I was watching Bill O’Reilly last night and he had short talking point on the Holocaust museum bombing as well as a short excerpt of a white supremacist speaking. I decided to see what Fox News had on the issue and come across this wonderful article that encapsulates the good/bad of the First Amendment. I’m just going to highlight some of the main points:
“Holocaust Museum Shooting Shows Difficulties in Tracking Hate Sites, Speech”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/holocaust-museum-shooting-shows-difficulties-tracking-hate-sites-speech/
I think the opening paragraphs says it all: “…attack…shines news light on how the Internet has become a double-edged sword for law enforcement agencies trying to track domestic extremists and prevent hate speech from mutating into hate-fueled violence.” The article discusses how as the Internet has grown, so has its uses as a forum for hate groups and “twisted individuals.”
The article makes an interesting point that many of these websites operate just under the radar of legality. They are fluent in the laws and know what not to say on the sites, thereby preventing law enforcement from taking action.
This paragraph is what really drew me in, especially in the context of this class:
“[The Internet is] the greatest intelligence resource in the history of mankind. But on the other hand, in connects these people together in a way they used to not be able to…The truth of the matter is just about anything you publish is going to have First Amendment protection.”
You know, I read all this information about Intellectual Freedom and the First Amendment and accounts of people trying to censor good literature and I’m outraged. But I think that this article is absolutely right. The Internet is a breeding ground for wackos; it allows them to connect, plan crazy things, and get their rocks off being psychos. And for the most part, this craziness is protected because of the First Amendment. That wacko supremacist on Bill O’Reilly is protected by the First Amendment. I don’t like it!! As said in the article “No matter how offensive to some, we are keenly aware that expressing views is not a crime, and that protections afforded under the Constitution cannot be compromised.” I guess I can’t have it both ways.
One solution the article offers is to fight speech with speech: “overwhelm hate speech with endorsements of tolerance and condemnation of racist attitudes.” Who has the time to combat all these hate groups publishing on the web? Great suggestion and it’s worth a try, but I feel it will not make much difference.
And even though I don’t like it, the whole concept behind Little Brother comes into play here. You start monitoring/censoring one group, pretty soon, everybody is under the same microscope: “we don’t want government surveillance of anybody simply expressing a hateful idea…”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No we certainly do not want everything to be censored by the government. I agree with you in that personally I do like what people who are against a people just because they are different have to say. But I am sure they do not like what I have to say, so if I attacked their views because I do not like them what stops them from attacking mine? As long as they are not breaking the law, they are protected and we can only do as you suggested fight speech with speech.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteIt is sad to see people trying to spread racism, but to censor them would cause problems for everyone. As long as they do not incite violence against others their speech is protected under the first amendment. Roger Barnes
Yes-- fighting speech with speech is an option. Additionally, we can just not read and acknowledge that garbage. There have always been wackos. We normal people just didn't know how many there were. The Internet has allowed us to understand more fully that wackos are around, and we need to be aware. We don't have to listen to or like what they say-- we just have to be aware.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the point of this article. I would think everyone is cognizant of the fact that hate groups exist on the internet. The article just seems to be increasing fears about how the internet can be used for nefarious things, and that is not responsible journalism. The internet is just a medium, it is not the catalyst for those deeds. People can just as well talk over the phone to plan terrorism, or meet at a house. Why is it necessary to point out that "Scott Roeder, the man charged with killing abortion doctor George Tiller late last month, reportedly had a history of posting anti-abortion comments on anti-abortion Web sites." Couldn't he have also had a history of saying the same anti-abortion comments to people in person? Why point out that he did it on the internet? It is not like those specific internet comments caused his actions. The article does point out that the internet allows these people to meet easily and broaden their audience, but the internet also allows people to come together to fight a good cause, as the use of Twitter after the Iranian Elections has shown. Only at the very end of the article does it warn against censorship. To an average person, without a strong background in intellectual freedom like us librarians, this article may be misconstrued and lead people to support censorship on the internet.
ReplyDeleteHmm, you make an interesting point. I thought the slant of the article more was that despite these crazy groups that exist on the Internet, their rights to free speech are protected by the First Amendment. And in this case, even though Holocaust shooter posted to these racist sites, he is protected by the First Amendment. Fox is supposed to be unbiased and present both sides of the story, but I could see the slant that you read into the story. I just think that once the Holocaust shooting occurred, and all the white supremicists came out of the woodwork to defend him, Fox deemed this is newsworthy article.
ReplyDeleteRoger, I agree with you and came to much the same conclusion. However, I just wanted to point out that the article says that these groups know the law. They know what they can and cannot say in terms of violating the law. So even though these groups don't speak or advocate violence on the web, the web brings them together. And this web relationship might turn into a face-to-face one, where real violence could be discussed. So the internet would be the vehicle towards that violence...
ReplyDeleteCory Doctorow says on his website something along the lines of fighting speech with more speech.. not censorship. I agree with you that this could work and is worth a try, even if it can be somewhat of an overload for different agencies.
ReplyDeleteI dont generally consider Fox to be an unbiased news source. I agree with Lisa, this article seems to imply that censorship of these "crazies" wouldnt be so bad, even though at the end there is a point about not censoring.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, fighting fire with fire (hate-speech/counter-speech) only makes the fire bigger (more animosity). I belief the only way to counter racism and other misguided ideology is through education, and to recognize that Free Speech and/or the Web are not the problem.