2016•eYLS (Yale Law School)Open access

Freedom of Speech and Equality: Do We Have to Choose?

Nadine Strossen

Open full text 15 citations

Abstract

As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary or subjective determinations based on what these officials deem to be offensive or hate speech. There is also a fear that this type of censorship would negatively and disproportionately affect minority groups. To combat these ills, more speech, not less, should be the solution.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary or subjective determinations based on what these officials deem to be offensive or hate speech. There is also a fear that this type of censorship would negatively and disproportionately affect minority groups. To combat these ills, more speech, not less, should be the solution.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary or subjective determinations based on what these officials deem to be offensive or hate speech. There is also a fear that this type of censorship would negatively and disproportionately affect minority groups. To combat these ills, more speech, not less, should be the solution.

Key concepts: Free speech, Law and economics, Political science, Economics, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Freedom of Speech and Equality: Do We Have to Choose? — Research Paper | ScholarLens