Nadine Strossen on ‘Hate Speech’ Laws vs. Free Speech

Every so often, the debate over "hate speech" moves to the foreground, and we hear urgent calls for the United States to enact laws banning it. Many claim that such laws would have beneficial outcomes, curtailing speech that belittles, demeans, offends, or discriminates. Canada, the United Kingdom, France and many other Western countries have enacted "hate speech" laws. Some people argue that the U.S. should follow their example.

But what exactly is "hate speech"? What can we learn from the experience of countries with "hate speech" laws?

That's where I began my conversation with Nadine Strossen, professor emerita at New York Law School and author of Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. Strossen is a noted expert on free speech, the immediate past president of the American Civil Liberties Union, and a board member of Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

In her book Strossen offers an incisive analysis amply illustrated with evidence (though there are aspects of her book that I disagree with). What leaps off the page — and what came out vividly in our conversation — is the fact that "hate speech" is an inherently subjective term, one that even the best legal scholars have failed to define objectively.

What do "hate speech" laws look like in practice? In Canada, for example, a man was prosecuted for distributing four pamphlets quoting Bible verses in opposition to homosexuality. The pamphlets went through three levels of judicial review. One court found that all four were punishable "hate speech." Another, that none of them was. The third, that two pamphlets were criminally punishable but two were not.

The wider lesson is that "hate speech" laws are a threat to freedom of speech, because they unleash governments to arbitrarily silence dissenting or unpopular speech. I came away from the conversation grateful that the United States is an outlier — that we have the First Amendment to protect freedom of speech and stand as an obstacle to the enactment of "hate speech" laws.

******

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel to make sure you never miss a video:
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:

******

******

[TheOrdener]

Great interview. The guest prompted me to think that we should view laws as tools used by the government (instead of a description of how we would like people to act). You could ask yourself, how would this tool be used by someone in government that I disapprove of?

[aeomaster]

The lady makes excellent arguments, in particular the distinction between ideas and context. I used to answer the "can't shout fire in a theatre, " (as an example of a limit on free speech) the following way:
The person who disturbs the peace this way, should be arrested for causing a stampede and endangering lives, ruining entertainment that was paid for (financial loss), and causing possible heart attacks.
He would NOT be arrested for speaking the word "fire". There is no law against saying "fire". As Nadine points out, the issue is contextual and not one of ideas.
I bring this up because if one accepts examples like this as proof of limits on free speech, we have conceded the principle. There are no limits on expressing ideas but there are limits to endangering other individuals with what one says. In other words, it is the consequences that should be judged - from the individual rights point of view.

[mustang]

Hate speech, from the people who brought you, speech is violence, and silence is violence.

[sirsmittyjones]

Very informative great information great interview

[masterofshadows]

I feel like if one feels the need to forcefully silence any opposition to their positions (including blatantly hateful opposition), then their arguments must be extremely weak, and they must be very weak in their convictions. If you can't hold up your argument against even just HEARING opposition, especially against some dumbass hateful person who can only use slurs, you must not feel that confident or passionate about your position. Or you're just extremely weak-minded.

[johngalt]

" Result oriented youth ", want collectivism today !