This is Elias as Ms. Finn and until Julia helps me with my lack of technology comprehension I will continue to be Ms Finn.
Firstly, I was really pumped about my Genocide class's (H Block) discussion about denial of the holocaust in particular and then of any truth in general. Listening to the varying opinions the major theme for me was that I was not able to formulate a nice, clear-cut opinion. I was pulled this way and that as new ideas were brought up and at the end of the discussion my brain was throughly cloudy. I only have questions and I'm quite interested to hear any and all responses. What forms the basis of our understanding, the concept of free-speech or hearing what we want to hear? Can we censor what we don't want to hear or does everything have to be heard? Does letting deniers speak give them opportunity to change minds? Who should win, "truth" or the "other"? Can one listen to a denier and yet still actively oppose their ideas? Does listening give their cause momentum? So many questions....
The other thing was that I was deeply and truly disturbed and frightened by the video Hate.com. I was so taken aback that I had to pause for several moments before I went on with my day. I was shocked that this video is not of "history," but of the now. this is now and we can not be withdraw by time from these events. More questions: How do those people form their ideas? Should they be allowed to post online, just as I am this very moment? Is their anyway to change their ideals? Should people try to change their ideas?
Quite a long post, but hopefully it is some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with Elias that Wednesday's class in particular really had me torn and feeling a little uncomfortable. Sometimes I found myself afraid to make point or state my opinion in fear that I may be completely wrong and naive or that my points would be harmful to anyone else's opinion. In terms of the film that we watched in class, HATE.com, I had a similar reaction as Elias did. I was shaken with disturbance, fear, uncomprehension, and disbelief. I imagined these sort of opinions to be from decades ago, but definetely not in our current day society. It is a very difficult thing to understand since we live in a society and under a government which values and "advertises" its democratic ideal of "freedom of speech." Yet, as Elias pointed out, is there ever a line between freedom of speech, and abuse of these powers to harm and discriminate against others?
Another thing that I found very interesting and important was the immergence and vital role which technology plays into these issues. In the documentary in particular, the leaders of these organizations all said that since the invention of the Internet and online web, the opportunities for expansion and global access was a huge step in their "quest" to proclaim their beliefs and recruite "disciples." Before the Internet boom, their numbers were extremely small, and so you may ask whether the Internet has encouraged or initiated these sort of extremes and abusive behaviors of people's freedom of speech? With the Internet open to everyone and anyone, it also brings to light the issue of censorship, especially for kids, as well as the connection to the question of truth. Targeting kids, who are more vulnerable and susceptible to any sort of brainwashing or imposed biases, is a serious issue, and should be questioned whether it is morally and consitutionally valid. And to tie back to our class discussion, how has the Internet affected our perceptions between truth and falsehood, and how has the powerful network of "freedom of expression" blogs and websites created a barrier for others to differentiate between the two?
And just to attempt to respond to some of Elias' many questions, I think in our current American society and the way it works, it is almost virtually impossible to be able to censor everything we don't want to hear, especially when those things vary completely from person to person. Yet at the same time, I think it IS possible to remain tolerant towards other people's view while still opposing and actively standing for your own beliefs, which can be backed up by your own reasons and sources of "evidence." In response to the question about changing someone else's ideals, I think it is very very hard to say and judge whether someone has the right or power to alter someone else's ideals (though that is essentially what they are doing to other people and children), however that is why I awknowledge and am thankful for our rights to freedom of speech, so that we have the opportunity to always express our own opinions and perhaps persuade others on the bases of how valid and "truthful" your defense is.
Like Elias, I apologize for an even longER post. But feel free to respond, with an even longer one, haha.
Both Ting and Elias raise very interesting points and questions about the use of freedom of speech. I agree that it is extremely difficult to determine whether someone should be allowed to spread hateful ideas such as the disturbing concepts shown in Hate.com. A factor that adds even more confusion to the issue is that there are varying degrees with which spoken messages lead to actions. For example, in Hate.com, there were some websites that encouraged “lone wolf” attacks, and people such as Matthew and Tyler Williams were persuaded by these websites to attack a gay couple. So, these websites that encourage action against groups of people become dangerous. On the other hand, the websites themselves are just expressing ideas, which is encompassed in freedom of speech. I know that we all value free speech immensely, it is necessary in a free society, but it’s just so difficult to look at cases where clearly these websites caused people to kill and say “this should be legal.” I understand, too, that other factors influenced these two men, and it wasn’t as though they were fully content with life and the website alone made them capable of killing another human being. It was even said on the video that the site “filled a void” in their lives. It just seems like these sites are designed for that very intent, to make people feel like the organizations give them purpose in life, and to suck them in that way, and it’s all so premeditated and calculated, and it makes the whole issue of whether they should be allowed very conflicting.
I agree with everything that has been said... It's the fine balance between freedom of speech and violent action that has to be observed... but , on the other hand, can these websites diminish violence? Maybe some people, by sharing their thoughts and feelings release the urge to act upon them? I don't know, it can go either way... I guess it coud both heighten the hatred... but I know when I'm angry it helps to vent... is there any possibility that the sites diminish the violence for some people? (it probably depends on the person)
I think that people expressing themselves online can possibly diminish the violen
Sites such as ones in Hate.com are allowing injurious ideas to be spread to anyone who has access to the internet. Tal, while these sites could lessen the degree of violence of the person who creates it (expressing harmful words instead of violent action), I think that because these beliefs and values are being spread and adopted by other people, overall, these sites do not lessen violence. Today, the internet is such a powerful thing because anyone can retrieve any information for free without a lot of work. Racism has always been encountered in American society, but while racist thoughts might be decreasing in everyday interaction, they are increasing on the internet. People have realized that they can post whatever they unanimously (this being a big component). If a person does not have to identify his/herself , it is a lot easier to state a opinion that others might object to. Although freedom of speech is a guaranteed right in America, I personally believe that websites like these should be censored for hateful messages. There is no doubt that it would be hard to do, but I think something needs to happen. Any suggestions.....?
