ABSTRACT
Chapter 5 critically evaluates the argument that if we introduce or accept what appears to be a not obviously unacceptable hate speech law now, we are stepping onto a slippery slope that will carry us toward a set of laws in the future that are obviously unacceptable. Using the method of arguing in the alternative, we defend five responses to the slippery slope argument. The first is that the slippery slope argument is not well supported by the evidence. The second challenges the idea that once on the slope it is hard to stop. The third questions assumptions about the terminus points of putative slippery slopes as being obviously unacceptable. The fourth raises doubts as to the real motivation for the slippery argument against hate speech laws in terms of whether the argument is simply a proxy for fundamental objections to the first step onto the slope. And the fifth queries the assumption that it is up to defenders of hate speech laws to show that slippery slope fears are unfounded. In the conclusion we offer some observations about why the slippery slope argument is so prevalent in the debate over hate speech laws despite its many and deep flaws.
