The Harm in Hate Speech by Jeremy Waldron

by Jeremy Waldron

Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech--except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities.

Causing offense--by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example--is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home.

Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Law, Nonfiction, Political Science, Race, Legal

MP3 CD

First published May 23, 2012

Reviews

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really liked this book, although I'm not naturally sympathetic with the writer's viewpoint. But his arguments are very well put and he is principled and generous with his opponents. My opinion has definitely shifted a bit in his direction. Well done!

[leni swagger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cv, the 90 pages I read were fine

[Tim Horvat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although I'm skeptical of dignitarians, this was very well argued and a pleasurable read! Also, this is a book aimed at first amendment absolutists which articulates a coherent argument for why hate speech should be restricted *at all*, not about how much and in what ways and for what purposes.

[Scott Wood · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well written, carefully argued, and astoundingly, even frighteningly given the author's position as an NYU Law Professor, misguided argument for the criminalization of what he defines as "hate speech."

"Hate Speech" is here defined as speech intended to demean the dignity of an individual, "dignity" being the sense that a person is a "citizen in good standing" which itself is a phrase used to indicate whether or not a person can expect the government (or "society"...Waldren is, typically, vague on the subject) to defend the rights of the recipient of the supposed "hate speech."

Racist posters depicting black people as gorillas are the prototypical examples of hate speech used throughout the book, with one or two Islamophobic posters shouting "Muslims go home" thrown in for good measure.

How often do you suppose Professor Waldren has encountered such things around his Greenwich Village digs? I don't know, but I bet the number is somewhat south of one, and herein lies the rub. Such speech is essentially non-existent in 2016 America. The chance that a father, mother, and innocent children strolling down the street will turn the corner only to be confronted with a poster depicting people looking suspiciously like themselves as cockroaches is vanishingly small.

I honestly have no idea what a realistic example of speech that would run afoul of the Jeremy Waldren Hate Speech Police would look like because no modern examples (as opposed to 250 year old examples) are given. Surely he isn't angling to radically rewrite First Amendment jurisprudence simply to squelch speech that almost never happens.

Waldren's explication of the full argument for free speech is missing one of the key tenets. He almost stumbles into it when quoting part of Geoffrey Stone's argument that failing to protect free speech "shows that the government does not trust its citizens to make wise decisions if they are exposed to the expression." Turning Stone around fills in the argument: free speech is necessary because the citizens can't trust the government to make wise decisions when deciding what speech to squelch.

The argument for unfettered free speech is in its essence an argument for the unfettered search for truth. The lurid hypotheticals that Waldren tries to scare us with are surely not the truth. But they are also vanishingly rare. The government is a very blunt instrument. It is not capable of identifying speech that is simultaneously common enough to present a genuine threat to the type of dignity he defends and not, at least, debatable. I find it disturbing that a law professor doesn't quite get this.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compassionate, careful, pegged to the Enlightenment and to ideals of truly civil society, this is a series of essays mostly published elsewhere. The author debates in writing with advocates of "free speech" like Anthony Lewis. Prof Waldron favors what I guess is a more European and less American view, that there should be some restrictions on speech and other expressions of opinion, when they cast fear and expresses loathing of (for example) minority groups or disdain and contempt for women. He gives a poignant account of how expressions of hate (like graffiti or posters) that might be handled by an adult can hurt that adult's child much more.

Good sidelight on the famous misquote "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Fortunately, the author does not get into the increasingly sticky morass of on-campus "free speech," with controversies about trigger warnings or whether someone with unpopular views (e,g, calling for violence or disenfranchisement) should be banned from speaking on a campus or given an old fashioned booing and shouting-down, itself free speech). I personally think "trigger warnings" a terrible idea and believe that if someone respected by at least part of society, let's say a very right wing politician, has been invited to a college campus by a recognized campus organization, that person should be allowed to speak and not shouted down. That person's speaking does not mean that the college endorses what he or she says.

The argument about limits of free speech will have no resolution soon, but Prof Waldron's book brings a high-minded and gently-written tone to it. He envisions a truly civil society. Are we there yet?

My own detestation of "free speech" went into orbit when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that underground movies of small animals being smashed underfoot (so-called "crush videos") are a form of free speech, artistic expression. http://www.washingtonpost.com>/wp-... .

Citizens United was bad enough, with its foundation belief that money talks and has a right to free speech. This was worse.

[Amaury A. Reyes-Torres · Rating 5 out of 5]

After a new comprehensive reading of this book, I'm ready to review it.

