Comments on: The Internet Angle: Cyber Racism and Domestic Terrorism

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:49:45 +0000

Well put, Yellowhorse. Oppressive governments write laws to legitimate and protect their oppression, and then insist they get to decide what are the “liberal rights”–and to whom they apply, and how. International Human Rights law today condemns and rejectshate speech–and thus trumps our first amendment if international law (and morality?) is the standard.

By: Jennafer Waggoner Yellowhorse

Jennafer Waggoner Yellowhorse — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:29:17 +0000

Well, I don’t think that “Freedom of Speech” applies when it targets groups and individuals who have a history of being oppressed by the “protecting” government. Especially when treaties are ignored, apologies never made, and histories of genocide are involved perpetrated by the sources of hate, which are generally members of the “Oppressor” and dominant class. You don’t have a right to degrade or dehumanize an individual or group based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. And I can’t think of one individual or group or government that has ever used the cloak of free speech in terms of racial bias or discrimination as a benefit to the targeted class and never has never benefited such classes on any level. These classes have no protections from the Oppressive individuals, why should these individuals benefit from the protections afforded by Free Speech and held to the same criteria that those who have stood for freedom have fought and died for?

By: Jessie

Jessie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:55:13 +0000

Just catching up here, interesting discussion everyone.
.
siss, yes – enforcement would be difficult but that’s rarely a persuasive reason for not passing legislation.
.
No1KState – no, there’s no FCC regulation of hate speech online.
.
Eric – thanks for that link, I hadn’t seen that discussion before. Yes, as you suggest, there’s a very complicated relationship between online involvement at a website (of any kind) and offline activity. I explore this in great detail in the book, but the very shortest possible version of it is that real harm in real life happens but it’s rare. That’s little consolation to someone like the widow of that guard who was killed at the Holocaust Museum. Still, I’d reiterate that what I see as an equally important threat is the challenge such speech represents to democracy and civil society. It’s not only a question of ‘are people being harmed.’ It’s also a question of ‘what kind of democracy do we want to have?’
.
jwbe, agreeing again with your comment about ‘protecting democracy.’ I think that one of the key ideas that gets left out of that discussion in the U.S. is the notion of ‘equal protection’ (guaranteed by the 14th amendment) which would mean a protection from hate speech.
.
Victor, delighted to hear you’re buying a copy! I look forward to your comments. Yes, there’s quite a tension, isn’t there, between not wanting to encourage further surveillance, on the one hand, and wanting to encourage a greater vigilance against hate speech. There are other things people can do short of government intervention, however. One of the strategies that I highlight in the book is about individual efforts to combat white supremacy online. There are individuals who have worked on their own to get ISP’s and web hosting services to live up to their TOS and stop providing services to hatemongers. “Freedom of speech” doesn’t mean a guaranteed right to services, and most Internet companies have TOS agreements that explicitly state “no racial hatred” or some such. They just don’t usually take action unless other customers complain.
.

By: Internet Technology and White Supremacy : Asian-Nation : Asian American News, Issues, & Current Events Blog

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:55:20 +0000

[...] as many sociologists such as my blogging colleague Jessie at Racism Review and other observers point out, this upsurge in racial intolerance is different because with the [...]

By: Streaming christmas music

Streaming christmas music — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:45:21 +0000

I just watched the morning news and most of it was about all the killings in Chicago. A few people said it seemed that every day roblems seemed to be solved with a gun now when in the past it was an argument or possibly a fist fight. 26 children have been killed since the 1st of the year in Chicago and with all the police patrolling last night, someone was killed last night and another this morning.So, to answer your question, yes I feel not only the federal government each individual should be as concerned with domestic terrorism as foreign.

By: Victor Ray

Victor Ray — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:46:17 +0000

Jessie, this is an excellent posts and you have convinced me to go buy “the book.” I think your comments about the possibility that this kind of online commentary fueling real life crimes is important, and often overlooked by knee-jerk reactions by people who believe in compeletly unregulated speech.

On a side note, Democray Now is reporting that the FBI has know of this guys writings for a while but never openend a criminal investigation into him. Not that I am a big supporter of (so-called) intelligence services, but I do think that it is apparent that there is a double standard in who the FBI is likely to regard as a terrorist, and given the killings of Dr. Schiller and now this guard, it is apparently not crazy-ass white people.

By: siss

siss — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:39:09 +0000

Kstate: Even though I don’t always agree with the views or commentary of the far right pundits, I wouldn’t nesscesarly classify what they say as “hate speech”. They are often untactful and ignorant but not hateful.

By: jwbe

jwbe — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:45:59 +0000

I think it’s important to understand that Germany’s approach/attempt is to prevent another dictationship.
Hate speech, including Holocaust denial, is not just an opinion but the attempt to (re-)establish a deadly dictationship.
In a democracy, citizens have to understand that also they have an important role to protect this democracy.
Perhaps of interest:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,628633,00.html

By: EricNguyen

EricNguyen — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:48:10 +0000

Here’s a link to a Southern Poverty Law Center piece about online racist material containing interviews with various academics:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1062

Obviously, the second point of your argument – how online hate leads to real-life violence – is possibly the centerpiece in the debate for removing hate speech on the Web and prosecuting the source(s). According to one of the people interviewed, there’s “no solid research that links the viewing of violent images with real-world violence.” It’s reasonable to believe that people who commit violent crimes are predisposed to doing it prior to viewing online hate material, which the academics agree provides some type of justification or validation for criminal behavior.

There’s no question the Internet allows for large-scale networking for one hate group from one country with another group elsewhere. However, something the academics said that may run counter to the argument that viewing or reading violent material leads to violent behavior is that it allows the white supremicist to read and post on Web sites anonymously, giving them a venue for which to release their thoughts without actually risking their reputation and safety by attending a public KKK meeting, or the like. If so, then it’s possible that the publishing of hate speech online may be limited to the Internet without resulting in very many efficacious instances, aside from the very high-profile criminal cases that receive coverage from the national media. It may be that the connection between recent politically, racially and religiously-motivated murders and the link of these crimes to the accused murderers’ consistent usage of online hate material is enough to pass the interpretation (from the Virginia v. Black article Jessie provided) that the government could pass laws to protect citizens from hate material with the “intent to intimidate,” i.e. burning crosses, which usually leads to violence. I’m curious to hear what others feel about this majority ruling – would posting videos promoting racism YouTube style (Podblanc, for instance) be enough to lead people to committing violent crimes? If it only leads to people acting by posting more racist videos, then I’m not sure if the government could pass laws to remove these while still keeping the element of free speech (which protects the KKK’s “message of shared ideology”).

By: No1KState

No1KState — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:48:06 +0000

siss – You’re talking about a he said-she said between two ordinary individuals right? Because when it comes to the purveyors of the Limbaughs and Medveds, we have records of what they say.