article and then move on to the third article.Be sure to answer all three parts for all three articles.