What do you think?
Rate this book
The MIT Press Essential Knowledge
Hate Speech
An investigation of hate legal approaches, current controversies, and suggestions for limiting its spread.
Hate speech can happen anywhere--in Charlottesville, Virginia, where young men in khakis shouted, "Jews will not replace us"; in Myanmar, where the military used Facebook to target the Muslim Rohingya; in Capetown, South Africa, where a pastor called on ISIS to rid South Africa of the "homosexual curse." In person or online, people wield language to attack others for their race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, or other aspects of identity. This volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series examines hate what it is, and is not; its history; and efforts to address it.
Hate speech can happen anywhere--in Charlottesville, Virginia, where young men in khakis shouted, "Jews will not replace us"; in Myanmar, where the military used Facebook to target the Muslim Rohingya; in Capetown, South Africa, where a pastor called on ISIS to rid South Africa of the "homosexual curse." In person or online, people wield language to attack others for their race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, or other aspects of identity. This volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series examines hate what it is, and is not; its history; and efforts to address it.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
208 pages, Paperback
Published April 6, 2021
17 people are currently reading
160 people want to read
About the author
Caitlin Ring Carlson
3 books3 followersCaitlin Ring Carlson is Associate Professor in the Communication Department at Seattle University. Her research focuses on media law, policy, and ethics from a feminist perspective. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Wired, and Venture Beat, as well as such leading academic publications as the Journal of Media Law and Ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 3, 2023
Libro interesante para conocer aspectos generales del discurso del odio y los debates que suscitan en algunos entornos en la actualidad.
Pese a que me ha parecido una lectura ligera e incluso útil a veces, también creo que es un análisis demasiado somero, a menudo con una redacción confusa (pudiendo ser parcialmente por la traducción), que en ocasiones suponía tener que intuir o buscar el contexto, los porqués, las correlaciones, etc.
Un claro ejemplo de la escasa información del libro es la sección sobre “historia del discurso del odio”, que queda despachada en una página: inicia con los discursos de desprecio a ciertas etnias para justificar el comercio de esclavos en América, comenta el aumento de la difusión de estos discursos con los medios de comunicación de masas y, de ahí, añade un par de comentarios sobre el sigo XX (el nazismo y el genocidio de Ruanda) y la actualidad. Que la genealogía se remonte al comercio de esclavos en América y que se repase de manera tan superficial unos escasos hitos me parece demasiado reduccionista.
Por otro lado, las correlaciones y conclusiones me han resultado dudosas. En varios casos se explica la premisa pero no cómo se llega a ciertas conclusiones. Por ejemplo, se recoge que la Carta Canadiense de los Derechos y las Libertades instaura la «igualdad de derechos entre los ciudadanos, y señala que todo el mundo tiene derechos a la misma protección y beneficio de la ley, sin que quepa discriminación por raza, origen étnico o nacional, color, religión, sexo, edad o discapacidad física o mental, lo que esencialmente hace constitucional la discriminación positiva». Cómo el extracto que cita sobre igualdad derechos supone que la discriminación positiva sea esencialmente constitucional sigue sin quedarme claro.
En una crítica más de fondo, el mismo discurso del odio se define como «toda aquella expresión que busca difamar a un individuo por sus rasgos inmutables (raza, etnicidad, origen nacional, religión, género, identidad de género, orientación sexual, edad o discapacidad)»; sin explicarse qué se entiende por inmutable, teniendo en cuenta que algunos de los rasgos explícitamente mencionados son, en práctica, ciertamente mutables.
En definitiva, aunque es un tema que considero muy interesante, he echado en falta datos e información para una visión más completa y matizada de los casos prácticos, enfoques y teorías que se presentan en el libro.
Pese a que me ha parecido una lectura ligera e incluso útil a veces, también creo que es un análisis demasiado somero, a menudo con una redacción confusa (pudiendo ser parcialmente por la traducción), que en ocasiones suponía tener que intuir o buscar el contexto, los porqués, las correlaciones, etc.
