Using one of the examples, we can look at Twitter, which allows users to post short messages to be read by other users. Chris Matyszczyk, in his CNET article “Anti-gay Twitter Hashtag Hijacked by Wit”, brings light to the use of Twitter to promote LGBT “facts” in one case; a group that posts anti-homosexual messages under a claim of truth. In a similar situation, a board member of Arkansas was found to be publicizing homophobic and offensive comments on his public Facebook page (Popkin 2010). These, among many other instances, serve to show the acceptability in society of blatant anti-homosexual hate speech. Barbara Smith, in “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?”, lists destructive attitudes towards homosexuals, including the acceptance of jokes about “dykes and faggots” where “nigger” or “chink” would be censored and rejected. These forms of “free speech” (as it is commonly used to justify) victimize large groups of people, yet put them in the place of the bully. This is seen in schools as well, as noted by Stein in “Teaching Beyond Tolerance”. She lists that “the laws do not hold school administrators liable in the same ways to resolve the problems…but instead put the onus of solving the problem on the victim” (Stein 31).
Social development of the internet has brought about positive effects as well. More information shared between LGBTQ-identified individuals creates a community beyond physical boundaries previously separating them. Safer spaces are no longer within a room or building; they can exist on a website, where people feel safe sharing their personal stories and receiving support. A large amount of LGBTQ individuals gained a place to be accepted that may not have existed, or that they could not access. With more information available, even those outside of the communities take notice and become parts of it in indirect ways. Again from the Twitter LGBTfacts example, Matyszczyk points out that the homophobic hashtag was “Hijacked by Wit”; by turning it into a joke, they were able to play the offensive comments against themselves. This is a common technique used to neutralize terms deemed distasteful, such as self-identifying oneself as “queer”, which was previously a derogatory term. In the situation of the board member of Arkansas, the response was promising. Immediately the board and school system distanced themselves from his comments, and the board member announced his resignation afterward (Popkin).
From these encounters and others in the online cross-over between LGBTQ and opponents, the technology can be seen as helpful or detrimental. From my perspective, Web 2.0 technologies gave a way to vocalize disapproval of homosexuality in new and creatively hateful ways. Yet behind this is a larger community of acceptance that repeatedly responds to acts such as these, publicly condemning them and putting them in the spotlight to remind us that it is not okay. I believe that in the future, we will continue this trend toward closer acceptance on the web as it corresponds to our society. It is likely to never reach a point of full acceptance and support, but Web 2.0 technologies have brought society one step closer.
Bibliography
Matyszczyk, Chris. "Anti-gay Twitter Hashtag Hijacked by Wit | Technically Incorrect –
CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 05 Feb. 2012. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57365348-71/anti-gay-twitter-hashtag-hijacked-by-wit/?tag=cnetiosapp>.
Popkin, Helen A.S. "Facebook Is No Friend to Gay-bashing School Official." Blog. MSNBC.
28 Oct. 2010. Web. 05 Feb. 2012. <http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/28/5368726-facebook-is-no-friend-to-gay-bashing-school-official>.
Smith, Barbara. “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?” from The Lesbian and Gay Studies
Reader. ed Henry Ablelove et al New York& London: Routledge, 1993.
Stein, Nan. Bullying, Harassment, and Violence among Students in Radical Teacher,
No. 80, “Teaching Beyond Tolerance” Winter 2007 30-35.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSocial networking led to the ease of citizen journalism, but just as there is an opinion section in the newspaper, the Internet also allowed for the sharing of personal information, thoughts, and beliefs. The World Wide Web brings more pros than cons for the LGBTQ community support: websites like Tumblr, are seen as being very “queer”. These stereotypes (often regarded as negatives) are positively valued as the ties that bring similar people together, just as it did in the very first eras of developing the LGBTQ community. Threats are hard ignore, and are widely abundant as there are individuals who are “threatened about issues of sexuality, and for some the mere existence of homosexuals call their sexuality/heterosexuality into question” (Smith). They protect their privilege of identifying as a heterosexual person by putting “down lesbians and gay men at every turn, to make as large a gulf as possible between ‘we’ and ‘they’” (Smith). We as contributors to citizen journalism should not be on the binary of “we” and “they” on such matters as hate. People will always have their opinions; the matter constitutes of being able to ignore the negative words and to keep the positive ones, or to take notice of the threatening ones and to have their hateful words win over.
ReplyDeleteSmith, Barbara. “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?” from The lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. ed Henry Ablelove et al New York & London: Routledge, 1993.