This is the Kator Daily Podcast for Monday, May 21st, 2018. I'm Caleb Brown.

If we choose to deal with hate speech with legal sanction, it can empower the very groups whose

speech the sanction was meant to punish and restrictions on speech can also

punish those attempting to speak out against odious ideas. In her new book

Hate, why we should resist it with free speech not censorship.

Nadine Strossen says responding to so-called hate speech demands more speech, free speech,

counter-speech.

You refer to constitutionally protected hate speech. You refer to constitutionally protected hate speech, which is a, I believe you said a narrower category

than hate speech.

Can you help us draw a draw those lines about what what falls on

one side or the other? Absolutely and the key difference is content versus context. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently said that we are not going to punish any

speech merely because its content, its message, its viewpoint, its idea, is hateful

or hated.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court has consistently enforced what it calls the principle of

viewpoint neutrality.

We will never allow speech to be suppressed merely because the majority of the community dislikes even hates its content.

However, speech that conveys a hateful message along with speech with any other content may be punished if in a particular

context that speech directly causes imminent serious specific harm,

such as a genuine threat which reasonably puts somebody in fear of being attacked such as an imminent

incitement to violence which is likely to happen imminently and is intentionally conveyed.

Another example would be targeted harassment.

So you try to draw a couple of lines here in this book and I think it's

...