Hate Speech and Hate Web Sites
Before delving into the ethics of hate sites, a definition of hate speech is required because it is the foundation of these 'hate sites.'
Hate speech disparages someone because of an immutable characteristic of that person - such as his or her race, gender, or ethnicity. It's been around for many years, and was primarily confined to pamphlets, books, magazines, and flyers. These media channels were prohibitive. Publishing a single pamphlet could cost hundreds of dollars, assuming that some printer would agree to handle the job.
The Internet revolutionized the propagation of hate propaganda. Slick websites could be created for very little money. People can join from across the country using chat groups, making the cost of organizing considerably less. Once organized, a hate group can use the Internet to disseminate its message or to destabilize the messages of opponents. More and more hate groups have been adopting the Internet as its tool. "Hate sites on the Internet increased by 56 percent, from 163 in 1997 to 254 in 1998."1
Banning hate speech from the Internet was discussed in the Supreme Court case Reno v. ACLU, decided in 1997. This case arose after the Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. CDA was passed because of the concerns regarding the easily accessible pornography on the Internet. The CDA was created to restrain accessibility to minors, but it was challenged because it had the potential consequence of limiting adult access to protected speech. In the decision, Justice Stevens rejected CDA, saying it "threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community."4 In addition, he recognized that the Internet deserved full First Amendment protection.
In the early 1990s, the pro-life group known as the American Coalition of Life Advocates (ACLA) distributed WANTED-style posters listing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 12 people, labeled "THE DEADLY DOZEN." The posters offer $5000 reward for information leading to arrest, conviction, and revocation of license to practice medicine. The listed doctors were advised to take caution, wear bulletproof vests, and were offered 24/7 marshal protection once the FBI was alerted about these posters in 1995. Some of the group's intended audience took these posters seriously and began shooting at and sometimes killing the listed doctors.
On October 26, 1996, Planned Parenthood sued ACLA in the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon. The complaint claimed that ACLA have waged a campaign of terror and intimidation and that the posters they distributed target specific abortion providers in a violent life-threatening manner.
The year after, Neal Horsley created the 'Nuremberg Files' Web site. This Web site became one of the crucial issues of the court case. The Nuremberg Files started as ACLA's project, but it was Horsley who put it up on the Web. The Web site name 'Nuremberg Files' invokes the name of the German city in which World War II criminals were tried for killings during the Holocaust. (The picture below is the snapshot of the first page of the Nuremberg Files)
The site contains radical opinions against abortion, labeling the abortion providers "baby butchers" who should be punished. The top of the page is adorned by an image labeled "Visualize Abortionists on Trial" followed by an image of dripping blood, links of aborted baby pictures, information about abortion providers and a solicitation for more information about these "abortionists in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for crimes against humanity."
The site contains pertinent information about more than 200 abortion providers, including names, family members, pictures, addresses of their clinics and homes, and their telephone numbers. Planned Parenthood argued that this information threatens doctors' lives and safety. Horsley denies it saying, "All we've done, and all really anybody's accused us of doing, is printing factually verifiable information. If the First Amendment does not allow a publisher to publish factually verifiable information, then I don't understand what the First Amendment's about."5
In the last two decades, there had been seven murders, 16 attempted murders, 153 arson incidents, and 39 bombings involving abortion providers.6 The Web site didn't urge anyone to do anything except to be aware of the identities of the abortion providers. However, when some anti-abortion activists shot at or killed someone on the list, the list was revised. If an abortion provider was killed, a line was drawn through his name on the list. If the individual was wounded, that name was shaded with gray. (The photo above is a snapshot of the list taken from the Nuremberg Files)
The battling laws involved are the First Amendment rights of ACLA and the 1994 Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This act lists as a prohibited activity: intentionally injuring, intimidating, interfering with, and attempting to injure anyone seeking or providing an abortion.
The mentioned laws also reflects the ethical dilemma: which is more important - the freedom of speech or the safety of the abortion providers?
There are three ways to approach resolution regarding this dilemma. The first one is individual responsibility. According to David Findanque, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, "I think all of us who use the Internet need to understand that if the Web is being used to make threats against particular individuals and is putting the lives of particular people in danger, we need to be responsible for that as users of the Net."2 This option allows the site owners to practice their freedom of speech. However, what about the children, or some weak-minded individuals who can't differentiate from erroneous information to accurate facts?
Another option is to educate people on hate sites. Spread the word about hate sites, what they are, how they are used, and how they affect us. This can be done by making anti-hate Web sites, and to include this information in the ethics curriculum in school. This protects freedom of speech and also limits propagation of hate if people can understand that sometimes the information they obtain from the Internet can be skewed. However, the difficulty with this is that some people's minds are closed off in some of these issues. Once they're against something, they won't even bother to view the other perspective.
The last option is filtering. This can be done in two ways. The first kind of filtering is ISP filtering, similar to what is done to the Nuremberg Files.
Even though the jury awarded over $100 million for plaintiffs, the judge ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction to shut down the Nuremberg Files site but the original service provider, MindSpring, elected to refuse service for the site. After shutting it down, MindSpring issued a press release saying that the site is violating their appropriate use policy and they have no plans to restore it.
The Nuremberg Files reappeared, hosted by Plebeian Systems, a small Cincinnati ISP. A few weeks later, the site was shut down again. This time, it was the T-1 provider to Plebeian Systems, OneNet Communications, threatened to discontinue Plebeian's service if it did not remove the site. Chris Wagner, founder of Plebeian, told CNET News.com: "Our upstream provider forced us to take it down. They were getting too much heat and email. It kind of sounds like they were blackmailed into it."3
The Congress has decided and the courts have concurred that ISPs cannot be held liable for the material they host. This means that Nuremberg Files' service need not to be cut, but it did because of popular opinion. The public pressured the ISP to discontinue the Web site's service. This is risky because ISPs might just fall subject to what is currently "politically correct," blocking everything considered controversial. The difficulty also arises because this kind of filtering disregards the First Amendment.
But another way of filtering is through the judgment of parents and schools for their children or students' use. Because they are young and more vulnerable to this kind of material, they need to be protected from exposure to these hate materials. Minors are accessing these sites. Many signers of Knights of the White Kamelia, Realm of Texas' guest book, for example, are minors. One of them reads, "I'm only 15 now but when I get older I plan to join the Klan to support the master race ~~WHITE Power ~~WHITE PRIDE~~."4
Taking action concerning the Internet is difficult due to its extensive reach. Taking out all these sites through filtering might sound like the ideal resolution, but the consequences of this action would develop more major problems. Also, even if, hypothetically, these hate sites were taken out of the United States, what about those created and mirrored in other countries? So my final decision is the combination of all the possible options. Individuals should be held responsible for their own actions but filtering would be good at home and at school where children might be more vulnerable. Education about hate sites would help individuals be more responsible.
References:
1. Denton, Robert E. (2000). Political communication ethics : an oxymoron?. Westport, Conn.: Praeger
2. Macavinta, Courtney. "Anti-abortion sites vs. free speech" News.com. 12 Mar. 1999. Accessed on: 22 Feb. 2002. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-222923.html?legacy=cnet
3. Macavinta, Courtney. "Judge slams anti-abortion site." News.com. 26 Feb. 1999. Accessed on: 22 Feb. 2002. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-222264.html?legacy=cnet
4. Schultz, David A. (2000). It's show time! : media, politics, and popular culture. New York: P. Lang
5. Hogenson, Scott. "Nuremberg Files Returns to the Internet." Conservative News Service. 24 Feb. 1999. Accessed on: 8 Mar. 2002. http://www.conservativenews.org/indepth/archive/199902/IND19990224d.html
6. Lafferty, Elaine. "Ruling Against Anti-Abortion Website Raises Storm in US Over Rights." The Irish Times. 4 Feb. 1999: 14. Nexis.