Un claro ejemplo de la escasa información del libro es la sección sobre “historia del discurso del odio”, que queda despachada en una página: inicia con los discursos de desprecio a ciertas etnias para justificar el comercio de esclavos en América, comenta el aumento de la difusión de estos discursos con los medios de comunicación de masas y, de ahí, añade un par de comentarios sobre el sigo XX (el nazismo y el genocidio de Ruanda) y la actualidad. Que la genealogía se remonte al comercio de esclavos en América y que se repase de manera tan superficial unos escasos hitos me parece demasiado reduccionista.
Por otro lado, las correlaciones y conclusiones me han resultado dudosas. En varios casos se explica la premisa pero no cómo se llega a ciertas conclusiones. Por ejemplo, se recoge que la Carta Canadiense de los Derechos y las Libertades instaura la «igualdad de derechos entre los ciudadanos, y señala que todo el mundo tiene derechos a la misma protección y beneficio de la ley, sin que quepa discriminación por raza, origen étnico o nacional, color, religión, sexo, edad o discapacidad física o mental, lo que esencialmente hace constitucional la discriminación positiva». Cómo el extracto que cita sobre igualdad derechos supone que la discriminación positiva sea esencialmente constitucional sigue sin quedarme claro.
En una crítica más de fondo, el mismo discurso del odio se define como «toda aquella expresión que busca difamar a un individuo por sus rasgos inmutables (raza, etnicidad, origen nacional, religión, género, identidad de género, orientación sexual, edad o discapacidad)»; sin explicarse qué se entiende por inmutable, teniendo en cuenta que algunos de los rasgos explícitamente mencionados son, en práctica, ciertamente mutables.
En definitiva, aunque es un tema que considero muy interesante, he echado en falta datos e información para una visión más completa y matizada de los casos prácticos, enfoques y teorías que se presentan en el libro.
March 12, 2021
This is the third book I have had the opportunity to read from the MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series. Before we start let me be transparent in telling you I received this book in exchange for an honest review.
For a little background I live in Virginia about 2 hours away from UVA and where the United the Right rally was in 2017. Also with having Richmond in our backyard, the capital of the Confederacy, I have had my fair share of run ins both in person and online with hate speech. Because I have had these run ins in the past I was curious what this short book could tell me about the social phenomenon that I didn't already have some amount of experience with.
Caitlin Ring Carlson starts by providing detailed definitions and examples to lay out what exactly hate speech is and what qualifies as hate speech before taking us on a tour of sorts. This is the first area of the book I got quite a bit of value out of. Being in Va I have a specific view on hate speech, however it is obviously an American-centric view.What Carlson shows us is how different countries and international bodies define and combat hate speech. Specifically how certain countries such as Canada hold the right of dignity and the right of freedom of religion above the right to free speech, whereas some countries, like the US hold free speech above these other two rights that allows hate speech to propagate more. This tour takes us through the first third of the book and I thought it was a fascinating look at an unfortunately human problem with the variety of ways it manifests.
Then we become a little more US-centric and look at how hate speech exists on college campuses and it's interplay between cancel culture, safe spaces, and microagressions.
Next we take the conversation online and look at social media's role in the proliferation of hate speech with websites such as Twitter, FB, 8Chan,and other anonymous outlets. As well as commenting on the role that third party companies play, or should play in combating hate speech.
Lastly we look at the future and how we can move forward both as individuals and as collectives to combat hate speech.
Personally I gained a lot of additional perspective on the problem, most notably by examining the interplay of free speech and hate speech as well as by deepening my international view of the problem.
For a little background I live in Virginia about 2 hours away from UVA and where the United the Right rally was in 2017. Also with having Richmond in our backyard, the capital of the Confederacy, I have had my fair share of run ins both in person and online with hate speech. Because I have had these run ins in the past I was curious what this short book could tell me about the social phenomenon that I didn't already have some amount of experience with.
Caitlin Ring Carlson starts by providing detailed definitions and examples to lay out what exactly hate speech is and what qualifies as hate speech before taking us on a tour of sorts. This is the first area of the book I got quite a bit of value out of. Being in Va I have a specific view on hate speech, however it is obviously an American-centric view.What Carlson shows us is how different countries and international bodies define and combat hate speech. Specifically how certain countries such as Canada hold the right of dignity and the right of freedom of religion above the right to free speech, whereas some countries, like the US hold free speech above these other two rights that allows hate speech to propagate more. This tour takes us through the first third of the book and I thought it was a fascinating look at an unfortunately human problem with the variety of ways it manifests.
