What do you think?
Rate this book
HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship
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.
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.
232 pages, Hardcover
First published April 2, 2018
About the author
Nadine Strossen
13 books28 followersNadine Strossen was president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008. She was the first woman and the youngest person to ever lead the ACLU. A professor at New York Law School, Professor Strossen sits on the Council on Foreign Relations. She has been hailed as one of the most influential business leaders, women, or lawyers in such publications as the National Law Journal, Working Woman Magazine, Vanity Fair, and many others.
Strossen was born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1950. She has stated that the experiences of her family were her inspiration to pursue a career in civil liberties. "My father was a holocaust survivor and my mother’s father was a protester during World War I when he came to this country as an immigrant, and he was literally spat upon for not going to fight in the war," said Strossen in an interview. "His official sentence for being a conscientious objector was to be forced to stand against the courthouse in Hudson County, New Jersey so that passers-by could spit on him." Strossen graduated from Harvard College in 1972, Phi Beta Kappa, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975, magna cum laude. In law school, she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Strossen practiced law in Minneapolis and New York City for nine years before becoming a Professor of Law at New York Law School in 1989.
In February, 1991, Strossen became the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Norman Dorsen. As president, Strossen made over 200 public presentations each year and gave frequent public commentary on civil liberties issues in the national media. She appeared on nearly every major U.S. news program and has received numerous awards and honors. In May 2008, she announced her resignation. On October 18, 2008, the ACLU selected Susan Herman, a constitutional law professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York, to replace her.
Strossen is an active member of NORML, an organization promoting the decriminalization of marijuana. She is also a member of the National Youth Rights Association Advisory Board and a founding member of Feminists for Free Expression.
In October 2001, Strossen made her theater debut as the guest star in Eve Ensler's award-winning play, The Vagina Monologues.
Strossen is married to Eli Noam, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business.
from Wikipedia.
Strossen was born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1950. She has stated that the experiences of her family were her inspiration to pursue a career in civil liberties. "My father was a holocaust survivor and my mother’s father was a protester during World War I when he came to this country as an immigrant, and he was literally spat upon for not going to fight in the war," said Strossen in an interview. "His official sentence for being a conscientious objector was to be forced to stand against the courthouse in Hudson County, New Jersey so that passers-by could spit on him." Strossen graduated from Harvard College in 1972, Phi Beta Kappa, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975, magna cum laude. In law school, she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Strossen practiced law in Minneapolis and New York City for nine years before becoming a Professor of Law at New York Law School in 1989.
In February, 1991, Strossen became the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Norman Dorsen. As president, Strossen made over 200 public presentations each year and gave frequent public commentary on civil liberties issues in the national media. She appeared on nearly every major U.S. news program and has received numerous awards and honors. In May 2008, she announced her resignation. On October 18, 2008, the ACLU selected Susan Herman, a constitutional law professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York, to replace her.
Strossen is an active member of NORML, an organization promoting the decriminalization of marijuana. She is also a member of the National Youth Rights Association Advisory Board and a founding member of Feminists for Free Expression.
In October 2001, Strossen made her theater debut as the guest star in Eve Ensler's award-winning play, The Vagina Monologues.
Strossen is married to Eli Noam, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business.
from Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
July 20, 2021
My 3L year of law school, the school Federalist Society invited Nadine Strossen to speak. Hate had already been on my to-read list for a while so I was beyond excited for the excuse to buy it. I fervently thrust my unread copy in her hands, managing to gush something inane and unintelligible at the same time...I'm still embarrassed about it. And then I didn't read the book.
(Looking back, the only thing I remember about her speech was that she chastised the American Constitution Society—the Federalist Society's rivals—for not being the ones to invite her. Which was kind of rude. Also we ate chicken wings. None of this is relevant.)
Anyway, the reason I didn't knock this one off my to-read list in record time despite the book's short 200 pages is because it is an incredibly dense read. It is a worthy read. Even, at times, an enjoyable one. It lays out all the reasons laws against hate speech do not work and too often harm those they intend to protect.
It is not written for a legal audience, per se, though a legal background helps. Strossen frequently mentions famous Supreme Court decisions or cites specific justices. She doesn't provide legal footnoting, however, or really, any footnoting at all.
I think most interesting is her engagement with the international community and all the stories about how hate laws in Europe, Canada, and Africa have failed, particularly at protecting minorities. She also compares what makes American jurisprudence different.
Her "solutions" chapter and its reference to education holds potentially interesting analysis in light of the growth of CRT in most public schools today.
Overall, I'd say a solid read, but not as an introduction to regulating hate speech. Start somewhere simpler. Worth the time to really sink into her arguments, though, if looking to engage with the legal side of things.
(Looking back, the only thing I remember about her speech was that she chastised the American Constitution Society—the Federalist Society's rivals—for not being the ones to invite her. Which was kind of rude. Also we ate chicken wings. None of this is relevant.)
Anyway, the reason I didn't knock this one off my to-read list in record time despite the book's short 200 pages is because it is an incredibly dense read. It is a worthy read. Even, at times, an enjoyable one. It lays out all the reasons laws against hate speech do not work and too often harm those they intend to protect.
It is not written for a legal audience, per se, though a legal background helps. Strossen frequently mentions famous Supreme Court decisions or cites specific justices. She doesn't provide legal footnoting, however, or really, any footnoting at all.
I think most interesting is her engagement with the international community and all the stories about how hate laws in Europe, Canada, and Africa have failed, particularly at protecting minorities. She also compares what makes American jurisprudence different.
Her "solutions" chapter and its reference to education holds potentially interesting analysis in light of the growth of CRT in most public schools today.
Overall, I'd say a solid read, but not as an introduction to regulating hate speech. Start somewhere simpler. Worth the time to really sink into her arguments, though, if looking to engage with the legal side of things.
May 19, 2018
This book does a great job of articulating the reasons why laws limiting free speech are harmful, especially for those groups such laws are meant to protect, and also why they are ineffective at preventing harm. Anyone who has considered advocating for stricter limits on speech in the United States should read it. I was disappointed that the book did not contain any notes. The author mentions case after case without a single citation. This flaw severely limits the usefulness of the book.
September 18, 2020
Seriously, if you care about free speech or the first amendment AT ALL, read this book.
October 10, 2022
This has good content, but, my word, it is DRY. The language isn’t hard to understand, but it is academic and full of legalese and requires undivided attention.
Strossen is a former ACLU lawyer, which has promoted free speech up until recent years. (See also here.) The majority of her sources are left-wing heroes. There are no citations or sources listed, though they are supposed to be on a website somewhere. Europe, Australia, the Middle East and other places have hate speech laws that the author examines. The ones with the strictest laws are dictatorships.
Overall, the argument against censorship is compelling. Some key ideas here:
• Hate speech is hard to define, creating legal nightmares. People react differently to hateful speech, which also makes applying laws fairly difficult. People are responsible for their own actions and feelings and control how much they are bothered by certain speech. Sheltering people from things that offend them or challenge their beliefs can even be psychologically harmful.
• Hate speech laws are largely ineffective. They tend to punish the minorities they’re designed to protect and always end up being used to silence political speech the ruling party disagrees with.
• Hate speech laws are costly. Litigation takes years and can bankrupt both sides.
• Hate speech laws do not stop bigotry. They drive it underground. Counterspeech and public debate are much more effective. Society is better off knowing who the crazies are by letting them tell us.
• Hate speech laws turn people into free speech martyrs and end up validating the disapproved speech. This makes people and groups double down on a message that would otherwise be ignored and forgotten quickly.
Some strong language in quotes. Slurs are usually self-censored here.
==================
Speech may not be censored because its message might have a disturbing impact on the hearts or minds of some audience members. Viewpoint-based restrictions pose the greatest danger to the core value underlying the First Amendment: our right as individuals to make our own choices about what ideas we choose to express, receive, and believe. Because they distort public debate, viewpoint-based regulations are also antithetical to our democratic political system. Additionally, they violate equality principles because, reflecting majoritarian political pressures, they generally target unpopular, minority, and dissenting views and speakers.
Despite the varying definitions that have been adopted and proposed in “hate speech” laws, they are share two fundamental First Amendment flaws: they violate the cardinal viewpoint neutrality and emergency principles by permitting government to suppress speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared, and not because it directly causes imminent serious harm. Empowering government to choose the words and ideas we may not utter or listen to for these reasons stifles our freedom of thought, which is the essence of individual autonomy, and also an essential building block for democratic self-government.
Even worse than speech’s potential power to harm individuals and society is government’s potential power to do likewise, by enforcing “hate speech” laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups. To avert this danger, the Supreme Court steadily has reduced government’s power to punish speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared.
Here is the ultimate contradiction in the argument for state suppression of speech in the name of equality: it demands protection of disadvantaged minorities’ interests, but in a democracy, the state acts in the name of the majority, not the minority. Why would disadvantaged minorities trust representatives of the majority to decide whose speech should be censored? (David Cole)
Students who believe that hearing certain words or listening to certain speakers can harm them may … succumb to a self-fulfilling prophecy. … But it is the belief that words can do harm that causes the harm, not the words themselves. (Pamela Paresky)
Nothing strengthens hate groups more than censoring them, as it turns them into free speech martyrs, feeds their sense of grievance, and forces them to seek our more destructive means of activism. … Conversely, as the aftermath of Charlottesville has proved, nothing exposes the evil of such groups, and thus weakens them, like letting them show their true nature. (Glenn Greenwald)
Strossen is a former ACLU lawyer, which has promoted free speech up until recent years. (See also here.) The majority of her sources are left-wing heroes. There are no citations or sources listed, though they are supposed to be on a website somewhere. Europe, Australia, the Middle East and other places have hate speech laws that the author examines. The ones with the strictest laws are dictatorships.
