This article has been published on Medium platform click here to read
The conclusion from part one was! Media will remain as a tool, mean to outlet something. In the world of globalization, the influence of media outcome becomes more prominent, for good or worse meaning something to regulate or guide its function is essential. The outreach capacity and the enormous range of methods of transmitting and broadcasting brought more complication to forge effective control.
Hatred brings segregation, division, and cleavage. Hatred also agitates emotion beyond the rational mind. Pave the way to extreme way of thinking and violent will follow quickly. Which hurdle against any inclusion process? These consequences of hate media must encourage us to put all our efforts against it and block the Oxygen its breath.
So, we must concentrate our efforts on preventing hate media from spreading. Now the question is? How we can do that!
First, we have to agree that any endeavor we think of, should not fundamentally overcome any values of Democracy and freedom. As a rule, solving negative issues should not degrade the positive one otherwise we are gaining nothing.
Media live in the sphere of democracy and freedom; it takes its strength from their values, but replay with more. And since democracy and freedom are only grow in a secure, stable, organized, and prosperous society, and then media role should support the essential needs of more flourish society. And since modern society creates regulations, check and balance to ensure good governance and protect itself. Therefore media should follow a similar track of regulating its function with adequate regulations to guarantee that no impairment had been done to the society body. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to have an appropriated guided society with unchecked media that can be used by the society’s enemy to cause harms.
Nowadays we can see many attempts are taken to tackle the issue of hate media. These attempts are, More or less, working according to the same argument that I just described above. European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and a coalition of civil society organizations are leading an ambitious campaign called “mediaAgainsHate. The campaign based on promoting ethical standards without undermining freedom of expression.
With the current massive immigration flux to Europe, the crucial role of media and journalists is much needed to fight hate that decimated across the continent. Moreover, it is necessary to inform government and the societal opinion with fair reporting and even to take the moral stand of fighting hatred by its own.
Nevertheless, there is a huge argument on hate media going on. This argument comes from people who reject imposing any regulations on media claiming it is against freedom. They do not realize that many countries legislates some guidance on this subject without jeopardizing freedom. For instance; The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press. However, there are certain exceptions to free speech. For example, there are regulations on public broadcasters: the Federal Communications Commission forbids the broadcast of “indecent” material on the public airwaves. The accidental exposure of Janet Jackson’s nipple during the halftime show at Super Bowl XXXVIII led to the passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 which increased the maximum fine that the FCC could level for indecent broadcasts from $32,500 to $325,000 — with a maximum liability of $3 million. This fine is to shield younger individuals from expressions and ideas that are deemed offensive. The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to touch the internet, but that could change if net neutrality comes into play. The government’s role is to protect the interest of the public, balancing this with the business media’s needs, can be difficult.
The point here is if we agreed to pass Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 legislates to impose decency which protects the moral value of the society. Then, what about the speech or act of hate? Which will not touch moral values alone, but security and safety of the public with far reaching effects in the long run?
Another example of the ongoing argument is the criticism of the German affiliates of the European Federation of Journalists, the Deutscher Journalisten-Verband (DJV) and DJ in ver.di to the Network Enforcement Law which was adopted by the German Bundestag recently. “Even if we strongly reject the use of fake news and hate speech in social networks, in case of doubt, the deletion of such content is not the right response,” said Cornelia Haß, national director of DJs in ver.di. “Freedom of expression and diversity of opinions are fundamental.”.
Terrorists disseminate hatred rhetoric, taking advantages of the unchecked media to recruit fighters online. Many recent terrorist incidents in America and Europe were committed not by terrorist affiliates but lone sympathizers. Most of the 15000 foreign fighters who join ISIS (what so called the Islamic State) were recruited online through hate media broadcast. All these events add further encouragement for governments and institutions to work harder to find solutions for hate media.
Finally, Out of all the above argument, many valuable tips could be found;
* Fight hatred, inclusion will come quickly, as simple as that.
* Hate media will not be curbed by imposing only ethical standards.
* Hate media is a threat that represents a serious menace to society than any other issues.
* For comparison, Decency Enforcement Act is not more dangerous than, imposing a similar, if any, hate media preventing regulations.
* There are many ways to forge hate media preventing regulations without undermining freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
* The massive influx of refugees will continue to the west, and hate media is a problem- creating is hampering their integration within the state and society.
* Hate media effects is increasing steadily unless quick steps are taken to curb it.
* Hate media is not part of freedom of speech; it is agitated speech that leads to violence.