Then we become a little more US-centric and look at how hate speech exists on college campuses and it's interplay between cancel culture, safe spaces, and microagressions.
Next we take the conversation online and look at social media's role in the proliferation of hate speech with websites such as Twitter, FB, 8Chan,and other anonymous outlets. As well as commenting on the role that third party companies play, or should play in combating hate speech.
Lastly we look at the future and how we can move forward both as individuals and as collectives to combat hate speech.
Personally I gained a lot of additional perspective on the problem, most notably by examining the interplay of free speech and hate speech as well as by deepening my international view of the problem.
February 12, 2025
not a guide to hate speech but rather how to prevent it despite the lack of censorship from the U.S. government
January 16, 2021
Hate Speech by Caitlin Ring Carlson is a wonderful and much needed volume that describes both what hate speech is and possible ways to curb it. A great addition to MIT's Essential Knowledge series.
Carlson gives a good description of what hate speech is as well as what it isn't, or at least what isn't widely considered hate speech. Like any discussion that covers such a broad nuanced subject in a limited space, there are some places where a reader might either feel a description did not go deep enough or where nuance was omitted for the sake of making a point as well as brevity. My biggest complaint falls into the second category.
In discussing the intersection of free speech, hate speech, and college campuses the topic of trigger warnings is brought up. Unfortunately they are only mentioned with respect to hate speech type of material and by extension Carlson all but states that those questioning the extent of their use is lobbying for maintaining the status quo and inflicting pain and discomfort on those the warnings are for. That is not only wrong, horribly wrong, but disingenuous at best. Opinions on trigger warnings do not fall into such a nice dichotomous structure, they are varied and nuanced just as any other tool or policy debate. It is particularly disturbing coming from a fellow academic, though my classroom days are past. It is not either/or and to present it as such is either intentionally misleading or evidence of a large gaping hole in her knowledge on the topic. Either way, it makes that section of the book far less impactful than it could, and should, have been.
My personal issue with hyperbole and misstatement aside, the book is still well worth reading and does a fine job of explaining what is being done around the world, what the basic assumptions at the core of the actions (or inactions) are, and how the culture of each country plays into what can or cannot, currently, be done.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
Carlson gives a good description of what hate speech is as well as what it isn't, or at least what isn't widely considered hate speech. Like any discussion that covers such a broad nuanced subject in a limited space, there are some places where a reader might either feel a description did not go deep enough or where nuance was omitted for the sake of making a point as well as brevity. My biggest complaint falls into the second category.
In discussing the intersection of free speech, hate speech, and college campuses the topic of trigger warnings is brought up. Unfortunately they are only mentioned with respect to hate speech type of material and by extension Carlson all but states that those questioning the extent of their use is lobbying for maintaining the status quo and inflicting pain and discomfort on those the warnings are for. That is not only wrong, horribly wrong, but disingenuous at best. Opinions on trigger warnings do not fall into such a nice dichotomous structure, they are varied and nuanced just as any other tool or policy debate. It is particularly disturbing coming from a fellow academic, though my classroom days are past. It is not either/or and to present it as such is either intentionally misleading or evidence of a large gaping hole in her knowledge on the topic. Either way, it makes that section of the book far less impactful than it could, and should, have been.
My personal issue with hyperbole and misstatement aside, the book is still well worth reading and does a fine job of explaining what is being done around the world, what the basic assumptions at the core of the actions (or inactions) are, and how the culture of each country plays into what can or cannot, currently, be done.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
February 12, 2021
This is an interesting introduction to the concept of hate speech and how it is treated in contemporary society.
The first section is a comparative analysis of hate speech legislation and history in countries such as Japan, South Africa, Brazil, and the US. The different comparisons didn't form a coherent whole to me. While the concept of hate speech was the common thread, I felt it needed another hook to help me as the reader make previously unseen connections. It was really more of a survey and got repetitive as new countries' approaches were discussed.
