To expand this point: what about the onslaught of propaganda disseminated by hostile or fana A compelling argument against hate speech legislation that I overwhelmingly agree with. I'm not as concerned about that. What you have just described, this must be very frustrating for people. This book fills that gap, examining our actual experience with such laws. Indeed many of the controversies swirling around alleged political correctness are really claims and counterclaims about hate speech. This flaw severely limits the usefulness of the book.
From government surveillance and decriminalization of drugs, to sexual harassment and more, Strossen makes even complex issues accessible through the use of illuminating statistics and true-life stories. We generally see issues nearly the same way, we might argue about details or strategy. Should hate speech be censored? This last bit I thought was one of the strongest points. Or is it more a reflection of the apparent preference toward a degree of authoritarianism in the current political climate throughout the world? The inaccessibility of the text is not due to the style of the writing but the subject itself which is inherently juristical. And, how well does it fulfil them? It shows that they are not effective in reducing the feared harms, and worse yet, are likely counterproductive. It was nice to switch up my reads for a while, and read something other than the typical fiction. Nadine Strossen's insightful and eminently readable study on why we protect such speech and why we should continue to do so is an all-too-rare example of first-rate legal scholarship that the public at large can learn from and savor reading.
Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U. In fact, I support the two most fundamental human freedoms: the right to immigrate to the United States, and the right to access abortion care. The emergence of the alt-right alone has fueled a marked increase in racist and anti-Semitic speech. Rather, she sets up a contrast between the approach adopted in the United States and the approach adopted by many European c A lovely and concise defense of free speech in the face of hate. Even in established democracies, enforcement officials use the power these laws give them to suppress vital expression and target minority viewpoints, as was the case in earlier periods of U. Even in established democracies, enforcement officials use the power these laws give them to suppress vital expression and target minority viewpoints, as was the case in earlier periods of U. She writes regularly for numerous other publications.
By who has the better ability to control it. Nadine Strossen remains the powerful voice of a dangerously jeopardised tradition. This book fills that gap, examining our actual experience with such laws. It's an effective exposition on constitutional elements of free speech. We live in interesting times.
She has been hailed as one of the most influential business leaders, women, or lawyers in such publications as the National Law Nadine Strossen was president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008. Should the speech have to target an individual or small group? I would like to know if there exist some cases in which free speech absolutism breaks down. She appeared on nearly every major U. Except for the issue of Hate Speech laws. As such it would work as a deterrent to rape so long as the two parties were roughly equally matched. I think she skips over a crucial question, although I'm not totally sure if this is a hate speech question: What about fake news? That was a bad move in principle, and has never yielded any of the desired results in practice.
Nadine Strossen says we should protect hate speech. So refreshing to hear this voice of reason. In her new book entitled: Hate — Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, not Censorship, Strossen calls on lawmakers around the globe to resist the temptation to tackle hate speech with censorship or stricter legislation. It only serves to create 'victims' or, at best, 'survivors' , rather than joyful and effective human beings who not only thrive but are able to make a difference in the world. She offers an alternative, speech-friendly solution to this most pressing of contemporary problems that demands to be read.
The fall 2018 Bernard G. We generally see issues nearly the same way, we might argue about details or strategy. Many have died for it. Students, they say, are increasingly demanding to be shielded from words, ideas, and subjects they dislike. I'm not totally sure what to think, but I wish Strossen had spent a little more time on this perplexing and very modern problem. This is an original, insightful, and compelling analysis, both timely and enduring, that has academic, constitutional, and international importance.
I was disappointed that the book did not contain any notes. Is it a losing battle given how things are shaping in certain countries around the globe? And they have had great success in wooing them away from that hateful ideology. I'm far less authoritarian than many of the commenters here. Its interpretation of the First Amendment is fundamentally flawed if it's read in a way that protects people like Richard Spencer. Meh, one is a right and one is a desire. I recommend for all who want to engage with the foundational pillars of our democracy.
I found the book fascinating as it taught me a good deal. What mental state should be required? I was hoping this book would allow my hubby and I to read and then discuss the issues. They make them romantic revolutionaries struggling against the powerful rather than losers who live with their parents and blog nasty stuff. I think this self-censorship leads to self-segregation — you're probably more frightened to speak to a member of a different racial group or different gender identity or ethnic background for fear of unwittingly insulting that person. What personal characteristics should it protect? Is this not a form of attack? The book may be aimed at those in power who can pass or repeal such laws, but I think anybody with even a passing interest in this topic will enjoy as much as I did. The book is presented with a good deal of legal opinions as well as many interesting anecdotes illustrating the point the author is making. Nadine Strossen says hate speech laws are at best ineffective, perhaps even counterproductive If I've understood you correctly, people are self-censoring themselves because of the fear of saying something wrong? By a narrow margin, , today's college students say promoting an inclusive campus environment is more important than protecting First Amendment rights of free speech.
Even in established democracies, enforcement officials use the power these laws give them to suppress vital expression and target minority viewpoints, as was the case in earlier periods of U. Strossen has also held leadership positions in other human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as hate speech. Proponents of anti-hate speech laws stress the harms that they fear such speech might lead to: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. A compelling argument against hate speech legislation that I overwhelmingly agree with.