Let's suppose the cyberbullying of deaf people through YouTube, chatrooms, in discussion forums, or even in blogs are the efforts to try and harass a person because he or she doesn't like the person in the first place. Are those examples of a hate crime in action? That depends on the nature of the hate, the context, and resulting response by people who received the brunt of that hate.
Let's look at a recent case of what some people say is an example of a hate crime.
Cyberbullyin is out of control.
For example, take the case of Tyler Clementi. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University who jumped from the George Washington Bridge after a video surfaced on the internet featuring Clementi and another male student engaging in sexual acts.
Two students were charged with counts of invasion of privacy but is that really all they deserve? These students should be held accountable for Clementi's death. This can and should be viewed as a hate crime not simply because of the student's sexuality, but because these students targeted that aspect of his life. They were the emotional shove that sent him falling from that bridge.Was that really a hate crime or a prank gone bad? Just bad judgement all around and not about hate crime per se? Or is this a blurring of cyberbullying with that of a hate crime in action? Is it a hate crime to go on YouTube in the effort to purposely discredit a person's reputation by providing false information to viewers in a cyberbullying act? Can defamation be hate crime in action?
In California there's a court case in the attempt to connect a cyberbullying case with that of a hate crime. Was it really a "hate crime" that happened? What about the case of Amy Cohen Efron?
I get ostracized and harassed just because of my own opinion and my role as an Editor of DeafRead. As one of the pioneers of Deaf vlogging world, I get cyberbullied just like others. Yes, someone did call my employer about my online activities. This kind of stress caused a trip to emergency room.Was that a case of a hate crime in action when that person or persons who followed through with his or her hate of Amy by actually calling her employer with the express purpose and malicious intent to cause psychological harm to her and damage her reputation at her place of employment? Was it a hate crime in action because others did not view her to be "Deaf enough" because of her views on certain Deaf-related issues did not agree with other Deaf people's more extreme views? Or was it a simple case of her releationship with Deafread and Tayler who owns Deafread on how he received his own brunt of hate for his opinions regarding avdism and how it was just a cover used by some Deaf people? Where is that line between cyberbulling, hate speech and hate crime?
Also, another question, is the action of sending threatening emails to other people a case of a hate crime in action if the perpetrator uses his or her own "Deaf hierarchy" (culturally deaf status) over others in the effort to "protect" the Deaf status quo in their own Deaf community? In other words attack those in the attempt to falsely report or ruin the reputation of people who do not share the same extreme "Deaf views." Or perhaps this was a case not being "Deaf enough" in the extreme sense? A case of not jumping onto the "Deaf extremism" bandwagon? Or maybe a case of people who are "professional haters" who rely on false reporting and hyperbole to get his or her way?
But what about reporting a false hate crime that never existed? It does happen. Here's one professor who did just that and got caught. Not only got did he get caught for lying but got caught in a web of hypocrisy using the status as a professor to make the reporting of a "hate crime" sound even more legitimate.
And what about the hypocrisy of people who discuss hate crime while on a soapbox but continue to make vlogs or blogs in the effort to cyberbully other people in the effort to ruin their reputations with false rumors or false information? And yet we see cases where people ended up physically stalking somebody's house for a few days. A manifestation of a cyberbullying action that slowly transitioned into the physical act of stalking a person he or she hates. But sometimes the hypocrisy gets surreal when a person goes back to his or her soapbox on the whole hate crime, hate speech or cyberbullying spiel pretending nothing ever happened?
The question here is the shifting, blurry line of hate speech and cyberbullying with that of a hate crime. Where do you draw that line?
12 comments:
You meant she as in the professor who did the hoax? :)
Also, yeah, I did vlogged about cyberbullying. It's simply NOT cool. And if somebody doesn't like it, just move on. That's what I would suggest.
We need to sort these things out and determine an ethical code of behavior.
