Research paper

Earlier this week, I finished my fifth class for my master's degree. While I received an A in the class, my final assignment was left out. Apparently, my professor got confused on when final grades were due and didn't have time to grade the final (which was originally worth 20% of the grade), so she dropped it from her scoring rubric.

Cool.

Well, since I took the time to write a 2200+ word research paper and now it has no audience, I've decided to share it here. Don't feel obligated to read it, but if you, I'd love to know what you think.

Hate Speech vs. Censorship: The Power of Language on Social Media and the Dangers of Both Hate Speech and Censorship

Free speech is often held as the most vital liberty protected by the Bill of Rights. Yet, is it possible to maintain the freedom of speech while still limiting it? Specifically, how can free speech be protected while still preventing hate speech, especially on social media? The crux of this dilemma is that taking action to curb hate speech is a form of censorship, which inherently hinders free speech. However, with the rise of social media platforms being used as a new outlet for individuals and groups to use hateful language—and new hate groups forming and made possible via social media platforms—there is growing concern about the dangers of allowing hate speech to exist unrestrained. Ultimately, the question becomes: is controlling hate speech on social media worth the price of censorship? This paper will explore this issue by defining hate speech, providing a brief history of hate speech in the US, establishing the existence of hate speech online and on social media, defining free speech as it exists in the US, supplying evidence of the power of hate speech, and establishing the view of censorship by the US Supreme Court. The goal of this paper is to weigh the dangers of hate speech against the dangers of censorship, offer an opinion about which is more perilous, and provide potential options of how to best address these concerns.

Identifying the Issue

There is no official, legal term for what constitutes hate speech in the US; however, according to the UN, "the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour [sic], that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour [sic], descent, gender or other identity factor." To put it another way, hate speech is biased and insidious language used to attack a person or groups of person based on one or more thing that make up that person’s identity. In this way, hate speech is different from disagreeing with a person's opinion, viewpoint, or ideology. Hate speech is used not to attack philosophies, but people themselves.

History of hate speech in the US

No history of hate speech in the US would be complete nor honest without first discussing the nation’s history of race-based slavery. The American colonies and later the fledgling US were established with race-based slavery. While slavery and indentured servitude had been used around the world for centuries, the version of slavery in America was different in that it was lifelong and based on parentage. Even in the early colonies, children born to slaves were free. With the modification to make only one racial group enslaved, many whites in the South, whether slaveowners or not, viewed black persons merely as property and not as people. Language evolved to convey this derogatory view "and no word conveyed the depth of this internalized oppression more than [the N word]." While hateful, derogatory labels have existed well before the New World was discovered by Europeans and have been used to describe other groups beyond those of African heritage, the fact is that US slavery being race-based made a huge impact on how a specific racial group was seen and treated.

After slavery ended, hate groups, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in particular, were established not only to speak against (and harass and physically attack) the freedoms newly freed blacks enjoyed, but also against black persons themselves. Additionally, the KKK was vocally and physically violent against Catholic and Jewish persons, as well as other groups. The KKK is simply one example of a hate group that arose to attack—verbal, physically, or both—individuals based on one or more "identity factor."

This paper is not suggesting that only black persons have been persecuted based on identity factors in the US. Sadly, there are many groups that have had hate speech hurled and acts of violence committed against them—Jews, Mormons, Latinx, Japanese Americans, Native Americans, Irish, LGBT, and so on—more than can be mentioned here. The example of black persecution laid out above is meant merely to be a single instance of a group well-known to encounter hate speech and other hateful acts.

Hate speech online and on social media

In the second chapter of her book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Danielle Keats Citron explores what it is about the Internet that seems to promote hate speech. "Some of the Internet's key features—anonymity, mobilization of groups, and group polarization—make it more likely that people will act destructively." Citron offered two examples of hate speech directed towards Sports Illustrated writer Jeff Pearlman. In both cases, Pearlman tracked down his attackers and confronted them about their vitriolic comments. Each individual was shocked by the confrontation and admitted their embarrassment, suggesting that "the internet got the best of [them]."

Since the introduction of social media platforms, groups have been able to form based on shared interests or identity factors. While this has been wonderful for niche and marginalized groups, it has also proven to be a fertile breeding ground for hate groups. Prior to his attack of a Pittsburgh synagogue and killing eleven, accused attacker Robert Bowers used the defunct social media platform Gab to share his anti-Semitic views. Prior to Gab’s infrastructure collapsing, the platform had been a favorite meeting place of white supremacists. Had Gab not enabled these hate groups to gather, could the Pittsburgh shooting have been avoided?

Definition of free speech

The first amendment of the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…". This amendment serves as the basis for free speech laws throughout the country, though it should be noted that private (or even publicly traded) companies are not prevented from enacting their own limits of speech. Also, the First Amendment does not provide any protection towards citizens who exercise their freedom of speech and suffer consequences from doing so, e.g., getting fired for making insensitive remarks. For the past seven decades, when the US Supreme Court is asked to rule on a case where the freedom of speech is a factor, the judicial body has shown that it is very likely to come down in favor of the First Amendment. This is significant as it illustrates the high level of importance assigned to free speech by the US federal government.

Three components that make this an ethical problem

Polarization

One reason hate speech is so alarming is because it is such a powerful tool. Hate groups are able to provoke violent actions in their members—nearly all recent mass shootings have been motivated by hatred. This type of radicalization makes hate groups dangerous, and not just towards the objects of their hate. "'It wasn't any one group—I hated everyone,' [former white supremacist Frank] Meeink remembers."

Dehumanization of victims

Referring to the men’s rights movement Reddit group r/Redpill, writer J. F. Sargent breaks down how they view the object of their hatred: women. "Women are commodities to be acquired and subjugated. They are conquests—things that determine your worth as a human." Viewing objects of hate as subhuman is common for hate groups.

Censorship

Despite his many, many flaws, President Trump signed an executive order to prevent online censorship, which should be commended. However, less than two months later, Trump issued another executive order effectively banning the social media platform TikTok, a move many see as a form of censorship. As stated previously, the US Supreme Court holds free speech in high regard. The US was founded by a group who felt their voices were not being heard ("no taxation without representation"), so silencing any individual's or group's voice should be taken very seriously.

Management of the Issue

Clearly there is a problem with hate speech on social media, but how can it be addressed? Following are some recommendations.

Let platforms govern themselves

Platforms have already started policing hate speech, though some better than others. Famously, Facebook announced last year that it had created a managing board to judge whether flagged content could remain up or would need to be taken down. The system is not perfect, but the company is taking steps to control hate speech, as well as misinformation. Other platforms have also put in place their own guidelines, with Reddit's as a standout for how much freedom is allowed. However, this approach leaves the decision of what to allow and how to act in the hands of the platforms. What if the restrictions are too tight, not allowing users to share information freely? Conversely, what if the restrictions are too loose, permitting violent breeding grounds as was seen with Gab?

Follow Europe's lead

In 2008, the European Union passed legislation which stated "that hate speech would be sanctioned and punitive measures could be taken against individuals or groups engaged in hate speech." Laws like this create incentive to not engage in hateful speech. However, it also makes speaking one’s mind a potentially criminal offense. Add to that the fact that a similar law in the US would likely require a constitutional amendment, what is the likelihood of a law of this nature being passed in the increasingly polarized and tribalist congress?

Expand Defamation Laws

If we cannot trust social media platforms to police themselves and we cannot expect a criminal law to be created, perhaps the best route is to apply defamation law. Defamation is "a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about." By allowing defamation to encompass hate speech—including hate speech online and on social media—those who are the subject of hate speech would have a legal path through which to seek damages from their attacker, while those who wish to continue to engage in hate speech are free to do so without fear of being prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof would rest on the plaintiff, which would require a standard definition of hate speech. Additionally, social media platforms would no longer be held responsible for what their users say—similar to how email services are not sued for allowing an unsavory letter to be delivered.

Foreseeing Oversights

Even though the proposed expansion of defamation law seems like the best fit considering US laws, such a law’s introduction will likely bring with it new challenges.

Different Laws in Each State

Since defamation laws differ from state to state, each state would need to pass their own version. That does mean that some states will likely have stricter laws than others, which can make it challenging when both parties live in different states.

Legal loopholes

When drafting the new laws, legislators—whether through overzealousness, malicious negligence, or merely unseen omissions—may use wording that is either too ambiguous or too narrow-sighted. If this happens, it may allow for some crafty attorney in the future to have the suit dismissed, despite their client actually being responsible.

Frivolous Suits

The US has been accused of being a "sue happy" nation, so what is stopping an annoyed and/or money hungry individual from accusing an innocent person of defamation and bringing suit against them?

Responses and Application

Different Laws in Each State: Use Divorce Law as the Guide

One solution could be for the expanded defamation laws to work similar to divorce laws, i.e., the plaintiff decides in which state they want to file their suit, the state in which they live or the state in which the defendant lives. Another issue is when different states adopt different definitions of hate speech, but that can be addressed by using the definition in the state wherein the plaintiff files suit.

Legal Loopholes: Close Them over Time

Legal loopholes are almost certainly going to arise and the way to address them will be the same way legal loopholes are addressed now: to close the loopholes as they are discovered. Legislators will need to be careful with their wording as they draft the new laws and they, and concerned citizens, will need to watch closely for when unclear wording is abused. When this happens, it is time campaign for changes to the law.

Frivolous Suits: Innocent until Proven Guilty

Since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. There are people who use current laws to bring forth frivolous defamation suits, but these are mostly thrown out. The difference with the current law and this proposed law is that, with regard to hate speech, no proof of suffering will be required, simply proof that the defendant engaged in hate speech directed at the plaintiff or a group with which the plaintiff identifies.

As this paper has explicitly detailed, hate speech is a powerful weapon that in some cases has resulted in the loss of human lives. With social media, that hatred is shared much faster and farther than ever before. Clearly something must be done, while still protecting free speech. By expanding defamation law, the ability to combat hate speech is given directly to those who are its target, giving power to those who were before merely victims.

Results

So, Donald Trump is the new president.  You may recall that I predicted that this very thing would never happen.  I’m mature enough to admit that I was wrong, though that’s not the purpose of this post.  Instead, I’d like to offer my thoughts about the recent election, including the results.

First, as I already mentioned, I didn’t support either candidate.  I felt that both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton were bad choices, so I voted for someone who I believed would do the best job, despite knowing that he had no real chance of succeeding.  I feel good about my decision and I’m glad that I voted the way that I did.

Second, I was surprised that Trump won.  Polls showed Clinton as the leader, though by a narrow margin.  In addition to the polls, most media outlets mocked the Trump campaign and his supporters, leading many people—including me—to believe that while the election would be close, Clinton would be the victor.  When Trump won, I think we were all caught off guard. However, that’s actually a bit inspiring.  My boss, Magda, is originally from Poland and spent several years in Mexico.  She’s seen her share of rigged elections and she thought that Trump’s success proved that the American election process was honest.  As she put it, “It shows that the system works.”  Despite my lack of support for the president-elect, I must admit that her words do give me hope.

Third, I think I understand where Trump supporters are coming from.  When I served my mission in northern Ohio, I spent the majority of my time in more rural areas.  I remember one town in particular that had once been a manufacturing hub with four different plants.  By the time I visited, three of the plants had shut down and the third had slowed production.  The town was dying and the residents didn’t know how to cope.  I also remember meeting farmers who were using old, outdated equipment because, despite receiving government subsidies, they couldn’t afford to replace anything.  Most (if not all) of Obama’s policies benefited the working poor and middle class in cities, not the country.  After eight years of a president who they felt was ignoring them, the people who didn’t live in a major city wanted someone very different.  While Trump certainly had supporters in urban communities, the majority of his success was with people out in the country.

