@Download Pdf Ô HATE ⚟ eBook or E-pub free

Very informative Lots to think about The Epilogue to the Paperback Edition has some valuable analysis of potential appropriate strategies for social media. I was hoping it would betechnical, to help fix my ignorance of legal issues, but I can't blame the author for choosing straightforward common sense arguments My only complaint was how many sections relied on the same few principles. @Download Pdf ⚣ HATE ⚫ We live in an era in which offensive speech is on the rise The emergence of the altright alone has fueled a marked increase in racist and antiSemitic speech Given its potential for harm, should this speech be banned? Nadine Strossen's HATE dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about hate speech vs free speech She argues that an expansive approach to the First Amendment is most effective at promoting democracy, equality, and societal harmonyProponents of antihate speech laws stress the harms that they fear such speech might lead to: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries However, there has been no rigorous analysis to date of whether the laws effectively counter the feared harms This book fills that gap, examining our actual experience with such laws It shows that they are not effective in reducing the feared harms, and worse yet, are likely counterproductive 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 US history The solution instead, as Strossen shows, is to promote equality and societal harmony through the increasingly vibrant counterspeech activism that has been flourishing on US college campuses and in some global human rights movements Strossen's powerful argument on behalf of free expression promises to shift the debate around this perennially contentious topic We live in interesting times Mimicking the architecture of our great cities many yearn for men of steel and stone Those who can provide us with loud answers to our search for comfort and modernity Such authoritarian yearnings often call upon decisiveness, but their course is routinely divisive Such paths often see the rise of authoritarian leaders who voice and endorse speech considered dangerous to a multicultural society At this point, Nadine Strossen's Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, makes a case against greater legal censorship against hate speech The background of the author is necessary to appreciate the political viewpoints put forth in the book Strossen was the youngest and the first female president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which has been a faithful supporter of free expression and the 1st Amendment rights available under the Constitution of the United States She has previously authored, Defending Pornography which challenged the coalition between the conservative evangelical organisations and some feminist legal academics such as Andrea Dworkin who proposed criminal sanctions on pornography While agreeing that the mainstream production of pornography may result in the degradation of women, Strossen persuasively put forth the case for maintaining free expression A similar understanding and alliance with the progressive cause towards ajust society, but a commitment towards free speech marks her present effort.The content of the book makes a case against laws which punish, hate speech First, it looks at what existing laws already punish, and what expression is termed as, constitutionally protected hate speech, and what flows outside it This is in an essential facet of the book which argues that quite often arguments which are made for further regulation, even sometimes by law professors, derive from a lack of proper understanding of the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court precedent Much of what is wanted to be punished by hate speech laws in the United States, is already penalised under various laws which prohibit harassment, true threats and criminal incitement Secondly, the book then looks at the intended effect in substance and process of hate speech What is it's objectives? And, how well does it fulfil them? In doing this, a central critique of hate speech laws is their broad phrasing and such vagueness results in arbitrariness The latter parts focus on a real, shared concern on the protection of minorities and vulnerable groups and individuals through strategies of counterspeech Hate is a thin book but often may seem dense to a nonlegal crowd The inaccessibility of the text is not due to the style of the writing but the subject itself which is inherently juristical While labour has been put in the presentation of the competition arguments for and against hate speech laws, and even contemporary examples add seasoning, a reader is left without relish To her credit, clear legal principles and terminology are used consistently, where she draws conceptual boundaries However, the chapter subdivisions do sometimes end up having the unintended effect of reading as a court brief To be fair, this is due to the nature of the subject, which requires inquiry and understanding, and is not a fault with the author This is an important book, advancing knowledge, reducing the complexity around the American and global scholarship on hate speech It is well worth a weekend. It's wrongly assumed by many that hate speech is not (or should not be) protected by the First Amendment in the USA Strossen makes the case that laws to curtail hate speech are vague, difficult to implement, subject to interpretation and often could lead to penalize the very same minorities it tries to protect Strossen argues instead for education, growing a thicker skin andfree speech to counter the hate speech so as to make it evident and counteract it It makes you think and it has several examples from other countries although it does focus mainly on the US and the First Amendment. A lovely and concise defense of free speech in the face of hate Strossen lays out, in straightforward language why