Hate Speech in blogs

I think this week's discussions about hate speech was very interesting and an important issue to discuss about. The Court's definition for what categorizes hate speech is a bit vague, but as always issues vary in certain situations from case to case. I can't help but think about an email I had received a few months ago from someone (not too sure if it was a male or female but beside the point) voicing their dislikes or shall I say hate for Chamorro people. I must admit I was rather offended and hurt by most of the issues this person talked about degrading my people and pretty much stating Guamanians are a waste of space. I still have the email so I could analyze it and code it as hate speech if it was. Because it was really hurtful. Which brings me back to the issue of intent. I think it's hate speech if you intend to harm someone emotionally and psychologically with words. Words are powerful and though they may not inflict physical harm, I think it inflicts more lasting pain if it affects someone emotionally and psychologically. Threats alone could affect someone's psyche. No one wants to live in constant fear and worry that one day they're going to die or be brutally beaten. That's just wrong. I just don't understand how people get off playing off the fears of others through intimidation. I think it's just psychotic especially if all your anger and hate has driven you to drastic measures to physically harm someone.

But anyway, back to the email I received. I asked Dave yesterday if that type of email would be considered hate speech and to what extent was it protected if it wasn't. I received it on myspace which is a whole issue in itself considering there are certain guidelines to abide by in the virtual space. Summarizing some things the emailer wrote is that "Chamorro women ought to be murdered" because they are overpopulating the island, and Chamorro men are "good for nothing lazy asses" who waste their time doing absolutely nothing living off the system. The emailer also went on claiming the island was a "shithole" in regards to the hot weather, government, and the people. I really don't want to go on anymore considering this is a sensitive issue for me, but I would've never thought people like this still existed. I'm just so proud of my island and yes I realize there are some bad characteristics about it, but I think the locals and citizens of the island are the only ones who have that right to criticize it because they live and breathe the problems of the island. I thought could be a visitor or a military person who went there and just had a bad experience or encountered all the wrong people. But Guam is a very family-oriented place and shows overall hospitality to everyone. We're easy going people and sure we may have our problems, but what society doesn't.

I wish there could be anthropologists and ethnographers that go along with these people to ensure they have an open mind for different cultures. I think this is another barrier the person may have had. As with any culture, if you don't know or have lived the culture or in the society you have no right to provide your assumptions and interpretations about those people. There are so many things happening in one issue and most of it is influenced or derives out of the culture and one just cannot compare the differences with their own culture because that leaves too much room for judgments wrong ones at that. Whatever happened to having respect for one another? I know when I go to foreign countries I try my best to understand and observe what is going on in cultural and traditional contexts of that society before I draw any conclusions about its citizens. I would hope that everyone who leaves this country to visit another is culturally and diversely aware of differences and respects them.

"Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness."

Suspended for saying "VAGINA!"

I think this is really ridiculous! I came across a video clip on the TODAY show about high school students who were suspended for saying "vagina" in a school play. A group of three girls were suspended from high school for performing a school play and for using the word "vagina" after being told by their principal to not use the word in the play. The girls and Eve Ensler, author of "The Vagina Monologues" were interviewed on the Today show. (To watch the clip, click here. Scroll to "Students suspended over the v-word")

This issue totally relates to what we discussed in class. Maybe not on the grounds of pornographic images, but the use of graphic language. The superintendent of the school said they feared there were young children in the audience and this particular use of the language was not appropriate for them. However, the girls claimed the audience was only of parents and 9-12 graders. I personally think the girls did the right thing in saying "vagina." I don't see the harm in the word...it's just a body part. Yet again this is another way educators try to shelter children from learning. So what if young children were in the audience and heard the word? How would that NEGATIVELY affect them? I think if children are educated about sexuality, their body parts, then aren't we doing our job to protect them from harm; the harm of abusing it? The Vagina Monologues has been shown on college campuses nationwide, why not show it to a high school audience? If anything I think there is a NEED to show it to a teenage audience.

I thought it was just great to see these three young women standing up for what they believed in. This was their way of showing they would not be silenced. Someone in my group in seminar yesterday mentioned that nowadays and even long ago, sex education has always had a negative connotation (i.e. venereal diseases, dying from them, etc.). By including plays like the Vagina MOnologues in the high school environment teenage girls and boys will learn the vagina is a beautiful thing. I mean damn, LIFE is created from it! Where the hell else did we all come from? That's right....OUR MOTHERS VAGINAS! As a parent, I would want my child to learn about these things so he's informed and won't feel the need to EXPERIMENT to be educated about it. Really this is so ridiculous! Any thoughts.....

Who Decides????

I absolutely loved the discussion we had in our last seminar meeting. My group touched on so many issues of the topic in the limited amount of time we had. Everyone offered thoughtful critical insights and multiple perspectives on the issue of "censorship." I could tell we were all very passionate about the discussion....and EVERYONE was actively engaged!

As a parent, this discussion made me really think about what I would want my son to be taught come his time to start school. I do want to have a say about what he should and shouldn't be learning in school. I do realize there may be few things in the curriculum I may not agree with, but in one way or another he will encounter members of the GLBTQ community and other minority groups and I would want him to be educated about it. I want him to be informed and from that formulate his own opinion about it. Shunning or sheltering him from a reality of a diverse society is just unrealistic and ridiculous.

I was rather appalled after reading the Dobson article. Yes I understand he has his beliefs and feels strongly about marriage, education, and opposes homosexuality, but he never explained HOW teaching this in classrooms would negatively affect young children. What is the correlation between teaching about homosexuality and the promotion of "perverse behavior?" Children are unaware of others' differences unless it is pointed out to them and interpreted as bad or taboo. Exposing children at a young age will give them the freedom to determine what they think about it; acceptance, toleration, or rejection. Also, Dobson seems to be stuck in his ways and frankly I cannot begin to wonder where he lives. We live in a very diverse nation made up of multicultural communities and times have changed. He posed the question: If it's okay to teach about sexuality or in this case homosexuality than why not include religion in the curriculum? From his article he stated in explaining his scenario of Mrs. Jones, a kindergarten teacher, "...Mrs. Jones cannot mention the contributions to society made by people pf faith, or the role that Christianity played in the lives of Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers, or the meaning of the Judeo-Christian concept of morality." I can understand where Dobson is coming from with this, but I think he is also missing the central point of all of this. I don't think it has anything to do with promoting homosexual behavior, rather by teaching about an overall difficult reality to understand that is not popularly accepted, children and staff who are homosexual or some who are sexually confused can find this space to be comfortable; some won't have to be passive about it. Which leads me to this...If religion was taught in a public classroom (Christianity) Dobson would say we are preparing children to be Christian role models and instilling them with good morals and values. But what about the Crusades, missionaries forcibly converting non-Christians with violence, and killing in the name of God? Wouldn't that influence children to be violent and condemn others who are Christian? How would this promote good Christian morals and values?

I could honestly go on and on about this topic. Like Dave said, there are just too many elements playing into this issue; from teachers, students, the government, parents. What we teach our children is important because they are our investments for our futures. They are the future leaders of tomorrow. We don't want them to be cookie cuts; we'd leave no room for change.