Fourth, protests are happening in cities across the US because of Trump’s surprise victory.  But what’s the end goal of those involved?  This isn’t like other recent protests such as those condemning police brutality—in those cases, the protestors wanted to be treated better by police, something that should happen anyway. With the case of the new president-elect, the protestors are complaining about not getting their way.  Besides that, Trump isn’t even president yet.  He’s been elected, but he won’t be sworn in until early next year.  Even if we don’t trust Trump, can’t we at least give our fellow Americans the benefit of the doubt for choosing him?  And even if we can’t there’s nothing that can be done at this point.  If he’s a bad president, he can be impeached, but there is no constitutional way to prevent him from taking office come January.

Finally, I was disappointed by how little respect Trump supporters got from the media.  Not the man himself—Trump makes himself an easy target for ridicule—but the citizens who attended his rallies and put his signs in their front yards.  They were depicted as dumb hicks and religious zealots who were too stupid to be reasoned with.  The fact that they were mocked so much may have had a hand in the election’s outcome.  While I haven’t heard of anyone saying that they voted for Trump as a way of protesting this mockery, I’m sure that at the very least it kept them from considering Clinton.  I imagine one of these people watching Saturday Night Live, Last Week Tonight, or even The Tonight Show and hearing something to the equivalent of “Are you thinking about voting for Trump?  Here’s a list of ways that you’re stupid.”  That kind of rhetoric isn’t going to convince anyone that isn’t already on your side.

I do like some of the things I’ve seen (mostly on Facebook) where people are sharing the sentiment that we need to unite as a citizenry and respect each other and the way we voted.  I didn’t vote for Trump and I don’t care for the man or his politics, but I believe in this country.  America is not a bunch of rules and documents; it’s people who believe in each other and those who have gone before us.  I believe in America and I hope that the rest of my brothers and sister in this, the greatest nation in the world, can share that faith with me.

Poll Dancer

Today, I exercised my civic responsibility and voted.  It was not only my first time voting in Maryland, it was my first time voting outside of California.

The polling place I was assigned to was a local Shriner's temple.  After a bit of confusion on which room I was assigned (I was in the clubhouse, not the dining hall), I had my ballot.  In addition to voting for Evan McMullin as a write-in presidential candidate, I voted on local matters, nearly all of which entailed Baltimore County borrowing money for civic works projects.

As I was leaving, I saw a mother with her daughter outside selling Girl Scout cookies.  I was impressed with the cleverness of their location choice ("Feeling awful about the election?  Drown your sorrows in sugar!"), so I bought a couple of boxes to share with the office.

To my surprise, I was feeling anxious as I drove to the polling place.  I didn't know why I was feeling that way, but as I drove away feeling relieved, it was clear what the cause was.  This election cycle has been terrible in so many ways and I'm just glad it's over.

Hopefully our country is strong enough to withstand whichever deplorable person makes it to the White House.  Fingers crossed!

Three's a Party

I've been working really hard to figure out who I should vote for this presidential election.  One the one hand, Hilary Clinton is a criminal with plans that will ruin our country, while on the other hand, Donald Trump is a criminal with plans that will ruin our country.  Every time I would make up my mind who I would vote for, I'd read a news story that proved that would be a bad idea.  Now I feel like I can't vote for either candidate and still retain my integrity.

That's why I'm not voting for either of them.  I'm voting for a third-party candidate, independent Evan McMullin.  He happens to be a member of the Church, but that's not why I picked him.  I picked him because he's the least terrible candidate to choose from.  Don't get me wrong, I think McMullin will do a fine job, but he's also the only candidate that doesn't turn my stomach just thinking about voting for them.  Some may say that I'm throwing my vote away by voting for a third-party candidate.  To them I say that by voting for McMullin, I'll still be able to vote and exercise my civic duty without supporting a candidate who I detest.

