Hate : why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship / Nadine Strossen.
Material type:![Text](/opac-tmpl/lib/famfamfam/BK.png)
- text
- unmediated
- volume
- 9780190859121
- 0190859121
Item type | Home library | Collection | Call number | Materials specified | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Main Library | NonFiction | 342.7308 S924 | Available | 33111009254687 |
Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:
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.
Includes index.
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.
"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..."-- Provided by publisher.
"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"-- Provided by publisher.