HATE

Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship

By: Nadine Strossen

Narrated by: Nadine Strossen, Angelo Di Loreto

Length: 8 hrs and 17 mins

Publisher's summary

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, US 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 US 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 United States and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship but, rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.

©2018 Oxford University Press (P)2018 Audible, Inc.

Shows censorship doesn't actually fight hate

While I agree with the author that censorship doesn't reduce hate. The authors reason is a pragmatic look of which method has the less hate in a society. I think keeping the government out of legislating what people can think and discuss is proper because the governments role is to protect your freedom of thought and action as long as you aren't initiating force. So I think her argument was weak because it relied on the lack of effectiveness of censorship too much.

Must read!!

Absolutely fantastic! As a student of history, and a staunch advocate of free speech, I didn’t realize how much my music drifted until challenged by this book. The ideals and concepts they’re in, provided a wonderful framework to interrogate my own, thinking and grow as individual. Very well done and highly recommend.

well thought out and written book

I found the content of the book to be great, it's well thought out, good examples and supporting data, but the narration felt almost condescending at times which distracted from the content.

Brilliant

How could a volume this thin and clearly written make such a complete and well-supported case for free speech? If you read only one book about addressing hate speech, this should be the one. It cannot receive enough praise.

Surprise

ACLU? Never would I have thought such a fair and NON-WOKE treatise would be so excellent considering her ACLU association. The author reams those who hide behind hate speech laws, repeatedly driving home the simple truth that MORE SPEECH is the only lasting way to counter hate speech. The eminently qualified writer brings the reader/listener to college campuses, to the workplace, to the international scene, to the media (think facebook) with vivid examples of what has gone so wrong in banning hate speech. This is not a dry or stuffy book with legalese jargon. Unlike many authors who narrate their own books poorly, Nadine Strossen makes it a pleasant easy listen. In addition to pointing out the failed policy of hate speech laws (and practices), she offers positive suggestions.
Not overly long, it is worth the few hours to be in her audience. A truly bipartisan (neutral) experience. No hidden agenda.

Amazing analysis of the topic

Really enjoyed and appreciated this book. I thought Nadine Strossen did a terrific job making the subject interesting and approachable.

Exactly what the title promises

Strossen digs right into recent calls to further restrict “hate speech,” but she doesn’t fall into the hole of mocking those who have proposed more restriction based on their interest in social justice goals. She explains the problems with hate speech laws in Europe and Canada, how they are often used against the people supposedly protected by the laws, the capricious nature of enforcement and the fundamental difficulty of wording.
She gives positive examples from college campuses that have found creative ways of handling bias incidents that don’t involve illegal and punitive speech codes.
I listened to the whole book and ended up buying a hard copy because I want to have the concepts and examples at my finger tips.

Important Message But Repetitive Execution

I found this topic to be of extreme importance. The information and examples cited are truly eye-opening and provide a unique argument for promoting counter-speech in lieu of censorship. It thoroughly explains the reasons for this argument. I had to listen to the text on 1.25 speed because I found the narration to be too drawn out and slow. Additionally, the message became overly repetitive and could have been delivered in a more succinct form.

Narration is weak

Content is good but redundant. Narration is unnecessarily sensational to the point of
annoyance. Exaggerative emphasis of words and statements. Let the words speak for themselves.

Timely & Necessary

I loved hearing you read this out loud Nadine! This will inform my perspective on controversial issues for a long time to come, and I hope to integrate some of your suggestions and perspective into a medical student group I started. My generation needs to make every effort to (re)learn how to have difficult conversations without blaming the people they disagree with for making them feel bad. US culture in general could benefit from learning how to listen better and build greater resilience to stress.