HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship (Inalienable Rights)

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 disfavored, 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. We Live In An Era In Which Offensive Speech Is On The Rise. The Emergence Of The Alt-right Alone Has Fueled A Marked Increase In Racist And Anti-semitic Speech. Given Its Potential For Harm, Should This Speech Be Banned? Nadine Strossen's Hate Dispels The Many Misunderstandings That Have Clouded The Perpetual Debates About Hate Speech Vs. Free Speech. She Argues That An Expansive Approach To The First Amendment Is Most Effective At Promoting Democracy, Equality, And Societal Harmony. Proponents Of Anti-hate Speech Laws Stress The Harms That They Fear Such Speech Might Lead To: Discrimination, Violence, And Psychic Injuries. However, There Has Been No Rigorous Analysis To Date Of Whether The Laws Effectively Counter The Feared Harms. This Book Fills That Gap, Examining Our Actual Experience With Such Laws. It Shows That They Are Not Effective In Reducing The Feared Harms, And Worse Yet, Are Likely Counterproductive. Even In Established Democracies, Enforcement Officials Use The Power These Laws Give Them To Suppress Vital Expression And Target Minority Viewpoints, As Was The Case In Earlier Periods Of U.s. History. The Solution Instead, As Strossen Shows, Is To Promote Equality And Societal Harmony Through The Increasingly Vibrant Counterspeech Activism That Has Been Flourishing On U.s. College Campuses And In Some Global Human Rights Movements. Strossen's Powerful Argument On Behalf Of Free Expression Promises To Shift The Debate Around This Perennially Contentious Topic. -- Dispelling Rampant Confusion About Hate Speech, This Book Explains How U.s. Law Appropriately Distinguishes Between Punishable And Protected Discriminatory Speech. It Shows That More Speech-restrictive Laws Consistently Have Suppressed Vital Expression About Public Issues, Targeting Minority Viewpoints And Speakers; And That Counterspeech Has More Effectively Promoted Equality And Societal Harmony-- Introduction -- 1. Overview -- 2. Hate Speech Laws Violate Fundamental Free Speech And Equality Principles -- 3. When Hate Speech Is Protected And When It Is Punishable -- 4. Because Of Their Intractable Vagueness And Overbreadth, Hate Speech Laws Undermine Free Speech And Equality -- 5. Is It Possible To Draft A Hate Speech Law That Is Not Unduly Vague Or Overbroad? -- 6. Does Constitutionally Protected Hate Speech Actually Cause The Feared Harms? -- 7. Hate Speech Laws Are At Best Ineffective And At Worst Counterproductive -- 8. Non-censorial Methods Effectively Curb The Potential Harms Of Constitutionally Protected Hate Speech -- 9. Conclusion: Looking Back - And Forward. Nadine Strossen. Includes Index. __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, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, 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; 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. Presentación del editor: "We live in an era in which offensive speech is on the rise. The emergence of the alt-right alone has fueled a marked increase in racist and anti-Semitic speech. Given its potential for harm, should this speech be banned? Nadine Strossen's HATE dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about "hate speech vs. free speech." She argues that an expansive approach to the First Amendment is most effective at promoting democracy, equality, and societal harmony. Proponents of anti-hate speech laws stress the harms that they fear such speech might lead to: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been no rigorous analysis to date of whether the laws effectively counter the feared harms. This book fills that gap, examining our actual experience with such laws. It shows that they are not effective in reducing the feared harms, and worse yet, are likely counterproductive. Even in established democracies, enforcement officials use the power these laws give them to suppress vital expression and target minority viewpoints, as was the case in earlier periods of U.S. history. The solution instead, as Strossen shows, is to promote equality and societal harmony through the increasingly vibrant "counterspeech" activism that has been flourishing on U.S. college campuses and in some global human rights movements. Strossen's powerful argument on behalf of free expression promises to shift the debate around this perennially contentious topic." The 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. Cover......Page 1 Advance Praise for Hate......Page 2 Half title......Page 4 Series......Page 6 Hate......Page 8 Copyright......Page 9 Dedication......Page 10 Contents......Page 12 Acknowledgments......Page 14 Editor’s Note......Page 18 Key Terms and Concepts......Page 22 Introduction......Page 32 1. Overview......Page 42 2. “Hate Speech” Laws Violate Fundamental Free Speech and Equality Principles......Page 68 3. When “Hate Speech” Is Protected and When It Is Punishable......Page 84 4. Because of Their Intractable Vagueness and Overbreadth, “Hate Speech” Laws Undermine Free Speech and Equality......Page 100 5. Is It Possible to Draft a “Hate Speech” Law That Is Not Unduly Vague or Overbroad?......Page 136 6. Does Constitutionally Protected “Hate Speech” Actually Cause the Feared Harms?......Page 152 7. “Hate Speech” Laws Are at Best Ineffective and at Worst Counterproductive......Page 164 8. Non-​censorial Methods Effectively Curb the Potential Harms of Constitutionally Protected “Hate Speech”......Page 188 9. Conclusion: Looking Back—​and Forward......Page 214 Index......Page 218