Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
May
26
From the New York Times tech blog, Bits:
At [the Hate in the Information Age congressional] briefing, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, an associate dean at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, presented the organization’s annual study of online terror and hate. He said the group had identified some 8,000 problematic sites in the last 12 months, a 30 percent spike over last year.
Contributing to this precipitous rise was the proliferation of Web 2.0 services, which have made it easy to post videos to sites like YouTube and mint hate groups on services like Facebook and MySpace.
Rabbi Cooper said the threat from hate groups is real, not theoretical. “The Internet is a fantastic marketing tool,” he said.
You can download the study here. You can read the unofficial transcript of Rabbi Cooper’s presentation and the presentations of others who spoke at the briefing here (click on “unofficial transcript”).
The Wiesenthal Center’s employing a reporting system which they hope will combat the proliferation of hate sites:
But rather than proselytize against those powerful communication tools [in Web 2.0], the Wiesenthal Center is taking a cue from them and asking Web users to participate in a sort of digital community-watch program. It is asking people who encounter hate sites, videos or groups to email links to a new email address, ireport@wiesenthal.com. It will then work with law enforcement and ISPs to address those sites.
The study includes several pages of screenshots and names of specific sites deemed to be hate or terrorism sites. It also includes a 10 step action plan to deal with the existence of such sites:
Communicate and challenge your kids: just because it’s posted doesn’t make it true or real. Don’t entrust this exercise to the school. Get directly involved. Talk with your children about hate groups and other extremist organizations. Make it clear there’s no place in your home for such. Ask them to share what they have seen on blogs, in games or websites that they think crosses the line; then develop online rules.
1. Hate is never cool. That means it’s never OK to download racist music or play online hate games —no matter who the target.
2. Help teach your child to learn to verify online postings. Go to websites that claim to teach people about various religions—but instead demonize its followers; show a page that claims to present new perspectives on slavery but actually seeks to whitewash a historic evil. Discuss a site that claims to teach about Martin Luther King Jr.’s achievements but actually seeks to tarnish his legacy.
3. Provide tools—on and offline that will help your child develop critical thinking. Make sure your child’s school is also addressing these issues.
What to do about a hate site:4. First, make sure your child understands the difference between legitimate criticism or analysis and hate that seeks to rewrite history.
5. If you agree that “the line was crossed”, make the effort to contact the ISP. Urge them to abide by the Terms of Service and remove the posting and take action against the online bigotry. Involve your child in this process. Teach them words have consequences; so should actions. Push the ISP to respond beyond a generic email response.
6. If the web posting constitutes a quantifiable threat contact your local hate crimes unit and
7. Email iReport@wiesenthal.com with the link to the problematic posting.What about Digital Terror?
Even before 9/11 Internet—accessed postings encouraged and taught young people how to build bombs and terrorize targeted enemies.
8. Zero Tolerance for any websites promoting illegal acts. Any web postings teaching how to act as a terrorist should be immediately reported. Not sure who should be notified? Forward link to ireport@wiesenthal.com.
9. Since 9/11, the Internet has emerged as a critical component of terrorists and their enablers for recruitment, command, control and propaganda. Among its 39 Principles, Al Qaeda lists ‘Electronic Jihad’. Young people are key targets of this effort, on blogs, in newsgroups and with the new 2.0 technologies. They need to let you know immediately when they come across any postings, videos, etc from Islamist extremists or neo-Nazi killers.
10. Go on the offensive. The Internet community, NGOs and governments need to invest in best practices, including multilingual leveraging of Internet technologies, in order to thwart the terrorists and racists campaigns to win over young recruits to their culture of hate and death.
What do you think? Realistic suggestions? Realistic threat? What if we do nothing?
I know I’ve reached such sites on very very rare occasions, maybe three times in the three years since I started blogging. I don’t seek them out and they don’t seem to seek me out either. Where does free speech fit in? Does it?
And what about the linguistic thing – hate speech versus thought crimes or something – I seem to recall their being some bickering between conservatives and left-leaners in the Congress about labeling speech “hate” speech because conservatives felt it was penalizing thought. Is this the same thing?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:42 pm May 26th, 2008 in Civil Rights, Crime, Culture, Foreign Affairs, Government, Israel, Jewish, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Race, Religion, Social Issues
Comments
8 Responses to “Annual study finds 30% increase in online terror & hate sites”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
I seem to recall their being some bickering between conservatives and left-leaners in the Congress about labeling speech “hate” speech because conservatives felt it was penalizing thought. Is this the same thing?
Yes the Bible contains hate, so they have some trouble with restricting some hate.
They are also concerend with the restriction of offsetting hate, basically you hate me so I have the right to hate you.
I know for certain they can and should do what ever the want, because it will never have any affect on me.
Keeping a sharp eye on things is never a bad thing when it is done out in public. There also is such a thing as promoting a crime or inciting.
The next piece that comes into play is suppression of speech for governmental or cultural reasons. I have stated quite simply that George W Bush and his administration and lackey Republican Congress were the best argument for every able citizen to arm themselves. Seem a bit edgy to you? Suppose that Senate Sgt Arms, House Infosys, Pentagon, usarmy.gov, and a few others visit me regularly because they want to see pictures of my dog? I really don’t care. The fact that the government has stripped me of Habeas Corpus at the President’s discretion only makes me dangerous, I’m rather disinclined to try to make a case in a court I don’t have access to. Hyperbole? HC has been around since 1215AD. I really don’t give it much thought, I just continue to be publicly how I am because I won’t give an inch. Others may feel a bit more chilled if the govt decides to define terrorist speech. I would bet my little example would find its way in.
Do you think it should? I don’t care if you like guns or not, should it?
Jill, I know it’s mean of me to piggyback off your question with another, but that’s how I am.
These are good suggestions for anyone using the internet. Always approach information with skepticism and verify everything!
Maybe. Then again, if you had told me 8 years ago that we’d see widespread and systematic abuse of power at the highest level of our government within the next 8 years, I would have probably called you a nut.
Oengus – That’s what a recall but it didn’t make sense to me – what are they getting at with the hate v. thought thing? I don’t know – it seems that the same groups love to restrict other freedom of speech situations, what is it about this?
Chuck – I never mind questions begetting more questions.
I am not a pro-gun person tho I don’t seek the repeal of everything that allows guns now.
I think people who want to see something in what we write are going to see that no matter what we say – that’s what is so alarming and disturbing to me, esp. since I’ve had that happen to me as recently as last week when seemingly pro-HRC groups decided I was a male GOP Scientologist or whatever.
So – I tend to agree that we have to do what we do and take risks that people will let you explain yourself. If they can’t be reasonable, we do suffer but ultimately, I continue to believe, we triumph.
P. Springer – you are on a real streak with great links! Thanks for that one.
And I agree with you. The extent to which the Bush admin. has turned our constitutional rights on their head in the name of his goals, which I can barely interpret anymore, is beyond imaginable.
P. Springer – I also agree – those are good guidelines in general. I confess that I’m not quite sure about all of them – if they get too cynical or not, I’m just not sure.