The book is fantastic. Waldron takes a different approach on the subject: explaining his main lines or arguments and also focusing - maybe too much - on his critics against hate speech legislations. however, this was a perfect approach, because maybe we are too clear or peacefully on why a society should consider restrict hate speech and must of the times we avoid the reasons against hate speech regulations. the aim was that: from a political philosophy point of view, Waldron exposes the weakness of american jurisprudence on free speech. Beautifly, maybe going around the bush many times, draw important distinctions, for example, offenses and hate speech per se. also he devoted a time to express the main lines of the dignity argument, as a matter of justification to limit hate speech. You can actually see some influence by Rawls on this matter. dignity as a status, makes a big difference and without a doubt the ground is more clear to engage in a better debate about this topic. Even more, without setting himself that goal, Waldron contributed to a political scenario where a deep debate on speech can be taken, specially its scope and possible restrictions.

A debate cannot take place on this matter without having considered Waldron's arguments.

Believe it or not, Waldron brough the 'sexy' back into political philosophy.

I recommend this book.

Beat chapters: 3,4, 7 and 8.

[Raymond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeremy Waldron attempts to defend the position that we should regulate hate speech, due to its harms. Hate speech, for him, undermines a person's dignity, and undermines the social good of feeling included in the society that you live in. He rightly criticizes other legal approaches, like those in the US, that understand freedom of expression as an inalienable right, and the shortsightedness of these views. He also praises approaches that do leave legal room in their constitution for regulating hate speech, like those in Canada. While Waldron has a point, I thought his arguments were rather elementary and one-sided; and the arguments themselves are not new or novel. I also find appeals to so called "dignity" incredibly abstract and confusing, to the point where you wonder what philosophical work it does for him. To me, appeals to dignity tend to just cloud issues that we should be more reflective about. Overall, this is a very philosophical and accessible read, that details the harms of hate speech, and, despite the uncharitable amazon reviews, Waldron makes a plausible case that hate speech should be regulated. It is a necessary read for anyone interested in these issues.

[Vincent Li · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting piece on the ethics of hate speech legislation. The US is somewhat unique in the Western world for having such robust freedom of expression principles- in that hate speech restrictions are generally unconstitutional. Waldron, a legal scholar trained outside the US takes aim at what he calls American exceptionalism by laying down the best argument in favor of hate speech legislation.

As a threshold matter, Waldron is openly making a policy argument, and as a result avoids dealing with the complexities of First Amendment law (other than few references to the marketplace of ideas, seditious libel, Sullivan and Beauharnais). By doing so Waldron presents a more clear philosophical argument but at the expense of being less relevant to the legal conversation. By engaging mostly with the normative instead of the descriptive, Waldron dodges the constraints of precedent and doctrine that control law. In a sense, it is easier to present what one thinks the law ought to look like, instead of engaging in it wholesale.

However, the book read as a piece of political philosophy/ethics is still worth reading. Waldron looks at the hate speech legislation of non-US countries and tries to articulate the best philosophical foundations for them. Instead of simple appeals to emotions of the ugliness of hate speech (which regardless are still sprinkled throughout the book), Waldron roots his arguments in the philosophical concepts of dignity and assurance. Waldron argues that everyone has the right to a certain kind of ordinary standing and expectations of being treated as a person with dignity. He interestingly conceptualizes this as a public good, an assurance to all that when they engage in society, others will treat them as equals in the dignitarian sense. He believes that speech that attempts to undermine a person's individual dignity and assurance by focusing on a characteristic they share with a group can rightfully be banned. Additionally, Waldron thinks prefers the term "group libel", since his ideal restrictions would target more permanent expression (posters, pamphlets) that deface a well ordered society, by undermining dignity and assurance (especially a society that until very recently did not treat vulnerable groups well).

In a sense, Waldron makes "hate speech" legislation more palpable by limiting the ambit of it. First, he limits the restrictions to more permanent forms of expression. Second, he limits it to expression that would undermine the dignity of individuals. He is careful to draw a line between speech that does this and would be banned, and speech criticizing ideas or that cause offense (which would both be fair game). For Waldron, offense is a subjective reaction that frequently accompanies undermining of dignity (which is objective) but is analytically separate. To Waldron, the harm of hate speech isn't offense to an individual, but the harm to that individual's standing in society (he draws an interesting analogy to the purpose of old laws meant to protect the reputations of the aristocracy, now extended to all citizens). Hate speech, as Waldron defines it, seeks to replace the public good of assurance by threatening vulnerable groups and establishing a rival public good, that of assurance to other bigots that they are not alone.

