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.

This book, devoted to acquainting reader with the basics of American free speech doctrine, presents a description of the radical attack on modern free speech doctrine. It discusses whether banning this speech would be a remedy for the harms hate speech and pornography are said to cause.

Free Speech and Hate Speech in the United States explores the concept and treatment of hate speech in light of escalating social tensions in the global twenty-first century, proposing a shift in emphasis from the negative protection of individual rights toward a more positive support of social equality. Drawing on Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition, the author develops a two-tiered framework for free speech analysis that will promote a strategy for combating hate speech. To illustrate how this framework might impact speech rights in the U.S., she looks specifically at hate speech in the context of symbolic speech, disparaging speech, internet speech and speech on college campuses. Entering into an ongoing debate about the role of speech in society, this book will be of key importance to First Amendment scholars, and to scholars and students of communication studies, media studies, media law, political science, feminist studies, American studies, and history.

The opportunities afforded by the Internet greatly overshadow the challenges. While not forgetting this, we can nevertheless still address some of the problems that arise. Hate speech online is one such problem. But what exactly is hate speech online, and how can we deal with it effectively? As with freedom of expression, on- or offline, UNESCO defends the position that the free flow of information should always be the norm. Counter-speech is generally preferable to suppression of speech. And any response that limits speech needs to be very carefully weighed to ensure that this remains wholly exceptional, and that legitimate robust debate is not curtailed.

Free speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment. Although it may hurt and offend, hate speech is still free, under most circumstances. But what happens when institutions like universities adopt policies prohibiting offensive speech? Do such policies cause more harm than good? Should measures be taken to curb threatening or insulting comments? Or does that amount to little more than censorship? Is our quest to be polite and politically correct curtailing opportunities to express, learn, and grow? When does free speech become criminally threatening? These questions and more are thoughtfully examined in this important resource.

Essay from the year 2018 in the subject Law - Civil Action / Lawsuit Law, grade: 1.2, , language: English, abstract: Freedom of speech appears to be one of the most fundamental rights of the U.S citizens. This provision is protected by the U.S Constitution through the First Amendment of the American Constitution; therefore, it guarantees the U.S citizens with freedom of expression. The amendment states, “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” (Germani par. 1). However, hate speech is regarded to as a legal crime because; it interferes with other provisions in the U.S Bill of Rights. As a result, there have been numerous enactments carried out by the U.S Legislature to protect the loyalty of the U.S citizens through expression. In regard to the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution, an individual can be convicted of hate speech crime in circumstances where one’s statements evoke violence. Moreover, statements, which constitute threats to other people or the Government, are regarded to as hate speech crime. However, conviction of an individual for crimes related to hate speech requires legal approaches to justify the individual’s breach of the law. Huhn states, “Even in cases where it is clear that a person is threatening violence.., the person may be criminally prosecuted only if the law in question is carefully drawn so that it applies only in appropriate cases”