Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that "hate speech" - which has no generally accepted definition - is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as "hate speech." "Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that "hate speech" laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion, and predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.

Tabla de contenidos provista por Syndetics

• Acknowledgments(p. xi)
• Editor's Note(p. xv)
• Key Terms and Concepts(p. xix)
• Introduction(p. 1)
• 1 Overview(p. 11)
• 2 "Hate Speech" Laws Violate Fundamental Free Speech And Equality Principles(p. 37)
• 3 When "Hate Speech" Is Protected and When It Is Punishable(p. 53)
• 4 Because of Their Intractable Vagueness and Overbreadth, "Hate Speech" Laws Undermine Free Speech and Equality(p. 69)
• 5 Is It Possible to Draft a "Hate Speech" Law That Is Not Unduly Vague or Overbroad?(p. 105)
• 6 Does Constitutionally Protected "Hate Speech" Actually Cause the Feared Harms?(p. 121)
• 7 "Hate Speech" Laws Are at Best Ineffective and at Worst Counterproductive(p. 133)
• 8 Non-Censorial Methods Effectively Curb the Potential Harms of Constitutionally Protected "Hate Speech"(p. 157)
• 9 Conclusion: Looking Back-and Forward(p. 183)
• Index(p. 187)

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

Library Journal Review

Strossen (constitutional law, New York Univ.; former president, American Civil Liberties Union; Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights) could not have published this superb book in a more timely fashion. Now more than ever, First Amendment rights are challenged, particularly when they verge on the nebulous territory of hate speech. Strossen succeeds in lucidly explaining the relevant legal issues in a way that benefits both professional and lay readers. Thus providing the legal history underlying the current hate speech laws, even while pointing out their deficiencies and gaps. In particular, the author takes on the task of examining the relative efficacy of such laws and, after much research, concludes that at best they have fallen short. In worst-case scenarios, they have been counterproductive, failing to protect target groups and individuals from harm. Fortunately, Strossen proposes a well-considered solution: "counterspeech" activism, which "directly refutes the ideas `hate speech' conveys." Educational initiatives are especially cogent in achieving equitable ends. In conclusion, Strossen advocates for empowerment of disparaged people, in accord with the spirit of the Constitution. -VERDICT Essential for readers moved by Jeremy Waldron's The Harm in Hate Speech.-Lynne Maxwell, West Virginia Univ. Coll. of Law Lib., Morgantown © Copyright 2018. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

CHOICE Review

Restrictions on public speech have been the occasion for controversy from the inception of our country: seditious libel, obscenity, fighting words, incitement, among others. More recently, speech codes limiting or banning "hate speech" that some claim threaten the dignity of groups or individuals and/or have an exclusionary impact have come front and center. Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and professor of law at New York Law School, has written a critique of these attempts. The challenge has occasioned a spate of books defending or attacking these restrictions. Strossen's work provides the libertarian view of speech in a free society. She lays out in clear and accurate fashion the tests the court has developed under the First Amendment: which restrictions are permitted and which ones are not. In doing so, she presents the case against speech codes and restrictions on hate speech, providing numerous examples of these codes in operation--nationally and internationally--and pointing out their deleterious impact--intended and unintended--on free speech. A thoughtful defense of restricting or banning hate speech is Jeremy Waldron's The Harm in Hate Speech (CH, Dec'12, 50-2361). Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty. --Peter J. Galie, emeritus, Canisius College

Notas de autor provistas por Syndetics

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.