a small group, all deny the background rights and moral values of liberal ... Internet and then analyzes two main problems: child pornography and hate speech, noting ... to how they would like to violently rape and murder young girls9 (cf. U.S. v. .... recurring reports of pedophiles using chat rooms to lure children into phys-.
6 IN INTERNET’S WAY
Raphael Cohen-Almagor*
Acts of whatever kind, which without justifiable cause do harm to others may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and when needful, by the active interference of mankind. —John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
INTRODUCTION The Internet contests boundaries to free expression and enlarges the scope of tolerance. More than half a billion people worldwide use the Internet. It is a wonderful, easy-to-use mechanism to advance knowledge and learning across the world, to bridge gaps (educational, national, religious, cultural), and to promote understanding. Clifford Christians (1997a, 1997c) has emphasized in his writings the notion of universalism. He claims that there are universal ethical values that withstand borders and are shared by all humans. Quoting Vaclav Havel, Christians writes that, through human solidarity rooted in universal reverence for life, we respect ourselves and genuinely value the participation of others in a volatile age where “everything is possible and almost nothing is certain” (1997c, p. 19; cf. Elliott, 1997). In an earlier work, Christians, Ferré, *I thank Janet Spikes for her excellent research assistance.
93
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1590868
94
Cohen-Almagor
and Fackler (1993) offered mutuality as a model of community that is “universal, categorical, and normative” (p. 75). Although I agree that ideally there are some ethical concerns that should be accepted by all societies, in reality we know this is not the case. Some countries did not adopt liberal democracy as a way of life but other forms of government that are alien to the underpinning values of democracy: liberty, equality, tolerance, and justice. Some societies do not accept the norms of respecting others and not harming others that form the raison d’être of democracy (Cohen-Almagor, 1994, 2005; Dworkin, 1976, 1985; cf. Abel, 1998). Theocracy, apartheid, and forms of governance that are based on despotism, either of one person or of a small group, all deny the background rights and moral values of liberal democracy. Moral values, unfortunately, are not universally shared in all countries by all humanity. The Internet is universal in nature, but here, too, societies do not adopt a universal common denominator to define the boundaries of freedom of expression. History and culture do matter. For instance, Germany and Israel are more sensitive to Holocaust denial, and rightly so. Although the United States protects hate speech, racism, and Holocaust denial, I would be most troubled if Germany were not to adopt restrictive measures against Internet sites that deny the Holocaust. There is no universally shared measure to decide the boundaries of freedom of expression. These boundaries vary from one society to another and are influenced by historical circumstances and cultural norms. The Internet is a vast ocean of knowledge, data, ideologies, and propaganda. It contains the best products of humanity1 and the worst.2 The rapid acceptance of the Internet in the Western world has been accompanied by the controversial realization that there is no central authority that sets standards for acceptable content on this network. Although some celebrate this lack of authority as a democratizing, publicly empowering characteristic that will promote intellectual and social progress, others see it as a potential tinderbox of unguided anarchy, whose messages and influence might unravel important shared values in the social fabric of heterogeneous societies (Jaffe, 2000). Rod Macdonald explained that when Gutenberg invented the print machine, he wanted everyone to have the Bible. Now we have new technology that breaks the monopoly of the large capitalist media companies as the Gutenberg’s print machine broke the monopoly of the monks over books. The Internet is a new interactive medium whose construction is different from the print and electronic media.3 This construction enables anybody and everybody, people who have access to the conventional media as well as the vast majority who are denied access, to voice their opinions, even the vilest and most disturbing opinions, without interference. This chapter briefly outlines some questionable forms of expression that exploit the
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1590868
In Internet’s Way
95
Internet and then analyzes two main problems: child pornography and hate speech, noting the differences between the United States and Europe in addressing these questionable forms of speech. The Internet as such is not the problem. The problem is that there are vile people who exploit the wonders of the Net, and our liberal commitment to freedom of expression, by inflicting harm on children and disliked minorities. Recognizing the potential harm involved, and that in those two cases—pedophilia and hate— speech might translate into real harm, the chapter calls for open debate as to how to address those two concerns, for international cooperation in the battle against pedophilia and hate mongering, and for taking responsibility. Pedophile websites should be shut down. Hate sites that target specific individuals, calling for their murder, should not be allowed to operate. Liberal democracy should protect its vulnerable citizens, first and foremost children and minorities.
