Nadine Strossen (Professor of Law, Professor of Law, New York Law S

Hate

Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship

• Gebundenes Buch

Produktbeschreibung

In HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship, Strossen dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," and shows that the U.S. First Amendment approach effectively promotes all pertinent concerns: free speech, democracy, equality and societal harmony

---

Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.

Produktdetails

• Inalienable Rights
• Verlag: Oxford University Press Inc
• Seitenzahl: 232
• Erscheinungstermin: 1. Mai 2018
• Englisch
• Abmessung: 218mm x 148mm x 22mm
• Gewicht: 384g
• ISBN-13: 9780190859121
• ISBN-10: 0190859121
• Artikelnr.: 49375121

Autorenporträt

Nadine Strossen is Professor of Constitutional Law at New York Law School and the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union, where she served from 1991 through 2008. A frequent speaker on constitutional and civil liberties issues, her media appearances include 60 Minutes, CBS Sunday Morning, Today, Good Morning America, The Daily Show, and other news programs on CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, Al-Jazeera, and in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Her op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and USA Today, among others.

Inhaltsangabe

* GLOSSARY
* INTRODUCTION
* Distinguishing between vile words and violent conduct
* U.S. law's appropriate distinction between protected and punishable
discriminatory speech
* More speech, not less
* CHAPTER 1) Overview
* "Top 10" conclusions
* What is "hate speech"?
* "Hate speech" laws endanger both freedom and equality
* Campus censorship
* Why should we specially protect "verbal conduct"?
* Beyond the First Amendment
* The U.S. law approach has substantial international support
* "Hate speech" laws long were opposed by other democracies
* The anti-democratic enforcement of "hate speech" laws even in
democracies
* Private sector institutions should protect speech
* Cost-benefit analysis of "hate speech" laws
* President Obama's opposition to "hate speech" laws
* Non-censorial alternatives
* CHAPTER 2) Distinctions between punishable and protected
discriminatory speech
* Under U.S. law, much discriminatory speech may be punished, and all
may be condemned
* The multiple contexts in which discriminatory speech may be outlawed
* Private sector
* Government
* Content-neutral regulations
* Special-purpose facilities
* Symbolic endorsement
* Counterspeech
* Punishing discriminatory speech under the emergency test
* True threats
* Punishable incitement
* --Punishable fighting words
* Punishable harassment
* --Targeted harassment
* --Hostile environment harassment
* Facilitating criminal conduct
* Bias crime
* Civil lawsuits by private citizens
* Invasion of privacy
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress
* Group defamation claims undermine free speech and equality
* Constitutionally protected "hate speech"
* The content neutrality and emergency principles: essential pillars of
liberty and equality
* CHAPTER 3) "Hate speech" laws' inherent vagueness and overbreadth
* From the frying pan to the fire: too flexible or too rigid
* One person's hateful, hated speech is another's loving, cherished
speech
* Endangering minority views and speakers
* Targeting dissent
* Targeting minority groups
* Campus "hate speech" codes
* Social media bans on "hate speech"
* Current targeting of marginalized views in comparable democracies
* France: Bob Dylan criminally charged because of a statement in a
magazine interview
* Britain: European Parliament candidate arrested during a campaign
speech
* for quoting Winston Churchill
* Netherlands: Member of Parliament convicted because of a question he
asked at a political rally
* Denmark: Member of Parliament and three other public figures
convicted for criticizing aspects of Islam
* Sweden: Political party leader convicted for assertion about
immigrants' crimes
* Austria: A citizen's Facebook post criticizing a public official is
deemed "hate speech" that Facebook must delete worldwide
* Many European countries: Christian and Muslim religious leaders
charged for quoting their sacred texts
* The slippery slope
* CHAPTER 4) Would censoring constitutionally protected "hate speech"
reduce its potential harmful impact?
* Would "hate speech" laws reduce any feared harm?
* Inevitable underenforcement
* Targeting only blatant expression
* Driving some expression underground
* Incentivizing more palatable speech
* Increasing attention and support
* Enforcement frustrations
* Would "hate speech" laws reduce....
* ....inter-group hostility?
* ...retaliatory violence?
* ...psychic harms?
* No correlation with reduced discrimination or violence
* The rise of Nazism in Germany despite "hate speech" laws
* No inter-country correlation
* No intra-country correlation
* Would "hate speech" laws have a positive symbolic value?
* What potential contribution does constitutionally protected "hate
speech" make to the feared harms?
* Inherently limited contribution
* Studies about violence and pornography
* Countless contributory factors
* Some discriminatory speech does not spur negative psychic reactions
* "Hate speech" law advocates cite much discriminatory speech that is
already punishable
* Substantial factual changes since the pioneering legal articles
advocating "hate speech" laws
* Increasing counterspeech by disparaged people
* The cost-benefit analysis so far
* CHAPTER 5) What non-censorial measures would reduce the feared
harmful impact of constitutionally protected "hate speech"?
* Counterspeech
* Responsive
* Proactive
* Government
* All of us
* Online
* Education
* Developing thicker and thinner skin
* Apologies
* Anti-discrimination laws
* Monitoring discriminatory violence
* Improving police interactions with minority communities
* Proactive outreach and interaction
* More inclusive campuses
* Self-restraint and social pressure
* Self-regulation
* CHAPTER 6) What are the potential costs of "hate speech" laws?
* What potential costs to equality and societal harmony?
* Undermining a mainstay of equal rights movements
* Deflecting responsibility from people who engage in discriminatory
conduct
* Disempowering disparaged people
* Diverting us from more effective strategies
* Undermining constitutional challenges to discriminatory policies
* What potential costs to free speech and democracy?
* Freedom of speech's intrinsic and instrumental value
* Freedom of speech is essential ...
* ...for individuals to form and express their thoughts
* ...for individuals to convey their emotions
* ....for democratic self-government
* ...for defending all other rights
* Essential protection of messages that are disfavored or feared to
have a general bad tendency
* Dangers of subjective criteria in speech regulations
* Speech conveying disfavored ideas may well be self-refuting
* The appropriate response to disfavored speech is counterspeech
* Government may not suppress speech...
* ...to shield unwilling listeners in public places
* ...to outlaw certain words
* ...because it is motivated by hate
* ...because it is hurtful
* ...due to feared retaliatory violence
* Government may censor speech in accordance with the emergency
principle
* The comparative risks of freedom and censorship
* Democratic legitimacy
* "Hate speech" laws' costs outweigh their benefits
* CHAPTER 7) Do It Yourself challenge: Try to craft an acceptable "hate
speech" law
* How should a "hate speech" law define the newly punishable subset of
what is now constitutionally protected "hate speech"?
* What personal characteristics should it protect?
* Should it protect beliefs?
* Should it bar statements about historical events?
* If it requires any showing about potential harm...
* ...what kind of potential harm?
* ...how likely should it be to materialize?
* ...how direct and imminent should the connection be between the
speech and the potential harm?
* ...should the potential harm be assessed by a subjective or objective
standard?
* What mental state should be required?
* Should the speech have to target an individual or small group?
* Should it extend to speech in private places, and to personal
conversations?
* Should it take into account...
* ...the identities of the speaker and the disparaged people?
* ...any other contextual factors?
* Should it provide any affirmative defenses?
* Should it exempt speech by public officials or candidates?
* Should it be criminal or civil?
* What remedies and penalties should it provide?
* Should there be any threshold procedural requirements?
* How have you done?
* APPEN DIX A: Protected personal characteristics and beliefs under
various "hate speech" laws
* APPENDIX B: Punishable messages under various "hate speech" laws
* CHAPTER 8) Conclusion: looking back - and forward