Waldron then addresses two powerful counterarguments to his position. He discusses Baker's argument that hate speech, and all speech are extensions of autonomy as self-disclosure and it would be wrong to limit one's autonomy. Waldron essentionaly responds to Baker by arguing that the instrumental/self-disclosure distinction that Baker draws is blurred here, and that while Baker argues that all harm of speech can be mitigated by a thick-skinned listener, vulnerable groups shouldn't have to mitigate in the first place. Waldron then responds to Dworkin's argument that limiting hate speech would undermine the legitimacy of anti-discrimination laws (since the debate that preceded the discrimination laws was limited by the laws) by arguing that the restrictions on hate speech would not limit debate of ideas only expressions targeted at undermining the dignity of individuals. Waldron also makes an absurdity argument, that Dworkin's legitimacy argument carried to its full extent would nonsensical. Waldron also pulls in an interesting argument from Mill's On Liberty, in that debate is not needed to maintain a living truth since there has emerged a consensus over the equality of people.

The book is clearly a few essays threaded together with some transitions. That's a little annoying because parts of the book gets very repetitive (because of redundancy) and there are parts of the book that do not fit as well (the last chapter seems to be a tangential piece entirely that discusses the Enlightenment philosophers' views on toleration and how that extends beyond physical safety to engagement and mutual respect). However, I think this can be forgiven given the interesting tangents that this approach opened up. In particular, I found the discussion of old English cases including one that seemed to refer to a concept of "blood libel" interesting, along with Waldron's engagement with various critiques and counterarguments (he argues that hate speech legislation is not an example of majoritarian abuse, but majoritarian disabling that does not justify the typical first amendment distrust of government).

Despite some organizational problems, and repetition, the book has an interesting thesis and enough interesting responses to be worth a read, even for those hew closely to the first amendment orthodoxies.

[Lena · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book argues that regulations on hate speech are justifiable in order to protect a) the public good that is a visibly inclusive society and b) the basic dignity of every individual that grants them their status as an equal and respected member of said society. I found Waldron's arguments compelling and persuasive, and I imagine that they resonate even more so in 2017 than they did in 2012 when this book was written.

[eliza · Rating 2 out of 5]

The ideas Waldron presents in this book really are interesting, but the way he goes about doing it through disputing the ideas of others creates a really confusing, hard to follow format. I struggled a lot to try to distinguish between what was his idea and what was the idea of the person he’s talking about.

[Louisa Olsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I think that the author made some good points, I don't think that a lot of the ways he chose to argue them were the most effective. It did give me a lot to think about, which I think is valuable.

[Chad Montabon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mostly name dropping and semantics.

[Sean O'Donoghue · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to the subject for the non-specialist. Author deals primarily with the USA. Much of the book is taken up with the moral and political aspects of hate speech, rather than the legal side. He makes the point very well that vulnerable minorities – race, religious, sexual – suffer most, with hate speech debasing and belittling their existence, their group identities shaping social image rather than their individual abilities.

As such, their reputation, standing and status in their communities marginalises members of such groups, thereby depriving society of their talents. In other words, hate speech is exclusionary and undermines the cohesion of society, and thus the public good. We can clearly see now how this is played out in the era of Brexit and Trump.

America invokes their first amendment – right of free speech amongst other issues– to prevent any constraint on free speech, regardless of its content, hateful or otherwise. Ronald Dworkin, probably America’s foremost defender of free speech and of 1st Amendment, given a sympathic hearing by the author ( who disagrees with him) feels that consideration of evidence and arguments in favour of hate speech are themselves a betrayal of 1st Amendment principles.

As for racist hate speech, again in the USA, it embodies the individual's view of the world, on which legal restrictions violate the speakers formal autonomy, which is primary.

This American way invokes the alleged playbook of Voltaire….I disagree 100% with what you say, but I will fight for your right to be able to say it. Which is a myth, Voltaire never said that.

The author skims over UK issues….the Public Order Act of 1982 amd ots a,emd,emt om 2006 and the 1960 Race Relations Act.

Lord Shaftesbury is quoted towards the end of the book, with his “debate = amicable collision” trope. There lies the problem with this book – the issues of hate speech are not just about utterances, writings, jottings, social media memes, about higher level academic debates. But about their effects in being rallying calls for often sad young men, and increasingly women, to join together as a threatening army against vulnerable groups, providing rationale for physical and other threatening attacks , by marching through our streets emboldened by their collective strength. Trumps army of supporters were not the brightest and Tommy Robinson’s appeared to be a crowd of drunks having days out in London. But it is the Steve Bannons, Robert Mercers etc who feed their bile to the rabble, who loving imbibe it. For example, the Middle East forum funded Robinson’s London hatefests – an American right wing Think Tank which is funded by billionaires. And A US tech billionaire, Robert Shillman, financed a fellowship that helped pay for Robinson to be employed in 2017 by a rightwing Canadian media website, the Rebel Media, on a salary of about £5,000 a month. So Robinson (Yaxley Lennon) is merely a proxy for the views of his funders. And alas, it is never the funders, the source of the hatred, who go to jail.

[MK · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book I've ever read about hate speech. It took me two months to read it, and I considered abandoning the effort several times throughout. Long-winded sentences made it difficult to follow his points without re-reading and re-reading...and oof, that vocabulary! But I found the main argument of the book-that we should consider how hate speech compromises the dignity and social status of minority persons-compelling enough to wade through it. And that's why I'm giving this book four stars...because I sense it is an important counterargument in the free speech/hate speech debate.

But ultimately what I'd rather read is a more relatable account of the harms of hate speech...real stories, about modern people. This book exists mostly in the academic realm, in that it feels like it is directed towards other legal scholars, and it stays philosophical and theoretical more often than it roots itself real life events. Well, it is an academic book, I guess. Is it valid to expect it to be more approachable for the average person? I'm not sure.

Regardless, it did make me think about the topic of hate speech regulation more deeply than I ever have before. And I'm interested to read more on the topic. But I don't think I would go out of my way to recommend this book to my friends, mostly because I find the writing style off putting.

[Silvio Ribeiro Junior · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeremy Waldron starts the book presenting a well-rounded definition of Hate Speech and its potential and real harms. However, he gets lost and too narrow as he starts focusing on defending himself from previous attacks he suffered due to his ideas, specifically in USA. I was expecting to read more about implemented policies and perspectives in diverse countries around the globe instead of focusing on arguments about why USA is not right on not regulating hate speech and why Waldron should not be called pro-censorship. This is not to say that the book is bad, just the title and description can be misleading. I loved reading about the the freedom of speech history in USA, its current and historical implications and how it can be interpreted to still allow USA to regulate and/or prohibit harmful
and hate speech.

[Massimo Monteverdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

E' difficile spiegare a un americano (uno contemporaneo, almeno) che ci possono essere buone ragioni per limitare il diritto a parlare. L'autore tenta l'impopolare strada pur sapendo che il primo emendamento è praticamente intoccabile. Certo, gli argomenti per sostenere una legge contro l'hate speech ci sarebbero. Quelli giuridici sono ben sviscerati soprattutto a confronto dei cavillosi contrari.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely the most compelling and well-articulated argument for the need for hate speech regulation I have read. While my views have not entirely been revolutionized by Waldron, I definitely must reconsider my stances and more importantly, the reasoning behind why those stances exist in my mind.

[Sam Sneddon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well written, but not as persuasive. Dying on the hill of the distinction between protecting dignity and protecting from offense seems like hair splitting; it works in the abstract but not in reality.

[Peren]

only the first 3 chapters

[Kristjan Kangro · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has very good argumentation against different opponents of hate speech laws. Very good read, if you want to understand what hate speech is and what it's not.

[Abdulaziz Abduldaem · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5

[Alexandre · Rating 4 out of 5]

A melhor referência para entender o porquê da regulação do discurso de ódio.

[Noor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would really give this 3.5 stars. While Waldron made good points, I found the majority of the book to be too focused on rebutting his critics instead of adding his own viewpoints. Granted he may have discussed this already in his other works, but even so The Harm in Hate Speech read too much as a book of refutations. I also thought Waldron should have used simpler language to strengthen his points, not to mention keep his reader more engaged.

As to the whole hate speech vs. freedom of speech debate, I think it's a valid conversation to have. At the end of the day, hate speech, freedom of speech, and even the general concept of justice are all byproducts of social norms (e.g. the validity of Jim Crow laws in the past, the seriousness of homophobic slurs now). We're a nation that proudly and rightfully questions all flavors of hegemony, so challenging what constitutes each category only seems like the natural thing to do.

[David Glasgow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeremy Waldron provides a subtle and thoughtful argument that hate speech should be regulated, or at least that the arguments for hate speech regulation are defensible. This runs contrary to the prevailing view in the United States, which prioritizes free speech over protection from hateful speech, but is consistent with the prevailing view in other Western liberal democracies such as Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Australia. The book contains an interesting history of speech regulation in the United States, and Waldron directly engages with the arguments of leading opponents and free speech advocates. Worth reading for anyone interested in the balance between free speech and the dignitary interests of vulnerable minorities, particularly in the United States. Australians may also be curious to read it, given the current debate over the proposed repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating exploration of the thinking around hate speech, including several compelling rebuttals to those who are opposed to regulating it. That said, the analysis of the harm in hate speech itself is a little lacking. Waldron could have used a lot more empirical evidence and case studies in order to better demonstrate the exact relationship between vilification and human dignity (or lack thereof). It should have 3.5 stars, but that's not an option here.

[Sigrid-marianella]

I havent read this book cover to cover, only bits and pieces. There are good arguments in it and i have sympathy with his views, however they are to a large degree based on the american context and people may not find them as convincing in Europe.

[emily :) · Rating 1 out of 5]

waldron repeats himself numerous times. i feel as if he could have written a fifteen page essay and gotten the same points across instead of a wordy 200-some page book.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading some of the Amazon reviews for this book, it becomes apparent that the proposition of introducing restrictions on hate speech to American jurisprudence is often deeply offensive to the sensibilities of American free speech advocates of all political stripes. The United States stands alone among the world's advanced democracies in its toleration of hate speech; supported by a very liberal consensual interpretation of the First Amendment. While hate crimes are recognized in federal law and demonstrated motivations of race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation can be considered as aggravating factors in criminal acts, American jurisprudence has largely maintained a sharp distinction between words and actions. It seems to me that this distinction is what Waldron is here attempting to call into question.

Critical to Waldron's argument is the notion of dignity, by which he means that every member of a democratic society has an inherent right to have their basic personhood, reputation, and social standing recognized by that society. Hate speech, as Waldron understands it, is more than just speech: it is an action designed to undermine this basic sense of humanity and security for a particular group of people. The target of hate speech (or "group libel", as Waldron would prefer to conceptualize it) is not the viewpoint of the members of a group; rather, it is their basic standing and their fundamental identity as equal citizens in a tolerant society that is being attacked. Such attacks, Waldron believes, are sufficiently corrosive to public order and the nature of a democratic society that the state has a legitimate interest in suppressing them.

Oftentimes, however, the line between an abrasively-expressed but legitimate opinion and outright hate speech targeting the dignity of members of a group is a blurry one. Waldron uses a lot of obvious examples of hate speech: images depicting minority racial groups as subhuman creatures or savages, pamphlets imputing the historical "blood libel" to Jews, and so on. While these examples are widely regarded as deeply hateful forms of speech that contribute nothing to public discourse, things are murkier on the margins. Islam is at once a set of deeply held religious and spiritual convictions, the shared basis of a vast global culture, and a multifarious collection of legal and philosophical traditions. It can be described both as a set of ideas (and thus open to criticism or outright mockery), or as a fundamental and inalienable aspect of the identity of every individual Muslim (and thus inextricably tied to one's dignity, and ergo unassailable).

Waldron generously says that when dealing with such ambiguities, courts should always err on the side of liberality; but the perennial questions of what actually constitutes hate speech, which group identities should be protected, and how to create and enforce a legal structure which would only target the specific kinds of speech that Waldron wants to erase from the public environment, remain unanswered in any satisfactorily comprehensive manner. Waldron is advocating for a regimen of social gentrification of the type that is practiced in many European countries. Hate speech, he says, serves as an ugly reminder for members of vulnerable minority groups of past oppression. This is certainly true, but is the solution really for the state to take upon itself the monumental task of preventing any unsavory aspect of a country's history from resurfacing in modern social discourse? To maintain a sort of permanent, self-sustaining, and self-congratulatory presentism?

The Ku Klux Klan emerged just after the American Civil War. It was suppressed with military force during the Grant Administration of the 1870s, only to experience an extraordinary revival after the collapse of Reconstruction. It enjoyed its heyday in the early twentieth century, but gradually declined as the modern civil rights movement took hold. Now, there are only a few thousand Klan members left in a country of some 320 million people, and they are roundly mocked and ridiculed by popular culture. They are portrayed as inbred simpletons. The Klansman is now a figure of fun: see Dave Chapelle's brilliant comedy skit where he plays a character named Clayton Bigsby, a local Klan leader and avowed white supremacist who was born blind and is thus blissfully unaware that he himself is, in fact, a black guy. This happened through a change in social consciousness; people gradually changed their views, and membership in organizations like the Ku Klux Klan went from being a vehicle for social advancement to a social liability. People stopped wanting to be associated with racism. There were important legislative victories for the civil rights movement as well, but were these the cause of changing attitudes, or a product of them? I tend toward the latter view.

I think there is something to be said for the cathartic effect of allowing people to express hateful sentiments, to invoke historical monsters, and then to shine a light on them and reveal them in all of their banality. In opposition to Waldron's goal of a "well-ordered" society, perhaps there needs to be some room for what you might call well-regulated disorder; particularly when this disorder occurs in the realm of speech and does not extend into the realm of physical violence.