[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HATE SPEECH ON NET

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' 
attention to an editorial in the November 17, 1995, issue of USA Today, 
called Hate Speech on the Net.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, college campuses have been at the 
center of the debate over hate speech. Several universities have 
established restrictive rules on speech and have punished students with 
probation or even dismissal. These rules, while certainly established 
with the best intentions, do raise serious issues of free speech.
  As Americans, we are allowed to say what we want, as long as it does 
not threaten public safety, no matter how much it may offend others. 
Voltaire is credited with saying, ``I disagree with what you say but I 
am ready to fight to the death to preserve your right to say it.'' I 
would like to add: and then I will speak out against what you have 
said. As this editorial points out, a recent episode at Cornell 
University illustrates that a better response to hate speech is often 
an eloquent reply.
  I ask that the full text of the editorial be printed in the Record.
  The editorial follows:

                    [From USA Today, Nov. 17, 1995]

                         Hate Speech on the Net

       A tasteless but not harmless college prank got the national 
     attention it deserved this week when four Cornell freshmen 
     made the mistake of sharing their raunchy degradation of 
     women via the Internet.
       The four sent an e-mail message listing ``75 reasons why 
     women (bitches) should not have freedom of speech.'' After 
     the message was spread--and attacked--they expressed ``deep 
     remorse.'' In an apology published in the campus newspaper, 
     they insisted they didn't mean any of the things they wrote.
       Please.
       If they didn't mean to trash women, why was their list so 
     demeaning, degrading and threatening? If they meant to share 
     this list with just a few of their buddies, why did they send 
     it on the Internet, where so many other students pulled up 
     the list that at least one school's computer system crashed?
       Their juvenile attempts at humor included such sexist slaps 
     as: ``Big breasts speak for themselves.'' ``Female drunks are 
     annoying unless they put out.'' ``If she can't speak, she 
     can't cry rape.'' Other suggestions were simply too vulgar to 
     repeat.
       Freshmen with the brains to get into a prestigious Ivy 
     League college should have known this list was not harmless 
     fun.
       Cornell acknowledged this episode ``offended, angered and 
     distressed.'' But its judicial administrator concluded 
     Thursday that the students did not violate the college's code 
     of conduct.
       That judgment will further infuriate those outraged by this 
     sexist attack. But this sorry tale takes a turn for the 
     better.
       As the students' bad taste became public, the e-mail 
     response was so loud and large that it brought a prompt 
     response from the university
       The students now have ``offered'' to attend gender-
     sensitivity training, perform community service and apologize 
     in person to senior Cornell administrators.
       Had the students been denied the right to make their sexist 
     views public, those views might have gone unchallenged and 
     unchanged. All of which shows again that the best remedy for 
     offensive speech is not a restrictive rule but an eloquent 
     reply.

                          ____________________