HATE

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.

For the most laudable sets of reasons, many decent citizens endorse legal limitations on hateful speech. In this accessible and much-needed contribution to current debates, Professor Strossen offers a compellingly cogent response which challenges that endorsement. Of interest to readers in the UK, US, Canada and beyond, the author critically dissects arguments for constitutional bans. She offers an alternative, speech-friendly solution to this most pressing of contemporary problems that demands to be read.

• AcknowledgmentsEditor's NoteKey Terms and ConceptsINTRODUCTIONCHAPTER 1:  OVERVIEWCHAPTER 2:  "HATE SPEECH" LAWS VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL FREE SPEECH AND EQUALITY PRINCIPLESCHAPTER 3:  WHEN "HATE SPEECH" IS PROTECTED AND WHEN IT IS PUNISHABLECHAPTER 4:  BECAUSE OF THEIR INTRACTABLE VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH, "HATE SPEECH" LAWS UNDERMINE FREE SPEECH AND EQUALITYCHAPTER 5:  IS IT POSSIBLE TO DRAFT A "HATE SPEECH" LAW THAT IS NOT UNDULY VAGUE OR OVERBROAD?CHAPTER 6: DOES CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED "HATE SPEECH" ACTUALLY CAUSE THE FEARED HARMS?CHAPTER 7:  "HATE SPEECH" LAWS ARE AT BEST INEFFECTIVE AND AT WORST COUNTERPRODUCTIVECHAPTER 8:  NON-CENSORIAL METHODS EFFECTIVELY CURB THE POTENTIAL HARMS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED "HATE SPEECH"CHAPTER 9:  CONCLUSION:  LOOKING BACK - AND FORWARDIndex