|
TheInternetAndTheNewRacism 8 - 25 Apr 2012 - Main.CameronLewis
|
| | Every time I read a news article, a blog post, or anything else on the internet related to the issue of race, I try to avoid reading the user comments. The reason is that I know, with all certainty, that there will be a small but vocal group of anonymous posters who thrive on using their anonymity to incite racial hatred. I wish I could say that this was limited to an uneducated group of Mississippi rednecks, but even comments on race-related posts on Above the Law can rise to this level of small-minded discourse.
In fact, with the increasing popularity of twitter, many people don’t even try to hide behind a shroud of anonymity anymore. Most recently, with the release of the Hunger Games movie, there was a widely reported instance of apparent dissatisfaction and disapproval with the fact that many of the “good” characters in the movie were black. Of course, as soon as these users became aware that their tweets were being reported on major news sources like the Huffington Post, without their usernames redacted, they either deleted their tweets and made their accounts private or shut down their accounts altogether. | | | I came across this article today. It's somewhat related to our discussion, but it focuses more on the New York statute that potentially serves as a way for parties claiming defamation, etc by anonymous persons on the internet to gather information through that person's ISP. I'm a huge advocate of free speech, so I don't know if I'm ok with anyone using this type of power for anything beyond averting an imminent threat, investigating a murder, etc. But the article does hint at the First Amendment issues related to claims under this statute.
-- JasonPyke - 12 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | I found that article you posted to be a really valuable roadmap of how these claims might proceed in NY, as well as some of the remaining unsettled issues. This article, published today, refers to a couple in Texas who just won a $13.8 million jury ruling for defamatory statements made anonymously against them on a website. The case is interesting, as the defendants are also being sued for malicious prosecution. They filed a sexual assault claim against the defamation plaintiffs, and then essentially launched a smear campaign on a forum website, Topix.com, alleging murder, pedophilia, and drug abuse. The case features a lot of the technical difficulties identified in the article previously posted, including multiple ISPs, discovery requests, etc.
While I understand hesitation in opening the floodgates for defamation suits based on Internet speech, I think it hits close to home for what we were talking about earlier in this thread. As more of our lives are conducted on the internet, our real life identities and our online actions will increasingly overlap. Imposing liability for speech on the internet, even when the person believes themselves anonymous, is an important step in signaling that people are accountable for what they do on the internet. While it has been true for quite some time, the important thing is that society become aware of it so we can begin to adjust our behavior.
-- CameronLewis - 25 Apr 2012 |
|
|
TheInternetAndTheNewRacism 7 - 12 Apr 2012 - Main.JasonPyke
|
| | Every time I read a news article, a blog post, or anything else on the internet related to the issue of race, I try to avoid reading the user comments. The reason is that I know, with all certainty, that there will be a small but vocal group of anonymous posters who thrive on using their anonymity to incite racial hatred. I wish I could say that this was limited to an uneducated group of Mississippi rednecks, but even comments on race-related posts on Above the Law can rise to this level of small-minded discourse.
In fact, with the increasing popularity of twitter, many people don’t even try to hide behind a shroud of anonymity anymore. Most recently, with the release of the Hunger Games movie, there was a widely reported instance of apparent dissatisfaction and disapproval with the fact that many of the “good” characters in the movie were black. Of course, as soon as these users became aware that their tweets were being reported on major news sources like the Huffington Post, without their usernames redacted, they either deleted their tweets and made their accounts private or shut down their accounts altogether. | | | -- ManuelLorenzo - 11 Apr 2012
This is a really interesting thread. I may be going off topic (or just on the broader topic of hateful comments on the internet generally) but I wanted to share what I thought. I was wondering how the law figures into all of this, hateful comments on the Internet, I mean. I am aware of a similar problem in Korea, which is where I come from, although race usually never the topic because Korea is an almost entirely racially homogenous society. You cannot read and article or go to an online forum without encountering hateful comments; they are literally everywhere. Sociologists attribute this behavior to a certain dissatisfaction with society and more specifically the economy. People who write offensive comments are predominantly in their teens and twenties. The rise in this offensive activity on the Internet correlates with a rise of youth unemployment rate and a general dissatisfaction with the government. People vent on the Internet because of a vague but overwhelming sense of frustration and desperation. Anyway, I was wondering how law could solve this problem. Defamation suits have worked only marginally in Korea because even those defamed are unwilling to press charged because a) most offenders and young and b) they have a general belief that online comments are somewhat too “petty” to go to court for (or alternatively that words are easier to get over). Also, with race, if comments are not directed at a specific person but a race generally, defamation, or any legal remedy for that matter would not work. I wonder whether there is a more effective legal apparatus to deal with malicious comments on this Internet without curtailing freedom of speech… | |
>
> | -- SoYeonKim - 12 Apr 2012
I came across this article today. It's somewhat related to our discussion, but it focuses more on the New York statute that potentially serves as a way for parties claiming defamation, etc by anonymous persons on the internet to gather information through that person's ISP. I'm a huge advocate of free speech, so I don't know if I'm ok with anyone using this type of power for anything beyond averting an imminent threat, investigating a murder, etc. But the article does hint at the First Amendment issues related to claims under this statute.