Overall, the argument against censorship is compelling. Some key ideas here:
• Hate speech is hard to define, creating legal nightmares. People react differently to hateful speech, which also makes applying laws fairly difficult. People are responsible for their own actions and feelings and control how much they are bothered by certain speech. Sheltering people from things that offend them or challenge their beliefs can even be psychologically harmful.
• Hate speech laws are largely ineffective. They tend to punish the minorities they’re designed to protect and always end up being used to silence political speech the ruling party disagrees with.
• Hate speech laws are costly. Litigation takes years and can bankrupt both sides.
• Hate speech laws do not stop bigotry. They drive it underground. Counterspeech and public debate are much more effective. Society is better off knowing who the crazies are by letting them tell us.
• Hate speech laws turn people into free speech martyrs and end up validating the disapproved speech. This makes people and groups double down on a message that would otherwise be ignored and forgotten quickly.
Some strong language in quotes. Slurs are usually self-censored here.
==================
Speech may not be censored because its message might have a disturbing impact on the hearts or minds of some audience members. Viewpoint-based restrictions pose the greatest danger to the core value underlying the First Amendment: our right as individuals to make our own choices about what ideas we choose to express, receive, and believe. Because they distort public debate, viewpoint-based regulations are also antithetical to our democratic political system. Additionally, they violate equality principles because, reflecting majoritarian political pressures, they generally target unpopular, minority, and dissenting views and speakers.
Despite the varying definitions that have been adopted and proposed in “hate speech” laws, they are share two fundamental First Amendment flaws: they violate the cardinal viewpoint neutrality and emergency principles by permitting government to suppress speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared, and not because it directly causes imminent serious harm. Empowering government to choose the words and ideas we may not utter or listen to for these reasons stifles our freedom of thought, which is the essence of individual autonomy, and also an essential building block for democratic self-government.
Even worse than speech’s potential power to harm individuals and society is government’s potential power to do likewise, by enforcing “hate speech” laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups. To avert this danger, the Supreme Court steadily has reduced government’s power to punish speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared.
Here is the ultimate contradiction in the argument for state suppression of speech in the name of equality: it demands protection of disadvantaged minorities’ interests, but in a democracy, the state acts in the name of the majority, not the minority. Why would disadvantaged minorities trust representatives of the majority to decide whose speech should be censored? (David Cole)
Students who believe that hearing certain words or listening to certain speakers can harm them may … succumb to a self-fulfilling prophecy. … But it is the belief that words can do harm that causes the harm, not the words themselves. (Pamela Paresky)
Nothing strengthens hate groups more than censoring them, as it turns them into free speech martyrs, feeds their sense of grievance, and forces them to seek our more destructive means of activism. … Conversely, as the aftermath of Charlottesville has proved, nothing exposes the evil of such groups, and thus weakens them, like letting them show their true nature. (Glenn Greenwald)
May 15, 2018
We live in interesting times. Mimicking the architecture of our great cities many yearn for men of steel and stone. Those who can provide us with loud answers to our search for comfort and modernity. Such authoritarian yearnings often call upon decisiveness, but their course is routinely divisive. Such paths often see the rise of authoritarian leaders who voice and endorse speech considered dangerous to a multi-cultural society. At this point, Nadine Strossen's "Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship", makes a case against greater legal censorship against hate speech.
The background of the author is necessary to appreciate the political viewpoints put forth in the book. Strossen was the youngest and the first female president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which has been a faithful supporter of free expression and the 1st Amendment rights available under the Constitution of the United States. She has previously authored, "Defending Pornography" which challenged the coalition between the conservative evangelical organisations and some feminist legal academics such as Andrea Dworkin who proposed criminal sanctions on pornography. While agreeing that the mainstream production of pornography may result in the degradation of women, Strossen persuasively put forth the case for maintaining free expression. A similar understanding and alliance with the progressive cause towards a more just society, but a commitment towards free speech marks her present effort.
The content of the book makes a case against laws which punish, "hate speech". First, it looks at what existing laws already punish, and what expression is termed as, "constitutionally protected hate speech", and what flows outside it. This is in an essential facet of the book which argues that quite often arguments which are made for further regulation, even sometimes by law professors, derive from a lack of proper understanding of the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Much of what is wanted to be punished by hate speech laws in the United States, is already penalised under various laws which prohibit harassment, true threats and criminal incitement. Secondly, the book then looks at the intended effect in substance and process of hate speech. What is it's objectives? And, how well does it fulfil them? In doing this, a central critique of hate speech laws is their broad phrasing and such vagueness results in arbitrariness. The latter parts focus on a real, shared concern on the protection of minorities and vulnerable groups and individuals through strategies of counter-speech.
Hate is a thin book but often may seem dense to a non-legal crowd. The inaccessibility of the text is not due to the style of the writing but the subject itself which is inherently juristical. While labour has been put in the presentation of the competition arguments for and against hate speech laws, and even contemporary examples add seasoning, a reader is left without relish. To her credit, clear legal principles and terminology are used consistently, where she draws conceptual boundaries. However, the chapter sub-divisions do sometimes end up having the unintended effect of reading as a court brief. To be fair, this is due to the nature of the subject, which requires inquiry and understanding, and is not a fault with the author. This is an important book, advancing knowledge, reducing the complexity around the American and global scholarship on hate speech. It is well worth a weekend.
The background of the author is necessary to appreciate the political viewpoints put forth in the book. Strossen was the youngest and the first female president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which has been a faithful supporter of free expression and the 1st Amendment rights available under the Constitution of the United States. She has previously authored, "Defending Pornography" which challenged the coalition between the conservative evangelical organisations and some feminist legal academics such as Andrea Dworkin who proposed criminal sanctions on pornography. While agreeing that the mainstream production of pornography may result in the degradation of women, Strossen persuasively put forth the case for maintaining free expression. A similar understanding and alliance with the progressive cause towards a more just society, but a commitment towards free speech marks her present effort.
The content of the book makes a case against laws which punish, "hate speech". First, it looks at what existing laws already punish, and what expression is termed as, "constitutionally protected hate speech", and what flows outside it. This is in an essential facet of the book which argues that quite often arguments which are made for further regulation, even sometimes by law professors, derive from a lack of proper understanding of the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Much of what is wanted to be punished by hate speech laws in the United States, is already penalised under various laws which prohibit harassment, true threats and criminal incitement. Secondly, the book then looks at the intended effect in substance and process of hate speech. What is it's objectives? And, how well does it fulfil them? In doing this, a central critique of hate speech laws is their broad phrasing and such vagueness results in arbitrariness. The latter parts focus on a real, shared concern on the protection of minorities and vulnerable groups and individuals through strategies of counter-speech.
Hate is a thin book but often may seem dense to a non-legal crowd. The inaccessibility of the text is not due to the style of the writing but the subject itself which is inherently juristical. While labour has been put in the presentation of the competition arguments for and against hate speech laws, and even contemporary examples add seasoning, a reader is left without relish. To her credit, clear legal principles and terminology are used consistently, where she draws conceptual boundaries. However, the chapter sub-divisions do sometimes end up having the unintended effect of reading as a court brief. To be fair, this is due to the nature of the subject, which requires inquiry and understanding, and is not a fault with the author. This is an important book, advancing knowledge, reducing the complexity around the American and global scholarship on hate speech. It is well worth a weekend.
August 31, 2020
I’d consider myself a free speech absolutist, and can’t remember the last time I was this disappointed by a book.
My main issue with this book is that, while it is full of historically accurate and useful information about the evolution of the conversation on protected speech, it becomes terribly argued and contradictory in the later chapters. The core dilemma with her defense of the first amendment’s necessity is that she is arguing from a collectivist position. She argues that the importance of free speech is that it allows people to represent their group identity, and that preventing this is the cardinal sin of hate speech laws.
While I think most readers would like to see people be able to advocate on behalf of others, even those that are most similar to them, this style of argument is not as robust as the original John Stewart Mill argument grounded in individual liberty.
For instance, to advocate against the inception of hate speech laws in the US, she uses many examples of other countries and social media platforms that have had their hate speech laws backfire on many of those that advocated for them in the first place. One instance she covers is Facebook’s 2017 dilemma where over 70 organizations came together to insist that Facebook change their hate speech policies because it was being applied to groups like Black Lives Matter and other racial justice activists. She provides multiple similar cases to build an argument that the identity of the person or group speaking is more important than the content of the speech. The conclusion of all of these arguments leaves one to wonder whether she thinks all constitutionally protected speech should be provided with the same consideration. It would lead one in Nadine Strossen’s position to be incapable of defending the speech of someone from a majority opinion, should that opinion be seen as hateful (which leads me to my next point).
She has an entire chapter dedicated to explaining both “void for vagueness” and uselessly restrictive forms of hate speech laws. These mean exactly what you would expect, i.e. that every single hate speech law or policy is either too narrow to be useful or vague enough to be applied to speech that most people who helped create the law would want to allow. This is great information and the chapter was what prevents this book from being useless. But what it illustrates is that _even_ defining what is or is not hate speech is a legally impossible task. Therefore every form of constitutionally protected speech in the US will never have a consistent ability to be labelled as hate speech or not.
However this quickly turns her later chapters into a tautological mess. For instance, throughout the book she makes the (correct) argument that many hate speech laws don’t actually reduce the amount of hate speech that people encounter. To argue this, she gives over a dozen examples like the following.
In Singapore, even after hate speech laws were passed, LGBTQ groups experienced hate speech on television during political messages. In US colleges, while reviewing the possibility of implementing hate speech codes of conduct, social activist groups listed examples of racially provocative hate speech that they have encountered either in public or from their professors during class.