DEBATABLE SPEECH One type of website that academics would find troublesome is the custom writing service. On the Web, students can buy research papers on almost any subject, in all fields of study.4 People who can afford it can go online and buy essays. There is a price for each paper, in accordance with the degree the student is pursuing, the length of the essay, and its quality. As a result, the academic student world might be transformed into two tiers: one for the rich and another for the poor. The students may claim they conducted research to find the best paper at the best price (definition of research is changing). They may also claim that, because they bought the literary piece, the paper is their legitimate property and they can use it as they see fit. Another problematic speech provides incentives and justifications for suicide. The Web has extensive discussions on suicide pills5 and “exit bags” (do-it-yourself suicide kits).6 One site calls on people to “save the planet, kill yourself.”7 It advises people to “do a good job” when they commit suicide, saying: “Suicide is hard work. It’s easy to do it badly, or make rookie mistakes. As with many things, the best results are achieved by thorough research and careful preparation.”8 The site goes on to discuss the pros and cons of death by shooting, hanging, crashing a car, jumping, slitting your wrists, drowning, freezing, overdosing, or gassing yourself with nitrous oxide, exhaust fumes, and oven gas. Another site describes using guns, overdosing, slashing one’s wrists, and hanging as the “best methods to commit suicide.” Other site titles suggest various suicide methods (Malamuth, Linz, & Zao, 2005). Yet another site illustrates various methods, including lethal doses of poison, their availability, estimated time of death, and degrees of
96
Cohen-Almagor
certainty (Malamuth et al., 2005). Notwithstanding the extent of a person’s liberalism, everyone should consider the prudence of such postings given the vulnerability of the people who such sites might attract. Indeed, Australia outlawed using the Internet to counsel or incite others to commit suicide or to promote and provide instruction on ways to do it. People who use the Internet to incite others to commit suicide or teach them how to kill themselves face fines of up to $550,000 under tough laws passed in 2005. Justice Minister Chris Ellison explained: “These offences are designed to protect the young and the vulnerable, those at greatest risk of suicide, from people who use the Internet with destructive intent to counsel or incite others to kill themselves” (“Australia Passes Censorship Law,” 2005). Yet other troublesome sites include expressions that are aimed to provoke and promote violence. On the Internet, people exchange fantasies as to how they would like to violently rape and murder young girls9 (cf. U.S. v. Baker and Gonda, 1995; U.S. v. Alkhabaz, 1997; for further discussion, see Rothman, 2001). Recipes for producing weapons and bombs are posted10 (for further discussion, see Rice v. Paladin Enterprises Inc., 1997), as well as manuals on acts of violence, including how to become a successful hit-man,11 how to build practical firearm suppressors,12 and how to carry out car bomb attacks (Lappin, 2007). On March 23, 1996, the Terrorist’s Handbook was posted on the Web, including instructions on how to make a powerful bomb. The same bomb was used in the Oklahoma City bombing (Sunstein, 2001). Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt, of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division, observed that only hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, someone posted on the Internet directions, including a diagram, explaining how to construct a bomb of the type that was used in that tragic act of terrorism. Another Internet posting offered information concerning how to build bombs, as well as instructions on how the device used in the Oklahoma City bombing could have been improved.13 Malamuth and colleagues (2005) have argued that terrorists’ abilities to engage in “growth activity” via the Internet for recruitment, communication, and especially financing without the knowledge of state authorities is likely to lead to stronger and, hence, more resilient terrorist groups. In turn, the potential for terrorist groups to engage in activity that focuses less on threats and more on tangible actions is significantly heightened. Terrorist groups using computers for communication are likely to move beyond hierarchical organizational structures and employ networked ones (Malamuth et al., 2005). Police say the Internet has taken on huge importance for militant groups, enabling them to share know-how, spread propaganda to a mass audience, and plan operations. The European Union (EU) police agency, Europol, is building an information portal to allow exchange of information on militant websites, the draft said. The portal is to include a list of links of
In Internet’s Way
97
monitored websites, statements by terrorist organizations, and details on experts checking the Web in EU countries, including their language competence and technical expertise (Melander, 2007). Al-Qaeda, the leading multinational and Islamist terrorist network founded and led by the Saudi multimillionaire, Osama bin Laden, relied on the Internet in planning and coordinating the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Members of this terrorist organization sent each other thousands of messages in a password-protected section of an extreme Islamic website (Anti-Defamation League, 2002; Brackman, 2001). In the wake of September 11, Internet providers shut down several sites associated with Dr. Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, mentor of bin Laden (Burch, 2001). AlQaeda and its offshoots have been adept at using new media, publishing footage of violent executions and attacks on troops in Iraq on the Internet within hours of them happening. Following the lethal success of car bombs in Iraq, Al-Qaeda has decided to put its experience in mass murder on the Internet for the benefit of its members around the world, in the form of an online training course on bomb attacks. The placing of such a guide on the Internet allows al-Qaeda members globally to access this experience (Lappin, 2007). In response, the European Commission (EC) has announced plans to frustrate terrorism by suppressing online guides on bomb-making: “It should simply not be possible to leave people free to instruct other people on the internet on how to make a bomb—that has nothing to do with freedom of expression,” said EC vice president, Franco Frattini (Page, 2007). The U.S. government also shut down the Nuremberg File site, operated by the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), which posted addresses, photos, phone numbers, and license plate numbers of doctors who practice abortion, as well as the names of their spouses and children. The website said that the information would be used to prosecute abortionists when abortion becomes illegal, just as Nazi leaders were prosecuted at Nuremberg. The list of abortion providers read like a list of targets for assassination, with the names of doctors who were wounded printed in “greyedout” letters and those abortionists who were murdered crossed out. The website included “Wanted posters,” Old West-style, with photos of abortionists and the word Wanted beneath each and every one of them. Effectively, the site incited the murder of “baby killers.” The court held that the site constituted a true threat and was not protected by the First Amendment. The ACLA was ordered to pay more than $100 million in damages. Malicious content, when it knowingly and intentionally communicates a credible threat, will not be tolerated (Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. et al v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 2002).14 This precedent constitutes a milestone in American history as one of the few times that a court ordered the shutting down of an Internet site.
98
Cohen-Almagor
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY Abundant pornographic material exists on the Internet, including sites depicting brutal treatment of women and animals and child pornography. There are more than 100,000 child pornography websites, and the numbers are growing. Hundreds of thousands of people are said to subscribe to such sites (Satkofsky, 2004; Wake, 2001). The liberal state recognizes a duty to defend and protect weak third parties.15 The state has a compelling state interest in the health and welfare of children. Therefore, child pornography is illegal. The American Psychiatric Association (1994) defined pedophilia as a disorder in which an adult’s primary sexual attraction is to prepubescent children, generally ages 13 and under. Pedophiles use the Internet to create networks of cooperation, traffic photos, promote their social cohesion, cyberstalk, locate children to molest, mask their identity and pretend to be children, seduce children, blackmail them by increasing their sense of shame and humiliation, and promote their criminal activities (Akdeniz, 2002). The Swedish computer crime unit estimated that 80% of communications between pedophiles designed to exchange photos and information about sexual intercourse with children is conducted via the Internet (More, 2002). By showing children child pornography, abusers try to convince them that they would enjoy certain sexual acts, and that what they are being asked to do is all right and “normal” (Kelly, 1992; cf. Creighton, 2003). For some offenders, pornographic images can be used as an aid to ensure children’s silence and cooperation in future assaults. Threats of showing images, which with the help of computer are easily produced, appear to be common (Quayle & Taylor, 2002). Further, the exchange of child pornography among pedophiles is a significant reinforcement of their urge to abuse children, providing a sense of support and legitimizing this behavior to themselves, and thus it encourages continued sexual exploitation (see Taylor & Quayle, 2003; Taylor, Quayle, & Holland, 2001; Utting et al., 1997).16
BEYOND SPEECH Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85% of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape. Traffic in online child pornography has exploded in recent years, the volume of material
In Internet’s Way
99
seized from computers appears to be doubling each year, and the new study should urge us to identify men who claim to be “just looking at pictures” but could, in fact, be predators. Thus, the two researchers who conducted the study, Drs. Hernandez and Bourke, concluded that “many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters” (B. Carey, 2007). Computer technology has blurred the distinction between users and producers. In 1996, a group of pedophiles calling themselves the Orchid Club was arrested in the United States. Using a digital camera, one of the Club members transmitted images of a child he sexually molested and responded to online requests from other Club members in directing the abuse. Members of the Orchid Club lived in the United States, Europe, and Australia (Taylor, Quayle, & Holland, 2001, p. 97). Speed is one of the most notable characteristics of the Internet. The Net is fast, easy to use, and the most efficient tool to transfer images over long distances. Pedophiles use the Usenet Newsgroups (computer discussion forums), the Internet Relay Chat ([IRC] discussion in real time), and Direct Client-to-Client (DCC) service to transfer and exchange text and images. Through Web-hosting services such as ezboard.com, users can set up websites and forums for free. More than 1,000 illegal photographs per week may be posted and exchange hands via the Net. The Internet also provides predators with easy and anonymous access to unsuspecting children. According to UNICEF, an estimated 1 million children are exploited every year in the multibillion dollar sex industry. UNICEF argues that the Internet promotes sex tourism and child pornography globally (Satkofsky, 2004). It provides pedophiles with another way to enter into the privacy of the home of young children. According to police sources, each year, hundreds of children in the United States are lured from their homes by pedophiles pretending to be friends (Jarrett, 1999). The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services reported that there are recurring reports of pedophiles using chat rooms to lure children into physical meetings, and that sexual advances toward children are common (for recorded incidents in which youth were lured by pedophiles over the Internet and raped, see Turjeman & Navon, 2004.17 It is estimated that one of five teens between the ages 10 and 17 receive sexual propositions on the Net (Sherman, 2006). Internet providers cannot ignore this kind of activity and claim no responsibility. If they wash their hands and let the chat room run wild, they might suffer economic penalties. In 2005, major companies, including PepsiCo, announced that they would cease to publish on Yahoo because it was brought to their attention that surfers used Yahoo chat rooms for criminal activities. Men held video conferences nude with minors in chat rooms titled “Young Girls Under 13 for Older Lads.” Following the public critique, Yahoo shut down those chat rooms (Associated Press, 2005).
100
Cohen-Almagor
People who pay to access pedophilia sites are injecting cash into a criminal and manipulative industry that sexually exploits and seriously damages children (see Hoge, 2003; Jarrett, 1999; Satkofsky, 2004).18 Experts likened the harms inflicted through the Internet to harm inflicted on young people through prostitution. Those children are likely to need permanent care with therapeutic input and counseling. Their caregivers need to have significant understanding because most of them are highly traumatized (see Burgess et al., 1984; Downey, 2002; Hunt & Baird, 1990). Once the harms resulting from such material are recognized, the medium of its transmission should not make a difference. The content of the speech is important not the mode of communication. Thus, it should be held as a criminal offense to take, display, upload, or download any indecent photograph of a child. In this context, I should mention Section 1(1) of the UK Protection of Children Act 1978, which states: it is an offense for a person: (a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or (b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudophotographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or (d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs or intends to do so. (http://www/geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/pca_1978 am 2003c42.html)
The European Council decision of December 22, 2003 (decision 2004/ 68/GAI), provides guidelines for punishing crimes involving child pornography (including virtual and with adults resembling children). Article 1 Definition says that for the purposes of the present decision: a) Child is a person under 18 years; b) “Child pornography” is pornographic material representing visually: I. A real child, involved in a sexually explicit conduct, or II. A real person resembling a child, involved in the conduct as in point I; or
In Internet’s Way
101
III. Realistic images of a non-existing child involved in the above-mentioned conduct.19
EU decisions are binding for member states, in that they are bound to introduce laws in accordance with the main principles dictated in the decision, to make European laws more homogenous in the field. I should also mention Articles 19 and 34 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 19 (1) holds: States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.html)
Article 34, in turn, says: States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.html)
Liberal democracies should make the effort and cooperate to see that child pornography sites cease to exist. People who put those sites on the Web should be prosecuted and receive harsh and deterring penalties. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be held liable for allowing menacing and harassing behavior by subscribers (Hayes, 2004). In 1997, the head of Compuserve’s online computer service was indicted in Germany on charges of trafficking in pornography, attempting to hold the company responsible for material that its customers could obtain from Internet sites. It was one of the first times that authorities in any Western country have tried to prosecute a commercial online service for material it had no part in producing (Andrews, 1997). In 2001, the top German criminal court announced that distributing child pornography over the Internet will carry a prison sentence of up to 15 years. The ruling by the Federal
