Abomination or Exaggeration?

Many of us have come across hate speech on the internet, some of us more frequently than others. One side considers it to be a prime example of freedom of speech, while the other considers it a prime example of freedom of speech gone beserk. As much as I refrain from judging things, as much as I like to see the other side of every story, when I visited some of these sites, all I saw was just one side - hate.

Hate Groups and hate based organizations can be found all over the Internet and there are almost no limitations placed on the material posted on their web sites. Because the Internet is technically accessible to everybody, and is a primarily unregulated world, it allows hate groups to spread their influence without any form of interference from governments. There are plenty of hate sites I managed to find on the internet. They varied from pages linked to the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and Skinheads to Christian Identity, Black Separatist, and other cults. These sites have the tendency to move from server to server or shut down without notice, so they can be difficult to locate.

The problem that many find with the spread of these organisations on the internet is that larger groups like the Ku Klux Klan can recruit new members in an inexpensive and efficient manner and smaller groups with less money and less international exposure can easily introduce themselves to anyone. Internet users today can access speeches and rallies and read literature that once had to be personally delivered or sent by mail. Hate purveyors can anonymously email each other, and by using list serves containing thousands of names, can send unsolicited hate material to individual mailboxes. Whereas previously they had to stand in the streets and pass pamphlets or make speeches, the internet makes their co-ordination far more lethal. It is not the same old fox in sheep's clothing. It is a new wolf.

Many recent studies show that the popularity of the internet has led to an increasing amount of hate crimes worldwide, a lowering of age for the commission of hate crimes and the existence of hate crimes where they never existed before. In fact, the majority of hate crimes are now committed by people under the age of twenty and in suburban communities.

The battle for and against hate speech usually boils down to feedom of speech advocates against human rights advocates. Here is where I find myself in a dilemma. In both my universities, among my friends, among my family and within the numerous debating communities that I am a member of, I am a staunch advocate of both and when asked to pick between the two, I immidiately feel a sharp throbbing at the back of my brain. So I have decided to see what both sides have to say.

Freedom of speech advocates contest that banning hate speech on the internet cannot and will not work. They have a point when they say that the internet makes a mockery out of the current prohibitory laws anyway (has finding pornography ever been easier than on the internet?) so passing such a law would be like "a law that makes mosquitos illegal" or "banning winter from Canada".

Human rights advocates on the other hand claim that freedom of speech is a small price to pay for the elimination of hate crimes. Statistics show us that the internet is a direct factor for the rise of these crimes, do we not owe it to the previous victims and countless victims in the future to combat hate crime? Is freedom of speech really so vauable that we stand by it and watch hate crimes devolop beyond our control?

If you ask me for my opinion, I have to say I would side with a bit of both, but mainly with the free speech advocates. My perception of the problem though is more in line with the human rights advocates. I think hate speech on the internet has to be fought against with all our might, but I dont think sacrificing freedom of speech is the answer. I dont believe banning hate speech from the internet will solve the problem in any way. Hate stems primarily from ignorance. We are prejudiced against certain races, certain cultures because we are ignorant of their humane, cultural side and hence paint a general, negative portrayal of them in our minds. It is this ignorance that I think has to be tackled for the crime itself to dissapear on any kind of long term basis.

Banning these organisations and forbidding them to speak out in public will not silence them. It will only fester their wounds and allow their hatred to grow in darkness. Bringing their radical theories out in the open and creating a forum for debate on the other hand, will raise awareness. Why ban the Neo-Nazis when we can create a website of our own called the Anti Neo-Nazis? This way, not only would we be warning unsuspecting individuals of the dangers of getting influenced by such organisations, we would also be creating an open area of discussion. The ignorance which these Hate groups feed on can thus be countered.

Remember, the law can often be a clumsy, brutish instrument to achieve certain social goals. The use of the law should be a last resort, when all else fails, not the first line of defense. In scenarios where the crime stems from social conditions, like it does here, this principle is paramount.

For as Voltaire himself said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."