All of these are used by Strossen to argue that hate speech laws often do not effectively suppress instances of people or groups hearing hate speech. But this happens in the context of her already arguing that hate speech has never successfully been captured in a way that was neither overbroad or too narrow. What standard was used to determine the validity of these complaints? Was there a standard? How can one square this circle? Who knows, she never elaborates on any of the examples she uses in the entire book, and there are many. This is tautological in the sense that it’s using hate speech in a way that cannot be defined, and one’s encounter with it (whatever one defines it to be) is therefore not a credible metric.
I’d like to be charitable and realize that this book was written a few years ago, before it became increasingly clear how ridiculous some claims of hate speech can be. For instance, Twitter often permanently bans users for the sin of admitting that biological sex is a reality. Also the claim that a political symbol like a “Make America Great Again” hat is hate speech. Whether you agree with these examples or not is proof enough that you cannot simply ask a person or persons whether or not they encounter hate speech, and then use this as evidence for essentially any argument - and Strossen should know better, given that she created the foundation for rejecting her own argument.
I think in the same spirit of “this book isn’t aging well” into 2020, she really goes out of her area of expertise in a way that doesn’t win her much favor among free speech advocates. For instance, she spends a few paragraphs championing the work of non-faculty administrative campus staff (mostly university presidents) for their quick responses to hate speech on campus. Anyone familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s work, or the Evergreen fiasco, or the (now) nearly uncountable examples of the shamelessly craven university presidents falling over themselves to be next in line to ruin a professor’s career for simply producing scholarship should know that this is not a group of people that you want to be holding hands with.
She also uses the SPLC as an example of a model organization when it comes to fighting hate speech. However in recent years the SPLC has become a beacon of unreason, slandering otherwise reasonable public figures like Sam Harris and Maajid Nawas for having conversations that are offensive to some.
However I don’t think that this book is worthless, since the beginning chapters provide a useful history of the changes to the application of protection under the first amendment. This book does a good job at explaining the “bad tendency” mistake, and its correction into the “clear and present danger” test of 1919. Other than that, I regret spending the majority of my time while reading this book.
My main issue with this book is that, while it is full of historically accurate and useful information about the evolution of the conversation on protected speech, it becomes terribly argued and contradictory in the later chapters. The core dilemma with her defense of the first amendment’s necessity is that she is arguing from a collectivist position. She argues that the importance of free speech is that it allows people to represent their group identity, and that preventing this is the cardinal sin of hate speech laws.
While I think most readers would like to see people be able to advocate on behalf of others, even those that are most similar to them, this style of argument is not as robust as the original John Stewart Mill argument grounded in individual liberty.
For instance, to advocate against the inception of hate speech laws in the US, she uses many examples of other countries and social media platforms that have had their hate speech laws backfire on many of those that advocated for them in the first place. One instance she covers is Facebook’s 2017 dilemma where over 70 organizations came together to insist that Facebook change their hate speech policies because it was being applied to groups like Black Lives Matter and other racial justice activists. She provides multiple similar cases to build an argument that the identity of the person or group speaking is more important than the content of the speech. The conclusion of all of these arguments leaves one to wonder whether she thinks all constitutionally protected speech should be provided with the same consideration. It would lead one in Nadine Strossen’s position to be incapable of defending the speech of someone from a majority opinion, should that opinion be seen as hateful (which leads me to my next point).
She has an entire chapter dedicated to explaining both “void for vagueness” and uselessly restrictive forms of hate speech laws. These mean exactly what you would expect, i.e. that every single hate speech law or policy is either too narrow to be useful or vague enough to be applied to speech that most people who helped create the law would want to allow. This is great information and the chapter was what prevents this book from being useless. But what it illustrates is that _even_ defining what is or is not hate speech is a legally impossible task. Therefore every form of constitutionally protected speech in the US will never have a consistent ability to be labelled as hate speech or not.
However this quickly turns her later chapters into a tautological mess. For instance, throughout the book she makes the (correct) argument that many hate speech laws don’t actually reduce the amount of hate speech that people encounter. To argue this, she gives over a dozen examples like the following.
In Singapore, even after hate speech laws were passed, LGBTQ groups experienced hate speech on television during political messages. In US colleges, while reviewing the possibility of implementing hate speech codes of conduct, social activist groups listed examples of racially provocative hate speech that they have encountered either in public or from their professors during class.
All of these are used by Strossen to argue that hate speech laws often do not effectively suppress instances of people or groups hearing hate speech. But this happens in the context of her already arguing that hate speech has never successfully been captured in a way that was neither overbroad or too narrow. What standard was used to determine the validity of these complaints? Was there a standard? How can one square this circle? Who knows, she never elaborates on any of the examples she uses in the entire book, and there are many. This is tautological in the sense that it’s using hate speech in a way that cannot be defined, and one’s encounter with it (whatever one defines it to be) is therefore not a credible metric.
I’d like to be charitable and realize that this book was written a few years ago, before it became increasingly clear how ridiculous some claims of hate speech can be. For instance, Twitter often permanently bans users for the sin of admitting that biological sex is a reality. Also the claim that a political symbol like a “Make America Great Again” hat is hate speech. Whether you agree with these examples or not is proof enough that you cannot simply ask a person or persons whether or not they encounter hate speech, and then use this as evidence for essentially any argument - and Strossen should know better, given that she created the foundation for rejecting her own argument.
I think in the same spirit of “this book isn’t aging well” into 2020, she really goes out of her area of expertise in a way that doesn’t win her much favor among free speech advocates. For instance, she spends a few paragraphs championing the work of non-faculty administrative campus staff (mostly university presidents) for their quick responses to hate speech on campus. Anyone familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s work, or the Evergreen fiasco, or the (now) nearly uncountable examples of the shamelessly craven university presidents falling over themselves to be next in line to ruin a professor’s career for simply producing scholarship should know that this is not a group of people that you want to be holding hands with.
She also uses the SPLC as an example of a model organization when it comes to fighting hate speech. However in recent years the SPLC has become a beacon of unreason, slandering otherwise reasonable public figures like Sam Harris and Maajid Nawas for having conversations that are offensive to some.
However I don’t think that this book is worthless, since the beginning chapters provide a useful history of the changes to the application of protection under the first amendment. This book does a good job at explaining the “bad tendency” mistake, and its correction into the “clear and present danger” test of 1919. Other than that, I regret spending the majority of my time while reading this book.
May 18, 2019
There are many things I feel grateful for; among them, one are the friends who help me become a better person; another, the open-mindedness which helps me recognize my own occasional small-mindedness. This fabulous book gave me the opportunity to appreciate the friend who instead of deriding my ossified views on important matters, kindly guided me towards the resources which would shift my perspective and push the small-minded ideas a bit further back.
So, in a nutshell, this book is good, and you should read it.
But, joking aside, I should admit that I started reading it, firmly believing that society should take care of its more vulnerable members and make sure to offer them protection from being targeted and harassed by hate speech. Seems obvious, right? Well, no. What is seemingly true is not necessarily justly true. The impossibility of giving a precise definition to hate speech which has been rendered a term used loosely to demonize a wide variety of disfavored views, has unpredictable effects for exactly those members of society whom hate speech restrictions aim to protect. Any definitions, arbitrary and capricious at best, and harmful and discriminatory at worst, can be easily turned against the weak, resulting in restricting their rights even further, instead of empowering them. Moreover, any hate speech laws can lead to wrongful measures against innocent people, dissidents, activists, syndicalists, racial and religious minority members etc. We often see the irony inherent to such attempts to streamline those laws, when both an attacker and the attacked who reacts to the initial message, end up being liable under anti-hate speech laws - religious people attacking members of the LGBT community, or Ku-Klux-Klan and Black Lives Matter members being both called “hate-mongers”, people reposting racial slurs targeted at them in order to protest, ending up labeled as “spreading hate speech” themselves. All the arguments in favor of censoring hate speech are all fun and games, until you suddenly realize how easy it is for anyone to find themseves at the receiving end. For, while it seems obvious that someone else’s hate speech might offend my credo, it is not just as easily perceived by us all that my cherished beliefs might in fact be considered hate speech by others. Having presented many actual examples which demonstrate why it is impossible to write hate speech laws that clearly distinguish between lawful and unlawful speech, Strossen asks the next logical question: is perhaps the cure worse than the disease? Does hate speech actually cause that much harm as many claim? Or, reversely, do hate speech restriction laws substantially reduce any such potential harm? She presents a plethora of historical examples of hate speech laws’ ineffectiveness, given their inherent vague, but also overly broad nature that results simultaneously in under- and overinclusion of what hate speech means, and clearly exemplifies how such laws are in essence ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. She also presents numerous studies regarding the ways people react to hate speech and the reasons for their reaction, concluding that allowing hate speech is not synonymous with accepting and condoning it. Her main argument throughout the whole book is that the antidote to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech (although she does mention that one of the most powerful reactions is silence, or simply ignoring hate mongers who seek to provoke reaction and feed on it). Exercising your right to express your views freely is empowering – if you swing it once, it becomes much easier each subsequent time. She professes that no one can hurt you with words because it is your choice to react either as a victim or as a critic to hate speech. Admittedly, this all sounds a bit idealistic, and believing that eventually hope will triumph over experience is not always the most practical idea. But seeing how litigation against hate speech ends up in fact offering it a very public podium and popularizing messages that would have been otherwise lost in obsolescence, one cannot but wonder what educating people, promoting intergroup connections, counterspeech, even silence, might achieve instead. Court ordered apologies have never the same cathartic result to both perpetrator and victim as an open minded dialogue and a sincere apology. Even though I feel that she could have given a bit more attention to the role social media play in current day spreading and appeal of hate speech, which seems like a very important aspect of our society, her book was eye-opening and helped me reevaluate some deeply ingrained beliefs I had. So, as I previously said, you should read it. And then follow up with “The Coddling of the American Mind”.
So, in a nutshell, this book is good, and you should read it.
