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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
@8S6B6X54yrs4Y
Freedom is pay it forward. We respect the rights to speach of others because if everyone does the same your speech won't be stomped out
@ForWheelen3yrs3Y
Only if it is political speech. The first amendment applies only to political speech whereas the government is being spoken of. I don't endorse hate speech at all, but where it is protected it should be protecred
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, to tolerating it as long as it does not threaten violence, but not to protecting it.
Deleted3yrs3Y
It should be legally tolerated so long as it does not threaten violence, but not protected.
@92S34SB3yrs3Y
Yes because hate speech is still freedom of speech, however there should be increased penalties for hate crimes.
@9334YP33yrs3Y
Yes, all speech is protected by the first amendment, including hate speech, incitement and calls to violence, because sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, sort of, not protected but tolerated so long as it does not constitute direct abuse or call for violence.
@92YT8JT3yrs3Y
No, when it threatens a group of people
Deleted3yrs3Y
No-- but the government has to clearly define "hate speech" in a manner that every citizen can understand. It cannot fluctuate from state to state, or administration to administration.
Deleted4yrs4Y
Speech that demonizes an entire group of people (ie "all blacks are criminals") or threaten violence should be banned and social media companies should be required to take down posts with this content.
Deleted4yrs4Y
Yes, but crack down on false propaganda that incites racial, sexual, or gender-based hatred.
Deleted4yrs4Y
"Hate speech" is a meaningless term.
Deleted4yrs4Y
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
Deleted3yrs3Y
No, hate speech should be defined as incitement of violence or terrorism
@8KNKGGZ4yrs4Y
Yes, everyone should have the right to say whatever they want, that's what freedom of speech is
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it doesn't directly cause violence
@4VSB86P3yrs3Y
Only if hate speech is clearly defined as objectively posing an immediate threat of violence.
@3KV25CY4yrs4Y
Hate speech is currently mostly constitutionally protected, but this should be changed so that it is forbidden by constitutional amendment or other legislation.
@3HNRB333yrs3Y
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.
@897TFQ94yrs4Y
That depends on how "hate speech" is defined.
@3TRKR473yrs3Y
No, and it is not already.
@heatherdvdprincess4yrs4Y
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.
@vacheesehead3yrs3Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
@8RMRZTM4yrs4Y
Gray Area, it should allow criticisms, but not threats or harm (I.E. Unwarranted discrimination, death threats, etc.)
@8RBQDDP4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten or incite violence, or is of a particular manner
@8P6PWZP4yrs4Y
No, and hate speech should be considered terrorism.
@6WQYBY34yrs4Y
Yes. The best defense against hate speech is a better argument, not silencing it.
@75YJY9V3yrs3Y
Yes, hate speech should be punished by society instead of censored by the government
@92JXK3J2yrs2Y
Yes, but make sure people who use hate speech understand the consequences of using hate speech, especially those that threaten violence.
@8L463MX4yrs4Y
I really don’t know what to think.
@593F7MN4yrs4Y
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
@8KX67Q94yrs4Y
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.
@92YHQCV3yrs3Y
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.
@8H4DF7B4yrs4Y
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.
@8LG2DJP4yrs4Y
I don't think that hate speech is okay, but the government has no right to control what people say and do not say.
@8KQ83J54yrs4Y
Yes, so long as the particular speech does not fall within existing exceptions to the First Amendment
@2HN4HSX4yrs4Y
Yes, all speech is protected.
@78S5M874yrs4Y
as long as it does not threaten violence
@78S5M874yrs4Y
as long as it does not threaten violence or take away someone's rights
@7BF3XPN4yrs4Y
Mixed on the issue. We need to protect free speech and ensure the protection and validity of anyone who's a victim of hate.
@75KRFBJ4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does non threaten, condone, or inspire violence
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, race, religion or sexual orientation
@ambaalamps4yrs4Y
yes. there is no "hate" speech, there is only speech.
@8C5DPWM4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as the speech isn’t hurting civilians.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference
@7PTCG382yrs2Y
No, because it normally promotes, encourages or threatens violence
@7PTCG382yrs2Y
No, because it encourages or threatens violence
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, because it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, because it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people because of their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, it encourages physical violence towards another person or group of people due to their race, religion, political beliefs or sexual preference.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it provokes and incites violent actions
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it provokes and incites violence
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because they usually provoke and incite violence due to an individual's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it usually provokes and incites violence due to an individual's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference/identity
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, not if it expressly encourages physical violence.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, not if it imposes a threat of actual physical harm or violence.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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.
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion, or sexual preference/identity
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion or sexual preference
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
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
@8F6GY5L4yrs4Y
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
@8FPLGKD4yrs4Y
Yes, unless the statements are otherwise made illegal by slander or libel.
@8FYF7LR4yrs4Y
It should be covered to a certain extent.
@8GBVFSR4yrs4Y
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
@8GZRRDZ4yrs4Y
No, particularly hate speech that has hundreds of historical and current examples of turning into hateful acts rather than just threats of it.
@8HYHQM84yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does not encourage or threaten violence by inciting a group and is only an expression of the individual
@8JN2WYN4yrs4Y
Any speech that incites violences or can be used to justify violence should be illegal.
@8JN8BGC4yrs4Y
Yes. As long as it doesn't incite violence or physically harm someone or something.
@8JSB4ZC4yrs4Y
@8RB2K9D4yrs4Y
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
@8RB2K9D4yrs4Y
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
@8RB2K9D4yrs4Y
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
@8RB2K9D4yrs4Y
Yes, but increase penalties for hate crimes
@8RPPT2H4yrs4Y
People will say what they please, but we as a nation should not encourage it or make it ok
@Maxx485038004yrs4Y
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
@8RX2GPV4yrs4Y
While I don't agree with protecting Hate speech, it could set a precedence for banning different types of speech.
@8SLRGMY4yrs4Y
@8STJ2TC4yrs4Y
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.
@8VL9DP43yrs3Y
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.
@8XQ89RL3yrs3Y
No, and dramatically increase penalties for hate speech
@8XRJPQ53yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it's not bigoted towards a group of people
@8XRJPQ53yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it's not racist or bigoted towards a group of people