-- JasonPyke - 12 Apr 2012 |
|
|
TheInternetAndTheNewRacism 6 - 12 Apr 2012 - Main.SoYeonKim
|
| | Every time I read a news article, a blog post, or anything else on the internet related to the issue of race, I try to avoid reading the user comments. The reason is that I know, with all certainty, that there will be a small but vocal group of anonymous posters who thrive on using their anonymity to incite racial hatred. I wish I could say that this was limited to an uneducated group of Mississippi rednecks, but even comments on race-related posts on Above the Law can rise to this level of small-minded discourse.
In fact, with the increasing popularity of twitter, many people don’t even try to hide behind a shroud of anonymity anymore. Most recently, with the release of the Hunger Games movie, there was a widely reported instance of apparent dissatisfaction and disapproval with the fact that many of the “good” characters in the movie were black. Of course, as soon as these users became aware that their tweets were being reported on major news sources like the Huffington Post, without their usernames redacted, they either deleted their tweets and made their accounts private or shut down their accounts altogether. | | | I agree with most of the points made above. I think internet commentary/postings have enabled people to feel free to say whatever they want with no fear of public reprisal or retribution. Many of these offensive commentaries tend to be a mix of someone wanting to spark controversy as well as voice their actual opinions. In regards to the Hunger Games posts specifically, I thought the comments were probably a mixture (as mentioned above), but also reflect some of the struggles black actors are faced with when it comes to casting decisions in Hollywood. For instance, a couple of months ago when George Lucas was doing promotional work for the movie Red Tails, he spoke about the difficulties of trying to find funding for a movie featuring a predominantly black cast. Minority actors in general have had trouble securing roles in which they are the headliners. Despite the successes of actors such as Halle Berry and Denzel Washington, minority actors have not had significantly greater access to film roles. Even this year when Octavia Spencer won the oscar for best supporting actress, she was being recognized for a stereotypical role traditionally relegated to black women (not to take anything away from her performance, which was well deserving). The Hunger Games commentators showed a disapproval of using black actors for roles in which they had envisioned white characters. These comments, even those that were just meant to spark controversy, reflect the continued struggle for black actors to obtain acting jobs that do not pigeon hole them into certain stereotypes, e.g. thug, drug dealer, crooked cop, etc. As everyone has pointed out, the proper response is not censor the commentators (which would be an example of the cure being worse than the disease), but for there to be more vocal backlash against people who make these kinds of statements. There will most likely always be some forms of racism in this country, but the important point is to emphasize that racist commentary is not tolerated and does not have a place in civil public discourse.
-- ManuelLorenzo - 11 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | This is a really interesting thread. I may be going off topic (or just on the broader topic of hateful comments on the internet generally) but I wanted to share what I thought. I was wondering how the law figures into all of this, hateful comments on the Internet, I mean. I am aware of a similar problem in Korea, which is where I come from, although race usually never the topic because Korea is an almost entirely racially homogenous society. You cannot read and article or go to an online forum without encountering hateful comments; they are literally everywhere. Sociologists attribute this behavior to a certain dissatisfaction with society and more specifically the economy. People who write offensive comments are predominantly in their teens and twenties. The rise in this offensive activity on the Internet correlates with a rise of youth unemployment rate and a general dissatisfaction with the government. People vent on the Internet because of a vague but overwhelming sense of frustration and desperation. Anyway, I was wondering how law could solve this problem. Defamation suits have worked only marginally in Korea because even those defamed are unwilling to press charged because a) most offenders and young and b) they have a general belief that online comments are somewhat too “petty” to go to court for (or alternatively that words are easier to get over). Also, with race, if comments are not directed at a specific person but a race generally, defamation, or any legal remedy for that matter would not work. I wonder whether there is a more effective legal apparatus to deal with malicious comments on this Internet without curtailing freedom of speech… |
|
|
TheInternetAndTheNewRacism 5 - 12 Apr 2012 - Main.ManuelLorenzo
|
| | Every time I read a news article, a blog post, or anything else on the internet related to the issue of race, I try to avoid reading the user comments. The reason is that I know, with all certainty, that there will be a small but vocal group of anonymous posters who thrive on using their anonymity to incite racial hatred. I wish I could say that this was limited to an uneducated group of Mississippi rednecks, but even comments on race-related posts on Above the Law can rise to this level of small-minded discourse.