But, joking aside, I should admit that I started reading it, firmly believing that society should take care of its more vulnerable members and make sure to offer them protection from being targeted and harassed by hate speech. Seems obvious, right? Well, no. What is seemingly true is not necessarily justly true. The impossibility of giving a precise definition to hate speech which has been rendered a term used loosely to demonize a wide variety of disfavored views, has unpredictable effects for exactly those members of society whom hate speech restrictions aim to protect. Any definitions, arbitrary and capricious at best, and harmful and discriminatory at worst, can be easily turned against the weak, resulting in restricting their rights even further, instead of empowering them. Moreover, any hate speech laws can lead to wrongful measures against innocent people, dissidents, activists, syndicalists, racial and religious minority members etc. We often see the irony inherent to such attempts to streamline those laws, when both an attacker and the attacked who reacts to the initial message, end up being liable under anti-hate speech laws - religious people attacking members of the LGBT community, or Ku-Klux-Klan and Black Lives Matter members being both called “hate-mongers”, people reposting racial slurs targeted at them in order to protest, ending up labeled as “spreading hate speech” themselves. All the arguments in favor of censoring hate speech are all fun and games, until you suddenly realize how easy it is for anyone to find themseves at the receiving end. For, while it seems obvious that someone else’s hate speech might offend my credo, it is not just as easily perceived by us all that my cherished beliefs might in fact be considered hate speech by others. Having presented many actual examples which demonstrate why it is impossible to write hate speech laws that clearly distinguish between lawful and unlawful speech, Strossen asks the next logical question: is perhaps the cure worse than the disease? Does hate speech actually cause that much harm as many claim? Or, reversely, do hate speech restriction laws substantially reduce any such potential harm? She presents a plethora of historical examples of hate speech laws’ ineffectiveness, given their inherent vague, but also overly broad nature that results simultaneously in under- and overinclusion of what hate speech means, and clearly exemplifies how such laws are in essence ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. She also presents numerous studies regarding the ways people react to hate speech and the reasons for their reaction, concluding that allowing hate speech is not synonymous with accepting and condoning it. Her main argument throughout the whole book is that the antidote to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech (although she does mention that one of the most powerful reactions is silence, or simply ignoring hate mongers who seek to provoke reaction and feed on it). Exercising your right to express your views freely is empowering – if you swing it once, it becomes much easier each subsequent time. She professes that no one can hurt you with words because it is your choice to react either as a victim or as a critic to hate speech. Admittedly, this all sounds a bit idealistic, and believing that eventually hope will triumph over experience is not always the most practical idea. But seeing how litigation against hate speech ends up in fact offering it a very public podium and popularizing messages that would have been otherwise lost in obsolescence, one cannot but wonder what educating people, promoting intergroup connections, counterspeech, even silence, might achieve instead. Court ordered apologies have never the same cathartic result to both perpetrator and victim as an open minded dialogue and a sincere apology. Even though I feel that she could have given a bit more attention to the role social media play in current day spreading and appeal of hate speech, which seems like a very important aspect of our society, her book was eye-opening and helped me reevaluate some deeply ingrained beliefs I had. So, as I previously said, you should read it. And then follow up with “The Coddling of the American Mind”.
April 10, 2020
strossen is smart and this book is well-researched. this book is awful for two reasons:
1. strossen’s strongest argument against hate speech laws is simply precedent set by the supreme court. i was hoping for more philosophy, and perhaps more sociology/polsci studies cited. oh and btw, there are no citations or notes.
2. this book is mindbendingly repetitive. i am slowly growing to recognize that many authors are simply so desperate to publish a book that they rephrase the same ideas over and over again. here’s the entirety of the book summarized:
censoring hate speech is bad. it will hurt everyone. it gives government too much power. there’s no good way to censor hate speech.
the only potentially interesting part of the book is a section on whether or not hate speech actually has the effects it is purported to have. she cites several sociology studies to show that it doesnt.
1. strossen’s strongest argument against hate speech laws is simply precedent set by the supreme court. i was hoping for more philosophy, and perhaps more sociology/polsci studies cited. oh and btw, there are no citations or notes.
2. this book is mindbendingly repetitive. i am slowly growing to recognize that many authors are simply so desperate to publish a book that they rephrase the same ideas over and over again. here’s the entirety of the book summarized:
censoring hate speech is bad. it will hurt everyone. it gives government too much power. there’s no good way to censor hate speech.
the only potentially interesting part of the book is a section on whether or not hate speech actually has the effects it is purported to have. she cites several sociology studies to show that it doesnt.
December 18, 2020
12/17/20 First of all, I'd like to say I think this book is really good and brings up extremely pertinent points about censorship and counter speech. In these times of growing divide and hatred sometimes it feels easier to say "you can't say that!" instead of going through the work of explaining to the ignorant why that is wrong and explaining to the truly hateful why they are idiots, not to mention figuring out which is which. I also know that today with social media, lies spread like wildfire while the truth seems to go at pre-automobile speeds. On top of that, since virtual space is often both so personal and so anonymous misbehavior and attacks feel more personal too and you have even less social restraint on it. While having a slur graffitied onto your garage door is considered a threat (and not constitutionally protected), having the same thing posted on your page is not, even if they often feel the same. Still, many other countries have gone down the road of hate speech laws and the results are not what was intended. All this is to say, very worthwhile read from an intelligent articulate woman who knows her stuff.
My problem is that I cannot stand her narration. And I know a lot of people will be like "yeah, that's why I don't do audio books. The narrator puts their own interpretation of the words and it influences how I relate to the book." True, but I would counter that it's like seeing pictures of great works of art. The photography is influencing your perception, but does that mean you're not going to see these things if you can't see them in person? If you do that you'll miss out on so much cool stuff.
Being quite dyslexic, I am a slow reader. I still do it, but not quickly and not easily. When people tell me to skim something, I am just gobsmacked. That's like handing me a list of algebra equations, (not terribly complicated ones, but still), and saying "oh, just skim them, you'll get the gist of it." Not really, I either solve them or I don't. I can't kind of solve them.
Point being if I limited myself to read-reading I would not manage to get through very much at all. Plus, I like being read to, it's fun and I can do all the other things while I do it, like dishes, or evening walks or driving ect.
But this book, ugh, the author/narrator is very distracting. She KEEPS. REEAD-ING. THINGS. LIKE THIS! OVER EM-PHE-SIZING EVER-Y-THING. I know these are important points but you can't read everything like it's in caps or italics. That just means I'm not following. There is no flow and you can't follow someone through whole chapters like that. As the book goes on and she's getting into more and more impassioned portions she's doing it more and MO-RE! So I'm having to read shorter and shorter portions so I don't completely loose TR-ACK. OF. WHAT! SHE'S SAY-ING!! Still a good book, but don't do the audio if you have another option. And I don't say that lightly.
My problem is that I cannot stand her narration. And I know a lot of people will be like "yeah, that's why I don't do audio books. The narrator puts their own interpretation of the words and it influences how I relate to the book." True, but I would counter that it's like seeing pictures of great works of art. The photography is influencing your perception, but does that mean you're not going to see these things if you can't see them in person? If you do that you'll miss out on so much cool stuff.
Being quite dyslexic, I am a slow reader. I still do it, but not quickly and not easily. When people tell me to skim something, I am just gobsmacked. That's like handing me a list of algebra equations, (not terribly complicated ones, but still), and saying "oh, just skim them, you'll get the gist of it." Not really, I either solve them or I don't. I can't kind of solve them.
Point being if I limited myself to read-reading I would not manage to get through very much at all. Plus, I like being read to, it's fun and I can do all the other things while I do it, like dishes, or evening walks or driving ect.
But this book, ugh, the author/narrator is very distracting. She KEEPS. REEAD-ING. THINGS. LIKE THIS! OVER EM-PHE-SIZING EVER-Y-THING. I know these are important points but you can't read everything like it's in caps or italics. That just means I'm not following. There is no flow and you can't follow someone through whole chapters like that. As the book goes on and she's getting into more and more impassioned portions she's doing it more and MO-RE! So I'm having to read shorter and shorter portions so I don't completely loose TR-ACK. OF. WHAT! SHE'S SAY-ING!! Still a good book, but don't do the audio if you have another option. And I don't say that lightly.
October 4, 2019
Really liked the points she made and the examples and quotes. Some things I already agreed with, some things new to me. However, it could be a little hard to read. I feel like a law background would have helped in the first third, and the middle third felt very repetitive. Last third was better, though, I'd say chapter 7 was particularly more clear.
May 10, 2023
HATE presents a strong argument, but every chapter is literally the same. There was no need to make this into a whole book -- you'll get the exact same thing from just reading the first chapter.
January 27, 2019
A lovely and concise defense of free speech in the face of hate. Strossen lays out, in straightforward language why countries ought to defend speech rights even for those speakers they find deplorable.
While Strossen is a fierce lawyer she keeps the legal discussion to an impressive minimum and only uses it to set her framework but not do do all the heavy or showy lifting. Rather, she sets up a contrast between the approach adopted in the United States and the approach adopted by many European countries. Strossen draws a compelling picture using anecdotal and historical examples to sharpen her larger points.
This book is an excellent--and quick--read for anyone interested in free speech and the current debate over increased legislation against "hate speech."
While Strossen is a fierce lawyer she keeps the legal discussion to an impressive minimum and only uses it to set her framework but not do do all the heavy or showy lifting. Rather, she sets up a contrast between the approach adopted in the United States and the approach adopted by many European countries. Strossen draws a compelling picture using anecdotal and historical examples to sharpen her larger points.
This book is an excellent--and quick--read for anyone interested in free speech and the current debate over increased legislation against "hate speech."