102
Cohen-Almagor
Court of Justice set a precedent for Germany, which previously had no firm legal policy for punishing people who distribute pornographic images of children over the Internet. Those people face prison sentences of 2 to 15 years.20 Indeed, the mode of transmitting information should not make a difference. There should not be one sentence for people who transmit child pornography via the post and another for people who use the Internet for the same purpose. In addition, there is police cooperation among countries to crack down on pedophile rings. On September 2, 1998, law enforcement officials in 13 nations (Australia, Austria, Belgium, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States) joined forces to dismantle a ring of pedophiles known as the “Wonderland Club.”21 To become an eligible member of this ring, each applicant had to present a minimum of 10,000 images of child pornography. Dozens of activists in this ring were arrested. In Europe and Australia, 180 suspects were caught. U.S. Customs agents seized computers from 32 suspects in 22 states, yielding at least 14 arrests. Altogether, 105 search warrants were executed (Carr, 2001; Graham, 2000).22 On November 14, 2001, fourteen countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, and the United States) carried out an even larger operation to tackle child pornography. Thousands of people were put under investigation for possession and dissemination of child pornography. On April 22, 2002, police in nine European countries and the United States arrested about 25 people for allegedly violating child pornography laws (Akdeniz, 2002). On December 18, 2003, police from Britain, North America, and Australia launched a crackdown on Internet pedophiles with a sting (Operation Pin) using fake child-porn websites (Warner, 2003). These operations are important but hardly enough. Pedophiles are not deterred and continue to seek more technologically advanced ways to conceal their activities and to use the Internet to abuse children. At the same time, there is fear that anti-child pornography legislation might be too broad and consequently prohibit legitimate speech. In the United States, the Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision, quashed the federal Child Online Protection Act (COPA) (47 U.S.C231.1998), which imposed criminal sanctions, with penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to 6 months imprisonment, for online material acknowledged as valuable for adults but judged “harmful to minors.” The scrutinized federal law criminalized sexual advice and education, Web-based chat rooms, and discussion boards involving sexual topics, as well as websites for bookstores, art galleries, and the news media. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the opinion for the Court (on June 29, 2004), held that COPA is likely to violate the First Amendment. The government failed to show that blocking/filtering technologies was not
In Internet’s Way
103
a less restrictive alternative that would substantially meet the government’s interests. Promoting the use of filters does not condemn as criminal any category of speech, and so the potential chilling effect is eliminated or, at least, much diminished. Filters, I should clarify, are software that can be installed along with a Web browser to block access to certain websites that contain inappropriate or offensive material. In Kennedy’s opinion, to which Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined, rapid changes in technology would make filtering software a more effective tool to block access than the more restrictive means laid out in COPA, such as age verification and use of a credit card. Although Kennedy suggests that Congress could not actually require people to use filtering software in their own homes, he points out that Congress can give strong incentives to school and libraries to use them (Ashcroft v. ACLU U.S., 2004). Indeed, filtering is one way in which Internet providers chose to deal with this issue. Some of these filters are NetNanny, CyberPatrol, Cybersitter, SurfWatch, and HateFilter. They block sites and categories considered to be undesirable and/or problematic. However, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), filtering suffers from serious inadequacies. First, filters block too little, allowing problematic material to pass without hindrance. Second, filters block too much. The word-sensitive filters are not sensitive to content, and thus they lack precision. They block a great deal of valuable material, for instance, about birth control, drug use, and date rape.23 Third, filters might block students and researchers from accessing questionable websites for research purposes. I had a difficult time accessing some hateful sites for the purpose of writing this chapter (I did not try to access child pornography sites). Fourth, filtering software costs money, and not every family would find it affordable or necessary to install it. Fifth, filtering software depends on parents being willing to decide where their children will surf the Web and being able to enforce that decision. In reality, when many parents are working long hours and leave their children alone at home, oversight is not a reasonable possibility (Ashcroft v. ACLU U.S., 2004). Thus, filtering alone will not suffice. There is a need for further mechanisms of control and responsibility. The easy way to evade responsibility is to put the onus on parents. However, Internet providers should not turn a blind eye as to how their services are rendered and exploited. Having said that, the existence of a wide demand for filtering raises the possibility that different versions of filtering software will be offered, corresponding to different tastes and differing levels of tolerance of parents and organizations (cf. Araiza, 2002). Some people hope that filtering software will be offered free of charge by governmental agencies or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that care about children’s education and their
104
Cohen-Almagor
well-being and are willing to invest money to stop or at least mitigate the evils of the Internet. In addition, the Internet safety policy should address the following issues: • Access by minors to inappropriate matters on the Net. • Safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications. • Unauthorized access including “hacking” and other unlawful activities by minors online. • Unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors. • Measures designed to restrict minors’ access to material harmful to them. (http://www.usac.org/sl/applicants/step10/cipa.aspx) The Interpol site published pedophiles’ photos, asking public assistance in locating the sex offenders. One pedophile appeared in 200 different photos, apparently taken in Vietnam and Cambodia (Reuters, October 10, 2007). The Interpol established a task force, “Project Guardian,” to monitor sites of children models. On these sites, children are not in the nude, but they serve pedophiles to locate and establish contact with children (Reuters, January 18, 2007). The Interpol also has a database of 520,000 photos of sexually exploited children, and it tries to identify connections among photos and where they were taken. The Interpol succeeded in saving 600 victims in 31 different countries (Reuters, October 10, 2007).
HATE Another major concern among Internet scholars is hate speech and the potential violence it provokes (Azriel, 2005; Burch, 2001; Siegel, 1999; Weintraub-Reiter, 1998; Winegardner, 2002). In hate messages, members of the targeted group are characterized as devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil. Nothing but banishment, segregation, or eradication of the targeted group will save others from the harm being done by this group (Warman v. Bobby Wilkinson, 2007, esp. paras. 28–35; Warman v. Peter Kouba, 2006). Other hallmarks of hate messages are the trivialization or celebration of past persecution or tragedy involving members of a targeted group, portraying them as a social menace, and calling to take violent action against them (Warman v. Bobby Wilkinson, 2007, esp. paras. 28–35; Warman v. Peter Kouba, 2006). By using highly inflammatory and derogatory language, with the tone of extreme hatred and contempt and through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement,
In Internet’s Way
105
and other noxious substances, hate messages dehumanize the targeted groups. Hate messages can cause harm in two significant ways. First, they undermine the dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members. Second, they erode the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society that is committed to the idea of equality (see Warman v. Harrison, 2006; for further discussion, see Cohen-Almagor, 2008a, 2008b). The Canadian Federal Court stated that the damage caused by hate messages to the groups targeted is often difficult to repair. It insidiously reinforces the prejudice that some people may have toward minorities identified by race, color, ethnic origin, and religion, thus prompting and justifying discriminatory practices and violence against these groups. At the same time, these messages are most likely to affect the perception and self-esteem of members of these groups, thus precluding their participation in their society and the achievement of their potential (Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Winnicki, 2005). Marc Knobel, researcher at the Council of Jewish Institutions in France, estimated the number of hate websites to be between 40,000 and 60,000. The French Foreign Minister, Michell Barnier, said that from 2000 to 2004, the number of violent and extremist sites increased by 300% (Coroller, 2004). The International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), founded in 2002, monitors the Internet and publishes overviews and reports about the situation in different countries. Its important mission is to combat “racism, anti-Semitism, islamophobia, Holocaust denial and discrimination on the Internet through education, monitoring, regulation, legal action and promotion of international measures.”24 Some of the most graphic, industrious, elaborate, and impressive websites are created by hate mongers, racist, Nazi, and white supremacist groups.25 In the words of Joseph T. Roy, Sr., Director of the Intelligence Project at the Poverty Law Center, the hate sites are slick, using all the bells and whistles that technology affords to them (Roy, 1999). Stormfront, a White nationalist website that was launched in 1995 and is regarded as the pioneer of hate websites, is one of the most popular sites. Don Black, a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan ([KKK] an American White supremacist organization) and the founder of this website, said he started the site to provide an alternative news media and to serve as a means for those attracted to the White nationalist movement to stay in touch and form a virtual community (see Winegardner, 2002).26 Before the Internet, Black said, people who shared his beliefs had little opportunity to try to spread them other than through leaflets, small newspapers, and rallies. But today a relatively inexpensive website can reach millions. Indeed, Stormfront gets more than 1,500 hits each weekday. Black owns its own computer servers and so is not dependent on ISPs (see Marriott, 1999).27 The innovative Black also
106
Cohen-Almagor
founded a website especially for children called kids.stormfront (http://kids.stormfront.org). The World Church of the Creator, the KKK, the Aryan Nations, Hammerskin Nation, and other extremist groups have followed suit.28 The World Church of The Creator (WCOTC) developed a website called Creativity for Kids, which offers downloadable coloring book pages and crossword puzzles about “White pride” in a subtle, “kid-friendly” format. Materials are written at an age-appropriate level. The site invites children to e-mail questions about the online crossword puzzles. Although WCOTC packages hate messages within the context of a religion that is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-everyone except Whites, its children’s section mainly promotes White pride (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues /issue6_2/ray/index.html). In turn, the Aryan Nations Youth Corps (ANYAC) site functions as the “youth counterpart of Aryan Nations.” It is designed for “young WHITE ARYAN PEOPLE dedicated to the preservation and building of a racially pure homeland.” Children who manage to find the page can access plenty of information regarding bomb making and other violent acts by selecting the Aryan Underground link on the Aryan Nation’s main page (http://www. firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_2/ray/index.html). Other websites combine simplified messages, appealing graphics, and links to music to attract youth. The Hammerskin Nation website is geared toward teens and young adults with links to all other extremist groups, and it offers free MP3 downloads and a banner link to Panzerfaust Records.29 Additional links to other White power music vendors make the site appealing to teens. Hammerskin Nation employs cutting-edge Internet technology and a user-friendly layout to appeal to its audience. Announcements of events such as concerts as well as up-to-date information on White power news and events enhance the site’s appeal. A variety of chat forums serve as a place for youth to meet and share ideas and information. This site also has engaged in targeting—by name, organization, and e-mail address—its enemies (http://www.firstmonday.org /issues/issue6_2/ray/index.html).
BEYOND SPEECH Many of those groups do not stop at speech. Through private chat rooms and e-mails, they recruit Internet users to engage in violent acts against targeted groups. Online recruiting has aided many hate groups linked to violence against Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals to increase their membership (see Tsesis, 2002; Wolf, 2004a, 2004b). Prior to the Internet, it was relatively difficult for hate mongers to seek people who might be attracted to their ideas. The Internet allows them to reach into the privacy
In Internet’s Way
107
of the home, to find the vulnerable, the isolated, and the alienated, to interact with them and lure them into ideologies of hatred. Racist websites, like Aryan Nations and Hammerskin Nations, provide links to information on terrorism, including electronic terrorism, as well as links to various skinhead groups. Aryan Nations’ link to Aryan Underground, a clearinghouse of information for those wishing to take action, is a clear indication of its political agenda, which speaks of “racial purity” and argues that “violence solves everything” (http://www.aryan-nations.org/). Aryan Underground provides a diverse set of links on topics ranging from urban guerrilla warfare to directions for building a grenade launcher. The “Christian Guide to Small Arms” shares space with articles detailing how to build a better bomb and how to go underground. Aryan Underground also provides e-mail contact information on skinhead cells operating in the United States and abroad. Links are provided to numerous cyberspace White extremist organizations and information on explosives and mail bombs. Numerous computer virus files and downloadable versions of various anarchy and terrorism manuals such as William Powell’s Anarchist Cookbook and The Terrorist Handbook are available as well (see Ray & Marsh, 2001).30 Hate groups have talked for years about using anthrax to strike at the U.S. government. In 1995, Larry Wayne Harris, a microbiologist and alleged White supremacist, was arrested in Ohio with three vials of bubonic plague toxin he had ordered fraudulently by mail from a supplier in Maryland. He was given 18 months on probation. He wrote Bacteriological Warfare: A Major Threat to North America, which may be considered a how-to book (http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/111001d.html). Alexander James Curtis, arrested in San Diego on charges of harassing civil rights leaders and vandalizing two synagogues, published an Internet guide in 2000 called Biology for Aryans that described the use of botulism, anthrax, and typhoid for terror. In 1995, members of the Patriot’s Council were arrested in Minnesota and charged with manufacturing ricin, a deadly biochemical substance, to kill law enforcement officers. In 1998, members of a Texas anti-government group were charged with plotting to infect people with cactus needles dipped in anthrax or the AIDS virus (http://www.davi dicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/111001d.html). Because the Internet provides cheap, virtually untraceable, instantaneous, anonymous, and uncensored distribution that can be easily downloaded and posted in multiple places, it has become an asset for hate groups to transmit propaganda and provide information about their aims, allow an exchange between like-minded individuals, vindicate the use of violence, delegitimize and demoralize their enemies, raise cash, and enlist public support. As access to the Internet became less expensive and creating Web pages much simpler, the number of websites and people visiting them has grown exponentially (Christians, 2004a). Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League, argues that, although providing
108
Cohen-Almagor
pertinent reports: “The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes” (Wolf, 2004b). Wolf tells the stories of two Aryan supremacists, Benjamin Smith and Richard Baumhammers, who in 1999 and 2000, respectively, went on racially motivated shooting sprees after being exposed to Internet racial propaganda. Smith regularly visited the World Church of the Creator website, a notorious racist and hateful organization.31 He said: “It wasn’t really ‘til I got on the Internet, read some literature of these groups that . . . it really all came together.” He maintained: “It’s a slow, gradual process to become racially conscious” (Wolf, 2004). Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center argued that the Internet provided the theological justification for torching synagogues in Sacramento and the pseudo-intellectual basis for violent hate attacks in Illinois and Indiana.32 Observing the content of messages posted on the Net by Craig Harrison, the Canadian Human Rights Commission concluded that the materials were likely to expose people of the Jewish faith, Aboriginal, francophones, Blacks, and others to hatred and contempt: “They are undoubtedly as vile as one can imagine and not only discriminatory but threatening to the victims they target” (Warman v. Harrison, 2006, pp. 23–24). In effect, these kinds of speech amount to incitement, which should not be protected under the Free Speech Principle. When harmful speech is closely linked to harmful action, to the extent that one does not know where the harmful speech ends and the harmful action begins, then those speech acts do not warrant protection (Cohen-Almagor, 2006). In this particular instance, Harrison was previously found guilty of an assault causing bodily harm to an individual whose race he did not like and was sentenced to 2 years less a day in jail. Hate threats from him and his likes should be weighed and considered seriously. Society cannot take lightly calls for the murder of persons because of their religion, color, or ethnic origin. In Canada, the Human Rights Commission issued a few cease-anddesist orders against hate mongers who used the Internet to spread their vile messages. The Commission recognized that the unique nature of Internet technology, including the jurisdictional challenges arising from the borderless world of cyberspace, as well as the moving targets created by the use of mirror sites raise real concerns as to the efficacy of cease-and-desist orders in relation to hate messages disseminated on the Internet (Warman v. Kyburz, 2003, CHRT 18, para. 81). Despite these challenges, the Commission believed that any remedy awarded will inevitably serve a number of purposes: prevention and elimination of discriminatory practices; significant symbolic value in the public denunciation of the actions that are the subject of this complaint; and the potential educative and ultimately larger preventive benefit that can be achieved by open discussion of the principles enunciated in this or any tribunal decision. Therefore, a cease-and-desist
In Internet’s Way
109
order can have both practical and symbolic effects. On the practical side, it will prevent hate mongers from continuing to communicate their messages. On the symbolic side, the Commission emphasized the important value to the public denunciation of the hate messages (Warman v. Harrison, 2006). In the United States, one of the rare cases in which a hateful website was shut down concerned Ryan Wilson, a White supremacist and former leader of the U.S. Nationalist Party. In 1998, Wilson started a website for his racist organization, ALPHA HQ, depicting a bomb destroying the office of Bonnie Jouhari, a fair-housing specialist who regularly organized anti-hate activities. Jouhari also was targeted as a “race mixer” because she had a biracial child and a “race traitor” because she had had sexual relations with an African-American man and, as a fair-housing advocate, she promoted integration. Next to her picture, the ALPHA HQ website stated, “Traitors like this should beware, for in our day, they will hang from the neck from the nearest tree or lamp post” (The Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of Bonnie Jouhari and Pilar Horton v. Ryan Wilson and ALPHA HQ, 2000). Wilson reiterated the threat in a press interview. The website referred to Jouhari’s daughter as a “mongrel,” listed various types of guns, provided information on where to obtain various weapons, and provided a bomb recipe under the picture of Jouhari’s office. Following the Internet posting, Ms. Jouhari and her daughter began to receive numerous threatening phone calls. A known Klansman intimidated her by sitting long hours outside Jouhari’s office. Someone pounded on their door in the middle of the night. On another occasion, someone broke into their apartment. Jouhari and her daughter were terrified. Wilson was charged by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth’s Attorney General with threats, harassment, and ethnic intimidation. The site was removed from the Internet, and the court issued an injunction against the defendant and his organization, barring them from displaying certain messages on the Internet. The Chief Administrative Law Judge said: “The website was nothing less than a transparent call to action. . . . When he published the ALPHA HQ website, Wilson created a situation that put Complainants in danger of harassment and serious bodily harm” (The Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of Bonnie Jouhari and Pilar Horton v. Ryan Wilson and ALPHA HQ, 2000, p. 20; for further discussion, see “Cuomo Says Million Dollar,” 2000; Wolf, 2004a). The expansive, harmful, and pervasive nature of the Internet calls for some regulation. Fighting speech with more speech sometimes is not the answer.33 The simple principle that postulates fighting opinion with opinions is too wide a generalization and should not be adopted as a guiding rule. Its implication is that freedom of expression should be extended to all groups, including evil and violent groups that seek to destroy our socialdemocratic framework. What are we to do, for instance, if we try to per-
110
Cohen-Almagor
