HATE

Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship

By: Nadine Strossen

Narrated by: Nadine Strossen, Angelo Di Loreto

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, US 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 US 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 United States and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship but, rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.

©2018 Oxford University Press (P)2018 Audible, Inc.

Thorough, Reasoned, Compassionate,

Free Speech is always in peril. Throughout history, censorship has been the default. Rationales for the curtailment of speech abound, many of which benefit those in power, while others have sympathetic -intentions- like the promotion of equality.

The First Amendment, especially as interpreted under modern jurisprudence, is such a rare and precious light of individual freedom and collective self-governance. But it is misunderstood. Pundits, politicians, and bipartisan interest groups are never without arguments in favor of curtailing First Amendment protections, and continually misunderstand and misrepresent what the First Amendment actually protects and actually punishes.

In this book, Ms. Strossen argues this point lucidly, with a mind for reason and a heart of compassion for the causes which would abridge free speech with an eye to other important values. Hate-speech and the harms it can cause is one of the oft-cited reasons why we must forfeit or nerf this rare but fundamental right. But before such advocation, one has the responsibility to understand the reasons for the First Amendment, the rich and nuanced history of its construction, and the more effective ALTERNATIVES to combat hate-speech and other undesirable expression WITHOUT giving up this precious constitutional right.

Read this book. Understand why hate-speech laws are unnecessary or damaging, either because the hate-speech in question is already punishable under First Amendment law or because the cures will end up so much worse than the disease.

Once so informed, we can advocate together for a better nation— one which is more equal, more just, and more free, all the while exercising the very right to free speech which so enables us to plead our causes.

Shows censorship doesn't actually fight hate

While I agree with the author that censorship doesn't reduce hate. The authors reason is a pragmatic look of which method has the less hate in a society. I think keeping the government out of legislating what people can think and discuss is proper because the governments role is to protect your freedom of thought and action as long as you aren't initiating force. So I think her argument was weak because it relied on the lack of effectiveness of censorship too much.

Must read!!

Absolutely fantastic! As a student of history, and a staunch advocate of free speech, I didn’t realize how much my music drifted until challenged by this book. The ideals and concepts they’re in, provided a wonderful framework to interrogate my own, thinking and grow as individual. Very well done and highly recommend.

Amazing analysis of the topic

Really enjoyed and appreciated this book. I thought Nadine Strossen did a terrific job making the subject interesting and approachable.

Exactly what the title promises

Strossen digs right into recent calls to further restrict “hate speech,” but she doesn’t fall into the hole of mocking those who have proposed more restriction based on their interest in social justice goals. She explains the problems with hate speech laws in Europe and Canada, how they are often used against the people supposedly protected by the laws, the capricious nature of enforcement and the fundamental difficulty of wording.
She gives positive examples from college campuses that have found creative ways of handling bias incidents that don’t involve illegal and punitive speech codes.
I listened to the whole book and ended up buying a hard copy because I want to have the concepts and examples at my finger tips.