Skip to main content
Support
Article

Fellow Researches Extremism on the Internet

Wilson Center Fellow Raphael Cohen-Almagor is comparing how the United States, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom deal with—or fail to deal with—the proliferation of hate speech, racism, and crime on the Internet.

In democracies, free expression comes at a price. Many people might use a medium for noble purposes, but that same medium might be abused by bigots and criminals. One such medium with instantaneous and global reach is the Internet.

"In 1994, the Internet came into our lives unexpectedly without any design or plan," said Wilson Center Fellow Raphael Cohen-Almagor. "It's free for all, offers a platform to say whatever, has no boundaries, and many of us get most of our information from it."

But such an outlet can be both an opportunity and a curse. "The Internet is a wonderful innovation, but as it serves the best products of humanity, so does it serve the worst products of humanity," said Cohen-Almagor, who is researching how organizations utilize the Internet in the democratic world and how to address the exploits.

Cohen-Almagor, who is chair and professor of politics at the University of Hull in the United Kingdom, is comparing how the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Israel are addressing the spread of terrorism, racism, hate speech, violent criminal activity, and pedophilia on the Internet.

"There's no doubt the Internet played a role in the planning and executing of 9/11," said Cohen-Almagor. Terrorists use the Internet to communicate with their cells around the world, spreading propaganda, recruiting, fundraising, and seeking legitimacy. "The Internet is also a great place for hatemongers as in the United States there are no limits on hate speech and they can disseminate their message widely and cheaply."

Meanwhile, some use the Internet for criminal training, such as instructing how to procure weapons or carry out an assassination. And pedophiles access child pornography, spurring them to commit dangerous acts.

"We have the technology to control content, such as blocking websites, but the question is whether we have the will to do it," he said. "The United States takes the most liberal position on free speech in the world" and, generally, refrains from censoring content. So much falls under First Amendment-protected speech, yet the other countries in his study all place limits on dangerous and inciting content.

Governments are still learning about, and grappling with, the Internet's dangers. The United Kingdom, for example, implemented filters on all UK servers to prevent pedophilia. And, the United States, under the "true threat" doctrine, has shut down websites if they specifically incite murder.

Many countries have connected dangerous speech and action. Israel, some European countries—notably Germany—and Canada, prosecute anyone who transmits messages of hate. Yet in the United States, where 60 percent of Internet content is produced, some efforts help prevent terrorism and pedophilia on the Internet, but there are none to stop hate speech or speech designed to provoke criminality.

Cohen-Almagor said he hopes his forthcoming book will provide new voices and data so people can know of the lurking dangers. He recommends that alongside regular browsers, there would be a "CleaNet" browser so anyone can flag and block troubling content. And, he said, perhaps emphasizing the liability of Internet providers could encourage action.

"I don't want censorship," insisted Cohen-Almagor. "I want awareness, discussion, and a selection of Internet browsers. I want choice."