|
|
|
|
|
Hate SitesThe term "hate site" is used by some to refer to websites that are said to promote hatred. In many cases, these are sites that contain critisizm of a specific race, religion or even a type of sexual behavior. Other "hate" sites promote hatred of certain nationalities. Many times, however, the term "hate" is used by political propagandists in an attempt to discredit or "shout down" any opposing point of view, or to muffle criticism and genuine analysis or debate of a specific topic. Issues regarding hate sites have been a major concern for people of all political points of view. Many are concerned about the effect that the content of these sites may have on society. At the center of the debate, however, is the danger to human freedom and liberty and the oppressive nature implicit in various proposals to deal with "hate." Three main approaches have been proposed for this problem: education, content filtering software, and banning hate sites. Education, content filtering software, and banning hate sites. Because the definition of what constitutes hate varies from person to person, and claims of hate mongering are seen by some as merely being political tactics employed by activist groups to smear or attack their political opponents, there are obvious dangers involved in any attempt to reduce or eliminate hate sites through governmental means. The danger revolves not only around the differences of opinion over what constitutes hate, but around the human rights of individuals to feel whatever they wish and express their own thoughts or feelings, even if they are not popular, or if they include criticisms that some believe constitute hate. In practice, a ban on hate sites could cause a situation in which a political entity successfully defines its opponents' point of view or accusations as "hate" and gain oppressive and undemocratic powers to suppress and even criminalize free speech and real debate over an issue. Free speech advocates and others concerned with personal liberty and human rights are wary of attempts to ban expression of certain opinions because of the danger that it may just be a roundabout attempt at suppressing legitimate concerns. If a ban is imposed, then once any position - even if true or legitimate - is defined as hate, oppression of those that hold and openly express that position will immediately ensue. Theoretically, one could even receive severe criminal punishment for saying something that is actually true. In light of the many drawbacks to proposed political solutions to the problem of hate sites on the Internet, many content filtering programs have appeared with the capability of blocking sites containing certain words or themes. These can be used to help parents protect their children from hate-promoting websites, as well as from pornography and many other types of websites they wish to block out from their computer. Unlike proposed governmental solutions to the problem, private citizens using software by choice on their own computers does not pose a threat of supression of freedom of speech because only the reception of the speech is blocked, and the speech itself is not suppressed. RELATED WEBSITES: http://www.thefire.org/
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|