suade a hate monger who calls on his website to murder a specific homosexual he knows, to delete the call for murder by offering eloquent reasoning but receive no reaction from the hate monger? He continues to name his target of hate, providing details about his whereabouts and publishing information and “advice” as to how to “eliminate” this “subhuman” from the face of the earth. Should we opt for more words and only words? Realizing that the reasoning falls on deaf ears, should we simply surrender and raise our hands in despair while allowing the hateful messages to continue their vile circulation, knowing that the hate messages are hazardous to the safety and well-being of the gay person? Those who restrain themselves to speech as a comprehensive solution effectively desert a weak party in society who deserves protection. Their restraint might cost life. This price is much too high and unaffordable. In such circumstances, when the threat is real and viable, the balance should sway in the direction of preserving human life at the expense of free expression. It is emphasized that the incidents in which the United States shuts down Internet sites are rare and exceptional. Unlike Canada and some European countries that fight against hate speech on the Internet, the United States, generally speaking, allows racist sites to multiply and prosper. Some of those organizations whose websites were banned in Canada simply moved the sites to the United States. For instance, after the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered a shutdown of the Zundelsite, Ernst Zündel moved his sight to the United States. Canada is alarmed by the continued occurrence of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, fearing that they might shake the Canadian mosaic of multiculturalism that defines the nation and opting for restriction on freedom of expression in order to make all its citizens feel at home, secure, and free of intimidation and bigotry. Canada does not allow communicating messages through Internet websites that would likely expose minorities to hatred, contempt, and violence, which is in accordance of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act. Section 54(1)(a) of the Act empowers the Human Rights Tribunal to order a respondent to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to redress the practice or prevent it from occurring in the future (see Warman v. Ciaran Paul Donnelly, 2004; Richard Warman v. Canadian Heritage Alliance, 2004; Warman v. Di Civita, 2003; Warman v. Eldon Warman, 2003; Warman v. Jessica Beaumont, 2005; Warman v. Kyburz, 2003; Warman v. Lemire et al., 2003; Warman v. National Socialist Movement, 2004; Warman v. Wilkinson, 2003; Warman v. Winnicki and Bell Canada, 2003; Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Tomasz Winnicki, 2005; Warman v. Kulbashan, 2006; Warman v. Winnicki, 2006; Warman v. Harrison, 2006; Warman v. Western Canada For Us and Bahr, 2006; Melissa Guille and Attorney General of Canada, 2007). On my part, I question the prudence of shutting websites merely because the speech
In Internet’s Way
111
is offensive and discriminatory. I would limit this drastic step to instances of true threat, of incitement to murder, and of mobilizing funds and members to carry out violent activity. But we need to be aware, especially in the United States, that different countries adopt different mechanisms in weighing the pros and cons of free expression on the Internet. Furthermore, the Internet is international in character, and there is a need for international cooperation to make closure of such sites meaningful. In this context, I should mention that Spain passed legislation authorizing judges to shut down Spanish sites and block access to U.S. Web pages that do not comply with national laws (Scheeres, 2002). This approach is another way to deal with the American First Amendment stance and the fact that more than 60% of the Internet sites originate in the United States (see Matas, 2000).34 Some European countries are working together to combat cybercrime and cooperate to criminalize acts of racist and xenophobic nature committed through the computer system (see OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, 2003). The Council of Europe has adopted a measure that would criminalize Internet hate speech, including hyperlinks to pages that contain offensive content. The provision, which was passed in 2002 by the council’s decisionmaking body (the Committee of Ministers), updates the 2001 European Convention on Cybercrime (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Cadre ListeTraites.html). Specifically, the amendment bans “any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors” (Scheeres, 2002). This law is another important milestone in the combat against hate. The implementation and enforcement of this law, however, depends on resources assigned to this cause by the respective governments. Internet providers have terms of service that often include prohibitions against hate messages. When sites cross the bounds of tolerance and violate the terms, providers should enforce their rules and shut down the hate sites. In 1998, Fairview Technology Centre Ltd., an ISP, owned by hate monger Bernard Klatt, whose server was located in Oliver, British Columbia and connected to the Internet via BC Telecom, was identified as a host of a number of websites associated with hate speech and neo-Nazi organizations, including the Toronto-based Heritage Front, WTOTC, and the French Charlemagne Hammerhead Skinheads. At the same time, Fairview Technology provided access to local businesses, government agencies, and schools, making it extremely easy for young students to inadvertently access racist sites. The materials were written in Lyon, a center for anti-Semitism in France, and transmitted to Fairview, which put them on the Internet. The Hate Crimes Unit established by the British Columbia government was
112
Cohen-Almagor
asked to examine complaints of concerned citizens against Fairview. Scrutiny of the site resulted in French and British authorities arresting members of the Charlemagne Skins for posting death threats against Jews. The final blow to the Fairview Technology site came when British Columbia Telephone, the local Internet access provider, required Fairview to accept full legal liability for any material available on the sites (Howard, 1998; Hunter, 1998). Faced with the threat, Klatt sold the Internet service to another local company. The flow of hateful messages stopped. In the United States, this model of self-regulation has meant that companies that have clear rules against hate can make a decision not to do business with people who violate those rules, and by working with Internet companies, agencies of all kinds—governmental and nonprofits—can have great success in fighting hate online (Marcus, 2004). However, as aforementioned, hate speech is shielded by the First Amendment. People are free to hate one another as much as they please provided they do not incite to murder or make true credible threats to inflict violence on the target group or person. The Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center provide valuable service by monitoring the Internet and alerting interested parties against hateful websites. They are quick to warn when the messages on the hateful sites pass the line from what is conceived as legitimate speech to threatening incitement.
CONCLUSION The Internet is ubiquitous, interactive, fast, and decentralized. The ease of access to the Internet, its low cost and speed, its chaotic structure (or lack of structure), the anonymity that individuals and groups may enjoy, and the international character of the World Wide Web furnish all kinds of individuals and organizations an easy and effective arena for their partisan interests. The Internet does not have any borders, but it does have limits. We saw that the limits vary from one country to another. Child pornography is prohibited around the globe. Virtual child pornography is viewed differently in Europe than in the United States. So is hate. The United States allows more scope to questionable speech than any other country in the world. Still, in the United States, people cannot incite to murder or use the Internet to intimidate or threaten to kill people. There are no easy solutions to the problems that the Internet poses. Some countries do limit its scope, but to have an effective control there is a need for cooperation. This need is especially pressing on issues such as child pornography and hate. As for child pornography, in the name of free expression and “artistic” freedom, pornographic photos of children are abundant on the Internet, as are graphic stories of raping and abusing children, includ-
In Internet’s Way
113
ing sado/mazo literature. This is obscene and contra the duty of the liberal state to protect weak and vulnerable weak parties who certainly need defense. Art is an important consideration, but its hypothetical restriction and the fear of a slippery slope do not warrant empowering pedophiles and providing them with powerful tools to exploit children. As for hate on the Internet, clearly there is a need for more youth education (such as the Partners Against Hate program; http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/), promotion of tolerance, exposing of hate, and international cooperation among governments as well as between governments and ISPs to eradicate violent speech acts—violent speech that is closely linked to violent action.
