Skip to main content

HATE, by Nadine Strossen

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.         

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades

It’s that time of year again. Law students across the country are poring over their class notes and supplements, putting the finishing touches on their outlines, and fueling their all-night study sessions with a combination of high-carb snacks and Java Monsters. This can mean only one thing: exam time is approaching.

If you’re looking for a brief but effective guide to improving your exam performance, the O’Quinn Law Library has the book for you. Alex Schimel’s Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades, now in its second edition, provides a clear and concise strategy for mastering the issue-spotting exams that determine the majority of your grade in most law school classes. Schimel finished second in his class at the University Of Miami School Of Law, where he taught a wildly popular exam workshop in his 2L and 3L years, and later returned to become Associate Director of the Academic Achievement Program. The first edition of his book was written shortly after he finished law school, …

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …