Synopses & Reviews
A liberal society stands on the proposition that we should all take seriously the idea that we might be wrong. This means we must place no one, including ourselves, beyond the reach of criticism; it means that we must allow people to err, even where the error offends and upsets, as it often will.” So writes Jonathan Rauch in
Kindly Inquisitors, which has challenged readers for more than twenty years with its bracing and provocative exploration of the issues surrounding attempts to limit free speech. In it, Rauch makes a persuasive argument for the value of liberal science” and the idea that conflicting views produce knowledge within society.
In this expanded edition of Kindly Inquisitors, a new foreword by George F. Will strikingly shows the books continued relevance, while a substantial new afterword by Rauch elaborates upon his original argument and brings it fully up to date. Two decades after the books initial publication, while some progress has been made, the regulation of hate speech has grown domesticallyespecially in American universitiesand has spread even more internationally, where there is no First Amendment to serve as a meaningful check. But the answer to bias and prejudice, Rauch argues, is pluralismnot purism. Rather than attempting to legislate bias and prejudice out of existence or to drive them underground, we must pit them against one another to foster a more vigorous and fruitful discussion. It is this process that has been responsible for the growing acceptance of the moral acceptability of homosexuality over the last twenty years. And it is this process, Rauch argues, that will enable us as a society to replace hate with knowledge, both ethical and empirical.
It is a melancholy fact that this elegant book, which is slender and sharp as a stiletto, is needed, now even more than two decades ago. Armed with it, readers can slice through the pernicious ideas that are producing the still-thickening thicket of rules, codes, and regulations restricting freedom of thought and expression.”George F. Will, from the foreword
Review
We have plenty of free speech in this country, but not nearly enough free speech about free speech itself. In this elegantly written, fair minded, and carefully reasoned book, Jeremy Waldron raises important issues about the real harm caused by certain kinds of speech. His argument is certain to give even free speech absolutists pause. Louis Michael Seidman, Georgetown University
Review
Jeremy Waldron's vigorous defense of restricting hate speech will benefit those who agree with him and those who do not. The book is clearly written, both subtle and inventive in its arguments, continuously stimulating, and shows a remarkable generosity of spirit. This is quite an achievement. George Kateb, author of < i=""> Human Dignity <>
Review
Waldron is a legal and political thinker at the height of his powers. Even, or perhaps especially, for someone who disagrees with his position on hate speech legislation, this book conveys a subtle, rich, rigorous and deeply challenging argument. Timothy Garton Ash, St Antony ' s College, University of Oxford
Review
A vigorously argued, intelligent challenge to the "liberal bravado" of U.S. First Amendment scholars. In an eloquent reply to free-speech advocates, Waldron moves step by step in building the argument as to why hate-speech laws are good for a well-ordered society...The author argues that the damage caused by hate speech is like an "environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison" that robs the intended victims of their dignity and reputation in society. Waldron's analogy between hate speech and pornography--in terms of the defamation of women--is particularly noteworthy. He responds carefully to the notion of free speech as a necessary part of democracy's "marketplace of ideas" and looks to the Enlightenment philosophes for their views on toleration and defamation. Kirkus Reviews
Review
[Waldron's] book sheds light on a number of difficult issues, and occasionally exposes the difference between historical fact and fiction...He elegantly and convincingly advocates that our leaders should not only avoid the use of hate speech themselves, but also condemn its use by others...We should all do our best to preserve President Ford's conception of America as a place where we can disagree without being disagreeable. An understanding of the arguments in Waldron's book may help us to do so. John Paul Stevens
Review
To the (mostly white) liberals who say they hate the content of hate speech, but defend its right to exist under the First Amendment (often while patting themselves on the back for their tolerance), Waldron replies, in essence: easy for you to say. In this brief, eloquent book, he urges readers (at a bare minimum) to think about how hate speech feels from the point of view of its targets...From key court battles Waldron teases out the ideas that matter in deciding how to balance free expression with a free society, one in which everybody can "know that when they leave home in the morning, they can count on not being discriminated against or humiliated or terrorized." New York Review of Books
Review
This is a wonderful book. It conveys complex ideas in an accessible and convincing way...Jeremy Waldron has put together a clear and compelling rationale for hate-speech laws--the harm that it causes to human dignity. Kate Tuttle - Boston Globe
Review
Waldron...challenges society and its legal system to do something about [the harm done by hate speech]. But the likelihood that something will be done is slim if Waldron is right about the state of First Amendment discourse: "[I]n the American debate, the philosophical arguments about hate speech are knee-jerk, impulsive and thoughtless." Not the arguments of this book, however; they hit the mark every time. Katharine Gelber - Times Higher Education
Review
The Harm in Hate Speech is the fullest embodiment of arguments that Waldron has been developing for years...Waldron's treatise is primarily a philosophical defense of hate-speech regulation. He argues that hate speech is an "environmental" problem that pollutes the atmosphere of security and dignity that society should provide to all its members...Speech intended to intimidate or malign destroys this assurance...While we should continue to protect the free speech of those we disagree with, The Harm in Hate Speech makes a compelling case that they are not the only ones who need defending. Stanley Fish - New York Times
Review
This book develops a theory of hate speech that challenges existing U.S. legal rubrics. U.S. courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment forbids criminalization of hate speech, but Waldron advances a broader view of the link between free expression and important social values such as tolerance and inclusiveness...If dignity is a concept that is valued by a polity, Waldron argues, then there are important reasons to distinguish hate speech from other forms of expression that merit legal protection. An elegant synthesis of modern legal philosophy and leading cases, as well as a critique of the positions of prominent legal theorists such as Ronald Dworkin and C. Edwin Baker, the book is a readable, thought-provoking contribution to the literature. Daniel Townshend - American Prospect
Review
Waldron is firmly on the side of the hate speech legislators. He wants free speech dogmatists to think again, and presents a series of challenges to the prevailing view in the U.S. S. B. Lichtman - Choice
Review
Praise for the previous edition
“Fiercely argued. . . . What sets his study apart is his attempt to situate recent developments in a long-range historical perspective and to defend the system of free intellectual inquiry as a socially productive method of channeling prejudice.”
