Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Should be free to say, but there should be consequences for speech that suggests terror/danger. Those who use hate speech depending on their use and content should potentially need mandatory education

It depends on the objective of the speech. If it is to increase hate and division in society then yes. If it just expressing an opinion then no.

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence... You shouldnt have to see it if you don't want to. Opt out options

Yes, but only if those who are exposed to it consent to viewing it

Hate speech is almost anything now days people are so sensitive and soft now days freedom of speech isn’t even a thing

Open criticism of bodies in power should be allowed as free protected dialogue, but open hate speech towards minorities and disadvantaged citizens should be punished

Depends on what is being said. If it is harassment or threatening and isn’t favouring a certain race because of “political correctness”. It needs to be a standard of both sides.

Yes. The government CANNOT have the right to infringe on our ability to speak. Unequivocally. No exceptions. No authority figure can be trusted to define hate speech.

Again, an odd question for Canada. You can say what you want as long as it isn’t a threat to another person or a threat of violence, and you are also allowed to experience the consequences of what you say.

Yes but shouldn’t threaten violence and the government cannot be trusted to define the boundaries without bias

No, Government shouldn't get to define hate speech. However, any speech that threatens physical harm or incites physical harm on any particluar person or group should be climinal offence.

Government shouldn't get to define hate speech. However, any speech that threatens physical harm or incites physical harm on any particluar person or group should be climinal offence.

Yes, because than it's easier to address and correct misinformation and hateful ideologies.

Yes, but exempt slurs.

No, hate speech is harmful and discriminatory and should not be protected free speech should cover ability to criticize the government that's it.

No and increase penalties for hate speech. Also freedom of speech laws should protect you from criticizing the government

No, and harsher penalties for hate speech and freedom of speech laws should protect you from criticizing the government

No, except for protection from criminal sanctions by the government. (i.e. no protections from critique by the government or private entities, nor from any filtering or sanctions by private entities or service providers)

Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of Consequence. Ultimately information should be free to flow.

It ought to be measured by frequency and severity. A single comment shouldn’t result in legal consequences per se. but there needs to be a reasonable threshold stated.

No, freedom of speech laws should only protect the right to criticize the government and groups in a civil respectful manner.

No, organizing any public or online demonstration or movement supporting hate or violence towards a minority group should be banned, and committing an act of discrimination against a person or place should be punishable by jail time

Yes, But more funds should be provided to education and mental health program in order to educated and provide more peaceful solutions in the first place.

The boundaries of hate speech are too hard to define broadly so course of action must depend on context.

We do not have freedom of speech in Canada, we have freedom of expression. Therefore this is irrelevant to Canadians.

depends on what, since everyone perspective is difference and is different at what they stand for, so no

Not only should it be protected, but all hate speech laws should be abolished. We have incitement, libel, and slander laws that sufficiently cover issues arising from speech.

Freedom of speech is all speech.

Yes, allow it. We should not be criminalizing people for hating people like minorities and LGBTQ+s.

No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.

No, and the government should stay out of philosophical and religious issues all together.

Yes, because everyone will be offended by something, you can't regulate it, and hateful words should be and are seen more as taboo

Yes, because it's still speech

this guy in Britain taught his dog to be a nazi and got sued for hate speach or offensive material (it was specifically a joke) so I think they shouldn't have that much power when dealing with hate spech unless it's threatening or harassment.

as long as you're not being a total **** or using religion to excuse it😍😍

No, hate speech should only be kept out of third parties

Yes, but others have the right to criticize you

Free speech shouldn’t exist

As long as all parties that are exposed to it have consented beforehand.

i don’t have enough knowledge on the topic to answer fairly

Depends on the case. Hate speech that threatens others physically should be handled accordingly

Say what you want but learn to shut up.

There should not be hate

Yes but you have to face the consequences for it.

The media has made hate speech very broad.

NO! Hate speech is too subjective! Free speech for ALL! Call to Action is not speech, but all speech is a protected right!

Somewhat, I know all the hate speech sometimes so STUPID and NON-SCENE, but it's their speech, just let them speak as long as they realize how stupid are they. I don't mind if it threatens violence lol.

No, but hate speech needs to have a thorough and clear definition.

Yes as long as free speech is not taken away deeming it hate speech

Yes, it should be protected by the freedom of speech laws, but there should also be penalties under hate crimes

No, I think private companies should monitor what hate speech is being used and band users accordingly not the government

Freedom of speech should be protected. The term "hate speech" can be taken very subjectively.

yes but only because the definitions will constantly evolve and will be too difficult to police. we should regardless stand up for one another and discourage discrimination as we witness it.

Yes as long as it does not

The definition of hate speech could be the bible. The bible is not. Some see it other ways. Some things should be protected

No, and hate speech should have specific defined characteristics.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Free speech unless it calls for violence.

Freedom of speech is often used when it is hate speech and most of the time it’s hate against already protected groups. The government needs to enforce the human rights codes and make sure that everyone is being TREATED EQUALLY AS HUMANS NOT AS DIRT.

Yes if we can define some boundaries

No, but only if they are criticizing another in a civil manner

No, but what constitutes as hate speech should be better defined. There's ignorance, and there's hate.

Only if all party's exposed to it have consented first.

Let's just not threaten each other or lie

Mixed feelings on this topic.

freedom of speech is designed to protect you from the government aresting you because you voice your opinion against them. Freedom of speech is not the ability to say what you want and get away with it.

Yes people should say what they want to say regardless if it is classified as hate speech. That is freedom of speech and if we are restricted to what we can say or not say, that is censorship and not freedom.

I think the question is fuzy in that there are law restricting freedom of speech already. Like inciting violence or a call to action are crimes, but hate speech in general is used to restrict freedom of speech by arbitrary calling things hate speech like neo nazis. Either they directly incited violence or it’s free speech. If a nazi want to say stupid things they should be free to even though it’s wrong and stupid obviously

As long as the victims have abilities to fight back RIGHT AWAY, hate speeches shouldn't be prohibited. But if victims in a specific situation that can't fight back, hate speecher should be punished by a lot.

Hate speech shouldn't exist but we have a right to speak so as long as it isn't disrespectful and violent

Freedom of speech does not equate to hate speech.

Let a judicial panel evaluate the content found to be hateful

yes to a slight degree. there is a difference between hate speech and speech you hate

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence, and because I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.

it denpeds

Everyone has the right to say what they want, but they must be aware of the consequences they may suffer.

Cancel Culture, a beautiful form of self regulation that results in people who commit hate speech are ostracized by society and they lose their jobs. Best part about it, doesn't require government regulation and is done entirely by societal powers. Better to use this than to legislate without clear boundaries and definitions of the word.

No, because this bring us to a draker point in our own history, we need to be looking to move forward, and making sure that we leave this world in good hands, and eliminate social issues.

yes is someone makes a hate speech its your choice to agree or disagree and you also have to right to make a speech on why its not right and no one should follow them

Freedom of speech is a pay it forward system. You must respect the free speach of others because if everyone does the same then your speach wont be stomped out

I do not believe hate speech should be normalized, rather constructive criticism for anything.

No, because any speech that undermines the safety of others should not be protected under freedom of expression.

No, but I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech

Yes it should be protected, however, that does not clear it from consequences.

Has to be more descriptive to what hate speech is. Everybody gets offended from anything.

no but current hate speech laws need to be reevaluated.

Yes, but only if it is not spread to non-consenting parties.

Yes, because anyone can say something is hateful when taken out of context. Especially atheists towards Christians.

Freedom of speech needs to be justified as we have an influx of misinformation. Hate speech can be misconstrued in this day and age as we don't have the means to differentiate what is right and wrong anymore. We cannot punish people based on biases they have been raised with, we need to give them the opportunity to be properly informed and then make a proper judgement

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence or is blatantly incorrect

Yes, Free speech for all means for ALL! Free speech should have societal consequences not governmental ones! The government cannot tell me what i can an cannot say!

I’m unsure where I stand on this

The restriction of thought and speech is tantamount to tyranny.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But if people are being deliberately rude and mean by using hate speech there should be something that the victim can do to protect themselves.

Only if those who are exposed to it have consented to doing so

Yes, but there should be consequences for actual threats of terror/violence

Who decides what is hate speech and what is not? This is risky and would ultimately lead to censorship. Take example in the US, you'll be ostracized for having a different viewpoint or supporting party than what is the status quo.

Who decides what is hate speech and what is not? this is dangerous and ultimately leads to censorship. It's happening in the US now, you cannot support another party without being ostracized because another party is the status quo.

no, it may increase the chances of the violence.