Hate vs. free speech

As extremist groups proliferate in cyberspace, online services are facing unprecedented legal and ethical questions over access to such controversial sites through their networks.

Although no U.S. laws prohibit extremist sites, services are encountering criticism for allowing access to groups ranging from marijuana advocates to citizen militias and neo-Nazis. According to a study by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, racist sites have increased to more than 300 from about 50 at the beginning of last year.

The burgeoning presence of fringe groups has drawn particular scrutiny in recent weeks as the Oklahoma City bombing trial has begun and as the mainstream media continues to indulge its obsession with the online activities of the Heaven's Gate cult.

While we do not believe our role is to restrict access to information, we do want to protect children.
"helvetica"="" size="-1" color="#666666">Ed Graczyk, MSN director of show marketing

This month, America Online, the largest online service, has come under strong criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and others for a Web page stored on its servers that promoted the Ku Klux Klan. And just yesterday, CNET NEWS.COM reported that an infamous antigay site had found a host with an ISP that was willing to look the other way: junk emailer Cyber Promotions.

The issue of free speech for extremist groups is a particularly difficult one for online services like AOL. As Internet companies, they are heavily influenced by the wide-open civil libertarian character of cyberspace; at the same time, these services are seeking to refine their images as safe havens for Net-novice families who represent the future of their business markets.

"We definitely see this as an industry challenge," said Ed Graczyk, director of show marketing for Microsoft Network. "While we do not believe our role is to restrict access to information--we're big believers in free speech--we do want to protect children."

MSN, like competitors AOL and CompuServe, have membership policies against any form of bigotry in sites maintained on their proprietary networks. However, online services are reluctant to extend those prohibitions beyond their firewalls, saying it is impossible to regulate information throughout the entire Internet.

Moreover, proprietary online services and other companies that provide Net access are under competing pressure from free-speech advocates concerned that any move to limit communication will open a Pandora's box of constitutional issues. At present, they are not obligated to extend First Amendment protections to subscribers as a company in the private sector.

"All of this reminds me of when I was on the law journal staff at Georgetown," said David Post, co-director of the Cyberspace Law Institute at Georgetown University Law Center. "There was a big controversy over suspending shipments of law journals to South Africa. It's something we were entitled to do, but I thought it was stupid. Once you make a decision like that, you're committed to making others. Who needs that? What about Guatemala or Taiwan?"

Those protesting the Klan site on AOL, however, say the online service is sending the wrong message by refusing to block access to hate propaganda. "Your 'Rules of the Road' prohibit attacks based on a number of characteristics, including a person's race, national origin, ethnicity, or religion. They clearly state that 'hateful language is not allowed,'" Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Fox wrote in a letter to the online service.

AOL responds that the site in question is "generally historical in context" and would therefore not take action against it. However, spokeswoman Wendy Goldberg said the decision was a "difficult judgment call" and noted that her company is continually reviewing its policies.

The Wiesenthal center, a human rights organization based in Los Angeles, has asked more than 600 Internet service providers to employ Web site standards parallel to those used for newspaper advertising. Already, a growing number of ISPs are adopting guidelines to ban hate material on their networks.

1.7MB "helvetica"="" size="-1" color="#666666">ACLU attorney Ann Beeson on history of media regulation (January 1997)

New York-based Tripod prohibits "material that is grossly offensive to the Tripod community, including clear expressions of bigotry, racism, or hatred." Pair, a service provider based in Pittsburgh, bars information that is "obscene, threatening, harassing, libelous, hateful, or in any way a violation of intellectual property laws."

Such actions are being taken with no legal blueprint. Unlike the high-profile constitutional battles over pornography, hardly any legislation has addressed the issue of fringe groups in cyberspace, though law enforcement authorities continue to monitor their activities.

The log files of Calyx Internet Access, which hosts sites for such groups as the Committee to Support Revolution in Peru, show visits from IP addresses in the House, Senate, the Federal Communications Commission, Justice Department, and Treasury Department at a site on fascism. Calyx has even created a page showing how many times the FCC has entered the site.

Last month, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms formed a committee to look into the potential dangers of fringe Web sites. "We are concerned because we are responsible for counterterrorism," said Special Agent Steve Berry, a spokesman for the FBI counterterrorism group. However, he added: "We don't want to do that at the expense of trampling someone's First Amendment rights. Sounds like a catch phrase, but it is true."

The dissemination of extremist literature and philosophy on the Internet is extending beyond the Web. Email has become an increasingly popular form of hate messages, particularly on networks at universities, where racism has become more prevalent with the growing national backlash over political correctness and affirmative action. Incidents have been reported at the University of California at Irvine, the University of Michigan, and Indiana University.

As opposed to their position on Web sites, online services have fought to block unwanted email even when hate messages are not an issue. Sanford Wallace, known on the Net as "the king of spam," has engaged in legal jousting with AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy over their efforts to preempt mass emailings from his company, Cyber Promotions.

Although the rights that emerged from these cases are unclear, Cyber Promotions' claims to First Amendment protection could serve as a basis for challenges by extremist groups if Internet service providers were to deny access to their Web sites, Georgetown's Post said.

If America Online were to block access to the Klan's site, for example, Post said it could conceivably argue that "AOL is not a state

"helvetica"="" size="-1" color="#990000"> Various sites track and counter hate groups online. Among them: "helvetica"="" size="-1">HateWatch "helvetica"="" size="-1">The Nizkor Project "helvetica"="" size="-1">Racisme sur le Net "helvetica"="" size="-1">First Amendment Project

but is sort of like a state, having almost a monopoly position, like an airport--privately owned, but the First Amendment would apply. That's why the Krishna people can go there and solicit you."

International laws could complicate matters even further. AOL and CompuServe have been investigated in Germany on charges of inciting racial hatred, a crime in that country, by allowing access to a site housed on a California server and operated by a neo-Nazi in Toronto.

A report by a special investigator to the United Nations Human Rights Commission released last month stated that racism is increasing worldwide and that the Internet "has already conquered the imagination of the people with a message where those who incite the hatred, the racists and the anti-Semites, all participate."

In the absence of laws regulating online hate speech, Netizens are doing what they always have done when controversies arise in cyberspace: regulate themselves.

Last summer, Usenet subscribers voted down a proposal create a newsgroup for the discussion of "white power" music, according to Michael Handler of the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers. The rec.music.white-power discussion group was first proposed by Milton Kleim, a Canadian, as a way to share ideas on a genre of music that has racist and nationalist themes.

Handler reported that there were 33,033 no votes and 592 yes votes. But the balloting served only to raise new concerns about censorship, giving rise to a proposal for another newsgroup called talk.politics.national-socialism that would allow a forum for Netizens of all political views.

"You can't look at the proposition of imposing restrictions on online companies in a vacuum," said Steve Heaton, vice president and general counsel of CompuServe. "You've got to look at the entire context: Do we have the right party here making the decisions? Do you want Congress, the media, or companies like CompuServe to do this?"

In the end, Heaton said, only one thing matters: "You need to have a principled approach."