无处不在的移动设备和技术促进线上的“仇恨言”。
不久之前，互联网上种族主义和其他煽动仇恨的信息似乎不太可能导致迫危险暴力行为。移动设备上连接网络功能的快速发展已经改变了这一点。现在，在互联网上可以找 到教导使用者如何散布“线上仇恨言” ，如何向敌人展开仇恨攻击 以及如何对此类攻击自我防御。
2008年，我在布达佩斯LGBTQ大游行写:
“在互联网上煽动暴力 ， (但在今天，使用手机变得常见所以这不再困难) 可以在大游行中引发暴力。在互联网上煽动针对性暴力影响可能大于现场发言。” 四年后，愈来愈多人使用移动设备連线, 互联网的空间也迅速扩大. 人们可以在任何地方上线，然后在互联网上煽动暴力。
于2008 LGBTQ游行的煽动行为，我认为：
“现代通讯工具是可以直接地煽动暴力, 最可怕的例子是卢旺达种族灭绝事件过程中使用的无线电台。无线电台除了散布仇恨也提供了针对性和实用的信息来帮助找出 更多目标。 ”
移动手机设备的发展已经改变线上仇恨言的情况。在互联网上被针对的目标通常是少数民族。他们常常受到歧视 － 越来越多的人可以无约束和静静地在电脑前瞄准他们的受害者。
互联网的技术允许自由，开放，强大的公众讨论所以我不主张在互联网上限制言论自由。正如我指出: “禁止言论，尤其是在互联网时代，似乎是跳跃的影子。”法律应用 来禁止危险煽动行为但艺术和教育是最有效防治仇恨的工具， 摆脱偏见的根源和社会内无知，误解，错误的信念。虽然互联网可以更容易地传播仇恨言但我们不应该在互联网上不断重复禁止仇恨言。我提出另一种做法。
在互联网上鼓吹仇恨可以在现实世界中带来危险。所以 让我们把注意力集中在如何不断变化的技术可以促进种族主义言论以及其他类似的话题。让我们专注于移动通信设备可以在一些情况下直接煽动仇恨与暴力行为的可能性。即使是受宪法保护, 其内容将会受到道德上的谴责也会对社会造成迫在眉睫的危险, 这种仇恨言必须受到禁止。
reply report Report comment
Response to ‘When an iPhone can be dangerous’ by Peter Molnar
We are two students who are currently looking into the language of Taboo and Hate Speech. When we stumbled across your article, When an iPhone can be dangerous we could not resist but to write a response.
The arguments in the text primarily focuses on the negative aspects of technology, while the positive factors are neglected. What about the use of the iPhone that is actually beneficial to us? To call the emergency number (112/911) when in trouble, instead of having to scream your lungs off; to donate money through simply one text message, supporting various charity organizations and being able to make the world a better and healthier place?
Technology is the effect, not the cause.
People even argue that gadgets such as the iPhone is making us more organized.
A calendar at our fingertips makes it easy to slip in appointments, reschedule or cancel and is able to notify you when you have an event scheduled. This makes it impossible for a lazy someone to ‘forget’ to do the dishes, vacuum or put dirty clothes in the damper. The iPhone simply answerers our request for bigger, faster and stronger.
Your statement about the communication in the Rwandan Genocide, is in fact not merely the radio that was the primary issue of the destructive event but rather the past history that was the main cause of it. The technology indeed supported the genocide in the way that communicating propaganda and messages became simpler but the radio was only a small factor. The colonization of the Belgians and the following death of the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, agitated its citizens and created a barrier between them. To be branded by one’s looks as an ‘either or’ object (Tutsi or Hutu) intensified the anger as time went on, especially since one side, the Tutsi, was seen as the ‘better’ by the Belgians.
Technology can evoke hatred, but it has also brought out an entire revolution, the Arab Spring. Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, is the cause for this imminent and rapid change of events. Due to its simplicity and availability it is easy to bring thoughts and ideas to millions who might otherwise not be connected. Wael Ghonim chief and symbol of the revolution in Egypt states “This revolution started online. … We would post a video on Facebook that would be shared by 60,000 people on their walls within a few hours. I’ve always said that if you want to liberate a society just give them the Internet.”
