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.

Manipulation

One of my current assignments at work is a product catalog. I've worked on catalogs before, but with this particular one, I had trouble finding a photograph of one product. I searched two separate databases and came up empty. After googling the product, I did find one picture, but it was from an eBay auction and we couldn't used it in its current form.

The product (in this case, an electronic controller, which is like a high-end thermostat) is at a weird angle with bad lighting and sitting on a cluttered table. Even so, I used the picture as a reference when I sought the help of Danfoss' data management team. I specifically mentioned that the above photo was only meant to be used as a reference, but my contact simply changed the file type and sent it back to me.

I decided to see what I could do with Photoshop. I spent a few hours correcting the color, distorting the image shape, and cutting out extraneous objects. This is the result:

It's not perfect, but I was really happy with what I was able to accomplish, especially since I mostly taught myself how to use Photoshop. However, even after the office lawyer said that we would probably be fine to use the image, I decided to pursue getting a better photograph. As it happened, we had had a sample of the product in the warehouse the whole time. So, I took a brand new picture with proper lighting and the office's camera.

I admit that that the stainless steel reflected the light a lot more than I thought it would, so I may go back and try to cut the glare down, either by fiddling with it in Photoshop or by taking a brand new picture and change where the lights are positioned, but I'm still happy that I took a new picture that cannot be legally disputed.

Still, it was pretty cool what I able to with that first picture, right?

(In)convenient Home Delivery

One of the ways that online shopping advertises itself as being more convenient than shopping in brick-and-mortar stories is that you simply click a few links, enter your payment and shipping information, and your items are delivered right to your door.

Except when they're not.  I ordered some items from Amazon recently and, because I pay for the additional Prime membership, I automatically got upgraded to two-day shipping.  So, I came home on Friday expecting my package, only to find a note from UPS saying that they didn't deliver anything since no one was home.  I've had to go through this sort of thing in the past, so I signed the back of the note on the "X" and put the note back on my door on Monday morning.

When I got home on Monday, there was nothing.  No package, no note: nothing.  I become worried that the package got lost over the weekend or that one of my neighbors took the box right off of my door mat.  I looked up my order on Amazon to get the tracking number to see what happened on UPS' end.  It turns out, that they weren't asking for my signature with the earlier note; they just let me know that they would try again on the next weekday.  When no one answered the door on Monday, they took my box to an Access Point, which was located in a convenience store, though not one that was particularly close.  I called ahead and confirmed that they had my package before I left.  Once there, the process of getting my box was easy enough and I was out the door in less than five minutes.

Here's the thing: part of the reason I ordered online was to avoid going anywhere.  While I had other motivations (picking exactly the items I wanted, getting a better deal than was available in local stores, etc.), staying at home was still part of the deal.  And while I understand why UPS did what they did, they should have left me a note the second time to tell me that I would have to pick up my package.

The moral here is that I don't like being inconvenienced.  And these days, isn't the act avoiding inconveniences the American way?

No Leads

Genealogy is now easier than it's ever been, according to everyone who speaks in church about it.  Why then, is it still so dang hard?

I admit, I'm new to the whole family history thing, so I have no memories of writing letters to archive offices for information and receiving a microfiche card that has to be taken to a library to use a machine to read a blurry image of a handwritten document that ultimately provides no useful information, but it's still proving trickier than just following hyperlinks.

Of particular trouble is my great-great-great grandfather, John Howard Byrd.  I can trace back to him without issue, but it's unclear who his parents are.  I have two reasonable candidates, but no documents to prove parentage.  I've prayed about it and I feel that I need to pursue the more obscure choice, which leaves me feeling even more lost than I already was.

I guess my point is this: if anyone has any experience doing genealogical research and has any tips for me, I could definitely use them.

Moved

I successfully moved into my new apartment this weekend with the help of Ian and the good people of the ward that I moved out of.  Unfortunately, it took until Monday morning for my electricity to be activated Monday night for my internet to be turned on.  Because of all of this, I'm barely posting today and skipping tomorrow.

Sorry.

