Computers have contributed many great things to our everyday lives. They have become the most reliable technology out there. All that is needed to install one is a software program, internet access, electricity and a person ambitious to use it. Computers have made everything so convenient. At a single click of the mouse, you get all the entertainment you’ve ever wanted right before your eyes. From movies, shows, music, articles, books and the news to anything you can imagine can all be accessed from anywhere around the world. Shopping has never been easier than what the internet has allowed it to become. Consumers can shop right from home and have more variety to choose from than what they would be presented with at a local mall. They can even shop anywhere in the world without actually spending thousands of dollars on a ticket and going there. Besides the advancement of science, the internet has made it believable that the Earth is actually round by making it so easy to communicate with people in other parts of the world. Many websites such as Google, Yahoo!, Facebook and Myspace have made it possible for some to gather information about anything and create compatible relationships with different people. Websites such as eHarmony have even made it possible for some people to find love over the internet as well. The Computer Age has brought many benefits to our lives but unfortunately, it has caused people to develop a more hateful attitude towards others. In anything that has many advantages, there is always a disadvantage. In many times, the disadvantage is that there are too many advantages.

The internet has expanded the use of free speech. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It is clearly stated that the congress can’t make any laws which will reduce the level of freedom of speech. It is understood that free speech cannot be denied. The use of the internet to freely express one’s self can be a good thing where others can comment on your words. However, it can lead to hate and conflicts with others. Something as useful as the internet can come with a great price. In between all that good which lies in the use of the internet, there exists a dark side. That side is the hate people build while expressing their ideas and emotions on a place which everyone, of every type, can view.

There is so much focus on online sex predators and pornography that not much attention is given to the dangers of cyber-hate. As a result, hate and bigotry on the internet is growing at a rapid speed. Hate speech is defined as “speech expressing hatred or intolerance of other social groups, esp. on the basis of race or sexuality; hostile verbal abuse (though the term is sometimes understood to encompass written and non-verbal forms of expression).” (Union College) The idea of free speech prevents putting any stop to the spread of hate speech. That is why certain leagues have been established so that they can bring law enforcement agencies together and figure out how to resolve the issue of hate speech on the internet. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was founded “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.” (ADL) The ADL makes people aware of the extremism and hate activity going on in our world and promotes security awareness by monitoring hate sites on the internet. But there is only a certain amount the ADL can work up to because of the rules implemented in the First Amendment.

One of the biggest concerns of hate sites on the internet is who views them. Some things are not appropriate for the younger age group. Children are the most vulnerable to hate sites. Many things are offensive to them and some they do not understand. They are young and in their developing years. What they see and read can greatly affect their mentality and influence their behavior. These factors can change the way they will think as they mature into adults and will affect the way they deal with certain issues and groups of people. The ADL has published a speech by Christopher Wolf, Chair of the International Network Against Cyber-Hate. The speech discusses how the use of the internet has assisted in the growth of hate speech. "The Internet allows haters to communicate, collaborate and plot in ways simply not possible in the off-line world. The Internet inspires and facilitates real-world violence. And the misuse of the Internet to propagate hate victimizes those vulnerable to hurtful words and images, especially minorities, and it serves to mislead and even recruit young people to become the next generation of hate-mongers." (Wolf) We see the reason why the teenagers of this generation are more violent than ever before and where they get their inspiration from. And to think, all this time we thought it was movies and video games. The internet is the haters’ library and café, it looks amazing but it is a place where they can pour all their hatred, unknowing of who will read it. Any child old enough to read and write can type in a few keywords and be exposed to a load of hate sites presenting racism and bigotry barely a click away.

A major issue that currently exists today is the denial of many events recorded in history that occurred in the past and are subject to controversy. Hate speech emerges from people who are willing to speak against a particular event and those who are against the denial of it. The internet is a cheap and highly effective way for hate groups to post their hateful ideas online for everyone to read. Many times, these ideas promote hate towards a certain group. Before the internet, the spread of hate was limited by geographical boundaries. But now the advantage of advanced communication through the internet has made it possible for even small hate groups to become apparent. “Some of the Web Sites deny the Holocaust and espouse virulent anti-Semitism; others portray gays and lesbians as subhuman in the guise of promoting so-called "family values"; and still other Web Sites contain racial epithets and caricatures.  Audience members almost always have the same reaction to what they see.” (Wolf) This is particularly true because people search what they are interested in (in most cases) and will intentionally find a hate site that they share common beliefs and ideas with. The killing of six-million Jews during the Holocaust is denied by some but whether it is considered a crime or not depends on where the denial occurs. In Canada and Germany, one can be imprisoned for the denial of the Holocaust. On the other hand, in the United States, the First Amendment protects the rights of those who deny it by giving them the freedom of speech. The internet facilitates hate groups in denying events in the past and those who agree with them find themselves a source of conviction. However, such sites and speech effect by hurting and angering those who may have lost family and friends in the Holocaust. This produces conflicts between the opposing sides and all of it is spilled into the internet for others to read and claim their sides.