The next section, dealing with hate speech on college campuses, was much better. The common narrative that college students are coddled babies is thoroughly dispelled. My favorite part was the dismantling of the thesis of "The Coddling of the American Mind". That book was written by two white males as a call to go back to how things used to be. Carlson talked about the disparities in how white and non-white students feel about suppressing hate speech in the name of freedom of speech. White students, who are rarely the target of this speech, are more amenable to allowing the free expression of hate speech. Given the demographic shift over the next few decades to make whites a minority population, it'll be interesting to see if this attitude changes.
There's also a generational and demographic difference in how hate speech is seen by society. Whites and Baby Boomers are much more likely to advocate for minimal curbing of speech. They don't care if hate speech infringes upon the dignity of a person because that's not an issue these people have. If the Trump presidency and the Jan. 6 insurrecti0n are anything to go by, white people will not allow themselves to become a minority without a vigorous fight. At that point, all the things that they are currently fighting against may suddenly become urgent issues that need to be addressed as quickly as possible.
In the final part of the book, Carlson discusses possible remedies for curbing hate speech. I thought that her suggestion to expand defamation statutes to allow for redress on a private level is a good solution to how we can protect people and speech. She also urges social media companies to do a better job moderating hate speech, but I don't think that will ever happen as long there's money to be made by allowing it. Let's hope one these solutions is implemented here in the US.
I recommend this book to be read by all who care about fostering a more inclusive society. The people who need to read this book the most will not do so because it threatens their status quo. Still, it never hurts to try to bring these folks to the light.
The first section is a comparative analysis of hate speech legislation and history in countries such as Japan, South Africa, Brazil, and the US. The different comparisons didn't form a coherent whole to me. While the concept of hate speech was the common thread, I felt it needed another hook to help me as the reader make previously unseen connections. It was really more of a survey and got repetitive as new countries' approaches were discussed.
The next section, dealing with hate speech on college campuses, was much better. The common narrative that college students are coddled babies is thoroughly dispelled. My favorite part was the dismantling of the thesis of "The Coddling of the American Mind". That book was written by two white males as a call to go back to how things used to be. Carlson talked about the disparities in how white and non-white students feel about suppressing hate speech in the name of freedom of speech. White students, who are rarely the target of this speech, are more amenable to allowing the free expression of hate speech. Given the demographic shift over the next few decades to make whites a minority population, it'll be interesting to see if this attitude changes.
There's also a generational and demographic difference in how hate speech is seen by society. Whites and Baby Boomers are much more likely to advocate for minimal curbing of speech. They don't care if hate speech infringes upon the dignity of a person because that's not an issue these people have. If the Trump presidency and the Jan. 6 insurrecti0n are anything to go by, white people will not allow themselves to become a minority without a vigorous fight. At that point, all the things that they are currently fighting against may suddenly become urgent issues that need to be addressed as quickly as possible.
In the final part of the book, Carlson discusses possible remedies for curbing hate speech. I thought that her suggestion to expand defamation statutes to allow for redress on a private level is a good solution to how we can protect people and speech. She also urges social media companies to do a better job moderating hate speech, but I don't think that will ever happen as long there's money to be made by allowing it. Let's hope one these solutions is implemented here in the US.
I recommend this book to be read by all who care about fostering a more inclusive society. The people who need to read this book the most will not do so because it threatens their status quo. Still, it never hurts to try to bring these folks to the light.
July 23, 2022
Honestly this book ended up being pretty underwhelming, and I don't think I have all that much to say about it. That's not to say that it's a bad book though! It's certainly valuable and makes a very inarguable and well supported case for the very underwhelming claim that surprise surprise - hate speech is bad.
This isn't to say that case studies of hate speech and it's impacts shouldn't be read, in fact I think they should and need to be read more often which is why I wouldn't NOT recommend this book. It just feels like the book could have done so much MORE. The overviews of various worldwide legal approaches to hate speech felt super disconnected and intended to each make one very hyperspecific point rather than being a more comprehensive and detailed overview, which resulted in a lot of repetitiveness. And there were several moments when the book brought up interesting problems within the realm of hate speech such as freedom of expression vs. the right to human dignity, or the weaponization of hate speech policy to silence important political dissent, but then decided leave these topics at a brief mention so that it could dicuss social media moderation policies instead.
