Against Online Hate Speech and Verbal Assault

UPDATE (2007.03.28): As usual, mainstream coverage of the blogosphere is rife with wrong assumptions and outright misinformation, but anyway, here's the latest from the BBC:

The support for a blogger hounded by death threats has intensified with some high profile web experts calling for a code of conduct in the blogosphere.

The female blogger at the centre of the row has been shocked to discover that hers is not an isolated incident.

It has led her and others to question some of the unwritten rules of blogging.

It could force a re-examination of the way the tight-knit blogging community behaves. [ Note from Kai: "tight-knit"?! Ha! Come visit the political blogosphere, you lazy ign'ant-ass journalists.]

While condemning the bloggers who issued the threats, Mr O'Reilly was keen that the whole blogosphere should not be tarred with the same brush.

"The fact that there's all these really messed-up people on the internet is not a statement about the internet. It is a statement about those people and what they do and we need to basically say that you guys are doing something unacceptable and not generalise it into a comment about this is what's happening to the blogosphere." [...]

Ms Sierrra has personally witnessed the usually harmless feuding that is part and parcel of blogging take on an altogether more sinister tone, with threats of a violent and sexual nature gathering pace over the last month.

She agonised over whether to publicise what had happened to her, she told the BBC News website.

Since describing the campaign against her, she has been shocked to discover that cyber-bullying is widespread. 

"As well as around 900 comments on my blog and hundreds of comments on other blogs, I have received around 300 personal e-mails and about 70% of them say they have been through a similar thing," she told the BBC News website.

~ ~ ~

Looking at the state of the blogosphere, I'm in favor of more strictly legislating online commentary for hate speech and verbal assault. From the BBC:

Prominent blogger Kathy Sierra has called on the blogosphere to combat the culture of abuse online.

It follows a series of death threats which have forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog.

Ms Sierra described on her blog how she had been subject to a campaign of threats, including a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose.

The police are investigating while the blogosphere has launched its own enquiry.

One of the issues raised is the question of how women bloggers are treated online.

Ms Sierra, author of popular blog Creating Passionate Users, began receiving death threats four weeks ago.

While blogging feuds are common, she believes the campaign against her is more likely to be because she is a woman in the male-dominated technology world.

Realistically, only the most sophisticated hackers can throw trackers off their scent skillfully enough to post anonymously, so that's not much of a concern; just about all posts and comments can be traced to a particular machine. And if threats of violence get posted from a certain machine, the owner and/or user of that machine should have to face the music.

I think it's time to tear down the illusion of internet anonymity behind which sociopaths cower as they spew poison at the world (though you can certainly remain "anonymous" to the public if you don't engage in hate speech or verbal assault). Sure, there are many technical details that need to be discussed, as well as measures short of legislation (e.g. voluntary codes of behavior, grassroots action), but what I'm offering here is a general view on the matter. I'm open to being swayed in either direction, but after reading about Kathy Sierra, and having watched escalating blog wars for months now, this is how I'm feeling.

With regard to this particular case, just imagine what the hate speech would look like if the woman at the center of the storm were neither rich nor white.

Comments

[vandia]

"With regard to this particular case, just imagine what the hate speech would look like if the woman at the center of the storm were neither rich nor white......"

Kai, I really don't wanna imagine that.

[Sylvia]

I don't think it's necessarily to change who she is to see that the threats and violence against Sierra are absolutely deplorable. I don't buy the whole idea that once people use the internet, it gives them permission to post threats that would not be condoned if they were spoken or expressed offline. There are people who enjoy being crass and describing obscenely violent circumstances, but if that crassness and depravity endanger someone, gives someone reason to be frightened for their security, or have no real communicative value but to scare someone, I don't see how it can be permitted to continue.

I have to gather my thoughts to post about this situation more fully later. But I agree with you.

[Kai]

vandia, yeah I know what you mean...

Sylvia, re "it's not necessary to change who she is", you're absolutely right, that thought really added nothing to my position, except perhaps the idea that it's a good thing this is a rich white woman because otherwise who knows how ugly it would be or even if the matter would be receiving such attention. And I have no problem with descriptions of fictional depravity as long as they remain firmly planted in the realm of fiction. Once you connect that depravity to a living person, it enters the realm of non-fiction and then suddenly we do have a problem on our hands. Possibly a big problem. Because personally if I feel threatened, I'm not gonna wait around to find out if the threat is literal. Words have consequences.

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this matter, Sylvia, from a more informed legal standpoint.

Peace.

[Sylvia]

Yes, it struck me as I wrote that I probably misunderstood the last remark, and I apologize. Conveniently in class today we covered First Amendment rights under the Constitution and the relative worth of "fighting words" in social discourse -- generally, the court has ruled that it has none and is subject to regulation if it breaches the peace or causes a disturbance. The internet, however, makes matters more complicated with the idea of provocation and the idea of proximity, especially if threats are made to your life and you have no affiliation with the person making them, you have no means of figuring out who the person is -- because of access, of resources, or of the ability of that person to cover tracks, as you've said. How broad is the required body politic, and how would there be regulations for people who are outside of the offline jurisdictions of internet abuse laws? Plus, there's an element of reasonableness necessitated by context and by the degree of the provocation.

I'll probably get into examples of all these aspects in my post, but I have a couple of links to share related to this incident.

Kathy Sierra's summary of the whole incident on her blog, including the remarks that caused her uneasiness and its effects on her personally.

BlogHer coverage of the Sierra situation. It's a generally good development of internet hate speech and how it relates to the entire situation.

[Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez]

i get some pretty sick threats and such on what i write online. even from school computer labs. people can be so...fucking crazy.

[Kai]

Nez, hehe yeah that kinda sums up...some people.

Sylvia, thanks for the additional thoughts and info. Good food for thought for us non-lawyerly types. I'm going to keep learning about and thinking about this because it seems like an important thing to get right if we want to maximize the potential of collaborative media...

[Yolanda Carrington]

I believe in holding Internet harassers and stalkers accountable for their actions, but I struggle with how to do this. One method that I've seen used on blogs is posting the offending message online complete with mailing headers, IP address, and email, which exposes that person to the world. It sounds like a good idea, but would that work or would it just make the harassment worse, since you're giving that offensive person a forum? I'm just not sure.

I do know one thing---these big-ass companies like YouTube and AOL need to get serious about the hate speech on their comment boards. I've seen people get verbally abused and even threatened on these boards, and YouTube takes too damn long to address user violations, which just makes the damn problem worse. It ain't hard to enforce standards, 'cause small bloggers do it everyday. What excuse do the big boys have?

[Sylvia]

Excellent note there, rabblerouser. :-p