Skip to main content

HATE, by Nadine Strossen

By
As a professor at New York Law School and a former president of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen has spent much of her career writing and speaking about constitutional law and civil liberties. Her latest book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, draws on her decades of experience with these issues to present a thoroughly researched and strongly argued case against hate speech laws.

As Strossen points out in her introduction, much of the controversy over the regulation of “hate speech” is rooted in the lack of a clear definition of the term, along with widespread confusion about what kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment and what kinds of speech are punishable. She therefore begins by laying out two of the core constitutional principles at issue: viewpoint neutrality and the emergency test. Viewpoint neutrality is defined as the principle that government may not regulate speech “solely because the speech’s message, idea, or viewpoint is disfavored, or feared to be dangerous, by government officials or community members.” The emergency test provides that “government may suppress speech only when it directly causes specific, imminent, and serious harm.” 

Under these two doctrines, much of what is labeled “hate speech” is already punishable by law. This includes things like threats, incitement to violence, and harassment. The question, then, is what types of constitutionally protected speech, if any, should hate speech laws disallow? Strossen argues that bans on constitutionally protected hate speech are not only (by definition) unconstitutional, but also detrimental to freedom, equality, democracy, and societal harmony. Furthermore, hate speech laws are often used to suppress the speech of the very minority groups they were intended to protect, a proposition that is supported in the book by numerous examples from other countries. 

Rather than censoring hate speech, Strossen argues, we should confront it with non-censorial methods such as education and counterspeech. Whether you agree with her conclusions or not, her book is a formidable work of scholarship that should be required reading for anyone interested in this controversial subject.  

HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship is currently available on the New Books shelf at the O’Quinn Law Library.         
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le
1 comment
Read more

C-SPAN Video Archive Now Online

By
Legislative researchers and politics fans take note. C-SPAN recently completed a digitization project placing the entirety of its video collection online. The archives record all three C-SPAN networks seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. The videos are available at no cost for historical, educational, research, and archival uses. The database includes over 160,000 hours of video recorded since 1987 and the programs are indexed by subject, speaker names, titles, affiliations, sponsors, committees, categories, formats, policy groups, keywords, and locations. The most recent, most watched, and most shared videos are highlighted on the main page. To start watching, visit the C-SPAN Video Library and use the search function at the top of the page.
Post a Comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requires
Post a Comment
Read more