So if you're struggling with who to vote for, remember that you have more than two options.

He's Got My Vote

Because a fictional super villain is still a better option than a real life one.  At least Lex is honest about his baldness...

Siding with the Opposition

We live in a world with shifting views, especially with regards to faith and religion.  I recently heard about a survey that found that people of my generation are the least religious of any previous generation, to the surprise of no one.  With so many people firm in their stance against what I believe, I've mostly gotten used to being in the minority where religious devotion is concerned.  Perhaps that's why I get so annoyed when I have to agree with the opposing side.

As you're probably already aware, Kim Davis, the Rowan, Kentucky County Clerk is refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.  She cites her religious beliefs as the reason for the refusal, despite being ordered to issue the licences by the Supreme Court.  She says she is more concerned about God's judgement than the opinions of opponents and doesn't want her name and signature on the marriage licences of same-sex couples.  All of that makes sense to me; the part where she loses me is that she refuses to resign.

She is an elected official, put in office by the people of Rowan County, Kentucky to serve them in a specific capacity.  One of her responsibilities is to issue marriage licences, including to same-sex couples.  I find it unfortunate that the Supreme Court is requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriage, but that is the law.  If Ms. Davis doesn't want to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, then she should quit.

It seems these days that more and more people are confusing what religious freedom and freedom of speech means.  For example, when I worked at IHOP during college, that particular location required all employees to work both Saturday and Sunday.  I asked that I not have to work Sundays due to my religious beliefs and they acquiesced.  If they hadn't, I wouldn't have worked for them.  The first amendment protects our rights from being infringed by the government, not by other parties.  With the case of Ms. Davis, while she does work for the government, she also agreed to perform the duties of her office when she signed up to be a county clerk.  If she doesn't agree with what those duties are, she certainly has a right to protest, but once the judgement is declared, she needs to either grit her teeth and issue marriage licences to the qualifying people within her county or she needs to resign.

One of the reasons this particular case is so frustrating is because so many people who are not religious will see this woman's behavior and label everyone who is religious as "crazy."  We as human beings tend to categorize things, even people, so for the many people out there that don't have any religious friends to serve as a counter-example, Ms. Davis is serving as a symbol of all Christians, making us all look like zealots who are standing in the way of "progress."

Again, I agree with Ms. Davis' beliefs and I understand her dilemma, but if she doesn't like the job for which she signed up, she needs step down.

Tuesdays with Media: A Real-world Troll

About a year ago, I defined what an internet troll is in order to explain some principles of proper communication.  Today, I want to focus on why some people become trolls in the first place by using as an example, someone who does not limit themselves to saying terrible things on the internet:

Not all trolls live under bridges.

Donald Trump is currently pretending to run for the Republican Presidential nomination, but don't be fooled into thinking that he's serious about it.  Since he announced his candidacy, he's only said inflammatory things that would be sure to be passed around every news outlets.  Are there other candidates that are campaigning that we should have stronger borders?  Sure, but the rest are diplomatic about it, not saying that Mexicans "are rapists," among other terrible things.  Even his supporters thought he crossed the line when he implied that a female debate moderator was acting crazy because she was menstruating.

Trump has no previous political experience, his company has filed for bankruptcy four times, and he's changed party alignment as frequently as most people change socks.  This is not a man that has any real chance at becoming president.  The only reason it looks like he has a chance right now is that there are way too many GOP candidates right now.  Once things shake out a bit, Trump will drop out, just like he did the last time he ran.

If you're of the opinion that any publicity is good publicity, like Trump apparently is, then trolling is a very effective technique.  If, however, you actually want to both make a positive difference within our country and convince people to agree with you, then you may want to stick with showing how diplomatic you can be.  So, for the foreseeable future, expect Trump to show up in news headlines -- in strictly negative ways.