Often times, people have a tendency to dislike people of other nationalities and races because of certain experiences they may have encountered in their life or plainly because they were raised to be that way. Because it is discourteous to walk around in our daily lives with a look of disgust on our face towards another because of who they are or where they are from, people find relief in openly expressing their feelings on the internet. They use websites such as JustRage.com to confront their opposition with others behind an anonymous identity. Recently, there were many posts from people who oppose having an African American elected to become president. Websites like this are large pools of hate speech available to anyone willing to go through it and read it. At least the website’s name says it all. There are some websites which seem as if they are for educational purposes but are actually there to bring prejudice between people. “There’s one site that appears to be an examination of the life of the civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Any student doing research on Dr. King who might happen upon this site could be duped into believing this is a legitimate history. Scrolling down, the trained observer notices that it really contains racist propaganda from the National Alliance.” (Wolf)

As we now know, hate speech can trigger violence among groups of people. Violence resulting from hate speech is called hate crime. “Hate speech regulation is often posited as a measure that will prevent society from succumbing to totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism. Ironically, however, the idea that we might regulate speech and prosecute crimes according to the emotions we ascribe to them, is one of the most totalitarian ideas imaginable.” (Osce) The idea that hate speech should be regulated seems like a great one but that is just the total opposite of democracy. In a democracy, at least an individual’s right to freedom of speech should be maintained. Of course, people are offended by others comments but they have just as much right to speak up as their “hater”. With this said, the issue of hate crime rises. Then how can hate crime be controlled if hate speech isn’t? Well, it can’t be. Whether hate speech is controlled or not, hate crime will always exist as long as people do but there is a chance it might be at a lower rate than with hate speech around.

A Canadian magazine published by MacLean’s magazine was held for trial in Canada because it contained an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. Under Canadian law, there was serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that the publisher “…should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect.” An argument broke out where one man yelled, “It's hate speech!” while another yelled "It's free speech!" The debate has been settled in the United States saying that under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say whatever they like. “Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.”(Herald Tribune) Eventually, all these magazines and articles end up on the internet. As a Muslim, reading such articles offends me because many things at times are not specifically true. I understand when someone says something hateful towards Muslims because that is their opinion and they have the right to free speech but when a false statement is made, that is where the line should be drawn. To make false claims about a specific person or group of people is just wrong – because they’re not true! So, yes, these things do offend me and if I were someone who wanted to express my opinions about others in return to their comments or simply because I just wanted to, all I need is the internet and I will become a practitioner of hate speech and contribute more to the hate trash already existing on it.

“Racism, intolerance, bigotry, and violence are issues the United States has faced throughout its history. They are also issues that have received new attention in recent decades. Hate is discussed not only in public forums and on college campuses, but on the Internet. Bias crimes and hate speech as formally-defined concepts, now more than ever, are the subjects of legislation, of Supreme Court decisions, and of scholarly debate.” (Union College) There is only a certain extent to which the Supreme Court can reach so it doesn’t violate what is written in the First Amendment. It would seem that in the developed, more industrialized world racism would no longer exist but now it is more common than ever. There are groups associated with major search engines, such as Yahoo, that focus on bigotry and racism and nothing can be done to prevent them from forming. "…In the United States…all such speech remains constitutionally protected." (Herald Tribune) The question that arises is “Is it free speech or hate speech?” The United State Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio that there is a line between speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action…” (ADL) and speech that is not likely to invite such action. This makes it clear that there is a fine line between free speech and hate speech but it also makes it almost impossible to punish internet hate speech.

Although hate speech is reaching the top in current times, it is nearly impossible to rule against it. To make others aware of the harms of hate speech on the internet, evidence that shows it’s physical harm needs to be provided so that further efforts can be made towards regulating it. Since hate speech inspires violence, there is bound to be a bias crime that has occurred due to inspiration from hate speech online. Such a case is needed to promote hate crime laws into being formed for the betterment of our world and the safety of its people. By making the problems associated with hate sites and speech online more apparent, there will be hope for putting a stop to hate speech, not free speech – because free speech guarantees no physical harm. An increasing number of crimes have been committed by those who read hate literature online. “The racially motivated shooting of blacks, Asian-Americans and Jews in suburban Chicago over July Fourth weekend in 1999 was carried out by a member of World Church of the Creator, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, who, according to law enforcement officials, has admitted to reading hate literature online. There have been similar cases where perpetrators of hate crimes have found inspiration in literature easily obtainable on the Internet.” (Wolf) There are forty two states that have some sort of a hate crime law established that seek to penalize one who carries out a bias crime. But that is not enough. A national law needs to be made that will somewhat regulate hate speech on the internet and the most promoting way to do that is to provide solid proof of how hate literature can encourage people to indulge in criminal behavior.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech despite of what form that speech takes. That is why many fight for their privilege and do not appreciate the fact that most internet access providers regulate offensive speech. Internet providers such as America Online regulate what is acceptable and what is not and can take away their subscriber’s privileges if they receive a complaint from another user. On the other hand, there are some internet providers that do not monitor their website because it goes against the First Amendment. “For example, Earthlink of Pasadena, Calif., states in its "acceptable use policy" that the site "supports the free flow of information and ideas over the Internet" and does not actively monitor the content of web sites it hosts. Although Earthlink makes clear that illegal activities are not permitted on its site, that one caveat didn't stop the neo-Nazi web site "For Folk and Fatherland" from establishing a home page through Earthlink. The web site reprints Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and more than two dozen of Hitler's speeches. It's not illegal activity, but the message is clearly hateful.” (Wolf) So it really doesn’t matter if many websites regulate offensive speech until they all do because unless they are all being monitored, people will find a website that will be willing to allow them to post as much bigotry as they like.

The Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling regarding hate speech in the United States. It is difficult to come up with a law that prohibits hate speech because it does not fall outside of the protections of the First Amendment and the U.S. law prohibits interfering with the content of electronic communications.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

http://www.adl.org/

http://www.adl.org/main_internet/internet_hate_law.htm

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/holocaust-denial-crime-or-free-speech/

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php

http://www.adl.org/internet/internet_law1.asp

http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/LIBRARY/research/topics/hate/hatespeech.htm

http://www.adl.org/internet/internet_law3.asp

http://www.adl.org/internet/internet_law4.asp

http://politicalhacking.blogspot.com/2008/05/hate-speech-on-internet.html

http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/selfregulation/iapcoda/rxio-rapporteur-020923.htm