ABSTRACT
Hate speech, no matter how abhorrent, is still speech, and, unless it accompanies an assault or other physical crime, must be tolerated in a society. As faith in traditional free speech orthodoxy has weakened, hate speech’s defenders have shifted ground. One paternalistic argument against hate speech regulation is that it is better to allow hatemongers and racists to release their pent-up emotions harmlessly, in the form of speech, rather than through violent action. Other liberal figures, such as Nat Hentoff, allied with the American Civil Liberties Union urge that minorities learn to talk back to their aggressors. The cure for bad speech is more speech. A final argument associated with the moderate-left position is that measures to control hate speech merely backfire against minorities themselves. A related argument posits that providing remedies for hate speech is a distraction from more important matters that minorities should be attending to.
