Response to Readings

The first reading was rather interesting from a perspective of observing what a good rant on the subject at hand looks like. The lack of support is over powered by a strong belief in the message that the author is attempting to present to his audience. Having said this, it is a good article for the reader to be able to get a nice, simple, and basic understanding of what the believers of hate speech in  news media believe in. It makes complete sense what the author, Henry Giroux, is saying. With freedom of speech and very vocal and angry commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck it is clear that hate speech exists. the examples that are sighted are good but one thing missing would be to see how what the commentators who are being accused of using hate speech, how they affect the audience and how the outlook of the person who is receiving the information changes. The second article, by Weatherby and Scoggins, is one that uses a data collection method that in the end proves, not really, that hate speech doesn't exist on hate groups web pages but rather the groups focus on getting new recruits instead of just spreading the message of hate. This article was rather interesting but puzzling in the fact that it left the question that isn't a group that is already against certain races and is attempting to get more support, isn't that in itself hate speech and a promotion for a very negative affect on society. Both articles were nice reads and in the end the conclusion that would be adopted by me would be that hate speech exists in the media, obviously, but the affects of it aren't directly clear but it needs to be stopped regardless of if it's affects are significant or not.