The Web is the great magnifier

The Web is the great magnifier of society. It magnifies everything beyond its normal proportions and importance. If you think the world is good, you will find a lot of good on the web. There are sites for parents, kids, cancer survivors, support groups, etc. If you think the world is bad, you can also find a lot of bad on the web too. Everyone's definition of good and bad is different.

Our governments decide for all of us what is good or bad, legal or illegal. The Canadian government is being asked to ban several web sites that advocate white supremacist views and violence. One of the sites is a blog hosted on Google's Blogger, and has already been blocked.

This raises all sorts of legal, technical, and moral issues. Where does "freedom of speech" end and illegal hate, pornography, and racism begin? The Internet crosses all government borders. Who decides what laws or standards apply? What is illegal versus immoral versus annoying?

The First Amendment protects free speech but does not allow threats or speech that could cause panic or rioting. It is against the law to call for someone's murder, or to yell 'Fire" in a crowded public place. These boundaries on speech are there to protect the public. China has broader restrictions on free speech justified in the same way...to keep the peace and protect people. Ahhh... the slippery slope.

Here are the specifics of the Canadian case as reported by Mark Goldberg.

There are websites operated by a US-based white supremacist which call for the murder of an Ottawa human rights lawyer who successfully fought to put Tomasz Winnicki, a London, Ontario purveyor of hate, in jail for ignoring a court order to stop posting hate on the internet. In the court's decision, the lawyer's concern for his own well-being is mentioned:

RW testified that he has been personally harassed and threatened by neo-Nazis and that he now lives in hiding and does not dare to reveal his occupation or address for fear of harassment for his family and himself.

Unfortunately, two US-based websites have now called for this man to be murdered and provided his home address. The sites also call for the violent overthrow of the Canadian Government and for the streets to run red with the blood of Jews.

Pretty serious stuff. What should be done about it? You could take the above paragraphs and substitute "Islamic extremist" for "white supremacist", or substitute "blood of Americans" for "blood of Jews". Would that change things? In fact, there are hundreds of substitutions you could make in the above paragraphs that might change your views about what should be done. But it wouldn't change the fundamental facts.

The web magnifies everything. If not for TechMeme which tracks popular blogs I would have never heard about this story. The web magnified it for me and brought it into view. We filter out 90% of the information and content that is blasted at us. We choose to ignore stuff that is offensive or uninteresting.

Should we each rely on our own personal filters and let anything go on the web? Should the government take steps to block content from our view? Where is the line drawn? Everyone agrees child pornography is bad and illegal. The law of the USA says that porn is OK for adults but must be screened out for minors. China draws a different line on many issues than the USA. Is that OK? Politics is really tough. I think I will stick to technology:-)

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Comments

[David Storrs]

My personal view is that I'd like to see all forms of speech permitted, both on the Web and in "real" life. You want to post hate speech, bomb plans, leaked high-security information, child porn, bounties for assassinating the President--fine.

Why? Because I think there are better ways to control these things than putting up a blanket "you may not" policy. Because I recognize that any government is made of flawed and fallible human beings, and that they are not always going to get it right. Because I'd rather be treated as a morally responsible adult than as a child.

Mechanisms (e.g. NetNanny) exist that let parents filter porn off their computers so that children don't see it; we don't need the government to make porn illegal. Mechanisms (e.g. the police) exist to make sure that people are not physically attacked; we don't need the government to make it illegal to call for attacks. I recognize that emotional abuse is just as wounding as physical, but I think that alternate mechanisms either exist now or can evolve that are better than "you can't say anything that might offend anyone", which is where we are heading.

[rosie]

I think that something needs to be done. The internet is, in my experience, a horrible creation. Maybe it was a good thing before the perverts got hold of it but now it's 98% porn soup that can't be avoided. For instance a few nights ago I was on a mini bike website reading about the latest bikes and looking at pics and reading people's performance reviews, etc. In the "Other" section someone posted a link to a popular video website, saying "Check it out! LMAO!" I clicked the link and was treated to the sight of a man raping another man. I closed the page instantly but the damage had been done and that imagery is going to stick with me for who knows how long. So... yes. I suppose it isn't completely appropriate for people to have their rights taken away (even though I feel that they are using them improperly) but there should be SOMETHING, some law or guideline or whatever, in place so that normal people can browse safely. Ever tried finding something through a search engine? If the things you find there (now mostly opinions and conversations from blogs and forums and myspace and various other horrible places instead of FACTS)aren't enough to make one scream, I don't know what is. Filters are useless. Use a filter and you'll get maybe five results, none of them even vaguely helpful. It's all or nothing.

In response to the white supremacy thing: I've had several online experiences with that. I'm not trying to turn this into some huge 'thing', but I think it's unfair that everyone is allowed to hate African-Americans but the moment someone writes something offensive and/or frightening about Hispanics or Jewish people or pretty much anyone who isn't African-American, someone gets on the phone with a lawyer and there are court dates and hearings and lawsuits and whatever else. Where is that anti-hate stuff when people are talking about killing people of African ancestry? Seems like a "Yeah, they're nothing. Do what you want." thing in my opinion.