August 26, 2019
It's wrongly assumed by many that hate speech is not (or should not be) protected by the First Amendment in the USA. Strossen makes the case that laws to curtail "hate speech" are vague, difficult to implement, subject to interpretation and often could lead to penalize the very same minorities it tries to protect. Strossen argues instead for education, growing a thicker skin and more free speech to counter the hate speech so as to make it evident and counteract it. It makes you think and it has several examples from other countries although it does focus mainly on the US and the First Amendment.
January 12, 2019
I was hoping it would be more technical, to help fix my ignorance of legal issues, but I can't blame the author for choosing straightforward common sense arguments. My only complaint was how many sections relied on the same few principles.
November 16, 2020
Strossen offers a concise, cogent defense of Constitutional-protected free speech and explains why any attempts to undermine those protections, however well intentioned, will lead to perilous consequences.
July 30, 2020
Very informative. Lots to think about.
The Epilogue to the Paperback Edition has some valuable analysis of potential appropriate strategies for social media.
The Epilogue to the Paperback Edition has some valuable analysis of potential appropriate strategies for social media.
November 28, 2022
goodreads keeps glitching but i will get the credit for reading theis stupid book for my stupid class if it's the last thing i do
March 1, 2019
A compelling argument against hate speech legislation that I overwhelmingly agree with...and yet...I had some problems. Let me start with the beefs. Strossen focuses overwhelmingly on hate speech in terms of insulting/using racial slurs/lying about a particular person or group. I think she skips over a crucial question, although I'm not totally sure if this is a hate speech question: What about fake news?To expand this point: what about the onslaught of propaganda disseminated by hostile or fanatical actors all around the world (the Russian gov't, for instance) designed to sow confusion, dissension, violence, polarization, the breakdown of political system, distrust, etc? Strossen is adamant that social media and other private actors should avoid censoring hate speech, but what about this flood of actual fake news being pumped into our minds every day? Can we really fall back on a liberal approach here? Is this not a form of attack? Is there actually a compelling national security interest here? I'm not totally sure what to think, but I wish Strossen had spent a little more time on this perplexing and very modern problem. I agree with the anti-hate speech legislation argument, but spreading false information seems to be an even bigger threat now than spreading hateful claims.
That being said, this is a strong argument, and it is useful for better understanding why the United States has maintained such a permissive approach toward hate speech (which IS constitutionally protected). For Strossen, hate speech codes face a catch 22: If they specifically say that only historically persecuted groups will be protected, then they obviously violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. However, if they are more fairly written, a different dynamic kicks in. They are frequently used to sue and punish the very people they are supposed to protect. Who do you think has the resources to bring dubious hate speech legislation? Why would anyone not avail themselves of this political tool? What you see in campus cases and throughout the world is advantaged groups with resources frequently using these laws to sue vulnerable groups. If the US passed a hate speech law, you could almost guarantee that one of the first groups to be targeted would be BLM. Plus, Strossen argues, you do not want to give the government the power to discern acceptable speech, other than with the very strict emergency doctrine. After all, in a democratic system you will eventually turn power over to people who don't like you. Do you trust them to not use this power against your side?
Ultimately this is a highly JS Mill-ian book. It is a defense of the open society, of "non-censorious" methods as the best way to deal with hate speech, of the myriad pitfalls of trying to discern the definition of hate speech, and of the ultimate ineffectiveness of these laws. This last bit I thought was one of the strongest points. Hate speech prosecutions not only provide hateful groups with a platform, they transform them into martyrs of free speech rather than disgusting weirdos. They make them romantic revolutionaries struggling against the powerful rather than losers who live with their parents and blog nasty stuff. Moreover, very rarely can you truly erase the speech or the ideas from the public view. Strossen brings in a bunch of interesting examples from Europe to show how hate speech laws have done little to keep right wing groups on the margins. If their speech passes over into emergency doctrine territory, such as incitement, harassment, and threats, then we don't need hate speech laws: the law already permits punishing these acts on these grounds.
Strossen concludes with the Mill-ian point that in a liberal, free society there is no short cut to progress other than moving and changing other people's hearts and minds. I agree with this argument on a fundamental level. Hate speech laws are a misguided and ineffective attempt to do this on the quick; they are neither legally, morally, nor practically defensible. Still, I am left with the sneaking suspicion that ACLU types like Strossen aren't asking whether our capacious, highly liberal approach to speech and access to information is proper for the new world of social media and systematic disinformation as a tool of domestic and international politics. Can we really trust people to discern right from wrong, true from false in this context? Again, I think the real question here is less about hateful speech than utterly false claims and information spread through social media. This is a problem that Mill could not have conceived. It is time for his contemporary followers (myself included) to start addressing these questions more systematically.
That being said, this is a strong argument, and it is useful for better understanding why the United States has maintained such a permissive approach toward hate speech (which IS constitutionally protected). For Strossen, hate speech codes face a catch 22: If they specifically say that only historically persecuted groups will be protected, then they obviously violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. However, if they are more fairly written, a different dynamic kicks in. They are frequently used to sue and punish the very people they are supposed to protect. Who do you think has the resources to bring dubious hate speech legislation? Why would anyone not avail themselves of this political tool? What you see in campus cases and throughout the world is advantaged groups with resources frequently using these laws to sue vulnerable groups. If the US passed a hate speech law, you could almost guarantee that one of the first groups to be targeted would be BLM. Plus, Strossen argues, you do not want to give the government the power to discern acceptable speech, other than with the very strict emergency doctrine. After all, in a democratic system you will eventually turn power over to people who don't like you. Do you trust them to not use this power against your side?
Ultimately this is a highly JS Mill-ian book. It is a defense of the open society, of "non-censorious" methods as the best way to deal with hate speech, of the myriad pitfalls of trying to discern the definition of hate speech, and of the ultimate ineffectiveness of these laws. This last bit I thought was one of the strongest points. Hate speech prosecutions not only provide hateful groups with a platform, they transform them into martyrs of free speech rather than disgusting weirdos. They make them romantic revolutionaries struggling against the powerful rather than losers who live with their parents and blog nasty stuff. Moreover, very rarely can you truly erase the speech or the ideas from the public view. Strossen brings in a bunch of interesting examples from Europe to show how hate speech laws have done little to keep right wing groups on the margins. If their speech passes over into emergency doctrine territory, such as incitement, harassment, and threats, then we don't need hate speech laws: the law already permits punishing these acts on these grounds.
Strossen concludes with the Mill-ian point that in a liberal, free society there is no short cut to progress other than moving and changing other people's hearts and minds. I agree with this argument on a fundamental level. Hate speech laws are a misguided and ineffective attempt to do this on the quick; they are neither legally, morally, nor practically defensible. Still, I am left with the sneaking suspicion that ACLU types like Strossen aren't asking whether our capacious, highly liberal approach to speech and access to information is proper for the new world of social media and systematic disinformation as a tool of domestic and international politics. Can we really trust people to discern right from wrong, true from false in this context? Again, I think the real question here is less about hateful speech than utterly false claims and information spread through social media. This is a problem that Mill could not have conceived. It is time for his contemporary followers (myself included) to start addressing these questions more systematically.
November 26, 2020
1 star for the dry, repetitive writing but 5 stars for the really important and well thought out message.
May 4, 2021
Campus speech codes. Banning certain expressions and users (including former presidents) from social media platforms. Protecting the marginalized and vulnerable from hate speech and intimidation. Cancel culture. This book is very pertinent to significant societal trends and movements. Essentially the book tries to answer the question: can, and should, hate speech be deemed illegal and punishable? A former president of the ACLU, this author responds with a resounding "no." It is a well-presented, well-researched, and well-argued "no."
The good: It is not a long read. The author, a former lawyer, largely avoids overly legalistic jargon. She clearly defines terms when needed. It is a moderate read for the non-lawyers among us. The arguments are clear and compelling. In the closing chapters she wrestles some with the motivation to punish some forms of "hate speech" to protect those being harmed (or potentially harmed) by such speech, in what seems to be an authentic way attempting to be sensitive to their plight. It addresses very real and impactful understandings of the 1st amendment, censorship, and "hate speech." It is an important topic.
The not-as-good: Throughout, her legal training shows through strongly. Arguments are laid out in rigid, analytical, linear ways. There is little if any gray here; all is reduced to yes or no. Like a lawyer arguing their position in court, counter arguments are minimally considered if at all. If you're looking for a balanced overview that gives due consideration to all sides, this is not really that. Her arguments make clear that she has considered the counter arguments, but like a good lawyer she does not give them any weight that would detract from her answer to the question. Part of what makes it readable is her conscious decision to not include citations to the many legal cases and studies she references. The unfortunate result is that it is difficult to review her sources and the arguments she makes from them. This reader was often left wondering if the examples she includes in support of her arguments represent the rule or the exception?
All-in-all, an important book for anyone interested in 1st amendment, free expression issues and particularly in the concept of "hate speech" and attempts to protect the marginalized and vulnerable from such speech through legal means. It is very readable, clear, and compelling. A more robust consideration of actual harms of "hate speech" suffered by those targeted might have been desired, but that was not the author's intent. Those who would advocate for "hate speech" laws will need to contend with this book's arguments.
The good: It is not a long read. The author, a former lawyer, largely avoids overly legalistic jargon. She clearly defines terms when needed. It is a moderate read for the non-lawyers among us. The arguments are clear and compelling. In the closing chapters she wrestles some with the motivation to punish some forms of "hate speech" to protect those being harmed (or potentially harmed) by such speech, in what seems to be an authentic way attempting to be sensitive to their plight. It addresses very real and impactful understandings of the 1st amendment, censorship, and "hate speech." It is an important topic.
The not-as-good: Throughout, her legal training shows through strongly. Arguments are laid out in rigid, analytical, linear ways. There is little if any gray here; all is reduced to yes or no. Like a lawyer arguing their position in court, counter arguments are minimally considered if at all. If you're looking for a balanced overview that gives due consideration to all sides, this is not really that. Her arguments make clear that she has considered the counter arguments, but like a good lawyer she does not give them any weight that would detract from her answer to the question. Part of what makes it readable is her conscious decision to not include citations to the many legal cases and studies she references. The unfortunate result is that it is difficult to review her sources and the arguments she makes from them. This reader was often left wondering if the examples she includes in support of her arguments represent the rule or the exception?