NOTES 1. [Note: All websites in this chapter were accessed on October 31, 2007.] See http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/; http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/; http://www. 23jordan.com/bio1.htm; http://www.mozartproject.org/; http://www.onlineliterature.com/tolstoy/; http://www.celinedion.com/; http://www.acponline. org/; http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Louis_Pasteur.html; http:// nobelprize.org/; http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/; http://www.un. org/Overview/rights.html; http://www.mkgandhi.org/index.htm; http://www. twingroves.district96.k12.il.us/RenAissance/University/LeonardodaVinci/Leon ardo.html; http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/; http://www.artchive.com/art chive/M/michelangelo.html; http://hca.gilead.org.il/; http://www.imdb.com/ name/nm0000033/ 2. http://www.liveleak.com/?ogr=1; http://www.zundelsite.org/ez.html; http:// www.jewwatch.com/; http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/metfun1.htm; http:// www.beyondweird.com/cookbook.html 3. Interview with Professor Rod Macdonald, McGill University School of Law, Montreal (July 25, 2002). 4. http://oxbridgegraduates.com/; http://www.ubank.co.il/lib/essay/76_3.html; http://www.avodot.com/faq.html; http://oxbridgeessays.com/; http://academicknowledge.com/; http://masterpapers.com/ 5. http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/newsletter/jul1998/asuipill.htm; http://www.nex.net.au/users/reidgck/DOCTOR.HTM 6. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/australia020717_suicide. html; http://www.nik.co.uk/weblog/archives/001463.php; http://members.ozemail.com.au/~deliverance/ 7. http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/index.html 8. http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/index.html 9. Cf. U.S. v. Baker and Gonda 890 f. Supp. 1375, U.S. District Court, E.D. Michigan (June 21, 1995); U.S. v. Alkhabaz 104 F. 3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997). For further discussion, see Jennifer E. Rothman, “Freedom of Speech and True Threats,” Harvard J. of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 25, Issue 1 (2001).
114
Cohen-Almagor
10. See, for instance, http://www.bluemud.org/article/11607 11. http://ftp.die.net/mirror/hitman/; for further discussion, see Rice v. Paladin Enterprises Inc., No. 96-24112, 128 F .3d 233 (November 10, 1997). 12. http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=134 13. Report on The Availability of Bombmaking Information. For further discussion see Rotham (2001). Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ bombmakinginfo.html 14. http://www.cyberussr.com/adg/hitlist-san/atrocity.htm; see also Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. et al v. American Coalition of Life Activits, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Nine Circuit, 290 F.3d 1058 (May 21, 2002). 15. In U.S. Constitutional law, the legal doctrine is that the government possesses a duty to protect “discrete and insular minorities.” See footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). See also Justice Stewart in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), holding that children can be prohibited material that was not obscene for adults. 16. See personal exchange with Dr. Joshua K. Mandel, Director, School-Based Intervention Program, NYU Child Study Center (July 23, 2004). 17. New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) (2004), available at http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/missing/i_safety/risks_s.html. 18. For further discussion on the dangers of child pornography on the Internet, see http://www.bytescanada.com/ 19. http://www.giustizia.it/cassazione/leggi/dec22dic_03.html published in the Gazette of the European Union (January 20, 2004), nos. 13/44. 20. News-in-brief, Child Labour News Service (July 1, 2001), available at http:// www.globalmarch.org/clns/prostitution.htm 21. A “ring” in this context refers to a group of adults who gather for the purpose of exploiting children. 22. See also http://www.globalmarch.org/clns/prostitution.htm 23. Safer Internet, Newsletter for Awareness Raisers in the EU Safer Internet Programme, No. 21 (January 2003), available at http://www.saferinternet.org/ news/safer21.htm 24. See “Antisemitism on the Internet, an overview” at www.inach.net 25. See, for instance, http://www.aryan-nations.org/; http://www.northernalliance. ca/index; http://info14.com/; http://club-28.com/; htmhttp://www.kkk.bz /index1.htm; http://www.resist.com/home.htm; http://izan.de/; http://www. resistance.com/; http://www.freewebs.com/kleagle/wakeupwhiteamerica.htm; http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/; http://www.whiterevolution.com /mission.shtml. See also the hate directory compiled at http://www.bcpl.net/~ rfrankli/hatedir.htm, and Sunstein (2001). 26. http://www.stormfront.org/ 27. For more information on Don Black and Stormfront, see Prepared Statement of Howard Berkowitz, Hate Crime on the Internet, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Washington, September 14, 1999). 28. Statement of Abraham Cooper, Hate Crime on the Internet, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Washington, September 14, 1999).
In Internet’s Way
115
29. Panzerfaust Records is a Minnesota-based music label that specializes in the production and distribution of radical pro-White rock music. In German, panzerfaust means armored fist. 30. Available at http://firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_2/ray/index.html. The authors expressed their worries regarding the connection between White extremist websites and Internet White power music and video entertainment sources, which are filled with racist violence messages. They argue that White power music is an effective recruitment tool that appeals primarily to disaffected youth. There are reports that the two students who attacked Columbine High School were fans of “extreme music” genres known as Gothic/Black Metal/Death Metal music, which is violent and rebellious. See also Prepared Statements of Joseph T. Roy Sr. and Howard Berkowitz, Hate Crime on the Internet, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Washington, September 14, 1999). 31. For information on WCOTC, see http://www.volksfront-usa.org/creator. shtml; http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/wcotc.asp; http://www.reed.edu/~ gronkep/webofpolitics/fall2001/yagern/creator.html; http://www.adl.org/poisoning_ web/wcotc.asp; http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c171.html; Prepared State-ment of Howard Berkowitz, Hate Crime on the Internet, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Washington, September 14, 1999). 32. Statement of Abraham Cooper, Hate Crime on the Internet, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Washington, September 14, 1999). 33. See also United States v. Machado 195 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1999) involving the conviction of an expelled college student who on September 20, 1996 sent threatening e-mail message to 60 Asian students: “I personally will make it may life career to find and kill everyone one [sic] of you personally.” It was the first prosecution ever in the U.S. under the Federal hate crimes statute involving threats transmitted over the Internet. Machado was sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment, to be followed by a one-year period of supervised release. 34. The United States has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, albeit with a reservation stating that the obligation to prohibit hate speech in the Covenant does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the constitution and laws of the United States. See David Matas, Bloody Words (Winnipeg: Bain & Cox, 2000), p. 170.
