The strength of Hopkins’s slim new book lies not so much in what one might learn about hate speech—although that is ostensibly the book’s subject—but in the Supreme Court’s muddled First Amendment jurisprudence. Hopkins's most interesting and important contribution is his explication of the Meiklejohn-Brennan (and maybe Kalven) collaboration to find the central meaning of the First Amendment for protecting the communication of ideas important to self-governance. Hopkins asserts that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech, however defined, because it contains no such ideas. Hopkins contrasts this theory of the First Amendment with the better-known "marketplace of ideas" concept, in which all speech is presumptively protected, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, and allowed to compete for acceptance. It is that theory, albeit inconsistently applied, that permits hate speech to thrive. Noting that the Supreme Court has never faced a hate speech case that it could not resolve by avoiding the issue—whether hate speech should be expelled from the First Amendment umbrella—Hopkins concludes on a hopeful note that a new court with a new issue might someday do just that. Recommended. Graduate students, faculty, and professionals.

Choice Reviews

An in-depth critique of hate speech and its proper place within First Amendment law and 21st century America is sorely needed. In this book, Wat Hopkins tackles the challenge with intellect and passion, offering compelling arguments and conclusions that significantly contribute to the debate on this vitality important issue.

Joseph Russomanno, Walter Cronkrite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University

Grounding his timely work in judicial opinions, academic scholarship and free-speech theory, Hopkins makes an engaging, well-researched and compelling argument why First Amendment protection for hate speech is wrongheaded. As he crisply encapsulates it, such destructive expression ‘is harmful, without value, and does not constitute ideas for First Amendment purposes.’

Clay Calvert, nonresident senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Hate Speech is Not Free Speech contributes mightily to the nation’s ongoing conversation about the boundaries of freedom of expression.Wat Hopkins draws from his extensive experience in First Amendment scholarship to provide a historically grounded and thoughtful argument for why we should rethink First Amendment safeguards for hate speech.

Jared Schroeder, associate professor of media law, University of Missouri and author of The Structure of Ideas: Mapping a New Theory of Free Expression in the AI Era

What a lucid and compelling clarion call to the US Supreme Court: Unprotect hate speech. Hopkins’ book couldn't be more timely and relevant in the Internet 21st century. It cogently clarifies why and how hate speech has no place in First Amendment law. Hopkins’ incisive analysis of key caselaw and free speech theories is a scholarly tour de force.

Kyu Ho Youm, Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair, University of Oregon