Expect more details of the move on Wednesday.

Teenagers, Unplugged

On Wednesday evening, I participated in a Teacher's Quorum activity by being a driver.  The activity was that, as a Quorum, we went and visited a couple of less active members to invite them out to some future events and activities.  No one was home at either house, but it was good of the boys to make the effort.

While I was driving, I got hear what the boys in my car were talking about.  I ended up with the nerdy kids, which was weird.  As someone who was definitely a dork in high school, I thought I'd be able to join in on their conversation.  Well, not really.  They talked a lot about video games, which are fine, but since I don't usually spend my entertainment time with that particular medium, I didn't really know what they were talking about.  Then they started talking about cartoons, which I have at least a cursory knowledge of most animated shows, except for anime, which is what they were talking about.  I asked a few questions here and there and tried to be involved, but it soon became clear that I was being out-geeked.

While all of that is fine (I guess), I am concerned that they spend too much time online, especially one boy.  The internet is full of terrible things, but I'm more worried about them not developing social skills - an area in which these boys appear to be delayed.  Life is hard enough to navigate normally, but it can become a bit of a nightmare if you don't have the right social skills.

One of my goals while I'm serving in this calling will be to help these boys feel more comfortable offline.  I don't think that's the main reason I have this calling, but I do think that it's one of them.  And as someone that is still a nerd but much less of a dork, I think I'm just the one to do it.

The Future is Now

Earlier this week I had a job interview using a format that was new to me for that purpose: web video.  While I think the interview went well enough, the experience did offer some new perks and challenges that traditional interviews do not.

Perks

• Simply throw on a dress shirt and tie over your t-shirt and you're dressed for the interview.
• No commute.
• No office chair will ever be as comfortable as a sofa.

Challenges

• You're now responsible for adequately lighting your home so that you look as good as possible.
• Audio and video checks take a surprising long amount of time.
• The host site can crash a few time during set-up (but thankfully never did during the real thing).
• It's a good idea to sit in front of a blank wall to eliminate background distractions.
• If you use a laptop on your lap, you'll probably have to position your knees in an unnatural way to ensure that you don't accidentally employ the use of Dutch angles.

Overall, the experience was mostly just weird because it was unfamiliar.  I don't know if web video interviews will be used more and more in the future, but if they are, at least I've had one to get me started.

Sometimes the English Language Makes Me Sad

Is it necessary to include memes as official parts of the English language?  I mean, I know that the language changes and evolves, but do we really need "mansplain" as a word?

For those that aren't aware, the Oxford English Dictionary (the closest thing our language has to a presiding body) recently published new words that will now be included in their official dictionary.  Some words or phrases make perfect sense, like "Deep Web" and "octocoptor" since they describe actual things and are not simply a form of slang.  I'll even go for "tech-savvy" and "douchebag" since those words have each existed for well over a decade, so even if they're just slang words, they're slang words that everyone knows.

But "YOLO?"  That acronym didn't exist until three years ago, even if the phrase its abbreviating has been around for much longer.  And "cray" and "adorbs" are just really dumb abbreviations and portmanteaus like "listicle" and the aforementioned "mansplain" are, well, portmanteaus, so they shouldn't be official words.

Some of these words ("YOLO" in particular) seem like the OED is jumping the gun a bit.  Do you remember the Spice Girls' big hit "Wannabe" from the 90s?  It had a word in the chorus "zigazig-ha" that was utter nonsense.  Well, the Spice Girls were such a phenomenon that "zigazig-ha" was added to the OED.  I haven't heard anyone say that word.  Ever.  Now, the OED is a British publication and the Spice Girls were a British musical group, so maybe that word lasted longer in England, but I can't imagine it's still in use today.  It seemed like a dumb inclusion back then just like some of the new words now.

And before anyone brings it up, yes, I know that dictionaries act as a kind of historical document of language - I really enjoy looking up archaic meanings to common words - but, again, some of these words just seem like old, out of touch lexicographers are trying to prove that they're still cool and hip and are over-compensating.  Or maybe with the internet, English is evolving faster than I'm comfortable with and I'm just an old man that refuses that get with the times.

Now get off my lawn!

An Explanation of Celebrity Appeal

Upon further reflection, my teleplay from Friday was pretty mean.  While I do think the ending is funny, I don't know if it was worth making fun of people I don't know.  I know that I'm not alone in my distaste for celebrities, but that doesn't give me the right to ridicule people simply for being famous.  I think my opinion stems from how I see so many people obsessed with celebrities and I never understood why.

Until now.  Watch this video:

In the video above, actress Emma Stone joins talk show host Jimmy Fallon for a "Lip Sync Battle."  I think I've seen Miss Stone in two or three movies and I've never thought about her outside of those times.  But here, she loses herself in a silly game and looks like she's have a blast making a fool of herself.

And that's what draws people to celebrities, especially performers.  They have a certain kind of self-confidence where they can do ridiculous things and not care (or at least, not appear not to care) what anyone thinks.  We all have a an inner-censor, stopping us from making fools of ourselves.  Performers train themselves to ignore that censor so that they can do their work.  From the outside, we see them as bold, confident, and fun people.  Many people envy that.  Some go so far as follow the personal lives of famous people in tabloids and gossip magazines.

I am not saying that I want to join in the celebrity-worshiping or even that I condone it, because I don't.  But, for the first time, I understand the appeal.

(And even though he won't ever read it, I apologize to Tom Cruise for callously making light of his religious beliefs.)

Statistics

Google does a good job of tracking everything and that includes this blog.  I recently looked in the "Stats" section of the creator menu and found out some interesting things that I want to share.

Last week, I had 83 "pageviews" from people in the US.  I've also had eight views from Vietnam, seven from Russia, and one apiece from Germany and the Netherlands.

The most common operating system used to view my blog is Windows (72%) and the most common browser is Firefox (34%).

The site that redirects to my blog most often is Vampirestat.com.  I've never heard of them and have no idea why they send users my way.

The most popular post of last week, based on pageviews, is the one where I shared that I'm temporarily out of work (11 views).  The most popular post of all time is R-JAM (42 views).

Surprised by anything you saw?

Protection From Protectors

As I was signing on to Blogger to write this post, I was blocked by my web filter.  This is particularly weird because I've had the web filter in place for a while now and it has never blocked me from signing onto my blog ever before.  Not only that, once I had signed on to unblock the site, I had to unblock it again a couple times more before I could start typing.

I recognize that there are probably (almost certainly) blogs out there with content that I want to avoid.  Having the filter be aware of that is helpful and the reason I have it.  Not having it recognize the same site that I just gave permission to seems like an error on the program's part.  Even so, I suppose that I would rather it be overly protective than fail to do its job at all.

In an odd way, this reminds me of Edward Snowden.  He made a big move, at least in his mind, to protect Americans' privacy, doing what he thought was necessary for the greater good.  The difference of course is that in leaking classified information, Snowden put a lot of people's lives at risk, while my web filter simply annoyed me for several minutes.  He made a moral decision and then fled the consequences; if he really believed in what he did, he would stand trial and make his case.

Just as with my web filter, I think that most people would rather be safe and slightly annoyed than to be put in danger.  Yes, freedoms our important and whenever our freedoms are threatened we the people should work hard to stop it from happening.  That doesn't mean we should put other people's lives at risk or run from the consequences of our actions.

Missed Connections

Due to poor planning, this post is late.  Because I don't have wifi at my apartment set up yet, it makes writing my blog posts more cumbersome to write.  It's not that I don't have any internet, because Kier has been nice enough to share with me until mine gets turned on next week.  However, he shuts off his router at night (I guess to save on electricity) and I lose my access.  I was in the middle of writing my post last night, when I lost my connection.  Colon-hyphen-open-parenthesis.

So, here I am, eating into my lunch break to make sure that I keep the blog alive.  Yes, I sacrifice for my art, I know.  Sorry about the brevity of today's post, but I do have work to do.  Hopefully I'll plan better next time and have my post up with time to spare.