countries ought to defend speech rights even for those speakers they find deplorable While Strossen is a fierce lawyer she keeps the legal discussion to an impressive minimum and only uses it to set her framework but not do do all the heavy or showy lifting Rather, she sets up a contrast between the approach adopted in the United States and the approach adopted by many European countries Strossen draws a compelling picture using anecdotal and historical examples to sharpen her larger points This book is an excellentand quickread for anyone interested in free speech and the current debate over increased legislation against hate speech. Strossen offers a concise, cogent defense of Constitutionalprotected free speech and explains why any attempts to undermine those protections, however well intention, will lead to perilous consequences. Really liked the points she made and the examples and quotes Some things I already agreed with, some things new to me However, it could be a little hard to read I feel like a law background would have helped in the first third, and the middle third felt very repetitive Last third was better, though, I'd say chapter 7 was particularlyclear. Seriously, if you care about free speech or the first amendment AT ALL, read this book. There are many things I feel grateful for; among them, one are the friends who help me become a better person; another, the openmindedness which helps me recognize my own occasional smallmindedness This fabulous book gave me the opportunity to appreciate the friend who instead of deriding my ossified views on important matters, kindly guided me towards the resources which would shift my perspective and push the smallminded ideas a bit further back.So, in a nutshell, this book is good, and you should read it But, joking aside, I should admit that I started reading it, firmly believing that society should take care of itsvulnerable members and make sure to offer them protection from being targeted and harassed by hate speech Seems obvious, right? Well, no What is seemingly true is not necessarily justly true The impossibility of giving a precise definition to hate speech which has been rendered a term used loosely to demonize a wide variety of disfavored views, has unpredictable effects for exactly those members of society whom hate speech restrictions aim to protect Any definitions, arbitrary and capricious at best, and harmful and discriminatory at worst, can be easily turned against the weak, resulting in restricting their rights even further, instead of empowering them Moreover, any hate speech laws can lead to wrongful measures against innocent people, dissidents, activists, syndicalists, racial and religious minority members etc We often see the irony inherent to such attempts to streamline those laws, when both an attacker and the attacked who reacts to the initial message, end up being liable under antihate speech laws religious people attacking members of the LGBT community, or KuKluxKlan and Black Lives Matter members being both called “hatemongers”, people reposting racial slurs targeted at them in order to protest, ending up labeled as “spreading hate speech” themselves All the arguments in favor of censoring hate speech are all fun and games, until you suddenly realize how easy it is for anyone to find themseves at the receiving end For, while it seems obvious that someone else’s hate speech might offend my credo, it is not just as easily perceived by us all that my cherished beliefs might in fact be considered hate speech by others Having presented many actual examples which demonstrate why it is impossible to write hate speech laws that clearly distinguish between lawful and unlawful speech, Strossen asks the next logical question: is perhaps the cure worse than the disease? Does hate speech actually cause that much harm as many claim? Or, reversely, do hate speech restriction laws substantially reduce any such potential harm? She presents a plethora of historical examples of hate speech laws’ ineffectiveness, given their inherent vague, but also overly broad nature that results simultaneously in under and overinclusion of what hate speech means, and clearly exemplifies how such laws are in essence ineffective at best, and harmful at worst She also presents numerous studies regarding the ways people react to hate speech and the reasons for their reaction, concluding that allowing hate speech is not synonymous with accepting and condoning it Her main argument throughout the whole book is that the antidote to hate speech is not censorship, butspeech (although she does mention that one of the most powerful reactions is silence, or simply ignoring hate mongers who seek to provoke reaction and feed on it) Exercising your right to express your views freely is empowering – if you swing it once, it becomes much easier each subsequent time She professes that no one can hurt you with words because it is your choice to react either as a victim or as a critic to hate speech Admittedly, this all sounds a bit idealistic, and believing that eventually hope will triumph over experience is not always the most practical idea But seeing how litigation against hate speech ends up in fact offering it a very public podium and popularizing messages that would have been otherwise lost in obsolescence, one cannot but wonder what educating people, promoting intergroup connections, counterspeech, even silence, might achieve instead Court ordered apologies have never the same cathartic result to both perpetrator and victim as an open minded dialogue and a sincere apology Even though I feel that she could have given a bitattention to the role social media play in current day spreading and appeal of hate speech, which seems like a very important aspect of our society, her book was eyeopening and helped me reevaluate some deeply ingrained beliefs I had So, as I previously said, you should read it And then follow up with “The Coddling of the American Mind”.