The author took on a subject that most avoid, and for that I congratulate him. At the same time, his arguments are almost always based on false premises.
Early on, the author says the publisher of hate speech wants to exclude, beat, and drive out the object of his attacks. Exclusion is NOT the same as beat, the latter being clearly against the law. "Drive out" is tricky, for unless the publisher causes harm to the persons and/or their properties - both clearly against the law separate and apart from hate speech legislation - then the persons may have left (or not left) for any number of other reasons. The liberal links exclusion and beaten because, for the liberal, they are one and the same. For the rest of us, there is a world of difference. Over the past Jewish holidays, I had any number of guests to my home, every one of them Jewish. Clearly I knowingly "excluded" all other peoples, but I certainly didn't and wouldn't beat those peoples. Should I be arrested?
The author spends a lot of time extolling and defining a "well-ordered society". Well, the really well-ordered societies are the most homogeneous ones - small towns in which everyone is white and Christian, Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, Japan, etc. The beloved diversity is the enemy of a well-ordered society, so the author avoids this inconvenient truth.
Hate speech is a slippery slope, starting with defining hate speech. The author says that anything that affects the "dignity" of another individual is hate. Better build more law schools and prisons because we are ALL in trouble by this definition. Is 'NO SHARIA LAW' hate speech or a valid opinion? If I look at someone and smirk, is that hate thought? If a black person smirks at me, is that NOT hate thought by virtue of his melanin? If, as happened this week, a viewer emailed a female tv personality and called her fat, would he face hate speech charges under the author's definition? And if that newscaster responded that the emailer was stupid, does she go to jail too? What about those that write letters to the editor - should the newspapers report any and all who opposed any and all?
The author keeps returning to his prime concern about inflammatory signage which is a red herring - no one puts out inflammatory signs against ANYONE because it is simply not acceptable to society as a whole. Today, hate speech legislation is aimed at appeasing certain groups to the exclusion of other groups.
Recently, in NJ, a young man was sent to prison for making a gay person unhappy. No physical attack to the person or property, in fact no derogatory language. The young gay got upset by a prank and killed himself. This is where hate speech legislation leads. Someday, someone will decide that pedaphiles are an endangered class. Or those engaged in beastiality. And according to the author, ALL groups are entitled to dignity - "all" would therefore include groups like the aforementioned that are now despised. Yes, a very slippery slope.
Finally, the major flaw throughout this book is that the author sees hate flowing in only one direction - from the (white, straight) majority at the (dark-skinned, gay) minority. Anyone with access to the news knows that this simply isn't the case. These days, black hatred towards whites, manifested as verbal and physical attacks, far outweighs white hatred of blacks. Anti-whites editorials predominate in black-owned newspapers and websites that would never be tolerated in even the most conservative white newspapers. And this is where hate speech laws fall apart. I hit a black person and I am charged with assault AND a hate crime; the black hits me and he is charged with assault only.