However, editorializing and projecting into situations of bad behavior, loaded words like "deaf hate crime" or "deaf enough" "elitism" doesn't help the situation become clearer. It probably inflames things further.
Let's start with the facts, please. Honorable people were badly treated by a few crackpots with agendas we can only guess at. It was because of their position and because the crackpots disagreed with them on how matters were handled.
At the heart of a crackpot is someone who feels injured and wants recognition, validation for his feelings, or revenge. Or has anger and seeks release through bullying.
The overwhelming majority of us in cyberspace are not bullies or crackpots. They are not more numerous in the Deaf community although visible.
However, we do need to do brainstorming and some work to minimize (or prevent) the effect they have on a healthy cyberspace environment.
One could simply condemn publicly the bloggers or vloggers who do these cyberbullyings. Make it known what they are doing is not acceptable.
But it's not just the cyberbullying, it's the increasing activity of people becoming stalkers and sending out threatening emails and such that cannot be seen by the general public. Those things happen behind the scene. It's up to the victims to expose these deviants. And when that happens then the community can offer their full support and help.
For what it is worth, I -HAVE- publicly condemned a certain v/blogger for bullying otherS. Yes, otherS.
I just could not tolerate havin' the said person attempting to sabotage another's job, just simply because the unsaid person disagreed or objected on being labelled as a bully (which is very true, ANYWAYS).
So, how do we resolve this issue? As for me, I stand by what my 101 years old grandmother told me "If you don't have anything nice to say, keep your mouth shut." This applies to every one of you, including myself.
Finlake, yes. That's a good way of doing it. However, what about people who are easily intimidated or affected by cyberbullying and feel trapped at times? And have no recourse or personal will to try and protect him or herself? How does a community respond? I remember two years ago there was a get-together by people to sign a pact not to do any cyberbullying. But like a druggie, some have seriously relapsed into the cyberbullying cycle once again.
This form of cyber bullying is actually quite the norm on a number of 'official' sites, they start as cliques, then they go personal with the attack. I think 80% of 'dedicated' deaf sites are well worth avoiding really. I can't believe the level of negativity,and near hatred, on some dedicated signing sites, you don't see it with Hard of Hearing ones. They exist in a vacuum. The thing about name and shame, is you get grudge lists which don't really help ID the real bullies,and if you target secular/closed sites then they bleat discrimination. I'm no defeatist but it is difficult to see how to shut these people up, without attacking freedom of speech.
You are being slammed and cyber-bullied by Ridor9th once again.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ridor9th?feature=chclk
He is still moron, only and one true cyber-bullying within the deaf vlog world.
Let's rip him back. :)
You can't shut them up short of violating their freedom of speech. But you can help try and limit the damages. Or simply ingore them because they are without credibility. I don't think people who are "professional haters" have any credibility at all when it comes to personally attacking people. There's a difference between criticizing people (constructively that is) versus attacking people for the sake of attacking and nothing to do with legitimate criticisms.
Oh, please, MM. Be real.
Cyberbullying AND bullying is every where.
It knows no difference between the color/disability/sex/etc.
Anyways, Mike, I think you might want to check out deaftranquillife blog.
Ugh, I've been putting off my own blog site, too. :-/
Also, I believe you'll like this music video, too for it does talk about bully. The site is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU&ob=av3e
anony 12:11 PM,
Someone else already informed me. I have no interest in watching those kinds of vlogs that spew hate and lies. You can watch it if you want. Not me, thank you. But keep in mind about the whole cyberbullying problems in the Deaf community. I have no interest in contributing to the cyberbullying problems. It's either you are the problem or you are not when it comes to cyberbullying. I've made my decision already on that matter a long time ago.
Shut down the DeafRead and put Ridor in the prison for a lifetime.
The Deaf Community will heal itself from all spews of hatred and falsehoods.
Deafread isn't the problem. No one is forcing you to visit Deafread. No one is forcing you to watch vlogs. No one is forcing you to read blogs.
Post a Comment