In fact, with the increasing popularity of twitter, many people don’t even try to hide behind a shroud of anonymity anymore. Most recently, with the release of the Hunger Games movie, there was a widely reported instance of apparent dissatisfaction and disapproval with the fact that many of the “good” characters in the movie were black. Of course, as soon as these users became aware that their tweets were being reported on major news sources like the Huffington Post, without their usernames redacted, they either deleted their tweets and made their accounts private or shut down their accounts altogether. | | | To go to Cameron's point, I absolutely agree that the internet is a reflection of our broader society. When people try to argue that we are living in a post-racial America, the first thing I point to is the fact that, besides all the elements of white supremacist infrastructure that exist in our society today, racism is alive and well, and the most potent example is that people think it is ok to make whatever racist comments they want on the internet. It may not be anywhere near as bad as cross-burning or lynching anymore, but the internet has just allowed for a different form of racism to manifest itself. On the other hand, as our society as a whole becomes more educated, comments like these are increasingly seen as wrong and many commenters who aren't members of the particular group being disparaged are coming forward and writing rebuttals.
-- JasonPyke - 11 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | I agree with most of the points made above. I think internet commentary/postings have enabled people to feel free to say whatever they want with no fear of public reprisal or retribution. Many of these offensive commentaries tend to be a mix of someone wanting to spark controversy as well as voice their actual opinions. In regards to the Hunger Games posts specifically, I thought the comments were probably a mixture (as mentioned above), but also reflect some of the struggles black actors are faced with when it comes to casting decisions in Hollywood. For instance, a couple of months ago when George Lucas was doing promotional work for the movie Red Tails, he spoke about the difficulties of trying to find funding for a movie featuring a predominantly black cast. Minority actors in general have had trouble securing roles in which they are the headliners. Despite the successes of actors such as Halle Berry and Denzel Washington, minority actors have not had significantly greater access to film roles. Even this year when Octavia Spencer won the oscar for best supporting actress, she was being recognized for a stereotypical role traditionally relegated to black women (not to take anything away from her performance, which was well deserving). The Hunger Games commentators showed a disapproval of using black actors for roles in which they had envisioned white characters. These comments, even those that were just meant to spark controversy, reflect the continued struggle for black actors to obtain acting jobs that do not pigeon hole them into certain stereotypes, e.g. thug, drug dealer, crooked cop, etc. As everyone has pointed out, the proper response is not censor the commentators (which would be an example of the cure being worse than the disease), but for there to be more vocal backlash against people who make these kinds of statements. There will most likely always be some forms of racism in this country, but the important point is to emphasize that racist commentary is not tolerated and does not have a place in civil public discourse.
-- ManuelLorenzo - 11 Apr 2012 |
|
|
TheInternetAndTheNewRacism 4 - 11 Apr 2012 - Main.JasonPyke
|
| | Every time I read a news article, a blog post, or anything else on the internet related to the issue of race, I try to avoid reading the user comments. The reason is that I know, with all certainty, that there will be a small but vocal group of anonymous posters who thrive on using their anonymity to incite racial hatred. I wish I could say that this was limited to an uneducated group of Mississippi rednecks, but even comments on race-related posts on Above the Law can rise to this level of small-minded discourse.
In fact, with the increasing popularity of twitter, many people don’t even try to hide behind a shroud of anonymity anymore. Most recently, with the release of the Hunger Games movie, there was a widely reported instance of apparent dissatisfaction and disapproval with the fact that many of the “good” characters in the movie were black. Of course, as soon as these users became aware that their tweets were being reported on major news sources like the Huffington Post, without their usernames redacted, they either deleted their tweets and made their accounts private or shut down their accounts altogether. | | | The Internet is undoubtedly transformative, and in my example above it acts as something of an equalizer which is in most cases valuable. However, what is also does is allow people to air these types of beliefs that have long since become taboo to acknowledge out loud. These bigots find an audience, and among that audience they find some sympathizers. That organizational aspect is one of the most valuable and troubling aspects of the Internet, but the downsides can't so easily be separated from the benefits, as you noted. Ultimately, what happens on the Internet, anonymously or not, is a broader reflection on our entire society.
-- CameronLewis - 11 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | Kensing, I think I can sum up my response by giving my answer to your second to last question. I do not think someone can say racist things without being racist. However, I do think there is a HUGE difference between making jokes about race, and saying something racist. The problem though, is that there is a fine line between the two. There may be some people who genuinely believe that they are doing the former, but the tone and content of their comments come across more like the latter. That said, I do believe that this group is in the minority. The comments I am primarily concerned with are not just the ones which are meant or interpreted as stupid jokes or even those which are attempts to antagonize, but the more visceral ones which are clear articulations of the author's racial prejudices. But overall, I do agree with you that not all race-related comments on the internet are created equal.
To go to Cameron's point, I absolutely agree that the internet is a reflection of our broader society. When people try to argue that we are living in a post-racial America, the first thing I point to is the fact that, besides all the elements of white supremacist infrastructure that exist in our society today, racism is alive and well, and the most potent example is that people think it is ok to make whatever racist comments they want on the internet. It may not be anywhere near as bad as cross-burning or lynching anymore, but the internet has just allowed for a different form of racism to manifest itself. On the other hand, as our society as a whole becomes more educated, comments like these are increasingly seen as wrong and many commenters who aren't members of the particular group being disparaged are coming forward and writing rebuttals.
-- JasonPyke - 11 Apr 2012 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|