About the Book
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. We hear too many incorrect assertions that "hate speech" -- which has no generally accepted definition -- 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 disfavoured, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as "hate speech."
"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" laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion, and predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgments
Editor's Note
Key Terms and Concepts
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 2: "HATE SPEECH" LAWS VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL FREE SPEECH AND EQUALITY PRINCIPLES
CHAPTER 3: WHEN "HATE SPEECH" IS PROTECTED AND WHEN IT IS PUNISHABLE
CHAPTER 4: BECAUSE OF THEIR INTRACTABLE VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH, "HATE SPEECH" LAWS UNDERMINE FREE SPEECH AND EQUALITY
CHAPTER 5: IS IT POSSIBLE TO DRAFT A "HATE SPEECH" LAW THAT IS NOT UNDULY VAGUE OR OVERBROAD?
CHAPTER 6: DOES CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED "HATE SPEECH" ACTUALLY CAUSE THE FEARED HARMS?
CHAPTER 7: "HATE SPEECH" LAWS ARE AT BEST INEFFECTIVE AND AT WORST COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
CHAPTER 8: NON-CENSORIAL METHODS EFFECTIVELY CURB THE POTENTIAL HARMS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED "HATE SPEECH"
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION: LOOKING BACK - AND FORWARD
Index
About the Author :
Nadine Strossen is Professor of Constitutional Law at New York Law School and the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union, where she served from 1991 through 2008. A frequent speaker on constitutional and civil liberties issues, her media appearances include 60 Minutes , CBS Sunday Morning , Today , Good Morning America , The Daily Show , and other news programs on CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, Al-Jazeera, and in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Her op-eds have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Washington Times , and USA Today , among others.
Review :
"Nadine Strossen speaks power to Hate." --Sloane Crosley, Vanity Fair"I have said it before about books, but this time I couldn't be more emphatic about it: everyone should read this book." --Lucy Kogler, LitHub"While other countries provide significant protection for free expression, the United States provides a significantly elevated level of protection, particularly for hateful speech. Nadine Strossen's insightful and eminently readable study on why we protect such speech and why we should continue to do so is an all-too-rare example of first-rate legal scholarship that the public at large can learn from and savor reading." -- Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Adjunct Professor, NYU Law School; Author, The Soul of the First Amendment"Strossen has accomplished something remarkable in this slim book - she has ventured into a complex and heavily examined field and produced a book that is original, insightful, and clear-headed. My guess: this book will become the go-to work in the field." -- Ronald Collins, Harold S. Shefelman Scholar at the UW School of Law, Publisher of First Amendment News"One of life's hardest tasks is to tell natural allies they are wrong. Nadine Strossen is clear in a time of confusion, consistent in an era of hypocrisy, and brave in an environment of intimidation. Her book is a fitting capstone to a career in defense of our civil liberties." -- Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., President of Purdue University, former Indiana Governor"In this work, Strossen stakes out a bold and important claim about how best to protect both equality and freedom. Anyone who wants to advocate for 'hate speech' laws and policies in the future now has the `Devil's Advocate' right at hand. No one can address this issue in the foreseeable future without taking on this formidable and compelling analysis. It lays the foundation for all debates on this issue for years to come." -- Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School"Nadine Strossen is one of the great civil libertarians of our day. This book provides a powerful and subtle defense of free speech. Don't miss it!" -- Dr. Cornel West, Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy, Harvard Divinity School"As Nadine Strossen writes eloquently in her new book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, a democracy succeeds only when the rights, thoughts, and aspirations of all its citizens are respected and given voice, and the citizenry believes that this is true, regardless of viewpoint." -- Maryanne Wolf, John DiBiaggio Professor of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University and author of Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital Culture"In this impressive work, Strossen offers an overarching perspective on the challenges of reconciling a concept of "hate speech" with a broad commitment to freedom of expression. This is an original, insightful, and compelling analysis, both timely and enduring, that has academic, constitutional, and international importance." -- Robert Zimmer, University of Chicago President