You also state “In such environments, incitement to hatred on the internet can create imminent danger with a direct causal connection between online incitement and clear and present danger”. What is imminent danger, and how would one measure it in this context? The sentence seems rather vague and hyperbolic. Also throughout the article, you move quickly from one strong example to another, but barely provide any counter examples for support; it leaves the reader confused and with examples that are simply floating around.
Technology indeed has the capability to bring a person into danger, as well as being able to do the exact opposite. However, one ought not to forget that the use of the hand-held brain (the iPhone) has made our lives change into a whole other dimension.
From the students in the American School of the Hague
reply report Report comment
The Internet has become one of the largest sources of communication between people globally. Aside from the increasing communication, technology allows people to watch and receive global news at a faster speed and allows people to create websites and express their opinion freely on specific issues. Blogs and opinion articles have become increasingly popular and are easily accessible through technological devices such as smartphones and laptops. This exact platform can be used to excite hatred targeting a community, group of people or an issue.
Take, for example, a harmless Tumblr blog that belongs to a teenage fan of the popular band One Direction. She publishes posts expressing her hatred towards the girlfriend of one of the members of the band. The fan claims that the girlfriend is fake and a scheme to hide the band member’s homosexuality. The blog has over 100,000 followers, which lead to a cult of fans freely posting confessions and opinions about the relationship. The blog has earned a lot of fame, and with more confidence than when she started, the owner of the blog now bids her followers to send twitter threats to the girlfriend. This is a small example, but has a huge impact on all the parties involved and carries a powerful message of how people use technology to spread opinions that lead to “hate speech,” or speech that specifically targets a person or group on basis of race, religion and sexual orientation. Such sites should be taken down, because the hate is directed towards one person or group, and can hurt someone badly. However, one could argue that everyone has a right to express ones opinion, but using a public platform to blatantly direct hate towards someone is wrong.
Another popular characteristic that triggers hate speech is anonymity. As technology has developed, people now have the advantage of anonymously publishing posts. This gives them a sense of security to freely communicate and allow people to be involved with things like scandals for example. Anonymity has led to many new issues, one of the biggest being cyberbullying. Cyberbullying has become a phenomenon around the world and is becoming increasingly popular. Recently, a new site has emerged called Ask.fm, which was intentionally created to ask a specific person innocent questions anonymously. However, it quickly escalated to a vehicle that allows you to bash that specific person with hurtful statements rather than questions without that person knowing whom it is. An article in CNN claims that teenagers use apps such as Ask.Fm to change their identity and make cruel statements to other teens, and it has become a big source of cyberbullying. A recent case of a suicide by a teen due to hate from Ask.fm has sparked discussion about whether sites like these should be abolished. Sites, such as Ask.fm do hurt people, and people should not be allowed blatantly hate on someone using such means.
Despite the fact that technology has greatly benefitted the lives of many, and given the ability to freely post on the Internet, gives us a sense of freedom, however people have misused this facility. Instead the Internet has become one of the biggest and most accessible sources for hate crimes against communities or groups of people.
Ria and Marijne, ASH Grade 11, English IB SL Yr-1
reply report Report comment
Unfortunately the greatest danger inherent to ubiquitous technology is not found in the user or their actions.
It is the tool itself and the perceptions of the abilities of that tool that are the real dangers.
While surfing the web on an iPhone you would be forgiven for believing that you are granted unfettered access to all areas. In reality what you are permitted to view is a carefully filtered selection of results relative to your location, political situation or any other relevant factor.
The naive belief that a Google search result is based solely on the search criteria is again understandable as our perception of the tool would imply this logic. However many would be disturbed to discover that their queries were actually producing results relative to the user’s profile and history instead of relevant search criteria.
This enables organisations such as Google and Apple to effectively control free expression of thought by diverting users to more profitable or preferable services such as YouTube or iTunes, all without the knowledge or consent of their users.
PROOF – search the same Google query from both yours and a friends computer whilst logged in and logged out, observe the differences.