HATE : Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship
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.
- Hardback | 232 pages
- 149 x 216 x 21mm | 351g
- 26 Jul 2018
- Oxford University Press Inc
- New York, United States
Other books in this series
03 Aug 2020
15 Jan 2010
Table of contents
expression is "one of the essential foundations of any democratic society. Now, we struggle with the turmoil that has marked the first 20 years of the new millennium, perhaps the best remedy for hate speech is not restriction of offensive speech but rather a more robust debate, requiring that all people
of good will exercise their right not to remain silent. * Lawrence Siry, Collaborateur de Recherche, University of Luxembourg * Strossen has written a book that should be widely read. * John Samples, Economic Blogs * Strossen delivers an important message: At some point in time, some speech will offend and emotionally harm someone somewhere and depending on the powers that be, it could be yours. Engagement, not censorship is the answer... The UK needs to hear Strossen's cautionary tale of how the practice and application of hate speech laws widely undermine the good intentions, ultimately leading to frustration over legless political correctness or at worst, paving a path from
liberal democracy towards totalitarianism. * Chloe M. Gilgan, University of York * For centuries free speech has been the cause of political progressives. Many have died for it. Only recently have progressives abandoned it, allowing the far right to become the new heroes of open and critical public discourse. That was a bad move in principle, and has never yielded any of the desired results in practice. Censorship constantly bolsters the views that progressives insist they are challenging. Nadine Strossen remains the powerful voice of a
dangerously jeopardised tradition. She understands the social problems associated with hate speech but explains why censorship, which may be a facile solution, is neither politically defensible nor socially effective in the age of the electronic revolution. This book is for those who think they already know
all the free speech arguments. * Eric Heinze, Queen Mary University of London * HATE tackles the many misunderstandings that fuel and confuse current political life... There is a lot to like about this book. * David Cowan, Global Legal Post * A principled and persuasive analysis of how hate speech prohibitions are threatening free speech, written eloquently and comprehensibly. A powerful contribution, not only to First Amendment thinking but to other legal systems where expression rights are less well protected. * Geoffrey Robertson QC, Doughty Street Chambers * 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 * Nadine Strossen speaks power to Hate. * Sloane Crosley, Vanity Fair * For the most laudable sets of reasons, many decent citizens endorse legal limitations on hateful speech. In this accessible and much-needed contribution to current debates, Professor Strossen offers a compellingly cogent response which challenges that endorsement. Of interest to readers in the UK, US, Canada and beyond, the author critically dissects arguments for constitutional bans. She offers an alternative, speech-friendly solution to this most pressing of
contemporary problems that demands to be read. * Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Consitutional Law, University of Leeds *
About Nadine Strossen
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.