Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Hate Speech on the Internet

(September 16, 1999) The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on hate speech on the Internet on Tuesday, September 14. While Senators suggested legislation may be appropriate, Wade Henderson, of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, cautioned against government regulation.

Orrin Hatch

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that "I have accordingly been a staunch proponent of efforts to keep the Internet unregulated and competitive." However, he continued that some legislation might be needed.

"I am also contemplating a measure to make it a crime to knowingly or intentionally advocate on the Internet the commission of a crime of physical violence against a person or the property of any individual or group or class of individuals. Maybe, with this legislation, we will be able to deter heinous incitements to violence not yet committed on the Internet," said Sen. Hatch.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking minority member, concurred that "strengthening our federal hate crimes legislation is a step in the right direction."

He continued that "the Internet has been poisoned by extremists and bigots, who use it to spread hate propaganda and reinforce each other’s hateful convictions. As we take stock of the poison that is making its way to this new medium, we must not mistake the Internet itself for the actual sources of the hateful content of these Web pages. When it comes to hate on the Internet, the problem is the message, not the medium."

"We need to examine what can be done about hate on the Internet, within the constraints imposed by the First Amendment," Sen. Leahy concluded.

However, several witnesses cautioned that most hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. The committee heard from one panel of witnesses:

• Michael Gennaco, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles.
• Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Center.
• Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
• Howard Berkowitz, Anti-Defamation League.
• Joseph Roy, Southern Poverty Law Center.

(Hypertext links are to HTML copies of their prepared statements in the Senate Judiciary Committee website.

Michael Gennaco testified about his prosecution in Los Angeles of someone who sent racially motivated e-mail death threats. He stated that because "the Internet presents an effective and efficient way for persons to communicate to numerous individuals, the ability of individuals and hate groups to terrorize victims has multiplied exponentially. A person or hate group who wants to target and threaten scores of individuals can do so simply by sitting at a computer terminal for a few minutes."

He also testified that federal authorities should be involved in the prosecution of persons using the Internet to commit hate crimes, for several reasons. First, he said that e-mail is interstate in nature. Second, the FBI has expertise in tracking the source of email. And third, "one must have the capability to subpoena Internet service providers - quite often those providers reside outside the state in which the transmission originated. accordingly, the federal government must play a role in investigating and prosecuting cyberspace hate crimes."

Rabbi Abraham Cooper testified that, "for the first time in history of our democracy, those promoting hate, racial violence and terrorism have been able to do so to directly into the mainstream, 24 hours a day, seven days a week in an unassailable and attractive format. And as our digital hate 2000 CD ROM report shows, many of these groups, once isolated geographically and marginalized to the fringes of society, have succeeded in creating an online subculture of hate.

He added that "there is no evidence that this online culture of hate has yet succeeded in creating a mass movement of hate."

Wade Henderson, of the LCCR, testified that the "Internet is profoundly non-judgmental. It transmits information whether that information is good or bad, true or false, helpful or hurtful. In the realm of civil rights, that means the Internet is a forum for messages of racial healing as well as racial hatred. For reasons I will explain, I am ultimately optimistic that, on balance, the Internet is a force for social reconciliation."

"The Leadership Conference has taken Justice Brandeis’ wisdom to heart. We believe that the best antidote for offensive speech is more speech on the other side, and therefore we have sought to answer hate speech on the Internet with anti-hate speech on the Internet. We have aggressively used the Internet to disseminate our message of racial harmony and non-discrimination to a broader audience and to make more widely available the tools we believe can combat bigotry."

Henderson cited as an example the web site www.civilrights.org, which LCCR launched with the assistance of Bell Atlantic, which is designed "to educate the public about the history and goals of the civil rights movement and to counter those who espouse hatred against individuals because of their race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, or sexual orientation."

Henderson cautioned against government regulation. "First, we want the Internet to thrive; and we believe that the Internet, by its nature, cannot thrive in a climate of censorship or heavy-handed government regulation. We want it to thrive because we recognize the Internet’s potential as a force for cohesion and tolerance. It empowers individuals to reach across racial, ethnic and religious lines like never before. It fosters the dialogue that is the sine qua non of reconciliation. We support robust speech on the Internet because we are convinced we are right, the hate-mongers are wrong, and we know that reason will eventually prevail over prejudice in the marketplace of ideas."

"Second, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is deeply committed to the First Amendment. There was a time, not too long ago, when the message of the civil rights movement was seen as subversive or offensive."

Howard Berkowitz of the Anti-Defamation League stated: "Practically and legally, combating online extremism is enormously difficult. The First Amendment's protection of free speech shields most extremist propaganda, and Internet Service Providers, the private companies that host most extremist sites, may freely choose whether to house these sites or not. When providers choose not to host hateful sites, these sites migrate easily to the computers of services without such restrictions."