What do you think?
Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America
A leading historian’s revelatory exploration of antisemitism in the United States—from 1940s anti-Jewish riots until today—showing that it has long served as a frontline in our wars over freedom of speech and the nature of American liberalism
Few issues are as vexed today as antisemitism and free speech. There is scarcely an arena—college campuses, congressional hearings, immigration courtrooms, social media platforms—where we are not polarized over what counts as antisemitism, which speech is protected by the First Amendment, and what the law should do about hatred. At a time of political crisis, antisemitism has become a point of ideological obsession.
None of this is new. In a sweeping history of ideas and law, James Loeffler recovers the forgotten roots of our contemporary turmoil. From two antisemitic riots in postwar Chicago to a neo-Nazi march in 1970s Skokie, Illinois, and the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in our own time, Loeffler explores the ways in which America’s courts have grappled with hatred, freedom, and the tensions at the heart of liberal Are some hatreds more dangerous than others? Is tolerating hate speech the price we must pay for free speech? And can liberalism ever make good on its promise to end hatred through law?
Confronting these questions, Exceptional Hatred restores a missing history of hate speech, antisemitism, and the law, one that points to how we might protect difference without surrendering our principles of equality and freedom.
Few issues are as vexed today as antisemitism and free speech. There is scarcely an arena—college campuses, congressional hearings, immigration courtrooms, social media platforms—where we are not polarized over what counts as antisemitism, which speech is protected by the First Amendment, and what the law should do about hatred. At a time of political crisis, antisemitism has become a point of ideological obsession.
None of this is new. In a sweeping history of ideas and law, James Loeffler recovers the forgotten roots of our contemporary turmoil. From two antisemitic riots in postwar Chicago to a neo-Nazi march in 1970s Skokie, Illinois, and the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in our own time, Loeffler explores the ways in which America’s courts have grappled with hatred, freedom, and the tensions at the heart of liberal Are some hatreds more dangerous than others? Is tolerating hate speech the price we must pay for free speech? And can liberalism ever make good on its promise to end hatred through law?
Confronting these questions, Exceptional Hatred restores a missing history of hate speech, antisemitism, and the law, one that points to how we might protect difference without surrendering our principles of equality and freedom.
384 pages, Hardcover
Published August 25, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
March 9, 2026
3.5. Antisemitism has been very much in the news over the past years, and many fine books have been written about the history of antisemitism in America and its disturbing place in today’s politics and culture. What distinguishes this book is that Loeffler comes at the topic from a particular place: “When free speech and equal protection for Jews clashed baldly, which should prevail?”
The book begins with the author recalling the expert witness testimony he gave in a case related to the Charlottesville Unite the Right riot of August 2017. The case largely revolved around the question of whether “Jews will not replace us” and other things said that night were protected by the First Amendment. Loeffler describes his experience this way:
In that exchange I came face-to-face with the subject of this book. American democracy stands at a precipice, besieged by authoritarian politics, resurgent nativism, and populist demagoguery. These forces, once relegated to history, now threaten our pluralistic society and its defining commitments to freedom and equality. Against this backdrop of democratic erosion, America finds itself consumed by a national crisis over antisemitism and free speech—one that both reflects and accelerates this broader collapse. From college campuses to congressional hearings, from immigration courtrooms to social media platforms, polarizing arguments rage over what counts as hate speech and what the law should do about it.
Loeffler examines the difficult legal balance of free speech and antisemitic speech in America, beginning with the Miss America pageant of 1945. That year the title was won by Bess Myerson, a Jew. Loeffler recounts the difficulties she encountered every step of the way: the whispered remarks, the “Watch yourself” caution from a friendly journalist, the suggestion from the pageant director that she change her name (“Why not ‘Betty Merrick’ or ‘Betty Meredith’?”), the threatening calls received by several of the judges (“We do not want a Jewish Miss America”), the Ford Motor Company reneging on their pledge of a gift of a new car, the swimwear company that withdrew its promised contract and scholarship offer, the hotels in the South that wouldn’t let her in (“No coloreds, no Jews, no dogs”). The mother of a badly wounded serviceman who blocked her from entering his room saying.”I don’t want you near him. Because of the damn Jews, we got into this war…We would have been better off if Hitler had killed every last one of your people.”
Obviously Ms Meyerson’s experience didn’t present a free speech challenge but it captures the cultural context of the immediate post-war period. The US had a long history of antisemitism — there were riots and restrictions and lynchings, not to mention Henry Ford’s mass distribution of the scurrilous Protocols of the Elders of Zion — of course, but its persistence even after the Holocaust is not so widely known. Loeffler uses all this as entree to his discussion of how civil rights groups and the courts have wrestled with antisemitic speech. He discusses a number legal cases, analyzing the challenging questions each posed. One example: An antisemitic speech is made indoors. Immediately after, some of the listeners go outside and start a riot, damaging property and injuring numerous people, particularly Jews. Was the speech protected by the First Amendment?
He pays special attention to the permit request made in 1977 by the Nationalist Socialist Party of America. They wanted to march in the streets of Skokie, Illinois, home to thousands of Holocaust survivors. Needless to say, the petition was controversial. The controversy grew in intensity when the Illinois office of the ACLU decided to legally represent the Nazis. The ACLU attorney representing the Nazis was David Goldberger. He was Jewish. [Goldberger later wrote about the experience: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech...]. The leader of the American Nazi group demanding to march was a man named Frank Collin. His father, Max Cohn, changed his last name shortly after escaping Nazi Germany and making his way to the US. [Collin was expelled from the national American Nazi Party when his background became more widely known.]
Loeffler traces the story from its beginning through to its reaching the US Supreme Court.
In clear, accessible language, “Exceptional Hatred” explores the free speech/antisemitic speech question — including the legal reasoning behind the various arguments, the principles involved, and the cultural ramifications.
The book concludes by looking at the perverse form the question has taken today under the second Trump Administration with its cutting of funds to American universities and other bodies. “We must understand how free speech has been weaponized by racist ideologues seeking to undermine equality,” Loeffler writes, “how close American law has come to banning hate speech, and why those efforts ultimately failed.”
He goes on to say, “What claimed to be the largest legal reckoning with antisemitism in American history doubled as its supreme trivialization—transforming a real problem into a political cudgel against universities, Palestinians, Muslims, and immigrants. And only supposed left-wing antisemitism counted; Christian nationalists and other antisemites were excused because of their support for Israel.”
“Exceptional Hatred” is well-written, timely, and — sad to say — necessary book for our time.
My thanks to Macmillan/Metropolitan Books and Edelweis+ for providing a digital ARC in return for an honest review.
The book begins with the author recalling the expert witness testimony he gave in a case related to the Charlottesville Unite the Right riot of August 2017. The case largely revolved around the question of whether “Jews will not replace us” and other things said that night were protected by the First Amendment. Loeffler describes his experience this way:
In that exchange I came face-to-face with the subject of this book. American democracy stands at a precipice, besieged by authoritarian politics, resurgent nativism, and populist demagoguery. These forces, once relegated to history, now threaten our pluralistic society and its defining commitments to freedom and equality. Against this backdrop of democratic erosion, America finds itself consumed by a national crisis over antisemitism and free speech—one that both reflects and accelerates this broader collapse. From college campuses to congressional hearings, from immigration courtrooms to social media platforms, polarizing arguments rage over what counts as hate speech and what the law should do about it.
Loeffler examines the difficult legal balance of free speech and antisemitic speech in America, beginning with the Miss America pageant of 1945. That year the title was won by Bess Myerson, a Jew. Loeffler recounts the difficulties she encountered every step of the way: the whispered remarks, the “Watch yourself” caution from a friendly journalist, the suggestion from the pageant director that she change her name (“Why not ‘Betty Merrick’ or ‘Betty Meredith’?”), the threatening calls received by several of the judges (“We do not want a Jewish Miss America”), the Ford Motor Company reneging on their pledge of a gift of a new car, the swimwear company that withdrew its promised contract and scholarship offer, the hotels in the South that wouldn’t let her in (“No coloreds, no Jews, no dogs”). The mother of a badly wounded serviceman who blocked her from entering his room saying.”I don’t want you near him. Because of the damn Jews, we got into this war…We would have been better off if Hitler had killed every last one of your people.”
Obviously Ms Meyerson’s experience didn’t present a free speech challenge but it captures the cultural context of the immediate post-war period. The US had a long history of antisemitism — there were riots and restrictions and lynchings, not to mention Henry Ford’s mass distribution of the scurrilous Protocols of the Elders of Zion — of course, but its persistence even after the Holocaust is not so widely known. Loeffler uses all this as entree to his discussion of how civil rights groups and the courts have wrestled with antisemitic speech. He discusses a number legal cases, analyzing the challenging questions each posed. One example: An antisemitic speech is made indoors. Immediately after, some of the listeners go outside and start a riot, damaging property and injuring numerous people, particularly Jews. Was the speech protected by the First Amendment?
He pays special attention to the permit request made in 1977 by the Nationalist Socialist Party of America. They wanted to march in the streets of Skokie, Illinois, home to thousands of Holocaust survivors. Needless to say, the petition was controversial. The controversy grew in intensity when the Illinois office of the ACLU decided to legally represent the Nazis. The ACLU attorney representing the Nazis was David Goldberger. He was Jewish. [Goldberger later wrote about the experience: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech...]. The leader of the American Nazi group demanding to march was a man named Frank Collin. His father, Max Cohn, changed his last name shortly after escaping Nazi Germany and making his way to the US. [Collin was expelled from the national American Nazi Party when his background became more widely known.]
Loeffler traces the story from its beginning through to its reaching the US Supreme Court.
In clear, accessible language, “Exceptional Hatred” explores the free speech/antisemitic speech question — including the legal reasoning behind the various arguments, the principles involved, and the cultural ramifications.
The book concludes by looking at the perverse form the question has taken today under the second Trump Administration with its cutting of funds to American universities and other bodies. “We must understand how free speech has been weaponized by racist ideologues seeking to undermine equality,” Loeffler writes, “how close American law has come to banning hate speech, and why those efforts ultimately failed.”
He goes on to say, “What claimed to be the largest legal reckoning with antisemitism in American history doubled as its supreme trivialization—transforming a real problem into a political cudgel against universities, Palestinians, Muslims, and immigrants. And only supposed left-wing antisemitism counted; Christian nationalists and other antisemites were excused because of their support for Israel.”
“Exceptional Hatred” is well-written, timely, and — sad to say — necessary book for our time.
My thanks to Macmillan/Metropolitan Books and Edelweis+ for providing a digital ARC in return for an honest review.
February 18, 2026
If you were to ask “Is anti-semitism a problem in the US?”, I would wager that the majority of answers would be negative, or at least “not especially”. And that it is still a problem, a problem far greater and far reaching than even those aware of it imagine, is the point Mr. Loeffler makes here in his meticulously researched and composed exposure of not only the pervasive and often disguised anti-semitism, but the modern post-WWII history of its complex relationship with the maddeningly vacillating definition of free speech. In an age where the media and government pose at anti-anti-semitism (just another means to vilify someone for perceived faults, with the aim, of course, of controlling the narrative, … and public opinion), Mr. Loeffler argues that anti-semitism still exists at all levels. And while it is the focus of this book, rightfully so, with far right authoritarian governments fomenting hate, much of the anti-Semitic mechanisms herein are being used to demonize and target other minorities.
I said meticulous, but that is an understatement if there ever was one. There are 623 notes with in-text callouts, hyperlinked in the e-edition. In covering the 1950s, 1970s, and 2015 [one guess as to who oozed onto the stage then] to present, be prepared for a lot of legal references and court cases (and initialisms, LOTS of initialisms!) This isn’t a knock, just be prepared. So much of the free speech argument is entangled with anti-Semitic suits, appeals, SCOTUS decisions. And as for being prepared, BLUF*, this from the author’s Afterword is something readers should know as they get into this, for the answers are few**, and challenging:
“What, then, should we make of the history presented in this book?
It allows for two readings.
The first reading finds familiar patterns. Antisemitism moves in cycles. It
flares in times of national crisis, when America wrestles with race and religion, when civil rights hang in the balance. In these moments, it resurges as a populist myth of power, before cresting and receding. The Jewish abandonment of group libel law during McCarthyism teaches a clear lesson: antisemitic speech poses less danger than authoritarianism itself. The imperative is to defend free speech to preserve liberalism.
The second reading argues that we have missed past chances to combat a substantive evil. The law permits far more regulation than we have attempted under the First Amendment. We arrived at this dangerous juncture by refusing to curb hate speech, allowing hatred to infiltrate mainstream politics, and permitting social media to destroy privacy. We separated free speech from civil rights, making it harder to distinguish between political grievance and material harm. This reading's lesson is to seize this moment to revise liberalism for the world we actually inhabit.
Both readings are true. Antisemitism is neither eternal virus nor genetic fate; it is a human-made myth about race, religion, and power. We must historicize rather than pathologize it—understanding how it emerges when the very categories of minority and majority shift beneath our feet.”
There is much here to be outraged over such as “As Holocaust memory became central to Western democracy's identity in the late twentieth century, Holocaust denial emerged as the anti-liberal countermyth.” And there is wisdom that Mr. Loeffler found in writings that include even court cases: “Shaare Tefila [Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 1986] contained a valuable insight about the dynamics of racialization.
Racism is prejudice based on perception and social structure, not immutable characteristics like skin color or physiognomy.”
Mr “Loeffler observes, “The vision of peaceful harmony does not substitute for legal justice but complements it. In a nation of many peoples, the law must face the hatred that divides us.”
I harbor a pessimistic vein in that I do not trust that the law has the good of the people, in mind.
*Bottom Line Up Front. Also, I received this Uncorrected Digital Galley from the publisher, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company through NetGalley.
** The difficult answers,
“The First Amendment may be first, but it is not the only amendment. We need a pluralist liberalism that honors difference without fetishizing it, backed by laws that protect free speech not through absolutism, but by preventing its abuse.”
“Could we envision a constitutional prohibition on hate speech, as earlier generations once dared to imagine? Though our present libertarian speech culture appears hostile to such possibilities, we inhabit an era where the impossible has repeatedly become inevitable. For generations, constitutional scholars held as gospel that free speech protections could never extend to corporations—until in 2010 the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision shattered that certainty. Roe v. Wade stood as settled precedent for half a century—until it didn't. These seismic shifts remind us that constitutional law remains an open field of interpretation, forever in flux despite originalism's pretensions to fixity.”
A few more curated notes:
“Last, across the nineteenth century, various political leaders campaigned to Christianize the U.S. Constitution. Among them was former U.S. President and Massachusetts congressman John Quincy Adams, who in 1844 proposed a constitutional amendment to make ‘clear and explicit acknowledgement [of] the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of this nation.’"
{That's unfortunate. l thought JQA was an okay guy. His dad signed the treaty saying we weren't a Christian nation.}
“What was most striking about this joint campaign [a WWII advertising campaign by the Anti-Defamation League and several other organizations that flooded radio, newspapers, comic books, plus lecture circuits and distributed millions of pamphlets] was its anonymity. Very few of these millions of statements explicitly mentioned Jews or antisemitism.
Instead, they spoke euphemistically about the un-American evils of racial and religious hatred. The messages were often presented by front groups or liberal Christian allies to avoid the appearance of Jewish self-interest.
[…] As a result, the largest publicity campaign against antisemitism in history, kept both the problem it sought to eliminate and the people it aimed to protect hidden from the very country it hoped to influence.”
{This insight is telling and damning.}
"Hitler and his Nazis showed how evil a conspiracy could be which was aimed at destroying a race by exposing it to contempt, derision, and obloquy," he wrote, and so "I would be willing to concede that such conduct directed at a race or group in this country could be made an indictable offense." (SCOTUS Justice William Douglas in dissent of Beauharnaise v. Illinois, 1951)
{Playbook of the fascist 47, et al.}
I said meticulous, but that is an understatement if there ever was one. There are 623 notes with in-text callouts, hyperlinked in the e-edition. In covering the 1950s, 1970s, and 2015 [one guess as to who oozed onto the stage then] to present, be prepared for a lot of legal references and court cases (and initialisms, LOTS of initialisms!) This isn’t a knock, just be prepared. So much of the free speech argument is entangled with anti-Semitic suits, appeals, SCOTUS decisions. And as for being prepared, BLUF*, this from the author’s Afterword is something readers should know as they get into this, for the answers are few**, and challenging:
“What, then, should we make of the history presented in this book?
It allows for two readings.
The first reading finds familiar patterns. Antisemitism moves in cycles. It
flares in times of national crisis, when America wrestles with race and religion, when civil rights hang in the balance. In these moments, it resurges as a populist myth of power, before cresting and receding. The Jewish abandonment of group libel law during McCarthyism teaches a clear lesson: antisemitic speech poses less danger than authoritarianism itself. The imperative is to defend free speech to preserve liberalism.
The second reading argues that we have missed past chances to combat a substantive evil. The law permits far more regulation than we have attempted under the First Amendment. We arrived at this dangerous juncture by refusing to curb hate speech, allowing hatred to infiltrate mainstream politics, and permitting social media to destroy privacy. We separated free speech from civil rights, making it harder to distinguish between political grievance and material harm. This reading's lesson is to seize this moment to revise liberalism for the world we actually inhabit.
Both readings are true. Antisemitism is neither eternal virus nor genetic fate; it is a human-made myth about race, religion, and power. We must historicize rather than pathologize it—understanding how it emerges when the very categories of minority and majority shift beneath our feet.”
There is much here to be outraged over such as “As Holocaust memory became central to Western democracy's identity in the late twentieth century, Holocaust denial emerged as the anti-liberal countermyth.” And there is wisdom that Mr. Loeffler found in writings that include even court cases: “Shaare Tefila [Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 1986] contained a valuable insight about the dynamics of racialization.
Racism is prejudice based on perception and social structure, not immutable characteristics like skin color or physiognomy.”
Mr “Loeffler observes, “The vision of peaceful harmony does not substitute for legal justice but complements it. In a nation of many peoples, the law must face the hatred that divides us.”
I harbor a pessimistic vein in that I do not trust that the law has the good of the people, in mind.
*Bottom Line Up Front. Also, I received this Uncorrected Digital Galley from the publisher, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company through NetGalley.
** The difficult answers,
“The First Amendment may be first, but it is not the only amendment. We need a pluralist liberalism that honors difference without fetishizing it, backed by laws that protect free speech not through absolutism, but by preventing its abuse.”
“Could we envision a constitutional prohibition on hate speech, as earlier generations once dared to imagine? Though our present libertarian speech culture appears hostile to such possibilities, we inhabit an era where the impossible has repeatedly become inevitable. For generations, constitutional scholars held as gospel that free speech protections could never extend to corporations—until in 2010 the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision shattered that certainty. Roe v. Wade stood as settled precedent for half a century—until it didn't. These seismic shifts remind us that constitutional law remains an open field of interpretation, forever in flux despite originalism's pretensions to fixity.”
A few more curated notes:
“Last, across the nineteenth century, various political leaders campaigned to Christianize the U.S. Constitution. Among them was former U.S. President and Massachusetts congressman John Quincy Adams, who in 1844 proposed a constitutional amendment to make ‘clear and explicit acknowledgement [of] the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of this nation.’"
{That's unfortunate. l thought JQA was an okay guy. His dad signed the treaty saying we weren't a Christian nation.}
“What was most striking about this joint campaign [a WWII advertising campaign by the Anti-Defamation League and several other organizations that flooded radio, newspapers, comic books, plus lecture circuits and distributed millions of pamphlets] was its anonymity. Very few of these millions of statements explicitly mentioned Jews or antisemitism.
Instead, they spoke euphemistically about the un-American evils of racial and religious hatred. The messages were often presented by front groups or liberal Christian allies to avoid the appearance of Jewish self-interest.
[…] As a result, the largest publicity campaign against antisemitism in history, kept both the problem it sought to eliminate and the people it aimed to protect hidden from the very country it hoped to influence.”
{This insight is telling and damning.}
"Hitler and his Nazis showed how evil a conspiracy could be which was aimed at destroying a race by exposing it to contempt, derision, and obloquy," he wrote, and so "I would be willing to concede that such conduct directed at a race or group in this country could be made an indictable offense." (SCOTUS Justice William Douglas in dissent of Beauharnaise v. Illinois, 1951)
{Playbook of the fascist 47, et al.}
September 13, 2026
Defending free speech does not require providing free legal services to Nazis, nor does it mean finding legal fictions like “hate speech” or “group libel” in order to suppress them. Under bourgeois regimes, “all suppression of political rights and freedom, no matter whom they’re directed against at the start, in the end inevitably bear down upon the working class,” communist leader Leon Trotsky said in 1939. He also said that same year that “now more than ever the fate of the Jewish people — not only their political but also their physical fate — is indissolubly linked with the emancipating struggle of the international proletariat.”
Anti-Semitism is the one form of racism that can masquerade as a form of socialism. In fact for many years, it was widely known as the “socialism of fools.” I prefer the term Jew-hatred. For one, it’s less polite. And two, you would probably not believe the number of people who actually claim that Arabs, being Semites, can’t be anti-Semitic.
It requires education and mobilization of the working class and its allies against fascism. I will have to recommend many books to support my communist point of view; I will start with a brief handbook by the famous Teamsters union organizer and Socialist Workers Party leader Farrell Dobbs—Counter-Mobilization: A Strategy to Fight Racist & Fascist Attacks.
To me as a Marxist, the most important democratic rights in the United States are the result of two revolutions, the Bill of Rights from the first American Revolution and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments from the Second American Revolution. Other rights come from other mass movements—labor, women’s rights, the Civil Rights/Black Power movements, and the movement against the Vietnam War, gay rights protests, and so on. They haven’t been given to us by benevolent politicians. See, for starters, America's Revolutionary Heritage, Labor's Giant Step: The First Twenty Years of the CIO: 1936-55, Fighting Racism in World War II: From the pages of the Militant, Malcolm X, Black Liberation, and the Road to Workers Power, Out Now: A Participant's Account of the Movement in the United States Against the Vietnam War, Cosmetics, Fashion, and the Exploitation of Women ...
Loeffler views the anti-Semitism in WW II and after as simply the fault of the people who held it; they’re ignorant or stupid. But one has to examine: the working class, farmers, and small businesspeople don’t run the schools, own the newspapers, the radio stations (today TV and [anti]-social media). The capitalist class and all its hangers-on own these things and they are the elected representatives of “the people,” as well. The ideology of the masses doesn’t descend from the clouds—It comes from the dominant class.
The genuine anti-fascists of the Socialist Workers Party mobilized 50,000 demonstrators as well as another 50,000, most of whom supported the anti-Nazis at Madison Square Garden March 27,1939 against the German-American Bund. The 'Militant' wrote that “with brutality recalling the days of Czarist Cossacks, 1,780 of Mayor La Guardia’s police, the largest number of cops ever collected in the city against a single demonstration, slugged and trampled under horses’ hooves scores of workers in an unsuccessful attempt to break up the demonstration. From 6 p.m. until 11, the workers engaged in a series of bitter clashes with police,” who were defending the Nazis. The leaders of most Jewish groups, trade unions, the Socialist and Communist parties all told their members not to go. The mistake was that they told them where and when not to go, and they totally misread what the working class wanted. Every class-conscious worker knew that while the Nazis were attacking Jews, they were out to destroy the German trade unions, the most powerful ones on earth.
There was no reward for us. The leaders of the Socialist Workers Party and of the Minneapolis Teamsters were jailed under the Smith Act in 1941, an anti-free-speech measure for their ideas—they didn’t advocate draft resistance, sabotage, or anything crazy like that, A similar fate had met Eugene V. Debs and others for speaking out against World War I. The communists simply insisted on our right to say that this wasn’t a war for democracy (much less for the Jews)—It was a war to determine who ruled the world and got most of its profits. The US won that war, not only against their enemies, but against their “allies” as well. But the Soviet Union, despite the counterrevolutionary Stalinist leadership, wasn’t destroyed. And that meant the US would fight more wars. When the rulers were trumpeting peace after their nuclear slaughter in Japan, the headline on the Militant newspaper was “THERE IS NO PEACE!” See Eugene V. Debs Speaks, Teamster Bureaucracy, and Socialism on Trial: Testimony at Minneapolis Sedition Trial.
Then during the witch hunt, the capitalist government viciously attacked an SWP member, James Kutcher, who lost both legs in World War II, by trying to fire him from the Veterans Administration and then came for the home he and his parents lived in, also obtained through veterans' benefits, we organized a broad civil liberties defense. See The Case of the Legless Veteran: The Story of a Man Who Fought and Defeated the Witch-hunters During the Joe McCarthy Era.. We won. Of course, we were also involved in defending many others besides our own members.
Liberals can’t effectively fight against anti-Semitism, fascism, or any kind of racism, because without understanding the class roots of bigotry it makes no sense. The Woke promote “Critical Race Theory,” which consists of over-privileged students and professors lecturing the far less privileged “white working class” that they are racist because they have “white privilege”! They seem to even think that this, rather than profits, was the reason for the slave trade! I’m sure it helps them get funding for their studies from union-busting big business, which understands and has always understood the roots of racism far better than they do.
For anti-Black racism, see The Civil War in the United States by Karl Marx, and Racism, Revolution, Reaction, 1861-1877: The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction. For the Jewish question, see The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation. and The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch. In The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany, Trotsky explains that the Stalinist policy of calling Social Democrats “social fascists” and refusing to have joint military defense of the buildings and membership of the German working class actually aided the Nazis. Also see Daniel Guerin’s Fascism and Big Business. For the fight against fascism in the US, see What is American Fascism?, and Notebook of an Agitator: From the Wobblies to the Fight against the Korean War and McCarthyism,
To understand Stalinism, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going?, The Third International after Lenin, and The Stalin School of Falsification for starters). To their shame the Communist Party utilized former members as spies, but every country spies on every other country. Defending civil liberties meant defending the Rosenbergs, without at that point knowing all the facts. We knew that there was no “secret” about the nuclear bomb.
Nazi demonstrations should always be confronted with anti-Nazi demonstrations, but this has nothing to do with what antifa or other Woke groups do. First of all, they don’t even know what fascism is. They think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist, and assault anyone wearing a MAGA cap. This is absurd! The Socialist Workers Party regularly sells copies and subscriptions to the Militant newspaper, as well as Marxist books door to door in working class neighborhoods, and it makes no difference who the people voted for. Many voted for Trump because under the Democrats their lifespans were shrinking, along with their income after taxes, assuming they even had jobs. More and more of the working class is living with their parents. The Democrats are only concerned with abortion rights (I am too)—But what about the right of couples who want children to be able to afford to have them? They became the party, not of moderate change, as they claim, but the party of the establishment. The working class is only given two choices on who to vote for—genuine working class parties are more and more kept off the ballot—so why would they continue to vote for a party that meant they would continue to fall further behind? The liberal argument that only racists voted for Trump was a lie. Did only war-mongers vote for Hillary Clinton?
Antifa want small demonstration, not large ones, and they WANT to get people killed, preferably the fascists, but they’re not against martyrs. They don’t attempt to mobilize as many people as possible and to have a safe demonstration, they insist on confrontation. This is what they did in Charlottesville and elsewhere.
I’m not against armed self-defense, it was widely used, although intentionally not widely known during the Civil Rights Movement. But those were class conscious workers, mostly veterans with combat experience. Antifa were middle class youth who knew nothing and were willing to play games with people’s lives. Both the Nazis and antifa wanted to provoke confrontation.
I'm not a Zionist (Jewish nationalist) or an American nationalist. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels say that "the working men have no country."
The BDS Movement website proclaims that their campaign is celebrating 20 years. I’m totally against the anti-Semitic BDS, but also against banning it. This is the origin of the current pro-Hamas movement, which has much support on campuses, but not in the working class. The working class is stepping up fightback, See In Defense of the U.S. Working Class, and The Low Point of Labor Resistance is Behind Us: The Socialist Workers Party Looks Forward.
The total stupidity of the middle class left was shown by the attempt of Oberlin College to frame the owners of Gibson’s Bakery, who both Black and white members and supporters of the Socialist Workers Party had had a fine relationship with for 50 years (it is where we have our conferences) for being “racist.” They helped students start a boycott of the store with demonstrations as training for “Social Justice Warriors.” Apparently, the College administration thought that underage Black students should have the right to steal bottles of liquor. It was great to hear that the judge awarded $25 million in compensatory and punitive damages for putting the bakery and its owners through hell. The judge also awarded $6.5 million in legal fees to the lawyers representing Gibson’s Bakery in its suit against Oberlin College. The College convinced themselves that they were on the side of the angels, but they couldn’t convince a jury of ordinary people.
Lumpen Nazi scum showed up in Charlottesville and were confronted by antifa members who were spoiling for a fight as much as the Nazis. Antifa doesn’t even know what fascism is, as proved by the fact that they considered anyone wearing a MAGA cap to be worthy of assault. But they don’t speak to any Trump voters, or for that matter any workers who vote for the Democrats. But naturally, I’m glad that Nazis were defeated in the lawsuit.
But I think that even more dangerous are the over-privileged students at Ivy League Colleges, who like to pretend everyone is privileged EXCEPT THEM. They have been taught, with little dissent, that Israel is just like apartheid South Africa, and unlike Mandela, who always insisted on Israel’s right to exist, as did Fidel Castro, the present leaders of the ANC and the South African Communist Party are anti-Semites, despite the large number of Jews who played a role in the struggle. Twenty years before Oct. 7, 2023, there was a movement started called BDS—Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, claiming that Israel was just like South Africa.
The boycott played a role in defeating South Africa, but it was not the central role—That was played by the anti-apartheid movement, which in South Africa had millions of unionized workers, as well as the exceptional leadership of Nelon Mandela. And Mandela told Fidel Castro and the Cuban people that only "The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today!" But the "left" has little or no interest in unions or in Cuba. See How Far We Slaves Have Come!: South Africa and Cuba in Today's World, Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991, and Cuba and Angola: Fighting for Africa’s Freedom and Our Own.
Of course I'm for a Palestinian state, but there is currently no leadership willing to do what it takes;
they prefer United Nations welfare to the hard task of building a state. But right now, a Jewish state, despite the fact that like the US it contains quite a few racists, is better than another 6 or 7 million dead Jews. In a war with Hamas, supporting the closest thing to a bourgeois-democratic and secular country in the whole region is better than supporting murderous Islamism, which would kill most of its foreign supporters, and delights in killing trade unionists.
Boy George wonderfully sings:
“I don't feel brave, I just need to behave like a human.”
Anti-Semitism is the one form of racism that can masquerade as a form of socialism. In fact for many years, it was widely known as the “socialism of fools.” I prefer the term Jew-hatred. For one, it’s less polite. And two, you would probably not believe the number of people who actually claim that Arabs, being Semites, can’t be anti-Semitic.
It requires education and mobilization of the working class and its allies against fascism. I will have to recommend many books to support my communist point of view; I will start with a brief handbook by the famous Teamsters union organizer and Socialist Workers Party leader Farrell Dobbs—Counter-Mobilization: A Strategy to Fight Racist & Fascist Attacks.
To me as a Marxist, the most important democratic rights in the United States are the result of two revolutions, the Bill of Rights from the first American Revolution and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments from the Second American Revolution. Other rights come from other mass movements—labor, women’s rights, the Civil Rights/Black Power movements, and the movement against the Vietnam War, gay rights protests, and so on. They haven’t been given to us by benevolent politicians. See, for starters, America's Revolutionary Heritage, Labor's Giant Step: The First Twenty Years of the CIO: 1936-55, Fighting Racism in World War II: From the pages of the Militant, Malcolm X, Black Liberation, and the Road to Workers Power, Out Now: A Participant's Account of the Movement in the United States Against the Vietnam War, Cosmetics, Fashion, and the Exploitation of Women ...
Loeffler views the anti-Semitism in WW II and after as simply the fault of the people who held it; they’re ignorant or stupid. But one has to examine: the working class, farmers, and small businesspeople don’t run the schools, own the newspapers, the radio stations (today TV and [anti]-social media). The capitalist class and all its hangers-on own these things and they are the elected representatives of “the people,” as well. The ideology of the masses doesn’t descend from the clouds—It comes from the dominant class.
The genuine anti-fascists of the Socialist Workers Party mobilized 50,000 demonstrators as well as another 50,000, most of whom supported the anti-Nazis at Madison Square Garden March 27,1939 against the German-American Bund. The 'Militant' wrote that “with brutality recalling the days of Czarist Cossacks, 1,780 of Mayor La Guardia’s police, the largest number of cops ever collected in the city against a single demonstration, slugged and trampled under horses’ hooves scores of workers in an unsuccessful attempt to break up the demonstration. From 6 p.m. until 11, the workers engaged in a series of bitter clashes with police,” who were defending the Nazis. The leaders of most Jewish groups, trade unions, the Socialist and Communist parties all told their members not to go. The mistake was that they told them where and when not to go, and they totally misread what the working class wanted. Every class-conscious worker knew that while the Nazis were attacking Jews, they were out to destroy the German trade unions, the most powerful ones on earth.
There was no reward for us. The leaders of the Socialist Workers Party and of the Minneapolis Teamsters were jailed under the Smith Act in 1941, an anti-free-speech measure for their ideas—they didn’t advocate draft resistance, sabotage, or anything crazy like that, A similar fate had met Eugene V. Debs and others for speaking out against World War I. The communists simply insisted on our right to say that this wasn’t a war for democracy (much less for the Jews)—It was a war to determine who ruled the world and got most of its profits. The US won that war, not only against their enemies, but against their “allies” as well. But the Soviet Union, despite the counterrevolutionary Stalinist leadership, wasn’t destroyed. And that meant the US would fight more wars. When the rulers were trumpeting peace after their nuclear slaughter in Japan, the headline on the Militant newspaper was “THERE IS NO PEACE!” See Eugene V. Debs Speaks, Teamster Bureaucracy, and Socialism on Trial: Testimony at Minneapolis Sedition Trial.
Then during the witch hunt, the capitalist government viciously attacked an SWP member, James Kutcher, who lost both legs in World War II, by trying to fire him from the Veterans Administration and then came for the home he and his parents lived in, also obtained through veterans' benefits, we organized a broad civil liberties defense. See The Case of the Legless Veteran: The Story of a Man Who Fought and Defeated the Witch-hunters During the Joe McCarthy Era.. We won. Of course, we were also involved in defending many others besides our own members.
Liberals can’t effectively fight against anti-Semitism, fascism, or any kind of racism, because without understanding the class roots of bigotry it makes no sense. The Woke promote “Critical Race Theory,” which consists of over-privileged students and professors lecturing the far less privileged “white working class” that they are racist because they have “white privilege”! They seem to even think that this, rather than profits, was the reason for the slave trade! I’m sure it helps them get funding for their studies from union-busting big business, which understands and has always understood the roots of racism far better than they do.
For anti-Black racism, see The Civil War in the United States by Karl Marx, and Racism, Revolution, Reaction, 1861-1877: The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction. For the Jewish question, see The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation. and The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch. In The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany, Trotsky explains that the Stalinist policy of calling Social Democrats “social fascists” and refusing to have joint military defense of the buildings and membership of the German working class actually aided the Nazis. Also see Daniel Guerin’s Fascism and Big Business. For the fight against fascism in the US, see What is American Fascism?, and Notebook of an Agitator: From the Wobblies to the Fight against the Korean War and McCarthyism,
To understand Stalinism, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going?, The Third International after Lenin, and The Stalin School of Falsification for starters). To their shame the Communist Party utilized former members as spies, but every country spies on every other country. Defending civil liberties meant defending the Rosenbergs, without at that point knowing all the facts. We knew that there was no “secret” about the nuclear bomb.
Nazi demonstrations should always be confronted with anti-Nazi demonstrations, but this has nothing to do with what antifa or other Woke groups do. First of all, they don’t even know what fascism is. They think everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist, and assault anyone wearing a MAGA cap. This is absurd! The Socialist Workers Party regularly sells copies and subscriptions to the Militant newspaper, as well as Marxist books door to door in working class neighborhoods, and it makes no difference who the people voted for. Many voted for Trump because under the Democrats their lifespans were shrinking, along with their income after taxes, assuming they even had jobs. More and more of the working class is living with their parents. The Democrats are only concerned with abortion rights (I am too)—But what about the right of couples who want children to be able to afford to have them? They became the party, not of moderate change, as they claim, but the party of the establishment. The working class is only given two choices on who to vote for—genuine working class parties are more and more kept off the ballot—so why would they continue to vote for a party that meant they would continue to fall further behind? The liberal argument that only racists voted for Trump was a lie. Did only war-mongers vote for Hillary Clinton?
Antifa want small demonstration, not large ones, and they WANT to get people killed, preferably the fascists, but they’re not against martyrs. They don’t attempt to mobilize as many people as possible and to have a safe demonstration, they insist on confrontation. This is what they did in Charlottesville and elsewhere.
I’m not against armed self-defense, it was widely used, although intentionally not widely known during the Civil Rights Movement. But those were class conscious workers, mostly veterans with combat experience. Antifa were middle class youth who knew nothing and were willing to play games with people’s lives. Both the Nazis and antifa wanted to provoke confrontation.
I'm not a Zionist (Jewish nationalist) or an American nationalist. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels say that "the working men have no country."
The BDS Movement website proclaims that their campaign is celebrating 20 years. I’m totally against the anti-Semitic BDS, but also against banning it. This is the origin of the current pro-Hamas movement, which has much support on campuses, but not in the working class. The working class is stepping up fightback, See In Defense of the U.S. Working Class, and The Low Point of Labor Resistance is Behind Us: The Socialist Workers Party Looks Forward.
The total stupidity of the middle class left was shown by the attempt of Oberlin College to frame the owners of Gibson’s Bakery, who both Black and white members and supporters of the Socialist Workers Party had had a fine relationship with for 50 years (it is where we have our conferences) for being “racist.” They helped students start a boycott of the store with demonstrations as training for “Social Justice Warriors.” Apparently, the College administration thought that underage Black students should have the right to steal bottles of liquor. It was great to hear that the judge awarded $25 million in compensatory and punitive damages for putting the bakery and its owners through hell. The judge also awarded $6.5 million in legal fees to the lawyers representing Gibson’s Bakery in its suit against Oberlin College. The College convinced themselves that they were on the side of the angels, but they couldn’t convince a jury of ordinary people.
Lumpen Nazi scum showed up in Charlottesville and were confronted by antifa members who were spoiling for a fight as much as the Nazis. Antifa doesn’t even know what fascism is, as proved by the fact that they considered anyone wearing a MAGA cap to be worthy of assault. But they don’t speak to any Trump voters, or for that matter any workers who vote for the Democrats. But naturally, I’m glad that Nazis were defeated in the lawsuit.
But I think that even more dangerous are the over-privileged students at Ivy League Colleges, who like to pretend everyone is privileged EXCEPT THEM. They have been taught, with little dissent, that Israel is just like apartheid South Africa, and unlike Mandela, who always insisted on Israel’s right to exist, as did Fidel Castro, the present leaders of the ANC and the South African Communist Party are anti-Semites, despite the large number of Jews who played a role in the struggle. Twenty years before Oct. 7, 2023, there was a movement started called BDS—Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, claiming that Israel was just like South Africa.
The boycott played a role in defeating South Africa, but it was not the central role—That was played by the anti-apartheid movement, which in South Africa had millions of unionized workers, as well as the exceptional leadership of Nelon Mandela. And Mandela told Fidel Castro and the Cuban people that only "The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today!" But the "left" has little or no interest in unions or in Cuba. See How Far We Slaves Have Come!: South Africa and Cuba in Today's World, Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991, and Cuba and Angola: Fighting for Africa’s Freedom and Our Own.
Of course I'm for a Palestinian state, but there is currently no leadership willing to do what it takes;
they prefer United Nations welfare to the hard task of building a state. But right now, a Jewish state, despite the fact that like the US it contains quite a few racists, is better than another 6 or 7 million dead Jews. In a war with Hamas, supporting the closest thing to a bourgeois-democratic and secular country in the whole region is better than supporting murderous Islamism, which would kill most of its foreign supporters, and delights in killing trade unionists.
Boy George wonderfully sings:
“I don't feel brave, I just need to behave like a human.”
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Exceptional Hatred is a rigorous, historically grounded examination of how antisemitism has repeatedly tested the limits of free speech in the United States. James Loeffler traces key flashpoints, from postwar unrest and the Skokie Nazi march to Charlottesville and modern campus debates, arguing that Jewish history is central to understanding America’s unresolved tensions between protecting expression and confronting hate. Importantly, this is not a partisan or anti-Democrat book. Loeffler is not critiquing a political party but rather the broader contradictions of American liberalism and free-speech absolutism, showing how institutions across the political spectrum have sometimes failed to adequately address antisemitism in the name of constitutional principle. The book’s strength lies in its meticulous research and legal context, though the academic tone can feel dense at times. Ultimately, Exceptional Hatred does not offer easy answers, but it succeeds in challenging readers to grapple with the uncomfortable reality that neutrality in free speech law has not always meant protection from harm.
August 10, 2026
Exceptional Hatred; Antisemitism and the fight over free speech in America by James Leffler, ever since Jesus walked the Earth Jews have been the scapegoat for many of atrocities that they absolutely didn’t commit from kidnapping and eating children to sacrificing people on a pulpit which Jews don’t use in their religion to many other things so I couldn’t wait to dive into this book the book starts with Mr. Leffler giving testimony as someone who’s educated and well-versed in race and racial gangs and symbols. He was testifying in one of the cases from the Charlottesville North Carolina riot I found all of it interesting from the trial to the laws enacted in the 70s but I do wanna say like most non-fiction books Mr. Leffler is not re-creating the wheel rather adding a new spoke to it because even though there’s lots of talk about race these days most don’t mention Jews. there was also a lot of talk about what constitutes hate speech and then the country where we have freedom of speech that is a very slippery slope. because we could talk about all the things we hate whether it be certain groups religions presidents whatever and I always say just keep in mind if it’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander if you start abbreviating people speech that leaves room for someone else to dislike something you like to say. I guess I do want to say years ago in seventh grade every month we would have these progress report where we would be called in with our teachers, the dean and our counselor. It was to talk about how we’re doing in that meeting my home ec teacher said that I was antisemitic and I said that’s impossible and she said why and I said because I don’t even know what that is, she explained that it’s someone who hates Jews and I said I didn’t know any Jews and she said she was Jewish so I guess I hated one but only because she was rude not because she was Jewish that’s how I learned what antisemitism was. Now having said that growing up there wasn’t much talk about antisemitism when my grandmother and I would listen to radio shows from the 30s 40s and 50s they would have commercials telling people not to be against people for their race or religion and so this is a fight we have been fighting forever and I believe as long as people need to step on others to feel better about their self they’ll always be racist and antisemites. Although I still don’t hear anyone mentioning hating Jews so maybe that’s a northern thing IDK. Either way I enjoyed this book founded very interesting I wish he would’ve done a deep dive into that historical hatred because it runs deep but I get why he stayed more in a modern day setting because this is a modern day issue.#NetGalley, #TheBlindReviewer, #MyHonestReview,
July 8, 2026
Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America by James Loeffler examines the history of antisemitism in the United States through the lens of free speech, constitutional law, and social change. The book is organized into three major case studies centered on post-World War II legal debates, the Skokie controversy, and the Charlottesville rally. Through these case studies, Loeffler explores how courts, organizations, institutions, and communities have grappled with questions of hate speech, discrimination, and the limits of constitutional protections.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its ability to explain how individual legal disputes developed and why they mattered beyond the courtroom. Rather than simply recounting court decisions, Loeffler places each case within a broader historical and social context, examining the evolution of First Amendment law, changing public attitudes, and the relationship between legal protections and lived experience. The book is thoroughly researched and supported by extensive citations, making it a scholarly work aimed at readers interested in legal and historical analysis.
I found the overall structure engaging because each case study served as a foundation for larger discussions about American society. Throughout the book, Loeffler returns to the idea that legal protections alone cannot eliminate prejudice. Laws may establish equal rights, but institutions, communities, education, and individual actions ultimately determine whether those protections become meaningful in everyday life. One of the themes I took away from the book is that these debates are never permanently settled. Each generation must confront familiar questions about prejudice, free speech, and historical memory within its own social and political context.
The academic nature of the book may not appeal to every reader. The detailed legal analysis and frequent citations occasionally slow the pacing, and some sections branch into broader historical discussions before returning to the central case study. Near the conclusion, I also felt that the introduction of additional topics surrounding the aftermath of Charlottesville broadened the discussion more than expected. While I understood how these issues related to the book’s larger themes, I found that they could have been developed more fully or introduced earlier in the narrative.
Overall, I would recommend this book to readers with an interest in constitutional law, legal history, civil rights, antisemitism, and the continuing debate over free speech in America. Those looking for a fast-paced narrative may find it dense, but readers who enjoy thoughtful, well-researched academic works will appreciate the depth and careful analysis Loeffler brings to these important and enduring questions.
Thanks to NetGalley and Henry Holt & Company for providing an advance copy.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its ability to explain how individual legal disputes developed and why they mattered beyond the courtroom. Rather than simply recounting court decisions, Loeffler places each case within a broader historical and social context, examining the evolution of First Amendment law, changing public attitudes, and the relationship between legal protections and lived experience. The book is thoroughly researched and supported by extensive citations, making it a scholarly work aimed at readers interested in legal and historical analysis.
I found the overall structure engaging because each case study served as a foundation for larger discussions about American society. Throughout the book, Loeffler returns to the idea that legal protections alone cannot eliminate prejudice. Laws may establish equal rights, but institutions, communities, education, and individual actions ultimately determine whether those protections become meaningful in everyday life. One of the themes I took away from the book is that these debates are never permanently settled. Each generation must confront familiar questions about prejudice, free speech, and historical memory within its own social and political context.
The academic nature of the book may not appeal to every reader. The detailed legal analysis and frequent citations occasionally slow the pacing, and some sections branch into broader historical discussions before returning to the central case study. Near the conclusion, I also felt that the introduction of additional topics surrounding the aftermath of Charlottesville broadened the discussion more than expected. While I understood how these issues related to the book’s larger themes, I found that they could have been developed more fully or introduced earlier in the narrative.
Overall, I would recommend this book to readers with an interest in constitutional law, legal history, civil rights, antisemitism, and the continuing debate over free speech in America. Those looking for a fast-paced narrative may find it dense, but readers who enjoy thoughtful, well-researched academic works will appreciate the depth and careful analysis Loeffler brings to these important and enduring questions.
Thanks to NetGalley and Henry Holt & Company for providing an advance copy.
Review of advance copy
Thanks to LibraryThing and Metropolitan Books for sending me an advanced copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I read a lot of what I call “Jew” books (it's ok; I'm Jewish). Sometimes they're about Jewish philosophy, sometimes Jewish history, sometimes Palestine, and sometimes they're just Jewy. The one thing they all have in common is that I pick them out based on having researched the book or author. That, plus the weird books I've been getting from LibraryThing made me nervous that this book, with antisemitism in the title, might be a little on the zionist side.
Loeffler did not stoke my fears though. I'm not sure of his exact opinions on the Israel/Palestine situation, but the fact that his writing didn't help me determine this (though I can guess), shows me he's a good writer who was (mostly) just presenting facts.
Exceptional Hatred takes us through three periods in time in the US. Three periods where groups targeting Jews and other minorities were tried to stop, but claimed their first amendment rights. First the 1940s, then the '70s, and finally from Charlottesville until now. Each time he breaks down what exactly happened, the battles in courts and on the streets, and helps us get to know the main characters. I feel more educated and more Jewish after reading this book, and that's a good thing.
The main thing that was reinforced for me is this: fuck the ACLU. In each section of this book, the ACLU represented the antisemites, be they nazis, the kkk, or just some lunatic who wanted to kill everyone who wasn't “white.” I knew the ACLU was fucked up, both from reading about stuff like this in the past and from my experiences of them refusing tons of leftist cases, but it has been fully solidified. I will never support or ask the ACLU for help. It's one thing to intellectually argue that free speech means the right to march down the street chanting about killing Jews, and it's another to fight on the side of the nazis. Like, I'm anti-prison. That means I believe that, even when a piece of shit gets convicted of something, they shouldn't have to be locked in a cage. That said, I would never use any of my energy campaigning for a killer cop to not go to prison.
I took a lot of notes in this book, but don't feel like referencing them to write this review. Not because the book wasn't worth it, but because I'm lazy and not getting paid for this. This book taught me a lot though. I barely knew of any of the events that transpired in the '40s or '70, and now I sort of do. It gives me context for a lot of things and makes it so I can participate in some conversations when I'm hanging out with my lawyer friends. Even though I knew a good amount about what transpired in Charlottesville and the ensuing court cases, Loeffler was able to talk about it with experience, as he's a professor at whatever school is there (not checking notes) and was called to testify at one of the bigger trials. I never knew how much Jews were excluded from all this. Despite white supremacists chanting “Jews will not replace us,” and threatening many Jewish people, the court case featured barely any talk of this, and none of the plaintiffs in the civil suit were Jewish. I'll have to do more research on this.
There were a couple times where I felt he was leaning a little towards the zionist side (like saying that both Palestinian and Jewish students were fearful, without elaborating anymore), and some weird editorial stuff (the way he quotes people seems a bit sketchy), but overall I'm glad I read it. When it comes out (in August '26), you should check it out too.
I read a lot of what I call “Jew” books (it's ok; I'm Jewish). Sometimes they're about Jewish philosophy, sometimes Jewish history, sometimes Palestine, and sometimes they're just Jewy. The one thing they all have in common is that I pick them out based on having researched the book or author. That, plus the weird books I've been getting from LibraryThing made me nervous that this book, with antisemitism in the title, might be a little on the zionist side.
Loeffler did not stoke my fears though. I'm not sure of his exact opinions on the Israel/Palestine situation, but the fact that his writing didn't help me determine this (though I can guess), shows me he's a good writer who was (mostly) just presenting facts.
Exceptional Hatred takes us through three periods in time in the US. Three periods where groups targeting Jews and other minorities were tried to stop, but claimed their first amendment rights. First the 1940s, then the '70s, and finally from Charlottesville until now. Each time he breaks down what exactly happened, the battles in courts and on the streets, and helps us get to know the main characters. I feel more educated and more Jewish after reading this book, and that's a good thing.
The main thing that was reinforced for me is this: fuck the ACLU. In each section of this book, the ACLU represented the antisemites, be they nazis, the kkk, or just some lunatic who wanted to kill everyone who wasn't “white.” I knew the ACLU was fucked up, both from reading about stuff like this in the past and from my experiences of them refusing tons of leftist cases, but it has been fully solidified. I will never support or ask the ACLU for help. It's one thing to intellectually argue that free speech means the right to march down the street chanting about killing Jews, and it's another to fight on the side of the nazis. Like, I'm anti-prison. That means I believe that, even when a piece of shit gets convicted of something, they shouldn't have to be locked in a cage. That said, I would never use any of my energy campaigning for a killer cop to not go to prison.
I took a lot of notes in this book, but don't feel like referencing them to write this review. Not because the book wasn't worth it, but because I'm lazy and not getting paid for this. This book taught me a lot though. I barely knew of any of the events that transpired in the '40s or '70, and now I sort of do. It gives me context for a lot of things and makes it so I can participate in some conversations when I'm hanging out with my lawyer friends. Even though I knew a good amount about what transpired in Charlottesville and the ensuing court cases, Loeffler was able to talk about it with experience, as he's a professor at whatever school is there (not checking notes) and was called to testify at one of the bigger trials. I never knew how much Jews were excluded from all this. Despite white supremacists chanting “Jews will not replace us,” and threatening many Jewish people, the court case featured barely any talk of this, and none of the plaintiffs in the civil suit were Jewish. I'll have to do more research on this.
There were a couple times where I felt he was leaning a little towards the zionist side (like saying that both Palestinian and Jewish students were fearful, without elaborating anymore), and some weird editorial stuff (the way he quotes people seems a bit sketchy), but overall I'm glad I read it. When it comes out (in August '26), you should check it out too.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
I received an ARC of this book from the publisher through the Library thing early reviewers program in exchange for an honest review.
Is it better to ignore hate speech or try to regulate it? That is the crux of this history of antisemitism and law in the US (primarily post-WWII). Antisemitism occupies a strange place in society, not quite racism except in the minds of those who promulgate it, it often gets left out of the discussion of hate in America. Loeffler does a fine job of showing that, yes, it is a central aspect of hate groups in America, even those primarily seen as anti-Black. He shows how they link great replacement theory to Jewish Americans and their imagined goal to flood the US with black and brown people (not sure how this makes sense, but it is the ravings of hatemongers). He also traces the legal machinations to prevent hateful gatherings which use the first amendment as a cudgel to foment violence. Stumbles a bit over the differences between anti-Zionism and antisemitism but as he does point out, the lines can be very blurry and what is at its root antisemitism is often couched in anti-Zionist terms. However, the idea that someone can believe that Israel has a right to exist and that Palestinians should have full rights within it don't seem to be covered. Overall an excellent book that really illustrates the struggle and contradiction in free speech and provocations to violence.
Is it better to ignore hate speech or try to regulate it? That is the crux of this history of antisemitism and law in the US (primarily post-WWII). Antisemitism occupies a strange place in society, not quite racism except in the minds of those who promulgate it, it often gets left out of the discussion of hate in America. Loeffler does a fine job of showing that, yes, it is a central aspect of hate groups in America, even those primarily seen as anti-Black. He shows how they link great replacement theory to Jewish Americans and their imagined goal to flood the US with black and brown people (not sure how this makes sense, but it is the ravings of hatemongers). He also traces the legal machinations to prevent hateful gatherings which use the first amendment as a cudgel to foment violence. Stumbles a bit over the differences between anti-Zionism and antisemitism but as he does point out, the lines can be very blurry and what is at its root antisemitism is often couched in anti-Zionist terms. However, the idea that someone can believe that Israel has a right to exist and that Palestinians should have full rights within it don't seem to be covered. Overall an excellent book that really illustrates the struggle and contradiction in free speech and provocations to violence.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Important book examining free speech and equal protection and how antisemitism has remained central to these two constitutional rights.
Antisemitism from the author’s perspective is “exceptional hatred.” He focuses on three events that define this. 1940s Chicago riots brought two cases to the Supreme Court. In the 1970s, antisemitism speech went to the Supreme Court when Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, refused to let Neo-Nazis march through their town. Finally the divisions begun on the University of Virginia to the 2017 campuses “Unite the Right” rallies and protectors over Israel and Palestine. In each situation we are given the thoughts, perspectives, and tensions that occurred in these moments.
As I read and surmised from the book is hate speech the price we have to pay for freedom of speech? While not discussed in this book, I’d add is lying the price we gave to pay for freedom of speech? In antisemitism we are faced with polarization in our country - that’s been there for so long - and the desire for protection from the virulent hate speech that surrounds us. The author takes apart this and the discussions around it and posits a way to protect differences without surrendering our principles and freedoms
This is a must read book.
My thanks to NetGalley and Metropolitan Books for granting me access to this ARC.
Antisemitism from the author’s perspective is “exceptional hatred.” He focuses on three events that define this. 1940s Chicago riots brought two cases to the Supreme Court. In the 1970s, antisemitism speech went to the Supreme Court when Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, refused to let Neo-Nazis march through their town. Finally the divisions begun on the University of Virginia to the 2017 campuses “Unite the Right” rallies and protectors over Israel and Palestine. In each situation we are given the thoughts, perspectives, and tensions that occurred in these moments.
As I read and surmised from the book is hate speech the price we have to pay for freedom of speech? While not discussed in this book, I’d add is lying the price we gave to pay for freedom of speech? In antisemitism we are faced with polarization in our country - that’s been there for so long - and the desire for protection from the virulent hate speech that surrounds us. The author takes apart this and the discussions around it and posits a way to protect differences without surrendering our principles and freedoms
This is a must read book.
My thanks to NetGalley and Metropolitan Books for granting me access to this ARC.
Review of advance copy received from Goodreads Giveaways
Interesting read that shows that hatred, antisemitism and racism has been around for a long time. Some may think it had been eliminated or minimized but it was there all the time. It has been falsely claimed over the last few years by the right that certain presidents created the racism and hatred we see today. Some even claim that they are not the racist but the ones they hate are in fact the racist ones. This book shows the problem with free speech vs hate speech.
For the most part interesting but a couple errors. Antifa is not new as stated in the book, Anti-Fascism or Anti-Fascist has been around since the beginning of fascism. It has wrongly been shortened to try and warp what it stands for. There is no group called Antifa. Anyone against fascism is anti-fascist or Antifa. The second error is an all too brief mention of the re-founding of Israel. Parts of Israel was stolen when invaded by Egypt, Jordan and at least Syria from what i recall. Egypt seized the Gaza strip and Jordan took the west bank. And the disputed territory has been a problem ever since. Some have believed that a two state solution will work but this has been rejected by some Palestinians who want every square inch of land.
For the most part interesting but a couple errors. Antifa is not new as stated in the book, Anti-Fascism or Anti-Fascist has been around since the beginning of fascism. It has wrongly been shortened to try and warp what it stands for. There is no group called Antifa. Anyone against fascism is anti-fascist or Antifa. The second error is an all too brief mention of the re-founding of Israel. Parts of Israel was stolen when invaded by Egypt, Jordan and at least Syria from what i recall. Egypt seized the Gaza strip and Jordan took the west bank. And the disputed territory has been a problem ever since. Some have believed that a two state solution will work but this has been rejected by some Palestinians who want every square inch of land.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
This book covers American history from the 1940s to 2025. It focuses on ethnic and racial protests with a deep dive, including the First Amendment, "hate speech", and everything in between. But it is not ponderous and hard to read. It gives points of view from all sides. The best part is the afterword, which not only raises problems that need correcting but also offers ideas for how to approach them with respect for differing opinions. I learned much about past and present protests and their court cases, without feeling that I was made to pick one side over the other. Hopefully, more people will read this book and learn about where we are coming from and how we can make progress as we become better, kinder, and more educated Americans.
Thank you, James Loeffler, for writing this informative book. I highly recommend it to all.
Thank you, Henry Holt and Co., and LibraryThing.com, for offering this book as a giveaway. I am an improved and more informed citizen because of it. The opinions given are my own.
Thank you, James Loeffler, for writing this informative book. I highly recommend it to all.
Thank you, Henry Holt and Co., and LibraryThing.com, for offering this book as a giveaway. I am an improved and more informed citizen because of it. The opinions given are my own.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Really interesting read digging into the history of anti-semitism throughout the 20th century, with particular focus on major Supreme Court cases surrounding hate speech. Dr. Loeffler carefully outlines the cultural, political, and legal context preceding major events that led to Supreme Court cases, developing our current understanding of First Amendment protections. In addition, readers are provided with a comprehensive history of the organizations that were created to combat hate speech in the US.
While Dr. Loeffler outlines each case with careful detail, helping readers understand complicated legalese, the writing does not hide his feelings on on each case. This book was fascinating, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in First Amendment protections/limitations or the Jewish Experience in America.
The Advanced Reader Copy (ARC) was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
While Dr. Loeffler outlines each case with careful detail, helping readers understand complicated legalese, the writing does not hide his feelings on on each case. This book was fascinating, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in First Amendment protections/limitations or the Jewish Experience in America.
The Advanced Reader Copy (ARC) was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Review of advance copy received from Goodreads Giveaways
Definitely not light reading. The topic is serious and complicated and the writing meticulous and academic, getting into the weeds of complicated legal decisions regarding free speech and group libel. It can be slow going at times. But the topic is one that warrants a deep dive such as this. Antisemitism has many faces across the political landscape, sometimes clownishly anachronistic sometimes terrifyingly modern, sometimes self contradictory and sometimes in conflict with each other in ways both expected and surprising. Where does free speech end and provocation begin? Is there an opinion or point of view so horrific it should be criminal? Who gets to decide? These are questions with no easy answers.
Review of advance copy
Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America by James Loeffler is an interesting read about the history of anitsemitism, hate speech, and speech laws in the United States. I learned about events that happened in the past, as well as, in recent years. I learned more about this subject and made me think more about what is going on in my country.
I am going to give Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America four stars.
I received a paperback copy of James Loeffler's Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America from the publisher, but was not required to write a review, nor a positive review. This review is one hundred percent my honest opinion.
I am going to give Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America four stars.
I received a paperback copy of James Loeffler's Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America from the publisher, but was not required to write a review, nor a positive review. This review is one hundred percent my honest opinion.
Review of advance copy received from Goodreads Giveaways
I received an advance copy of this book though a Goodreads Giveaway.
It is very well written and well researched with many source notes included.
It is very factual and attempts to illustrate both sides of the information, including definitions, legal interpretations, and examples from history.
Even the term antisemitism has no consistent definition, as Loeffler explains in this book.
The writing clarifies historical and current events in a manner that can be understood by a general audience.
Many events and attitudes described are appalling, but important for everyone to be made aware of.
I find this book to be well written, informative, and an important educational resource about current topics.
It is very well written and well researched with many source notes included.
It is very factual and attempts to illustrate both sides of the information, including definitions, legal interpretations, and examples from history.
Even the term antisemitism has no consistent definition, as Loeffler explains in this book.
The writing clarifies historical and current events in a manner that can be understood by a general audience.
Many events and attitudes described are appalling, but important for everyone to be made aware of.
I find this book to be well written, informative, and an important educational resource about current topics.
October 2, 2026
It’s hard to rate this book. It was interesting and included a lot of history I wasn’t aware of. However it wasn’t particularly satisfying… but I guess the law rarely is. Because of when it was written it didn’t give much airtime to campus post October 7. However the author did take care to point out the glaring exclusion of Jews from liberal social justice/minority-focused organizations and omission from “solidarity” announcements in the aftermath of blatantly antisemitic events. The book felt measured and balanced with equal culpability assigned to the left and the right. I felt it captured our current political homelessness quite well.
September 15, 2026
I really enjoyed this thought-provoking book, particularly its exploration of the difficult line between free speech and censorship. As someone in the legal field, I found myself thinking about the challenges of balancing competing rights and principles. The subject matter also feels especially timely given the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader debates surrounding speech, expression, and the limits of censorship. A compelling read that raises far more questions than it answers, and that’s exactly what made it so interesting.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Thank you to Netgalley for this advance copy!
The level of research Mr. Loeffler put into this book was stellar and dense. It felt heavy and academic at times, but the subject matter is also heavy and troubling, so in a way it went hand in hand. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is wanting to get "up to speed" on recent US years and the increased antisemitism during that time.
I was given this early copy in exchange for my honest opinion.
The level of research Mr. Loeffler put into this book was stellar and dense. It felt heavy and academic at times, but the subject matter is also heavy and troubling, so in a way it went hand in hand. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is wanting to get "up to speed" on recent US years and the increased antisemitism during that time.
I was given this early copy in exchange for my honest opinion.
August 8, 2026
This book was a lot to take in! Reads more like a textbook with tons of history and research put into this book. It makes you think about the history of antisemitism and free speech.
August 29, 2026
Carefully researched. Very educational. A very good read.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
The premise of this book by John Hopkins University historian James Loeffler is that antisemitism in the United States needs to be better addressed, which, particularly given the current atmosphere in this country, remains a significant problem. Loeffler’s argument that “Jews have become the screen onto which Americans project their fears and fantasies about the very meaning of pluralism in our society” sets the stage for this engrossing story that reads like a novel in many places.
To make his case, Loeffler lays out the history of Jews in America, then focuses on three particular time periods in modern America as demonstrated through significant court rulings: the great post-World War II Supreme Court decisions that wrestled with the tension between constitutionally protected speech and the rights of Holocaust survivors to live in peace, in particular,Terminiello v. City of Chicago in 1949 and Beauharnais v. Illinois in 1952; a resurgence of blatant antisemitism in the 1970s, as illustrated by the case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in 1977; and Sines v. Kessler, the 2021 decision that resulted from the civil trial of the 2017 Charlottesville, Virginia “Unite the Right” organizers, who, despite being found guilty, were only assessed de minimis fines.
In his deftly written narrative, Loeffler isolates a problem that has perhaps exacerbated this ongoing societal woe: antisemitism itself has been isolated from other forms of racist hate speech because at times Jews are counted among the dominant White culture and at times they are treated with racial animus. He struggles a bit with separating antisemitism from anti-Zionism and maybe should have addressed the Palestinian problem as part of that, but that absence did not detract much from this compelling book.
For students of American constitutional law (particularly free-speech cases), Americans interested in social justice, anyone interested in American history, and those who just want to learn more about the problem of antisemitism in our pluralistic society, this thoroughly documented history is a must read.
Thanks to NetGalley, Henry Holt and Co., and Professor Loeffler for providing me with an ARC of this captivating history.
To make his case, Loeffler lays out the history of Jews in America, then focuses on three particular time periods in modern America as demonstrated through significant court rulings: the great post-World War II Supreme Court decisions that wrestled with the tension between constitutionally protected speech and the rights of Holocaust survivors to live in peace, in particular,Terminiello v. City of Chicago in 1949 and Beauharnais v. Illinois in 1952; a resurgence of blatant antisemitism in the 1970s, as illustrated by the case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in 1977; and Sines v. Kessler, the 2021 decision that resulted from the civil trial of the 2017 Charlottesville, Virginia “Unite the Right” organizers, who, despite being found guilty, were only assessed de minimis fines.
In his deftly written narrative, Loeffler isolates a problem that has perhaps exacerbated this ongoing societal woe: antisemitism itself has been isolated from other forms of racist hate speech because at times Jews are counted among the dominant White culture and at times they are treated with racial animus. He struggles a bit with separating antisemitism from anti-Zionism and maybe should have addressed the Palestinian problem as part of that, but that absence did not detract much from this compelling book.
For students of American constitutional law (particularly free-speech cases), Americans interested in social justice, anyone interested in American history, and those who just want to learn more about the problem of antisemitism in our pluralistic society, this thoroughly documented history is a must read.
Thanks to NetGalley, Henry Holt and Co., and Professor Loeffler for providing me with an ARC of this captivating history.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Thank you to NetGalley and Henry Holt & Company for an advanced reader copy! All opinions expressed are my own.
What an incredible read! This book is a must-read and much needed. Loeffler provides an insightful and detailed summary of antisemitism in the United States spanning from the 1940s until now. The organization of this book was amazing and I enjoyed reading about relevant cases I’d never heard of before.
What an incredible read! This book is a must-read and much needed. Loeffler provides an insightful and detailed summary of antisemitism in the United States spanning from the 1940s until now. The organization of this book was amazing and I enjoyed reading about relevant cases I’d never heard of before.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews