Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Yes, free speech is meaningless if it doesn't apply to views I dislike.

If some are allowed to spew hate (because it is ordained in their holy books/ideologies), then all should be allowed. If some are not allowed, then all should be banned.

Yes, as long as there or no threats involved or racism.

No. Hate speech produces a discourse wherein violence is more likely. However, the government must define it carefully, potential through consultations with commissions of experts and citizen's assemblies.

Yes, but speech that encourages violence should be penalized. Also, the definition of hate speech should be exclude hateful speech itself and include only encouraging violence.

what is hate speech?

Yes, but ban free speech

Freedom of speech should be abolished

No, freedom of speech is a silly concept

Yes, but crack down on false propaganda that incites racial, sexual, or gender-based hatred.

"Hate speech" is a meaningless term.

Yes, all speech should be protected, but it should serve as evidence against character should the actor decide to commit a hate crime and if the speech is vitriolic enough could spur an otherwise unprompted investigation into the actor

No, hate speech should be defined as incitement of violence or terrorism

Yes, everyone should have the right to say whatever they want, that's what freedom of speech is

Yes, as long as it doesn't directly cause violence

Only if hate speech is clearly defined as objectively posing an immediate threat of violence.

Hate speech is currently mostly constitutionally protected, but this should be changed so that it is forbidden by constitutional amendment or other legislation.

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence and as long as it's not completely restricting someone rights. Although I'm a black woman, I still think that people have a right to say what they want as long as it does not infringe on my rights or threaten my life or way of living.

That depends on how "hate speech" is defined.

No, and it is not already.

Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech, and people say stupid things and shouldn't have the government get involved for it. Encouraging violence should be regulated, but not expressing hate.

Yes but, this is a slippery slope in terms of constitutional protection. The first amendment does not specify what type of speech is protected. Additionally, supressing any more speech unprotected opens the door for more censorship. However, any type of speech that promotes or insights violence, which certain hate speech can, should be enforced against.

How does it feel when you encounter hateful comments about a group you identify with online, and how do you respond?

Can words on the internet truly hurt, or are they just words? Share a personal experience or thought.

Should social media platforms censor hate speech, and where should they draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

In what ways can schools and educational institutions play a role in reducing hate speech among young people?

How can we differentiate between hate speech and a strongly worded opinion without limiting personal expression?

Have you ever witnessed someone change their mind about a group they previously expressed hate toward? What caused that change?

What responsibility do influencers and public figures have in preventing the spread of hate speech, and have you seen effective examples?

How does the anonymity of the internet contribute to the spread of hate speech, and what steps can be taken to counteract this?

Can humor or satire ever cross the line into hate speech, and how can we identify when it does?

Reflecting on history, how does today's digital age compare in terms of the spread and impact of hate speech?

Gray Area, it should allow criticisms, but not threats or harm (I.E. Unwarranted discrimination, death threats, etc.)

Yes, as long as it does not threaten or incite violence, or is of a particular manner

No, and hate speech should be considered terrorism.

Yes. The best defense against hate speech is a better argument, not silencing it.

Yes, hate speech should be punished by society instead of censored by the government

Yes, but make sure people who use hate speech understand the consequences of using hate speech, especially those that threaten violence.

I really don’t know what to think.

What you say cant be prosecuted simply for what you say about someone else, though in the boundaries of other laws the individual harmed can take it upon themselves to seek judgment and retribution if cause is found

Yes, because the 'hate speech' is relative and I do not trust the government to objectively define its boundaries. Also, it infringes upon freedom of expression.

At this point, I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech, but it should all depend on the circumstances. Yes, a person’s hate speech can be protected by the first amendment, just as long as it does not encourage people to commit acts of violence against others. Still, I (personally) believe that the freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government.

Hate speech should be defined as either violent, stating that you dislike a group, or stating that all members of a group have this negative characteristic. Every institution needs to have three independent and objective boards to review any questions about this.

I don't think that hate speech is okay, but the government has no right to control what people say and do not say.

Yes, so long as the particular speech does not fall within existing exceptions to the First Amendment

Yes, all speech is protected.

as long as it does not threaten violence

as long as it does not threaten violence or take away someone's rights

Mixed on the issue. We need to protect free speech and ensure the protection and validity of anyone who's a victim of hate.

Yes, as long as it does non threaten, condone, or inspire violence

No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, race, religion or sexual orientation

yes. there is no "hate" speech, there is only speech.

Yes, as long as the speech isn’t hurting civilians.

No, it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference

No, because it normally promotes, encourages or threatens violence

No, because it encourages or threatens violence

No, because it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference

No, because it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference.

No, because such speech usually leads to physical violence against an individual or group of people due to their religious or political beliefs or sexual orientation

No, it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people because of their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference.

No, it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference.

No, because such speech leads to physical violence against an individual or group of people due to their religious or political beliefs or sexual orientation

No, because such speech normally leads to physical violence against an individual or group of people due to their religious or political beliefs or sexual orientation

No, because hate speech frequently leads to physical violence against an individual or group of people's opposing religious and political beliefs or their sexual orientation

No, because it provokes and incites violent actions

No, because it provokes and incites violence

No, because they usually provoke and incite violence due to an individual's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference

No, because it usually provokes and incites violence due to an individual's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference/identity

No, not if it expressly encourages physical violence.

No, not if it imposes a threat of actual physical harm or violence.

No, not if it specifically encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs, or sexual preference.

No, not if it specifically encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs, or sexual preference

No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference

No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference/identity

No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion or sexual preference

No, not if it specifically encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference

no hate speech is a terrible thing but this is a difficult thing to answer because their is no defined line between hate speech and normal speech so only if it is undoubtabley hate speech should it no be protected

Yes, unless the statements are otherwise made illegal by slander or libel.

It should be covered to a certain extent.

The purpose of freedom of speech is that you can say what you want, if you want to be a jerk you’ll suffer the consequences

I am on the fence

No, particularly hate speech that has hundreds of historical and current examples of turning into hateful acts rather than just threats of it.

Yes, as long as it does not encourage or threaten violence by inciting a group and is only an expression of the individual

Any speech that incites violences or can be used to justify violence should be illegal.

Yes. As long as it doesn't incite violence or physically harm someone or something.

difficult i dont get it

Yes, but increase penalties for hate crimes, and we should jail anyone apart of the KKK and all known Neo Nazis, as they are the modern representation of two of the biggest threats in American history

Yes, but increase penalties for hate crimes, and we should jail anyone apart of the KKK and any know Neo Nazis, as they are the modern representation of two of the biggest threats in American history

Yes, but increase penalties for hate crimes and jail anyone apart of the KKK and all known Neo Nazis, as they are the modern representation of two of the biggest threats in American history

Yes, but increase penalties for hate crimes

People will say what they please, but we as a nation should not encourage it or make it ok

Yes, the government should make no law prohibiting free speech
But if you use your freedom to say, or share hate speech in a public forum, the public is free to use theirs to disagree with and challenge your beliefs.
Private companies also have the right to refuse you service, or even fire you for possible damage to the company brand or image.
That's 'free market' capitalism

While I don't agree with protecting Hate speech, it could set a precedence for banning different types of speech.

This also just depends

No, since the first amendment does not protect any form of speech- it protects the right to say things, not the right to not feel repercussions of those things.

Hate speech creates tension and issues with certain groups of people, so it should be illegal as long as it is defined clearly what is and isn't hate speech.

No, and dramatically increase penalties for hate speech

Yes, as long as it's not bigoted towards a group of people

Yes, as long as it's not racist or bigoted towards a group of people