All-in-all, an important book for anyone interested in 1st amendment, free expression issues and particularly in the concept of "hate speech" and attempts to protect the marginalized and vulnerable from such speech through legal means. It is very readable, clear, and compelling. A more robust consideration of actual harms of "hate speech" suffered by those targeted might have been desired, but that was not the author's intent. Those who would advocate for "hate speech" laws will need to contend with this book's arguments.
November 4, 2019
A very clear and well-argued (if redundant) book on how censorship measures like hate speech restriction laws are unnecessary and even detrimental to counter hate speech in view of freedom of expression.
Like other reviewers note, when so many good examples are used to make points, the lack of notes and citations becomes a major shortcoming and limits the usefulness of the book, which would have been a great reference for further research into the topic.
While free speech absolutism presented by the author sounds very sensible and convincing to my taste, I remain curious as to why increasingly more societies appear to be introducing censorship to counter hate/discriminatory speech, despite all the problems illustrated by the author. Is it simply a consequence of misguided empathy from ever growing social activism? Or is it more a reflection of the apparent preference toward a degree of authoritarianism in the current political climate throughout the world?
The author does a fine job explaining why hate speech law broke down every time it was introduced. I would like to know if there exist some cases in which free speech absolutism breaks down.
Like other reviewers note, when so many good examples are used to make points, the lack of notes and citations becomes a major shortcoming and limits the usefulness of the book, which would have been a great reference for further research into the topic.
While free speech absolutism presented by the author sounds very sensible and convincing to my taste, I remain curious as to why increasingly more societies appear to be introducing censorship to counter hate/discriminatory speech, despite all the problems illustrated by the author. Is it simply a consequence of misguided empathy from ever growing social activism? Or is it more a reflection of the apparent preference toward a degree of authoritarianism in the current political climate throughout the world?
The author does a fine job explaining why hate speech law broke down every time it was introduced. I would like to know if there exist some cases in which free speech absolutism breaks down.
July 2, 2021
I’m half black, and when I think about people being able to fling around racial slurs all willy nilly, every fiber of my being wants there to be censored speech. I think rationally, I (and most people) know that censorship is a very bad idea. This is why I like to read books from people arguing for free speech, and I’m so glad I picked up this book from Nadine Strossen. At times, the book gets a little too much into legal jargon for me, but it’s rare. Strossen has been advocating for free speech for a long time and knows the laws surrounding free speech inside and out. Aside from that, she knows about how censorship has worked in other countries as well as a ton of well-cited psychological research. What I love about this book is that you can tell that much like most of us, Strossen hates hate speech, but she argues (very well) that censorship is not the answer. I challenge anyone to read this book cover to cover and think censorship is a good idea.
March 20, 2021
I really like and admire Nadine Strossen, and I really appreciate her longstanding, relentless advocacy for free speech. I heard her speak about this book at The City Club of Cleveland in February 2019 and I thought that her arguments were clear and well-reasoned. She was great!
But this book is terrible! It is dense, repetitive, and legalistic. It reads like a law review article. I am a lawyer who is fairly well-versed in free speech law, and I found this book difficult and boring.
But this book is terrible! It is dense, repetitive, and legalistic. It reads like a law review article. I am a lawyer who is fairly well-versed in free speech law, and I found this book difficult and boring.
February 23, 2019
A necessary book that appropriately reasserts the value of freedom of speech in our democratic society.
The book could have benefited from switching the conclusion chapter to the start, thereby beginning with the reasons why the author decided to write.
Some of the arguments were repetitious, and forty pages likely could have been removed without harming the points made.
I recommend for all who want to engage with the foundational pillars of our democracy.
The book could have benefited from switching the conclusion chapter to the start, thereby beginning with the reasons why the author decided to write.
Some of the arguments were repetitious, and forty pages likely could have been removed without harming the points made.
I recommend for all who want to engage with the foundational pillars of our democracy.
May 28, 2019
This is an important book, written with passion and clarity. As the author makes clear at the onset, her mission in writing the books is to “refute the argument that the United States, following the lead of many other nations, should adopt a broader concept of illegal “hate speech”, and to demonstrate why such a course would not only violate fundamental precepts of our democracy but also do more harm than good.” (page 3).
The book gives a throughout review of he US Constitution’s first amendment, with emphasis on free speech, and the two key principles that currently guide its interpretation (viewpoint neutrality and emergency test); discusses challenges to “hate speech” laws (which exist in the EU and in many EU countries, and in codes of conduct on college campuses), gives real examples of the use of these laws; discusses the challenges to write “hate speech laws” (two key challenges are intractable vagueness and overreach); discusses the impact of these laws (i.e., the costs of these laws in preventing “hate speech” or protecting the intended audiences); and closes with other approaches besides laws to address the issues of hate speech, e.g. counter speech and education, supported by social science research.
The author makes very clear arguments of the value of the current interpretation of the first amendment in allowing “hate speech”, admittedly a not well-defined legal term. The author states that “hate speech’s” “generally understood core meaning is speech that expresses hateful or discriminatory views about certain groups that historically have been subject to discrimination or about certain personal characteristics that have been the basis of discrimination” (e.g., race religion, gender, …). The purpose of the first amendment is to allow open discussion of ideas, in particular ideas on issues that impact the public, or put another way to put another way to protect the political discourse in this country. In particular, the first amendment’s aim is to protect the view of the minority to be heard, and thus ensure democracy and equality.
To me there were three compelling reasons not to pursue “hate speech” laws.
First the author gives many examples from other countries (e.g., Canada, Australia, European countries and the EU itself) that have “hate speech” laws, that, to me, are mind-boggling and frightening (see below). In many cases, “hate speech” laws tend to be used against groups they are supposed to protect.
Second, one of the most compelling reasons not to have such laws is that we, the people, cede the decision to the government of what can be said, and what cannot be (and given vagueness in interpretation leaving it to the discretion of another individual). This is frightening! Why should the minority (or anyone) trust the majority to enforce the laws equitably?
Third, the laws do not reduce the rise of hate, rather they bottle it up, or subvert it. Just consider the recent elections for the EU where groups that espouse hate (subtly) are making gains. So, why have laws that are harmful to the discourse of ideas and just don’t work?
The book is extremely well organized, each chapter focusing on a topic, with both a strong introduction and summarizing the materials covered. Within each chapter, each topic has its on section with very clear section titles.
There are several issues I wish the author had addressed
• No reference is made at all to the experiences of many Asian democracies, e.g., Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, nor Malaysia. Why?
• There does not seem to be an explicit statement that non-democracies are even going to be discussed (e.g., China). Is it implicit?
• I would have liked to hear much more about the first amendment and social media, in particular how the current laws would impact posting of videos of crimes during their commitment or cyber-bullying. Note, the author does have a few pages on digital media. But these are private firms, not public, and not subject to government rules. There are opportunities to study impact of different choices besides censorship with data being collected.
• And is there an approach when the leader does not disavow “hate speech”, e.g., the President of the USA?
• Some footnotes in the book would be helpful. I realize that the website at www.nyls.edu/nadinestrossen, under the “Endnotes” button below the author’s picture.
Some examples from the book about “hate speech” laws that have led to unintended or disturbing consequences (some so far as to inhibit the free speech) (pp 27-30)
• In 2005 the French newspaper Le Monde was found guilty of inciting hatred against Jews because of a 2002 editorial that criticized certain Israeli policies while referring to Israel as a “nation of refugees”
• In 2010, a Danish historian and journalist was convicted for saying during an interview that there was a high crime rate in areas with high Muslim populations.
• In 2008, a 15-year old British boy was charged by police and investigated by prosecutors because he displayed a sign during a peaceful demonstration reading: “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”
• [page 112] German courts have gone so far as to uphold a three-month prison sentence that was imposed on a historian for statements he made about Nazi history in a private letter addressed and sent to another historian.
The book has many more examples, perhaps even more disturbing (to me) than those cited above.
The book gives a throughout review of he US Constitution’s first amendment, with emphasis on free speech, and the two key principles that currently guide its interpretation (viewpoint neutrality and emergency test); discusses challenges to “hate speech” laws (which exist in the EU and in many EU countries, and in codes of conduct on college campuses), gives real examples of the use of these laws; discusses the challenges to write “hate speech laws” (two key challenges are intractable vagueness and overreach); discusses the impact of these laws (i.e., the costs of these laws in preventing “hate speech” or protecting the intended audiences); and closes with other approaches besides laws to address the issues of hate speech, e.g. counter speech and education, supported by social science research.
The author makes very clear arguments of the value of the current interpretation of the first amendment in allowing “hate speech”, admittedly a not well-defined legal term. The author states that “hate speech’s” “generally understood core meaning is speech that expresses hateful or discriminatory views about certain groups that historically have been subject to discrimination or about certain personal characteristics that have been the basis of discrimination” (e.g., race religion, gender, …). The purpose of the first amendment is to allow open discussion of ideas, in particular ideas on issues that impact the public, or put another way to put another way to protect the political discourse in this country. In particular, the first amendment’s aim is to protect the view of the minority to be heard, and thus ensure democracy and equality.
To me there were three compelling reasons not to pursue “hate speech” laws.
First the author gives many examples from other countries (e.g., Canada, Australia, European countries and the EU itself) that have “hate speech” laws, that, to me, are mind-boggling and frightening (see below). In many cases, “hate speech” laws tend to be used against groups they are supposed to protect.