Ultimately, the book seemed to try and play two different roles as an "objective and empirical analysis of hate speech regulation and it's consequences" as well as "a case study presenting a normative position SUPPORTING stronger hate speech policy", but also wanted to be short, resulting in a book that plays both those roles just okay instead of choosing to do one or the other really well. While this is certainly a GOOD introduction to issues regarding hate speech, I can't imagine that it is the BEST introduction.
TL;DR - I'm ready to throw hands with Twitter for not banning enough Republicans, but I'm not sure I needed a whole book just to figure that out.
This isn't to say that case studies of hate speech and it's impacts shouldn't be read, in fact I think they should and need to be read more often which is why I wouldn't NOT recommend this book. It just feels like the book could have done so much MORE. The overviews of various worldwide legal approaches to hate speech felt super disconnected and intended to each make one very hyperspecific point rather than being a more comprehensive and detailed overview, which resulted in a lot of repetitiveness. And there were several moments when the book brought up interesting problems within the realm of hate speech such as freedom of expression vs. the right to human dignity, or the weaponization of hate speech policy to silence important political dissent, but then decided leave these topics at a brief mention so that it could dicuss social media moderation policies instead.
Ultimately, the book seemed to try and play two different roles as an "objective and empirical analysis of hate speech regulation and it's consequences" as well as "a case study presenting a normative position SUPPORTING stronger hate speech policy", but also wanted to be short, resulting in a book that plays both those roles just okay instead of choosing to do one or the other really well. While this is certainly a GOOD introduction to issues regarding hate speech, I can't imagine that it is the BEST introduction.
TL;DR - I'm ready to throw hands with Twitter for not banning enough Republicans, but I'm not sure I needed a whole book just to figure that out.
Want to read
April 1, 2022Thank you to the publisher for the advance review copy.
Look, I tried with this book. I really did. For over a year, it’s sat on my Kindle’s currently reading shelf, patiently waiting to be reopened. Hate speech is an interesting topic, and one I was excited to learn more about from this book. But unfortunately this book — coupled with formatting issues in my advance copy that made it hard to read — was just too dry for something I was reading in my spare time. If I were reading this for school? I think it’d be an invaluable resource. But on my own time? I regularly read nonfiction books and just couldn’t do this one.
Look, I tried with this book. I really did. For over a year, it’s sat on my Kindle’s currently reading shelf, patiently waiting to be reopened. Hate speech is an interesting topic, and one I was excited to learn more about from this book. But unfortunately this book — coupled with formatting issues in my advance copy that made it hard to read — was just too dry for something I was reading in my spare time. If I were reading this for school? I think it’d be an invaluable resource. But on my own time? I regularly read nonfiction books and just couldn’t do this one.
May 14, 2022
A great summary of a bunch of instances of hate speech but that’s about it. Very this is what happened and here are all the half assed attempts to do something about it. That’s it! Bye! Wish this took things a step further and even when they were like oh it seems like social media profits off of hate speech, they should have just blatantly said it because clearly they do. It creates a lot of traffic to their website and high engagements and consistent usage so of course the social media platforms will have no problem with various hate groups and hate pages
April 6, 2021
It's amazing the mental contortions a governmental bureaucrat is ready to make in order to prove that free speech is only what Big Brother / The King approves, and maybe some popular - populist speech, as long as it does not interfere with rule number 1: only what Big Brother / The King approves.
April 15, 2023
Thorough, focused book on hate speech around the globe--how individuals and groups engage in it around the world, how various governments have responded, and how the U.S. has responded (and has not, given our staunch commitment to free speech).
Read
March 31, 2025While slim on philosophy and theory, Carlson's work gives a solid entry-level legal overview of the regulation and culture of hate speech in the United States, as well as a few other liberal democracies.
April 12, 2021
Important content for our current times!
December 8, 2025
Interesante pero repetitivo. Está bueno como idea, plus, me parece importante que la gente lea y se interese por estos temas.
May 13, 2023
Rate: 7.5/10, baca ini utk Tugas ospek. Lumayan lah kontennya, menjelaskan ttg hate spech itu apa dan studi kasus holocaust, utu rwanda, myanmar.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews