In the article, “Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be challenged” Cooper Cooper argues that the growing Internet makes extremists work more easier and helps them to spread extremism around the world quickly. He presents the Internet as the main source of hate posting. Cooper.A claims that the U.S. First Amendment protects extremists and because of this amendment it is impossible to apply limits on the Internet. According to him the Internet should be extremism free if we want to use it in an effective way.
Cooper.A claims that the growing Internet “which offers unprecedented opportunities to educate and uplift humanity can and is being utilized by a small but committed number of groups seeking to promote agendas ranging from terrorism to racial violence and derisiveness” (Cooper, 1997, p. 102). To show the negative sides of the Internet he argues that “extremes have embraced the varied forms of communication offered by the Internet” (Cooper, 1997, p. 102). He presents the Internet as “the greatest source of hate posting” (Cooper, 1997, p. 103). To support this idea he argues that on the Internet”… different sites promote and reinforce agendas of hate, anarchy, and terrorism” (Cooper, 1997, p. 103). Cooper. A argues that the absence of worldwide rules on the Internet is one of the main aspects that allows extremism to spread out. He argues that the Internet can be used if and only if the users are protected from messages of hate, racism, terror and mayhem.
Cooper. A makes several important points showing that the Internet is not only about good things but also bad things and he argues that somebody should take actions against the negative sides of Internet. However he overstates the problem and presents the Internet as the main reason of the hate speech, racism and terror.
Cooper. A begins his argument by showing how fast the Internet is growing. By giving statistics he wanted to show people the Internet would be an important part of the future society. He was right, now it is hard to imagine society without Internet.
Then he claims that the Internet is not only about good things: it can be used for racism, terrorism, violence and derisiveness. I totally agree with Cooper’s position, and now the Internet can be used for more bad purposes such as child pornography, cyber crime, illegal file sharing and so on.
I totally agree with Cooper’s point, but I am not entirely pleased with the way he presents it. He overstates the problem and argues that Internet is the main reason of extremism and hate speech.
Cooper. A argues that the Internet made extremism more attractive and helped extremists to enlarge their community. But the thing that makes extremism interesting is not the Internet, the people who are extremist see it in that way. And the social activities helps people who have the same interests come together and enlarge their community (in this case the community is extremism). He also claims that tools such as encryption and IRCS can be used by terrorists. But today the tools usually are used to protect the online safety of people.
He calls the Internet “greatest source of hate posting” (Cooper, 1997, p. 103). He argues that the Internet spreads out hate speech and makes it worldwide available. But making hate speech worldwide available does not mean that people will read it and will become extremist. It is another tool which extremists use to spread out their ideas. As soon as people are not interested in hate speech, racism or terrorism they will not become extremist. This will help them to understand what extremism is and will make them take actions against extremism-as Cooper makes hate speech on the Internet, shows us the negative sides of the Internet and wants us to take action against them.
In another argument Cooper. A claims that unlike other countries constitution the U.S. First Amendment protects extremist groups. He argues that not applying limits on the Internet results challenges. But I think the wise versa is right: applying limits results challenges: in countries such as North Korea, China, Iran the Internet is limited and this helps the government to control the people, and violates the freedom of speech. It is possible to avoid hate, racism and bigotry. As Cooper.A says newspaper editors and radio and television station managers also have access to unfiltered Internet, but they have responsibilities and they do not disseminate hate, racism or bigotry. This responsibility approach may work for most people.
Cooper. A argues that “American interpretations of freedom of speech laws should not be the only guiding principle when it comes to regulating the Internet” (Cooper, 1997, p. 105). But people should be free to say and see what they want on the Internet. Also now time has changed: websites have their own terms of services. If the website owner wants he\she can forbid messages of hate, racism, and bigotry. We need more free and safe Internet. I hope this kind of articles will show us the negative sides of the Internet and will help us to find solution rather than just filtering and applying limits on it.
