ABSTRACT
Chapter 6 debunks a range of arguments that have been made against hate speech laws. These are: that hate speech laws are susceptible to abuse; that defenders of hate speech laws simply wish to ban speech they hate; that hate speech regulations disproportionately silence social conservatives and right-wingers; that hate speech laws end up harming vulnerable minorities; that hate speech laws increase rather than decrease hostility; that arguments for hate speech laws resolve merely into claims about civility or tone; that harm-based arguments for hate speech laws are unsupported by any evidence; that defenders of hate speech laws are driven by ideological bias; that hate speech laws are about political correctness; that hate speech laws encourage melodrama; that defenders of hate speech laws are prone to name calling; that defenders of hate speech laws are well-meaning fools; that defenders of hate speech laws rely on metaphors; that defenders of hate speech laws are self-appointed do-gooders; that arguments for hate speech laws are insulting to victims of hate speech; that defenders of hate speech laws are merely defending what is fashionable. We reject every one of these arguments as being, by turns, unproven, invalid or unhelpfully hypocritical in some way.
