This collection of cutting-edge writing on hate speech is also a documentation ofour day's passionate debate on democracies’ free speech governance, adebate that not only reflects the change underway but also drives it forward. Itis two changes in one, in fact. While concern over hate speech has grown fromseparate national anxieties into a global issue, the trend as to the preferredway of handling hate speech has gravitated toward restricting it by regulationrather than isolating it by more reasoned speech.

Both these approaches are defended in superbly crafted arguments in the presentvolume. The prize the authors want you to keep your eyes on are two verydifferent “minimums.” Proponents of keeping governments to a“minimal regulation” standard are powerfully rebutted by advocatesof “extensive regulation” who believe, in Michel Rosenfeld'swords, that “the state can no longer justify commitment toneutrality” and that it has a duty to “strive for maintenance of aminimum of mutual respect” and “secure a minimum of civility inthe public arena.”

This is enjoyable intellectual fencing, but it should not blind us to thesurprising hazards that the dispute represents for the global advocacy arena,quite apart from the question of which approach is best suited to handle hatespeech.