Review
“Like no other, this book restates the core of our freedom and demonstrates how great, and disregarded, the peril to that freedom has become.”
Review
“Stands out as a thoughtful, provocative defense of civil liberties and liberal inquiry. Jonathan Rauchs unique perspective, derived from personal experience, lends to the poignancy of his thesis.”
Review
“To observe that American political and intellectual discourse has become polarized, intolerant of all but the most predictable ideological nostrums, censorial of anything deemed to be remotely ‘politically incorrect, and generally lacking in subtlety, a free spirit of inquiry, or honest quest for truth, has perhaps become trite. Twenty years ago it was less so, and it was then that Rauch wrote a book called Kindly Inquisitors. In retrospect, Rauch was extraordinarily prophetic in his assessment of the evolving state of free speech and thought. [This] newly updated version of Kindly Inquisitors provides an opportune moment to reflect on this extraordinarily deep and provocative essay, a true tour de force of logic, integrity and moral passion.”
Review
"A modern classic explaining the importance of free speech in society.”
Review
“An eloquent attack on the advocates of political correctness.”
Review
“It has been twenty years since the first edition of Kindly Inquisitors, yet conflicts persist. This book is worth a second look twenty years later. It will no doubt lead the reader to reflect upon the nature of social and political change within a technologically networked society.”
Synopsis
For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Waldron rejects this view, and makes the case that hate speech should be regulated as part of a commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities.
Synopsis
Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech--except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities.
Causing offense--by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example--is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home.
Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
Synopsis
Since its publication in 1993,
Kindly Inquisitors has challenged readers with its bracing and provocative exploration of the issues surrounding attempts to limit free speech. Jonathan Rauch makes a persuasive argument for the value of what he sees as a pillar of liberal society: “liberal science,” the system for producing knowledge within such a society, a system based on choosing between conflicting views. Moving beyond a defense of the First Amendment, Rauch defends the morality, as well as the very real benefits, of an intellectual regime that relies on unfettered and often hurtful criticism to make progress. This Expanded Edition includes a Foreword by George F. Will emphasizing the book’s continuing relevance and a substantial Afterword by Rauch which updates and elaborates upon his original arguments. Two decades on, Rauch notes that, while some progress has been made, the regulation of speech deemed hateful or assaultive or harassing has spread internationally—where there is no First Amendment to act as a buffer—and has dug in domestically, especially in American universities. But the answer to bias and prejudice, he argues, is pluralism, not purism. The answer is not to try to legislate bias and prejudice out of existence or to drive them underground, but to pit biases and prejudices against each other and make them fight in the open. It was this process, playing out over the last twenty years, that has been responsible for the acceptance of the morality of homosexuality. And it is this process, liberal science, which will enable us as a society to replace hate with knowledge, both ethical and empirical. With strong backing from the Cato Institute, this new edition will bring renewed attention to a classic defense of free thought and free expression.
About the Author
Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a contributing editor of the Atlantic and National Journal, and the author of six books, including Government's End and Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a contributing editor of the Atlantic and National Journal, and the author of six books, including Government's End and Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Foreword by George F. Will
1. New Threats to Free Thought
2. The Rise of Liberal Science
3. The Politics of Liberal Science
4. The Fundamentalist Threat
5. The Humanitarian Threat
6. Et Exspecto Resurrectionem
Afterword: Minorities, Moral Knowledge, and the Uses of Hate Speech
Notes
Index