|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
As criteria for assessing the rhetoric in the hate sites, Dr. Barnett turns to four tests from constitutional cases: The Miller test for obscenity, the Supreme Court’s “true threats” standard, the “clear and present danger” decisions, and the “bad tendency” rules. Accordingly, his findings report that the hate sites functioned with sufficient restraint to protect their expressions within the framework of our Constitution.
Are online hate sites worthy of constitutional protection under the First Amendment? Dr. Barnett’s findings support the arguments that the sites and their messages, while distasteful and repugnant to most citizens, are nonetheless protected. He also challenges our thinking in relation to the future, filtering out messages, and whether or not the U.S. government may find it necessary to regulate online hate sites. For anyone interested in freedom of expression and the rhetoric found on hate sites, this book is important to read. Indeed, it provides a valuable introduction to what can be found today and what lies ahead for the messengers of hate with their words, sounds and images that continue to expand on the Internet.
John J. Makay, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Communication Studies Bowling Green State University Ohio