http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/23/national/a050117D98.DTL&hw=jena&sn=001&sc=275
This is an article from the SF Chronicle on Sunday, September 23; it states that some white supremacist websites recently posted the addresses and phone numbers of the African American kids involved in the case. The FBI is investigating whether or not the site is breaking any laws.
I thought this was interesting because it relates directly to the HATE.COM film we watched in class, and it further proves that those websites do exist and they are very much active today.
After reading the article, think about these questions:
-Do you think an FBI investigation of these websites is enough? or do you agree with Rev. Jesse Jackson that these families need protection?
-What do you think should be done to the moderators of the website? Where does the line end between their right to free speech and the harassment of the families, seeing as they did not directly harm them?
Comment on any of these questions, or anything you have to say!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think that to put other people's information on the web such as addresses and phone numbers is completely wrong. That is personal information that is meant to be only for a certain number of people--not for anyone who has access to the internet. Seeing that many people have resentment towards these black families, I think that they do need protection. Who knows what could happen to them? Suspicious phone calls might lead to more violence. With the internet at everyone's disposal, it needs to be monitored. Some information is not ok for anyone to see. The sites on Hate.com are not ok either, but at least they are not posting personal information that can be used against people. I know we've had the discussion before about censoring websites, and I do think they need to be censored. However, in this case, I think that it is absolutely necessary that something be done to stop this information from circulating nationally. If this info can potentially harm famillies, it should not be on the web.
But then again, what law did the people who posted the information break?
that's the thing...is their a legal difference between freedom of speech and hate sites?
I think that the issue of freedom of speech versus hate crime will always be a line that I am unable to draw such that it can be applied to all situations.
After reading this article I think that in this case the families of the six black students should have some sort of protection because as Aileen said, there is no knowing what could happen. I was particularly disgusted/stunned (whatever you want to call it) when the article said that one of the callers talked to the son of the aunt of the one of the "six" using the N-word. This article brought me back once again to the power of the internet as discussed in the hate.com film. Not only is it anonymous, it also has the power to reach millions of people, which in this case means that millions of people have access to the information of these families. I think that what is most troubling about this situation is that is something were to happen as a result of these families information being spread, it would be very difficult to find/convict the individual because of the power of anonymity in the internet. Yet after much thought I am still left wondering where do draw the line.
I think that this qualifies as a hate crime because those addresses were put up to make circumstances more difficult for the family. Freedom of speech applies if you are only talking about speech, but this is clearly an action designed to harm others.
Well the question is, what are the white supremacist sites posting the personal information for? What exactly are they promoting for their viewers to do with that information? Intent is probably where the FBI is going to find if they are guilty of anything illegal or not, but I find it hard to believe that a white supremacist group would ever post the African-American students' info for any sort of good reason.
isn't there also some sort of confidentiality law that the site is breaking?
Post a Comment