Hate speech is defined as public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
Yes, as long as it doesn't threaten someone's life.
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence or violate freedom of association.
Yes, because I don’t trust the either government or private Big Tech Companies to define the boundaries of hate speech.
The First Amendment protects free speech, not the consequences of poor decisions with such.
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to defund the boundaries of hate speech, BUT there should be consequences for the hate speech.
Yes, In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.
Hate speech is defined as public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. so, i believe that if it threatens the safety of another with violence, then a person should be allowed to be protected and have authority to make it legal to stop
Yes, but only if it does not threaten violence, and increase penalties for hate crimes
People need to stay in their own lane and ignore people they don’t agree with
Freedom of speech is a novel right we often take for granted. I have absolutely no use for racism, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, or any prejudice of any kind but, our constitution allows us to speak out in favor of such things. Very strange how it works. The day we suppress the freedom to speak out for or against our beliefs is the day our country stops being free. I don’t condone hate speech but, as long as we are free people have the right to say what they will.
If we had a constitutionally limited it would not matter.
The First Amendment prevents the gov't from making any laws that limit free speech
No, but it should not be criminalized either.
No because there is a current trend of only one side being silenced.
Doesnt this go against the “My freedoms shouldn’t cause a problem in your freedoms” thing?
No, but there needs to be a clear interpretation of hate speech and undeniably not just be a disagreement on issues.
Yes, but they cannot convict the person/persons that beat the hate-speech spouter.
Only in a private setting. It should not be used to protect an employee from reprimand/termination.
As long the speech doesn’t violate an amendment
Ratify 1st amendment to specify what hate speech is and/ or make punishments for it (500 fine, civil court appearance etc)
The first Amendment protects our freedom of speech and protests, however it does not protect freedom of consequence so if someone is spouting hate speak they must face the consequences.
No, this needs to be prioritized for both democrats and republicans. Not just one side.
Regardless, we must first define what hate speech truly is.
There is no such thing. What ones sees as hate another sees as critical but loving. Sticks and stones quit pandering to children that never grew up!!! Seriously people we live in a culture of pansies and beta males.
Yes, and begrudgingly because once a power is given to the government, the government has a way of abusing that power. However, once someone uses hate speech a warrant for observation should be issued to determine if that person poses a threat to others.
Yes. At the end of the day, you can say whatever you want and the government should not infringe on freedom of speech. However, just because you can say something, doesn’t mean you should.
Limit the confines of there ability to speak but do not ban them or fine them unless violence or complete disregard of historical facts and truth are shown. Put warnings on there speech saying that it could be extreme and has proven to be.
Yes, barring threats of or inciting violence.
No, all hate speech is inherently violent and can perpetuate or imply violence against the victim
No, hate speech has the potential to limit the first amendment rights of others.
Sometimes, as long as it doesn't incite violence or cross the line into discrimination
No, because it affects the happiness and liberties of another person.
Define "hate speech."
Yes,Until a person follows through and physically harms or kills someone they should be able to say what they want.
Yes, but I'm also all for the public backlash heaped upon people who choose to speak hatefully. Allow the consequences to be 'canceling' -- a termination of opportunities determined by the court of public opinion in response to the person's behavior and speech.
Yes, but your reputation will be destroyed publicly and you will suffer great consequences socially. Legally, you should not be able to be punished for hate speech, but definitely emphasize the issues with doing so.
No. I do not support it, but censoring a loud minority will make the hate stronger. Let the public hear the hate speech so it can be judged in a court of "public opinion."
Deleted2yrs
As long as it does not incite harassment or lead to violence
No, hate speech is cruel, immoral, and leads to suicides as it effects the mental and emotional health of those at the receiving end of it
Not if the speech is inviting or expressing a desire to commit violence
No, hate speech is cruel, immoral, and leads to suicides as it effects the mental and emotional health of those at the receiving end of hate speech
Yes, because it can be used as evidence if a hate crime is committed.
Yes, the court of public opinion should take care of the consequences as long as the speech is not promoting violence.
We should have freedom to speak in a peaceable manner and that could include hate speech; however, a much clearer definition should be made of what actually is hate speech.
Yes. Although just because you can say what you want to say does not mean there will not be consequences that follow it.
Yes, only because if we limit any type of speech we violate the constitution. I have fought for the peoples right to be ignorant. Will continue to do so even if i do not agree with them.
there is no such thing as hate speech the only speech that is bad and that can cause harm that is not protected under the first amendment is things like "go and kill this person" or " i am going to kill this person"
yes and no because its bad but at the same time hate speech is only an extention of ones own beliefs of something and even if they're bad they shouldn't be censored
If the hate speech is discrimination of any kind than no but if it is about things like criticizing the government then yes. If it is about criticizing the government, it should not include things that give equal rights to women, trans rights, rights to other races, rights of gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, etc.
say whatever you want
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
