Query: Nadine Strossen distinguishes between constitutionally protected and constitutionally unprotected hate speech. What is that distinction? What drives the distinction?

Query: Why does Nadine Strossen hold the view that the remedy for hate speech is "more speech, not less?"

Query: Why is Nadine Strossen generally skeptical of the arguments for hate speech laws?

Query: How are Steven Shiffrin's recommendations for the adoption of foreign approaches to the regulation of hate speech countermanded by Nadine Strossen's observations on the experiences of other countries in these regards?

Query: Why does Nadine Strossen consider strict enforcement of the viewpoint neutrality principle to be the necessary condition for protecting all controversial expression?

Query: How would Nadine Strossen respond to Steven Shiffrin's contention that empirical proof of speech harms should not be a prerequisite to the regulation of hate speech?

Query: How would Nadine Strossen respond to Steven Shiffrin's argument that hate speech laws would be prudent regulatory policy?

Query: Why does Nadine Strossen consider hate speech laws sto be largely ineffective in securing their objectives?

Query: Consider Justice Brandeis's historic concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927). Are you persuaded, as Nadine Strossen, is that the jurist was correct in his judgment that the remedy for "evil counsels," "falsehood" and "fallacies" is "more speech, not enforced silence?