I think a lot of the problems which were brought up in this class go back to the question of whether we can define wrong, so as to decide which things should be allowed to be out in the open and which shouldn't. On the hand, it is clear to me that such websites like the Christian Initiative shouldn't be allowed; but by limiting this, a slippery slope could be created. I don't know if this ever can be solved, because their will always be one person on the other side of an argument. Until wrong is defined, it may always be a matter of individual opinion.
I agree with Aileen's statements about how the internet and technology actually may increase this sort of hate-violence because it gives people more access to these ideas.
Ting's discussion of technology and the implication of a global society also sparked some interesting thoughts for me. Children growing up are mostly influenced by their parents, surrounding adults and peers, and the education that they receive. Ideas and beliefs are oftentimes very similar in certain regions and for people of similar races and cultures.
With the introduction of internet to spread ideas and beliefs, will these regional, racial, and cultural differences become less significant as children have easy exposure to ideas from all around the world from all different kinds of people that they would not have access to otherwise? How much can information on the internet influence a child's worldview and beliefs? As we saw in HATE.com, young children have access to games that promote negative and horrifying messages. How influential can these sites be in shaping a child?
to answer melanie's question... I think these sites can have a great influence of kids. Many times people are influenced subconsciously, so I believe that kids, although they may not realize it, are constantly influenced by everything they see. I think to some degree what should be stopped is spamming of these sites. One the video I believe they mentioned that children received emails that had links to games on these hate sites... I think this should be stopped. If a child is specifically looking for a site there isn't much that can be done to stop it. but, if a child is checking his/her email and stumbles across a seemingly fun game that is really influencing them negatively it is not ok.
the problem with stopping these emails is that it goes back int othe whole censorship problem. Leo mentioned the slippery slope and that could become very problematic. If things begin to be censored - who censors them? and if it is the government.. what happens if the government becomes corrupt and instead of censoring what we consider to be "wrong" they censor "good" things. Can anything be censored/should anything be censored. If so, who decides what is censored?
After thinking about it a little, I think it is practiaclly impossible to censor what is on the internet.
If sites started to be censored, I would have a commitee whose job is just this. However people have biases, so what some people might see as ok, others may see as horrifying.
Technically, the goal would be to get everything that offers and opinion (bias) off the internet because there is no fine line between good and bad. With censorship, there would be sooo much dispute that is probably not worth the effort. It's too hard to judge what is ok and what is not. And while some things are clearly not ok, them being taken away will cause dispute between the site creator and the censors. It's too much a matter of opinion and there is no one way to look at it.
Also, I see this as a problem in our country, but I think the government has more important things to focus on: poverty, education.......
I believe that, as others have said, the basic right to freedom of speech prevents organizations from censoring sites like hate.com as long as they don't directly lead to violence. (More on that later) But, as Elias mentioned freedom of speech also means that other people have the right to denounce these sites in the public sphere. One of the other profound affects the medium of the Internet has on the spread of these ideas is that people can participate in these forums and have their beliefs validated by others and still remain completely anonymous. Public criticism is against a shadowy group of organizations instead of specific people, for the most part.
However, as I mentioned before, sites that can be proven to directly encourage and enable violence should be shut down. Freedom of speech ends where violence begins. I imagine the creators of the websites have disclaimers and such that make sure they don't have liability in the case of a "lone wolf."
Also, concerned parents do have the ability to filter out sites they deem inappropriate for their kids, if they were concerned about their children being influenced by these extremist websites.
Back to some of Elias's original questions: we cannot censor what we don't want to hear because that leads to situations where the majority opinion can have ever-increasing power because the minority opinion is never heard. Part of the concept of free speech is hearing what anyone has to say, no matter if one deems it 'wrong' or 'right.' Issues of wrong and right (such as holocaust deniers), or tolerance and intolerance (such as the Hate.com websites) belong in a public forum where all sides are represented, because then they can be publicly denounced. A holocaust denier should be given floor space with a scholar because the scholar should be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the holocaust did indeed occur. Similarly, if you will remember in the movie hate.com, the creator (I can't remember his name) was being interviewed on a television program, and he came across as ignorant and intolerant. By giving all sides equal opportunity to debate, we are staying true to free speech, and we are giving the 'correct' side a chance to make a fool of the 'incorrect' side. Listening to people such as holocaust deniers in a public forum alongside scholars does not give their cause momentum, rather it should bring it to a grinding halt in the face of the scholar's plethora of evidence.
If you will remember, two years ago the agape club put up posters for a 'see you at the pole' event, which, if I'm not mistaken, was advertising a prayer session. The administration removed the signs after they recieved some complaints. Someone who knows more about the situation should fill in the holes, but that's the general idea. Was this form of censorhip acceptable? If their posters were offensive to some, does that justify removing them?
Post a Comment