Home   Press Center   Anti-Muslim Hate Press Center   Groundbreaking Report Exposes Anti-Muslim Hate Online

Groundbreaking Report Exposes Anti-Muslim Hate Online

Contact:
Fatima Khan
media@muslimadvocates.org
617-216-7089

Muslim Advocates “Click Here to End Hate” Report Empowers Social Media Users

(Oakland, CA — May 6, 2014) In a groundbreaking report, “Click Here to End Hate: Anti-Muslim Bigotry Online & How to Take Action,” Muslim Advocates exposes the breadth of anti-Muslim bigotry online, explains the law and corporate policies that regulate content on the Internet, and empowers individuals with the tools necessary to effectively respond to hate online.

“Online bigotry towards American Muslims continues to be a serious issue, particularly in the last few years where we’ve seen hate groups, anti-Muslim proponents, and public officials use various social media platforms to spread hate,” said Madihha Ahussain, Muslim Advocates staff attorney and lead author of the report.  “Their voices are amplified on the Internet and help create a space for the American public to echo these sentiments of hate and engage in acts of violence against an entire group or community.  People often think that there is nothing they can do to respond, but the reality is that their voices can be a powerful antidote to hate speech.”

Many use the Internet to organize online and rapidly gather supporters for their agendas.  For example, Pamela Gellar, a well-known anti-Muslim proponent and blogger had about 19 thousand followers on Facebook in June 2013.  Today, less than a year later, she has over 78 thousand.  Click Here to End Hate not only gives examples of offensive online content, but also sheds light on the legal considerations surrounding hate speech and what social media companies are doing about it.   The report also serves as a guide for individuals who want to push back with reporting mechanisms built into social media platforms and by engaging in counterspeech.

Muslim Advocates has a dedicated program to counter anti-Muslim hate, and works with a broad coalition of faith, civic, and civil rights organizations to challenge bigotry against religious minorities.  Through this work, Muslim Advocates monitors hate crimes targeting American Muslims, bigotry by public officials, anti-Sharia legislation bills that have been proposed or passed in various states, and opposition to mosque construction projects affecting communities throughout the country.

The report is available online at http://www.muslimadvocates.org/click-here-to-end-hate-pdf.

 

###

 

Muslim Advocates is a national legal advocacy and educational organization working on the frontlines of civil rights to guarantee freedom and justice for Americans of all faiths. Through high-impact lawsuits, policy advocacy, and community education, Muslim Advocates serves as a resource to empower communities and ensures that the American Muslim community is heard by the courts and leaders at the highest level of government.  Visit Muslim Advocates at www.muslimadvocates.org and follow @muslimadvocates.



  • dave gaubatz

    http://www.examiner.com/article/muslim-mafia-author-muslims-working-with-facebook-to-silence-critics-of-islam I request an interview with an Executive of Muslim Advocates, Primary interview question will be: “Are Muslims who will not allow or do not want a Christian Church or Synagogue” built in Saudi Arabia Bigots, haters, racists, etc..? Your organization labels many Americans as haters and bigots simply because they do not desire a mosque near their home, or for a mosque to expand. I would like for my upcoming article an explanation of the difference. Respectfully, Dave Gaubatz, Author: Muslim Mafia davegaubatz@gmail.com

  • Modres

    It is interesting how people can simply present truths about Islam and be labeled haters by your organization. Yet, I’ve had Muslims tell me that “truth is truth” when it was something they believed in.

    I also wonder what Muslim Advocates do to condemn radical Islam? I didn’t see anything on your site that speaks to that. Women are stoned to death for adultery, gays are executed, and other atrocities occur as well. Where is the condemnation of these things?

    Why do you classify Pamela Gellar as “anti-Muslim”? She is opposed to radical Islam. Shouldn’t you be as well? Instead, you take the time to defend yourselves and Islam.

    • Marg

      These people are haters themselves and nothing you say will change their 7th Century Barbarian beliefs! They are not opposed to Radical Islam!

    • elephantine

      Yes, Pamela Gellar is an ignorant and vile bigot. Why aren’t you spending your time defending bigots and fundamentalist Christians? Shouldn’t you be opposed to them as well?

  • مباركمسلم كانغ

    Assalamualaikum brothers and sisters, I found someone that keeps saying bad things and very misleading videos are posted against our Prophet Muhammad saw and Allah SWT and Islam it self. We need to move and counter act, cause this will give a bad name to all of us here is the link of the person and the videos he is posting continually, we need to stop him.https://plus.google.com/118028499214998681650/about

    • Marg

      HaHa! That would be about everyone in this country and you found one?? What a laugh! How do you think you are going to stop him?? Just like you can’t stop anyone from burning every Koran they can find! You need to either go back to your Muslim countries where they dictate what people can say and give out the death sentence for saying anything bad about the Prophet Muhammad, or get used to it! This is a country where it is not against the law for people to hate you and to insult you! So get used it or get out! Personally, we think your Prophet Muhammad was a child rapist and a Pedophile! That is not hate, that is the truth! Get used to it and quit whining!

      • elephantine

        Sorry, don’t try to pretend everyone is such an ignorant bigot just because you are. You’re pathetic and a complete idiot, Marg.