Second, one of the most compelling reasons not to have such laws is that we, the people, cede the decision to the government of what can be said, and what cannot be (and given vagueness in interpretation leaving it to the discretion of another individual). This is frightening! Why should the minority (or anyone) trust the majority to enforce the laws equitably?
Third, the laws do not reduce the rise of hate, rather they bottle it up, or subvert it. Just consider the recent elections for the EU where groups that espouse hate (subtly) are making gains. So, why have laws that are harmful to the discourse of ideas and just don’t work?
The book is extremely well organized, each chapter focusing on a topic, with both a strong introduction and summarizing the materials covered. Within each chapter, each topic has its on section with very clear section titles.
There are several issues I wish the author had addressed
• No reference is made at all to the experiences of many Asian democracies, e.g., Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, nor Malaysia. Why?
• There does not seem to be an explicit statement that non-democracies are even going to be discussed (e.g., China). Is it implicit?
• I would have liked to hear much more about the first amendment and social media, in particular how the current laws would impact posting of videos of crimes during their commitment or cyber-bullying. Note, the author does have a few pages on digital media. But these are private firms, not public, and not subject to government rules. There are opportunities to study impact of different choices besides censorship with data being collected.
• And is there an approach when the leader does not disavow “hate speech”, e.g., the President of the USA?
• Some footnotes in the book would be helpful. I realize that the website at www.nyls.edu/nadinestrossen, under the “Endnotes” button below the author’s picture.
Some examples from the book about “hate speech” laws that have led to unintended or disturbing consequences (some so far as to inhibit the free speech) (pp 27-30)
• In 2005 the French newspaper Le Monde was found guilty of inciting hatred against Jews because of a 2002 editorial that criticized certain Israeli policies while referring to Israel as a “nation of refugees”
• In 2010, a Danish historian and journalist was convicted for saying during an interview that there was a high crime rate in areas with high Muslim populations.
• In 2008, a 15-year old British boy was charged by police and investigated by prosecutors because he displayed a sign during a peaceful demonstration reading: “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”
• [page 112] German courts have gone so far as to uphold a three-month prison sentence that was imposed on a historian for statements he made about Nazi history in a private letter addressed and sent to another historian.
The book has many more examples, perhaps even more disturbing (to me) than those cited above.
July 19, 2020
The intro to each chapter reads like the abstract to a research paper. In fact the entire book feels like a research paper. Not a bad thing, but it can come across as stilted at times. In the intro she said she wanted to write about Hate Speech Laws in a way that everyone could understand. I think she did a great job with what she had to work with. Any book that primarily investigates laws is going to be a tougher read than most other topics. Here’s an example of what I mean: “succeeding chapters discuss additional shortcomings that all extant ‘hate speech’ laws share, despite their many variations.” (119) I would have said, “I’ll get into the shortcomings the many and varied ‘hate speech’ laws share later.”
I noticed within the first 50 pages that we need to let hate speech out and then educate the ignorant folks, not just cancel culture them. I also quickly noticed how much Justice Brandeis keeps turning up in this book and in a lot of the political/social reform works I’ve read. I think he was quoted liberally in the book on the Second Bill of Rights, too. Another mention that I’ve read in multiple places is the news source Propublica. That seems to be a trusted source of news.
Before I get into some assorted notes, I wanted to highlight a couple of pairs that hate speech laws demand people consider before adopting.
First, there are two things they usually violate: the essential viewpoint neutrality and the emergency principles. The first means that the law shouldn’t favor one viewpoint over another. The second means there are exceptions in an emergency; you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Second, there are two risks they usually run: being to vague, leaving them open to subjective interpretation, or having too much overbreadth, meaning they cover so many cases that nothing is safe to say.
The success/popularity of racist, Alt-right parties in France and in Germany, two countries with “strong” hate speech laws are exhibits A and 2 for the case proving such laws are counterproductive. (134)
Onto the assorted notes:
The Supreme Court, no matter the justices’ ideals, usually favor free speech. (5)
European hate speech laws do curtail hate speech but also tend to punish left-wing speech, too. (6)
Justice Brandeis said the proper response to hate speech is more speech, not censorship. (7)
Because everyone has implicit bias, “speech that reflects discriminatory stereotypes can often result from ignorance or insensitivity rather than malevolence.” (8)
The Southern Poverty Law Center wants BLM designated as a hate group. (17)
The USSR was the first country to propose to the UN a hate speech law (25) But Elenor Roosevelt, UN Ambassador, opposed such laws because she foresaw abuse by governments passing them. USSR proved her right, too. (26)
Hate speech law advocates in the US say it’s ok to punish people whose hate speech targets other people but not whose hate speech concerns general statements. (27)
As proof for how such laws can be twisted, they’re often enforced to quiet people quoting The Bible or Quran. (27)
“But rather than suppression the Nazis’ anti-semetic ideologies [aka the hate speech laws] prosecutions helped the Nazis gain attention and support.” (136) Talking about the Skokie Illinois Nazi march, a town with a sizable Jewish comminuty.
Hate speech laws cause self-censoring and “because people who harbor hateful, discriminatory ideas are deterred from expressing them, we don’t realize who they are. We therefore lose the opportunity to dissuade them and...we lose the opportunity for people to listen to these ideas and realize their flaws.” (143)
Sugar coated racist language gets passed the hate speech laws and becomes more effective because it’s seemingly, but isn’t really, less offensive. (146)
Being exposed to “an odious idea” can actually make people more resilient and better able to cope with the stress hate speech can cause. (152-3)
Humor, especially satire, is effective counterspeech. (160)
In the book “Why Civil Resistance Works” it was found that nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent.” (163)
I noticed within the first 50 pages that we need to let hate speech out and then educate the ignorant folks, not just cancel culture them. I also quickly noticed how much Justice Brandeis keeps turning up in this book and in a lot of the political/social reform works I’ve read. I think he was quoted liberally in the book on the Second Bill of Rights, too. Another mention that I’ve read in multiple places is the news source Propublica. That seems to be a trusted source of news.
Before I get into some assorted notes, I wanted to highlight a couple of pairs that hate speech laws demand people consider before adopting.
First, there are two things they usually violate: the essential viewpoint neutrality and the emergency principles. The first means that the law shouldn’t favor one viewpoint over another. The second means there are exceptions in an emergency; you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Second, there are two risks they usually run: being to vague, leaving them open to subjective interpretation, or having too much overbreadth, meaning they cover so many cases that nothing is safe to say.
The success/popularity of racist, Alt-right parties in France and in Germany, two countries with “strong” hate speech laws are exhibits A and 2 for the case proving such laws are counterproductive. (134)
Onto the assorted notes:
The Supreme Court, no matter the justices’ ideals, usually favor free speech. (5)
European hate speech laws do curtail hate speech but also tend to punish left-wing speech, too. (6)
Justice Brandeis said the proper response to hate speech is more speech, not censorship. (7)
Because everyone has implicit bias, “speech that reflects discriminatory stereotypes can often result from ignorance or insensitivity rather than malevolence.” (8)
The Southern Poverty Law Center wants BLM designated as a hate group. (17)
The USSR was the first country to propose to the UN a hate speech law (25) But Elenor Roosevelt, UN Ambassador, opposed such laws because she foresaw abuse by governments passing them. USSR proved her right, too. (26)
Hate speech law advocates in the US say it’s ok to punish people whose hate speech targets other people but not whose hate speech concerns general statements. (27)
As proof for how such laws can be twisted, they’re often enforced to quiet people quoting The Bible or Quran. (27)
“But rather than suppression the Nazis’ anti-semetic ideologies [aka the hate speech laws] prosecutions helped the Nazis gain attention and support.” (136) Talking about the Skokie Illinois Nazi march, a town with a sizable Jewish comminuty.
Hate speech laws cause self-censoring and “because people who harbor hateful, discriminatory ideas are deterred from expressing them, we don’t realize who they are. We therefore lose the opportunity to dissuade them and...we lose the opportunity for people to listen to these ideas and realize their flaws.” (143)
Sugar coated racist language gets passed the hate speech laws and becomes more effective because it’s seemingly, but isn’t really, less offensive. (146)
Being exposed to “an odious idea” can actually make people more resilient and better able to cope with the stress hate speech can cause. (152-3)
Humor, especially satire, is effective counterspeech. (160)
In the book “Why Civil Resistance Works” it was found that nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent.” (163)
April 28, 2020
Generally speaking, I tend to agree with the overwhelming majority of Nadine Strossen's positions in Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, that speech codes prohibiting "hate speech" (Strossen very specifically always puts the term within quotation marks, precisely because she believes the meaning is flexible depending on who's alleging it has occurred)—whether by the government, on college campuses, or in virtual spaces on the Internet—are counterproductive, tend to penalize the speech of marginalized communities more than they do those with privilege, and are on the most basic level violative of the central civil liberties espoused in the U.S. Constitution. But, having also read Danielle Keats Citron and Safiya Umoja Noble's recent works on harassing speech in digital spaces (specifically, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace and Algorithms of Oppression, respectively), in which both Citron and Noble make quite clear that the unfettered protection of negative speech for some on the Internet ends up silencing the speech of marginalized people, some of Strossen's optimism, particularly in light of recent developments among the tech giants, seems misplaced, or at least naive.
Generally speaking, Strossen's case is truly compelling, backed up with a plethora of sources in caselaw, statute, law reviews, and the media (presented on Strossen's website for her professorship at New York University's law school, something that some fellow reviewers of Hate seem to have missed, whether because they didn't read Strossen's introduction so noting or for some other reason), and, as an attorney myself, I recognize both the value in Strossen's citations and how all too many experts in the law can err on the side of favoring speech codes, even in a well-meaning manner—and for government and the campus, it does feel like speech codes are not, in fact, the way to go. But even Strossen admits that most, if not all, online spaces for speech are platformed by private companies and as such are not subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment; while it is also true that various American statutes protect Internet Service Providers from speech-based legal action so long as they don't exercise editorial control over the content thereupon, Noble and others have made clear that since Facebook, Google, and any number of other such conglomerates do exercise such editorial control, by manipulating their algorithms, albeit (if not precisely for this reason) in an utterly non-transparent manner—a fact that Strossen doesn't address, in part because Algorithms of Oppression hadn't yet been published (Strossen doesn't cite Citron anywhere)—Strossen's satisfaction that Facebook, Google, and any number of other such conglomerates' efforts at combating "hate speech" on their platforms seems especially naive.
That said, Strossen's larger point stands, even if in some of the specific applications thereof her argument has some flaws, albeit not fatal ones, as legalese terminology might be used herein. Strossen's legacy as former director of the ACLU was a storied one, for many valid reasons, and her bonafides as a legal scholar are relatively unmatched as a result. But given that any legal researcher worth their salt can often find any argument to support their thesis—and given that Strossen doesn't even cite Citron's body of work, much less provide counterarguments—that omission is a flaw, however minor, in an otherwise rather valuable work.
Generally speaking, Strossen's case is truly compelling, backed up with a plethora of sources in caselaw, statute, law reviews, and the media (presented on Strossen's website for her professorship at New York University's law school, something that some fellow reviewers of Hate seem to have missed, whether because they didn't read Strossen's introduction so noting or for some other reason), and, as an attorney myself, I recognize both the value in Strossen's citations and how all too many experts in the law can err on the side of favoring speech codes, even in a well-meaning manner—and for government and the campus, it does feel like speech codes are not, in fact, the way to go. But even Strossen admits that most, if not all, online spaces for speech are platformed by private companies and as such are not subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment; while it is also true that various American statutes protect Internet Service Providers from speech-based legal action so long as they don't exercise editorial control over the content thereupon, Noble and others have made clear that since Facebook, Google, and any number of other such conglomerates do exercise such editorial control, by manipulating their algorithms, albeit (if not precisely for this reason) in an utterly non-transparent manner—a fact that Strossen doesn't address, in part because Algorithms of Oppression hadn't yet been published (Strossen doesn't cite Citron anywhere)—Strossen's satisfaction that Facebook, Google, and any number of other such conglomerates' efforts at combating "hate speech" on their platforms seems especially naive.
That said, Strossen's larger point stands, even if in some of the specific applications thereof her argument has some flaws, albeit not fatal ones, as legalese terminology might be used herein. Strossen's legacy as former director of the ACLU was a storied one, for many valid reasons, and her bonafides as a legal scholar are relatively unmatched as a result. But given that any legal researcher worth their salt can often find any argument to support their thesis—and given that Strossen doesn't even cite Citron's body of work, much less provide counterarguments—that omission is a flaw, however minor, in an otherwise rather valuable work.
August 6, 2019
Type: Legal Argument (Amicus Curiae)
Unity: Hate Speech laws fundamentally undermine Free Speech. Moreover, they are ineffective and downright dangerous.
3 Prompts:
1. Why are Hate Speech laws a bad solution to the problem of hate speech? They are ineffective and they have huge externalities. Also they are fundamentally prohibited by the constitution.
2.
3. What don’t college kids (who have a large role in banning speakers/getting professors fired for speech infringement, and who are among the most vehement supporters of hate speech understand) understand about hate speech laws?
2 Implications:
1. Is a constitution that supports free speech good in-itself? Strossen defends Free Speech on mostly constitutional (and then democratic grounds), and so far as her arguments go, they are airtight. But the fact remains that most people will be wrong most of the time, and some people will be wrong all of the time. If we give these people the right to vote (who vote based on things like the ring of a candidates name, or the name of their party), the political discourse becomes that much more diluted. This is something that the Founders even had in mind — only educated white property owning men could vote in the time of Washington and Jefferson. Perhaps some of those categories are non-sequiturs (e.g. race and gender), but education and property ownership seem like reasonable limitations to citizenship. They prove that the voter has “skin-in-the-game” so to speak, and that they can at least read the laws that they propose and strike down. Should Citizenship and Free Speech be so limited?
2. What about concentrated disinformation campaigns, which take place on social media and likely helped Trump win the 2016 election? Likewise, free speech seems to open the floodgates for propaganda, but this is only ever briefly addressed by Strossen.
Rating: 4/5
* Within its scope, this book is a tour de force. Strossen argues with force and erudition, and she is very persuasive. However, I think some deeper philosophical issues are at play in America’s current struggle with Free Speech. Namely, (a) Nazis (and other Fascists) seem to present an interesting ideological problem, since their views inherently oppose free speech and demand discrimination, and (b) the role of technology has made propaganda and “fake news”-- often containing and a real problem in the digital environment, and this is an issue in large part because of free speech. Still, as a Amicus Brief against Hate Speech laws, this is quite the book.
Unity: Hate Speech laws fundamentally undermine Free Speech. Moreover, they are ineffective and downright dangerous.
3 Prompts:
1. Why are Hate Speech laws a bad solution to the problem of hate speech? They are ineffective and they have huge externalities. Also they are fundamentally prohibited by the constitution.
2.
3. What don’t college kids (who have a large role in banning speakers/getting professors fired for speech infringement, and who are among the most vehement supporters of hate speech understand) understand about hate speech laws?
2 Implications:
1. Is a constitution that supports free speech good in-itself? Strossen defends Free Speech on mostly constitutional (and then democratic grounds), and so far as her arguments go, they are airtight. But the fact remains that most people will be wrong most of the time, and some people will be wrong all of the time. If we give these people the right to vote (who vote based on things like the ring of a candidates name, or the name of their party), the political discourse becomes that much more diluted. This is something that the Founders even had in mind — only educated white property owning men could vote in the time of Washington and Jefferson. Perhaps some of those categories are non-sequiturs (e.g. race and gender), but education and property ownership seem like reasonable limitations to citizenship. They prove that the voter has “skin-in-the-game” so to speak, and that they can at least read the laws that they propose and strike down. Should Citizenship and Free Speech be so limited?
2. What about concentrated disinformation campaigns, which take place on social media and likely helped Trump win the 2016 election? Likewise, free speech seems to open the floodgates for propaganda, but this is only ever briefly addressed by Strossen.
Rating: 4/5
* Within its scope, this book is a tour de force. Strossen argues with force and erudition, and she is very persuasive. However, I think some deeper philosophical issues are at play in America’s current struggle with Free Speech. Namely, (a) Nazis (and other Fascists) seem to present an interesting ideological problem, since their views inherently oppose free speech and demand discrimination, and (b) the role of technology has made propaganda and “fake news”-- often containing and a real problem in the digital environment, and this is an issue in large part because of free speech. Still, as a Amicus Brief against Hate Speech laws, this is quite the book.
February 2, 2020
Maybe 4.5 stars. A fantastic review by law professor and former president of the ACLU. Her experience clearly gives her many interesting perspectives and stories to tell. The focus is on government/public censorship of free speech/expression (misogyny, racism, pornography, bigotry, etc.). Most of the censorship examples are (thankfully) from other countries. I got the feeling that the USA has done a great job at not limiting constitutionally protected speech in the legal sense (at least so far). The limitations in the USA have come more in the social sense rather than legal. But these social "censorships" do have an affect that can make their way into policy, and we must be careful of that.
Strossen gave many modern examples in other countries, and quite clearly showed how impossible it is to write a law that insulates a group/class from hate speech, without creating worse ramifications. Little to no evidence suggests that censoring hate speech is beneficial in ANY way, and often is detrimental in many ways.
There is a primary legal exception to constitutionally protected hate speech: the emergency principle (directly causing certain specific, imminent, serious harm—such as violence—which cannot be averted through any other means). Think threats/fighting words, incitement, child pornography, etc.
In short, the government must maintain the viewpoint neutrality principle from a legal perspective. The government should not take sides. The answer to combatting hate speech is "counter speech." More speech, not less.
Strossen gave many modern examples in other countries, and quite clearly showed how impossible it is to write a law that insulates a group/class from hate speech, without creating worse ramifications. Little to no evidence suggests that censoring hate speech is beneficial in ANY way, and often is detrimental in many ways.
There is a primary legal exception to constitutionally protected hate speech: the emergency principle (directly causing certain specific, imminent, serious harm—such as violence—which cannot be averted through any other means). Think threats/fighting words, incitement, child pornography, etc.
In short, the government must maintain the viewpoint neutrality principle from a legal perspective. The government should not take sides. The answer to combatting hate speech is "counter speech." More speech, not less.
October 22, 2018
If you want to get a political disagreement going in our house it is tough to do. We generally see issues nearly the same way, we might argue about details or strategy. Except for the issue of Hate Speech laws. I was hoping this book would allow my hubby and I to read and then discuss the issues. However the language used is both too professional yet too repetitive to really give us a a smooth enough reading to encourage us to keep reading. Reading each chapter, heck something paragraph by paragraph felt like a chore. Surely there would be better ways to word facts and matters without so much legalize or repeats of nearly the same phrases? I understand that legally words matter but if you want to convince the lay person whose voting empowers politicians to make these laws, you need to write at our level, too.
I did appreciate the cases of hate speech laws misused, I just wish those appeared early on in the book and more frequently. Such cases help demonstrate the claim that Strossen is making more efficiently and effectively than legal texts and proclamations ever can. It was those cases that started my hubby and I get to be more in align with each other on the matter of laws about speech, hate or otherwise. But it should not have been such a drag to read to get to that point.
I did appreciate the cases of hate speech laws misused, I just wish those appeared early on in the book and more frequently. Such cases help demonstrate the claim that Strossen is making more efficiently and effectively than legal texts and proclamations ever can. It was those cases that started my hubby and I get to be more in align with each other on the matter of laws about speech, hate or otherwise. But it should not have been such a drag to read to get to that point.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews