This chapter addresses an issue which, since 11 September 2001, has commanded considerable legislative attention in the UK; namely, whether it is appropriate in a democracy committed to the fundamental importance of freedom of expression to criminalize expression which is intended to promote hatred on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or national origin. It argues that the libertarian tone of recent US jurisprudence not only understates a countervailing constitutional value and mistakenly dismantles an earlier, settled reading of the hierarchy of speech values, it also requires of laws outlawing hateful expression an unrealistically onerous standard of harm that is unlikely to be demonstrated empirically. In the US, the rationales against regulation become manifest in the severe constitutional hurdles that the state must overcome when it wishes to restrict expression because of the message that is being conveyed. An interesting comparative discussion is offered by M Rosenfeld, 'Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis'.