Extremism and the Internet

Citation

Hunter, E. (2000), "Extremism and the Internet", New Library World, Vol. 101 No. 5, pp. 243-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/nlw.2000.101.5.243.1

“If you love to hate, then you have come to the right place!” is the kind of message appearing on library PCs around the world.

This is the first, rather dramatic statement that the reader will find in the above report, which goes on to say that extremist groups are starting to make extensive use of the Internet to promulgate their messages. As libraries install more and more Internet connectivity, the presence of these groups is going to become ever more apparent. What, if anything, should be done about it?

This EMAIN (Extremism and the Internet) Project seeks to increase understanding of these issues. In addition to a targeted analysis of documentary evidence, the research team undertook the task of searching out extremist Web sites and newsgroups and examining what they had to say.

Extremism is not, of course, in itself, necessarily something to be deplored and discouraged. Many people hold, or have held, what the society of the time might consider extreme opinions and, as the report points out, extremism could, by extension, include such movements as feminism and suffragettism. Therefore, there is a need to be clear as to how extremism is to be defined in the context of this research. I should have liked to have seen this definition included in the abstract or introduction but it eventually appears in Section 2, viz.:

An individual’s or group’s willingness to promote their cause by violence and by the denial of fundamental rights.

After a consideration of the various Internet services (bulletin boards, electronic mail, discussion groups and so on) examples are given of the types of extremist group which fall within the report’s definition and which operate on the Web. These include nationalist, revisionist, white supremacist and skinhead groups. The conclusion is reached that the distribution of material has long been a problem for such groups. The Internet has provided them with a powerful tool enabling them to communicate with a wider audience, to keep supporters posted concerning situations within a short space of time, and to promote their ideas.

Before examining the legal and technical ways in which such activity might be controlled, the report explores a number of contextual issues, the mass media, Internet monitoring, the information rich/information poor and the restriction of access.

Although the Internet is a global medium, legislation is nearly always national. There is not even a measure of agreement over the sort of legislation that should be attempted. Clearly freedom of access is desirable but should there not be some legislative control? Should not children, for example, be protected from pornography and excessive violence? Where should the line be drawn?

The research concludes that legislation will have a role to play but legislation alone will not answer all of the problems. Technological approaches will also be needed. The most common of these, and the most promising, are filtering and labelling. Filtering is accomplished by using software that enables access to non‐controversial sites while preventing access to sites containing offensive or other undesirable material. Labelling provides a tag, or rating, to sites that can then be used by software to judge the likely content and block accordingly. Rating may be carried out by the content provider or by a separate ratings agency. Software may also block, if required, any site without a label. Both filtering and labelling are judged to be powerful tools but simplistic and blunt‐edged. Encryption or other technologies may enable undergound movement designed to make a group’s activities invisible. Technical solutions therefore have their place but they are of limited value in the area of extremist content. The report maintains that, despite these limitations, labelling seems almost certain to become widespread.

The report then asks the very important question: “Should Internet content be regulated?” The basic premiss on which the case for censorship and regulation is based is that there is a need to protect vulnerable individuals from certain types of content. The most obvious example is the previously noted need to protect children from extremely violent or pornographic material. The conclusion is that, while the case for regulating pornographic content is fairly clear‐cut, that relating to extremist material is less so. There is a need for continued debate, especially in the UK, about the approach that should be taken.

The next section deals with libraries and the problems of censorship. Providing access to the Internet has become an important part of the library service. The report concludes that librarians remain committed to the principle of freedom of information but they are unsure how to react to the problems posed by extremist sites. A range of measures has been tried. These include: clear policy statements; acceptable use policies; filtering; education of users; the provision of pointers to “acceptable” or “alternative” resources; vigilance; involvement in the wider debate; and continued efforts through professional bodies to clarify the ethical and professional issues involved. Of these, the most common initial reaction has been the development of an acceptable use policy that sets out guidelines for the use of Internet services on library premises. The aim is to leave the onus of control within the hands of the user but with sanctions available for blatant misuse. The conclusion is that a judicious mix of all the approaches is probably the only realistic way forward. The report maintains that it would be easy to overreact and introduce censorship when the extent of the problem may merit a less Draconian approach.

It is worth citing the final paragraph of the report’s conclusions:

In the final analysis, librarians can ensure users are aware of the dangers, but they cannot make ethical decisions for them. Attempting to control the material people access would deny them the right to see both sides of an argument and the freedom to judge for themselves.

A number of recommendations for further work are made, including: the monitoring of extremist Web sites and related activity; the consideration of possible legislation changes; further technical appraisal; informed debate on ethical and professional issues; the development of a model “Acceptable use policy”; sustained awareness‐raising; and international discussion and agreement.

Looking back on what I have written so far, I find that some of it perhaps reads more like an explanatory summary than a critical review. On reflection, I feel that this is no bad thing. Today, it is easy for any individual or body to set up a Web site and expound his, her or its views on any subject. Human nature being what it is, inevitably some of these views will be “extreme”, as defined in this report. I think that much of the content of the report therefore is almost self‐evident. However, I tend to agree with the research team that library and information services have a key role to play in ensuring a threat‐free environment, and responsibilities to their users. Therefore, the content of this interesting and timely report assumes a great significance. The report achieves its objective of helping to increase understanding of the issues and is to be strongly recommended.

A select bibliography and a list of abbreviations are included but no index, which is a pity when one considers that the report emanates from a Department of Information and Communication.