Overview -- "Hate speech" laws violate fundamental free speech and equality principles -- When "hate speech" is protected and when it is punishable -- Because of their intractable vagueness and overbreadth, "hate speech" laws undermine free speech and equality -- Is it possible to draft a "hate speech" law that is not unduly vague or overboard? -- Does constitutionally protected "hate speech" actually cause the feared harms? -- "Hate speech" laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive -- Non-censorial methods effectively curb the potential harms of constitutionally protected "hate speech" -- Conclusion: looking back and forward.
Summary:
Hate explains the badly misunderstood First Amendment approach toward hateful speech, which overlaps substantially with international human rights principles. It shows that this approach is more effective than censorship in promoting all the essential values at stake: free speech, democracy, equality, dignity, diversity, and inclusivity. Under both US and international human rights law, government may punish hateful speech that directly causes specific imminent serious harms, but it may not punish speech solely because its message is defavored, disturbing, or more generally feared to possibly contribute to some potential harm.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.