The line between hate speech and free speech is a thin one, and different countries have different levels of tolerance. The line is even thinner on the Internet, where hateful comments posted lawfully in one country can be read in other countries where they may be deemed unlawful.
Hate in a Free Speech Environment
Many pundits argue that the best response to hate speech is not criminalization, but more speech. Philosopher Pierre Lévy reminds us that:
More and more, on the Web, ideas are being expressed by the people who are thinking them, and not by journalists who are obliged to simplify or caricature debate because of lack of time or incompetence or, even worse, the political powers that be. The new medium is therefore particularly conducive to the creation of a public space in the classical sense.
Public debate on the early Net indeed proved frustrating for those who tried to argue that the Holocaust did not occur, or that certain racial groups were inferior. The interactive nature of Usenet newsgroups ensured that false claims were challenged by healthy and vigorous debate. As a result, hate-mongers soon retreated into less interactive areas of cyberspace.
Ironically, the free speech environment that characterized discussion forums in the late 1980s and early 1990s made many Internet service providers (ISPs) uncomfortable.
CompuServe was one of the first ISPs to be confronted with a vigorous debate about hate, when a revisionist began to pepper an online discussion with racist comments. The forum soon became one of the most frequently visited on CompuServe.
However, the discussion ended when CompuServe created its acceptable use policy, which prohibited people from posting racist or offensive comments. It is now standard practice for ISPs to require online users to adhere to acceptable use policies.
Hate-mongers also learned a lesson about the perils of free speech. Canadian Ken McVay, founder of the Nizkor Project, has spent over a decade attempting to engage hate-monger Ernst Zundel in an online discussion. McVay notes, “It is well-established that the Zundelsite refuses to participate in the interactive forums of the Internet.” McVay believes the reason for Zundel’s reticence is twofold:
-
Zundel is aware of the fact that much of what he claims is false
-
Zundel is trying “not to engage in discourse and arrive at understanding, but to spread ideologies and recruit supporters”
McVay concludes that hate-mongers “avoid any form of interaction with those who disagree with their views. As a result, it is impossible to effectively rebut their falsehoods” in open discussion.
Hate Retreats to Web Sites and Private Forums
The Web has become the online forum of choice for hate groups precisely because it allows them to avoid interacting with those who disagree with their views. The Anti-Defamation League notes, “Organized haters complain about civil rights activists who critique their manifestos in Usenet newsgroups and other interactive forums. In contrast, haters can refuse to publish critical messages on their Web sites.”
Web sites also help groups identify potential recruits who can be brought into the hate community through private chat rooms and e-mail, well away from the public eye.
However, many activists suggest that the public nature of the Web still works against hate-mongers because their activities can be monitored and brought into the public domain. David Goldman, creator of the now defunct site Hatewatch (the first major site dedicated to tracking the activities of online hate groups) argues:
From the beginning, these organizations’ self-proclaimed desire to create a digital “white revolution” was carefully monitored and documented by civil rights organizations, Hatewatch among them. The standard and often repeated quote was the “Internet is the greatest thing to happen to hate.” Much to our joy it has in fact been one of the worst.
Taking Stock
Early fears that the unrestricted nature of online speech would provide haters with an effective recruitment tool appear to be unfounded. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports:
Nonetheless, hate groups continue to refine their online strategies.
A number of sites encourage their visitors to hack anti-hate Web sites and crash the server or replace the content with hateful messages. For example, hacker Doctor Nuker broke into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Web site in 2002 and posted anti-Semitic comments on the home page.
In another incident, a hate-monger redirected Web traffic so that surfers looking for German government pages were automatically rerouted to pages containing Nazi propaganda.
A growing number of countries, including France and Australia, are beginning to exert jurisdiction over online speech in an attempt to curtail hate activities.
For example, a French court ordered California-based Yahoo.com to block the auction of Nazi paraphernalia in 2003. Although the decision is likely to be unenforceable in U.S. courts, it was enough to encourage Yahoo to reconsider its policies.
As more countries seek to enforce their own laws in cyberspace, it is likely that hate groups will continue to test the limits of freedom of online expression.
