Computer as a Forum of Hate Poses Problem
As computer networks make national communications networks accessible to anyone with money and a modem, the new technology is raising questions of how to guard against its misuse by hatemongers.
The issue became a matter of national controversy recently when officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith complained that the Prodigy computer network was being used by a few of its 1.1 million subscribers to post messages denying the Holocaust and denouncing “Jewish power.”
In response, officials of the year-old network, based in White Plains, N.Y., have amplified their definition of “offensive” material and taken steps to weed it out, while the New York-based Jewish group emphasized its commitment to free expression.
The Rev. Donald Wildmon, a United Methodist minister whose American Family Assn. in Tupelo, Miss., campaigns against anti-Christian bigotry in mass communications, said he has heard similar complaints. Wildmon said he has been warned that anti-Christian material occasionally appears on electronic bulletin boards, including Prodigy.
Many religious leaders reject government regulation as a way to deal with the problem. In interviews with Religious News Service, several said that policing by computer users, particularly in the form of strong responses to offensive messages, is the preferred solution.
Even that, some say, is not without pitfalls.
“The problem with self-regulation, as with governmental regulation, is precisely where do you draw the line?” said the Rev. David Pomeroy, director for media resources of the National Council of Churches. “What would appear to be innocuous to one group would be offensive to somebody else.”
Pomeroy, a minister of the United Church of Christ, said that, in general, he leans in the direction of free speech, believing that “good speech drives out bad speech.”
The problem of computers as a conduit for bigotry has also been under discussion by organizers of Ecunet, an interfaith computer network for members of about 15 religious groups in the United States and Canada. The network has about 250,000 individual subscribers.
“One of the things we have found is that participants themselves police what is appropriate and inappropriate,” said the Rev. Paul Milner. He is system operator for “Lutherlink,” a Lutheran computer network affiliated with Ecunet.
But Steven Hein, communications program manager for Prodigy, said the network has moved beyond monitoring by users and established guidelines. Those have been “evolving” since the service began in September, 1990, he said.
Hein said Prodigy has developed a three-step process for dealing with controversial material. First, all notes submitted for posting on electronic bulletin boards are screened through a computer program that searches for key words deemed obscene or indicating offensive attacks.
“Notes that have offensive profanities are automatically returned to the sender,” he said.
Messages with other key words that are considered potentially offensive but not obscene are reviewed by editors. “It’s an editorial call exactly analogous to what a letters-to-the-editor column editor might do, or a talk show host,” Hein said.
If a message passes these two stages, it still can be flagged by a subscriber and brought to the attention of editors, who can eliminate the message.
“It’s never easy to make these kinds of subtle, difficult judgments,” said Hein. “We’re only human. The editors are doing their best. They’re trying to do the right thing.”
Wildmon said he views use of computer networks to disseminate bigotry to be “a symbol of the deterioration of the morals in our society.” He said he lacks resources to pursue the matter actively so far. But in general, based on his understanding of Prodigy’s standards, he believes the network is handling the matter responsibly, he said.
Rabbi A. James Rudin, national interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Community, said he is not surprised that bigotry has found a new forum. Historically, anti-Semitism and racism have always come out in whatever mass communication system we have,” he said. “The Nazis used it in movies and radio.”
As with B’nai Brith, Rudin said he opposes government regulation of computer messages distributed by networks. Rudin favors self-policing, using standards similar to “truth-in-labeling about tobacco, alcohol and wine.”
Voluntary restraints or campaigns by non-governmental organizations can drive out offensive messages, the Jewish leader said. As an example, he noted that “we don’t do minstrel shows anymore, where white people put on black face.”