      • MuslimByNature

        Hey Marg, that’s an interesting comment. Firstly, just want to let you know that you can burn all the Quran in the world, and yet it will be wriiten as the first one because it is preserved by being installed in the hearts of billions. All word for word in order. This is a miracle as there is not one book that people can memorise word for word without error. And secondly, it seems your lack understanding of Islam. I am guessing you have not read the Quran and so not realise that it is not a new religion but rather a continuation of what Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus believed – so, why not read and increaseyour kknowledge by visiting http://www.OneReason.org

      • Mujaahida Rasheedah

        yes yes Marg and the US has in God we trust on its money, not jesus the son of God is our saviour. Your a very funny person, hope that humor carries you threw what is likely to be a refusal to engage with others, because of your Xenophobic belief structures….

      • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

        There was a hate speech prevention law that was passed and signed early
        in 2009. It expanded previous hate speech laws to include gender, sexual
        orientation, nationality, RELIGION etc. and yes your statement is hate! AND I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN AMERICA WITH MILITARY CHILDREN DO NOT INCLUDE ME IN YOUR HATE NOT EVERYONE IS AS BRAINLESS AS YOU

  • dirtybird

    Guess what…

    …in the United States of America, hate speech is FREE SPEECH.

    Don’t like it?

    Too bad, deal with it.

    • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

      NO HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH READ THE 1ST AMENDMENT AGAIN IT PLAINLY STATES AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM ANOTHER YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU READ IT SINCE I AM AN AMERICAN AND A MILITARY MOTHER I KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO SPEW HATE SPEECHES AND BE A BULLY SINCE THERE ARE ANTI BULLY LAWS YOU DEAL WITH IT WHEN SOMEONE DEALS WITH YOU, HATE FOR ANY ONE WILL NO LONGER BE TOLERATED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE THE HOME OF THE BRAVE LEARN THE CONSTITUTION THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND IF YOU DONT LIKE THE BULLY LAW YOU KNOW WHERE THE POLITICAL DOORWAY IS USE IT WITH THE OTHER BIGGOTS AND BULLYS CAUSE AS AN AMERICAN AND A CATHOLIC I WONT STAND FOR IT ANYMORE TOWARDS ANYONE BASED ON RELIGION, RACE, COLOR OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION GROW UP OR GET OUT!

      • dirtybird

        Learn to read you ignorant oaf.

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
        prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
        speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
        assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        See? There is not mention at all about “harm”.

        Every single judicial precedent from the history of the US Supreme Court also supports my position.

        Hate speech is free speech. Don’t like it? Too bad, deal with it!

        • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

          oh ignorant child you dont know the differance between THE CONSTITUTION SPEECH AND HATE SPEECH LET ME TELL YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FROM A MILITARY MOTHER OF A DEAD MARINE AND AN ARMY MOM SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT SINCE YOU ARE TO YOUNG TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND NO ONE TAUGHT YOU
          Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or
          group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin,
          religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or
          display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial
          action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it
          disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may
          identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain
          characteristics n some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

          Enforcement of hate speech laws

          Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are
          designed for public order and those that are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order seem to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty one years. Those meant to protect human dignity, however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced.

          Harm of hate speech

          Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993) found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the
          message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. this has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the Court stated that segregation “generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [AfricanAmericans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence

          United States

          Constitutional framework

          The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and
          sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles.
          The protection of civil rights was not written into the original
          Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
          or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
          speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
          assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the states as well.

          Some state constitutions also have a “free speech” provision, most notably, California

          Supreme Court case law

          Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: “There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

          Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the
          above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the
          Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio
          that; “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do
          not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force,
          or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting
          imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

          This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969
          and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted andpunished by that law. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,
          (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia,writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.

          Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of
          the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.

          he opinion noted “This conduct, if proved, might well have violated
          various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property”,
          among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

          In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps,
          which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest
          with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of
          Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong
          protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn’t promote imminent
          violence. The Court explained, “speech deals with matters of public
          concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of
          political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a
          subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”

        • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

          Societal implementation

          Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
          employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating “hate speech” by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of
          harassment resulting in a “hostile or offensive working environment” forother employees.

          In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted “speech codes” regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students. These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.
          Debate over restriction of “hate speech” in public universities has
          resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering
          discriminatory speech.

          NTIA report

          In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
          (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. TheNTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counter programming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate “hotlines” are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA’s research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.

          In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”. This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech. According to NTIA hate speech is:

          Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.

          Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.

        • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

          Hate speech in media

          In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC),
          a nonprofit organization with a mission to improve the image of
          American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong
          strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

          The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January 2009.

          “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

          False facts

          Flawed argumentation

          Divisive language

          Dehumanizing metaphors

          In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the
          Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.

          Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

        • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

          In the United States, where freedom of speech is so sacred, the Supreme Court declared in

          the well-known 1993 decision Wisconsin v. Mitchell that state legislation permitting

          tougher sentencing for offense motivated by racial or religious hatred are constitutional.

          Against this background, it is impossible to continue to argue that freedom of speech is the paramount value in a democratic and liberal society. This freedom is very important, but it is not absolute. And it cannot be invoked to undermine basic freedoms, violate the law, praise crime, or hurt others physically or emotionally.

          NOW BE QUIET WITH YOUR HATE!

        • http://crystalangelreviews.blogspot.com/ Sheila Jaworski

          There was a hate speech prevention law that was passed and signed early
          in 2009. It expanded previous hate speech laws to include gender, sexual
          orientation, nationality, RELIGION etc.