ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the theory of principled compromise is characterized by the claim that principled dilemmas surrounding the overall warrant of hate speech law can be usefully theorized in terms of two kinds of compromises such as legal and political compromises. Principled compromise is governed by ideals such as reciprocity, equality, and mutual respect. The chapter also explores what can be said on behalf of substitution compromise as a way of theorizing judicial judgments of overall warrant in hate speech cases. In dealing with cases of hate speech members of the judiciary have often been obliged to perform all manner of argumentative contortions just to affirm the Principle of Neutrality. The high and demanding ideals that might be fitting for Supreme Court justices in their court rooms and official chambers may not be suitable for politicians in legislatures.
