HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not CensorshipThe updated paperback edition of HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. As "hate speech" has no generally accepted definition, we hear many incorrect assumptions that it is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. "Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that "hate speech" are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates worldwide maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism. |
Contents
Introduction | 1 |
1 Overview | 11 |
2 Hate Speech Laws Violate Fundamental Free Speech and Equality Principles | 37 |
3 When Hate Speech Is Protected and When It Is Punishable | 53 |
4 Because of Their Intractable Vagueness and Overbreadth Hate Speech Laws Undermine Free Speech and Equality | 69 |
5 Is It Possible to Draft a Hate Speech Law That Is Not Unduly Vague or Overbroad? | 105 |
6 Does Constitutionally Protected Hate Speech Actually Cause the Feared Harms? | 121 |
7 Hate Speech Laws Are at Best Ineffective and at Worst Counterproductive | 133 |
8 Noncensorial Methods Effectively Curb the Potential Harms of Constitutionally Protected Hate Speech | 157 |
Looking Backand Forward | 183 |
| 187 | |
Other editions - View all
Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship Nadine Strossen No preview available - 2020 |
Common terms and phrases
ACLU advocate African-American Amendment American anti-Semitic Barack Obama Black Lives Matter campus hate speech censoring censorship Chapter cite civil rights constitute constitutionally protected hate controversial conveying counterspeech countries criminal critics democracy democratic directly causes specific discrimination disfavored disparaged dissent educational effective emergency principles emergency test emotional enforced equality example explained expression Facebook feared harms Flemming Rose free speech freedom of speech Glenn Greenwald groups hatred human rights ideas impact incitement including hate speech individuals issues Justice Keegstra law professor Law School LGBT Louis Brandeis messages minority Nadine Strossen Nazis neutrality and emergency non-censorial officials online intermediaries overbreadth political potential harm problems proponents of hate protected hate speech psychic punish hate speech punish speech racial racist religious restrictions rights activists Skokie social media society speaker statements stress suppress speech Supreme Court target tected hate speech Timothy Garton Ash tion University views violate violence words


