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:
Province/Territory:
Yes as long as it does not threaten violence or democracy
@8M7TL4C4yrs4Y
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
@9RQNPMR4mos4MO
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.
@9JWTCPT9mos9MO
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence... You shouldnt have to see it if you don't want to. Opt out options
@mrmustacheo4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if those who are exposed to it consent to viewing it
@9ZMKF7H4 days4D
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)
@9VJLT3Z2mos2MO
Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of Consequence. Ultimately information should be free to flow.
@9V9N82Z2mos2MO
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.
@9TKM3QW2mos2MO
No, freedom of speech laws should only protect the right to criticize the government and groups in a civil respectful manner.
@9HJBY7T12mos12MO
depends on what, since everyone perspective is difference and is different at what they stand for, so no
@9HCP7QV12mos12MO
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.
@9H6458512mos12MO
Yes but shouldn’t threaten violence and the government cannot be trusted to define the boundaries without bias
@9FNQCN71yr1Y
Yes, because than it's easier to address and correct misinformation and hateful ideologies.
@9MKYHZ76mos6MO
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
@9KFBDW3Conservative9mos9MO
The boundaries of hate speech are too hard to define broadly so course of action must depend on context.
@9HXL8D511mos11MO
We do not have freedom of speech in Canada, we have freedom of expression. Therefore this is irrelevant to Canadians.
@9F5KMPV1yr1Y
No, hate speech is harmful and discriminatory and should not be protected free speech should cover ability to criticize the government that's it.
@9RCRJ4F4mos4MO
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.
@9FQ2ZJY1yr1Y
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.
@9FQ2ZJY1yr1Y
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.
@9M5D6227mos7MO
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.
@8VN2PC83yrs3Y
Freedom of speech is all speech.
@8D4X4PW4yrs4Y
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.
@9CNLPYN1yr1Y
No, and the government should stay out of philosophical and religious issues all together.
@965WGSD2yrs2Y
Yes, because everyone will be offended by something, you can't regulate it, and hateful words should be and are seen more as taboo
@965GMBK2yrs2Y
Yes, because it's still speech
@95QY3852yrs2Y
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.
@92ZQ3973yrs3Y
as long as you're not being a total **** or using religion to excuse it😍😍
@92YKHH63yrs3Y
No, hate speech should only be kept out of third parties
@92MWQCF3yrs3Y
Yes, but others have the right to criticize you
@92274HB3yrs3Y
Free speech shouldn’t exist
@8ZXFX3F3yrs3Y
As long as all parties that are exposed to it have consented beforehand.
@8Z47MQG3yrs3Y
i don’t have enough knowledge on the topic to answer fairly
@8YZCDBRNew Democratic3yrs3Y
Depends on the case. Hate speech that threatens others physically should be handled accordingly
@8YZ4N543yrs3Y
Say what you want but learn to shut up.
@8YVZFFFRhinoceros3yrs3Y
There should not be hate
@8Y699983yrs3Y
Yes but you have to face the consequences for it.
@8XJ8R6V3yrs3Y
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!
@8W6Q9G93yrs3Y
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.
@8VWXDZS3yrs3Y
No, but hate speech needs to have a thorough and clear definition.
@8VTS2BW3yrs3Y
Yes as long as free speech is not taken away deeming it hate speech
@8VSL6WWNew Democratic3yrs3Y
Yes, it should be protected by the freedom of speech laws, but there should also be penalties under hate crimes
@8VJB7QJ3yrs3Y
No, I think private companies should monitor what hate speech is being used and band users accordingly not the government
@8VH22SV3yrs3Y
Freedom of speech should be protected. The term "hate speech" can be taken very subjectively.
@8VBY38B3yrs3Y
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.
@8V9QDJ23yrs3Y
Yes as long as it does not
@8V7LPJX3yrs3Y
The definition of hate speech could be the bible. The bible is not. Some see it other ways. Some things should be protected
@8V6GHWQ3yrs3Y
No, and hate speech should have specific defined characteristics.
@Kerrnel3yrs3Y
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
@8V49CSW3yrs3Y
Free speech unless it calls for violence.
@8TZ48GP3yrs3Y
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
@8TY2FXB3yrs3Y
No, but only if they are criticizing another in a civil manner
@8TXZNKM3yrs3Y
No, but what constitutes as hate speech should be better defined. There's ignorance, and there's hate.
@8TWV6HM3yrs3Y
Only if all party's exposed to it have consented first.
Let's just not threaten each other or lie
@8TTGRBP3yrs3Y
Mixed feelings on this topic.
@8TQTW27New Democratic3yrs3Y
Freedom of speech laws should protect people from being prosecuted over speech within the confines of personal settings. However, freedom of speech laws should not be used to give a platform to those expressing hateful views, or used to protect those promoting violence or blatant discrimination.
@8TPYGYV3yrs3Y
freedom of speech should be used to voice the opinions of the public, to not be prosecuted or judged for one saying however if the speech is being used to condemn other is hateful manner this should be allowed
@8TG6NWW3yrs3Y
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech and the laws already in place if properly applied should alredy protect people from the same issues (this needs to be enforced).
Free speech is important, but hate speech against a specific group should not be allowed, the only thing about that, that should be done is some form of education and acceptance to whatever the hate speech is directed at.
@8TB25RYConservative3yrs3Y
yes, hate speech isn't a real crime
@8T9SCRW3yrs3Y
Yes, all speech must be protected.
@8T452LX3yrs3Y
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.
@8T42LDG3yrs3Y
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.
@8T3T55PConservative3yrs3Y
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
@8SYPXJX4yrs4Y
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.
@8SHJPK44yrs4Y
Hate speech shouldn't exist but we have a right to speak so as long as it isn't disrespectful and violent
@8SH9LNK4yrs4Y
Freedom of speech does not equate to hate speech.
Let a judicial panel evaluate the content found to be hateful
@8S73DY84yrs4Y
yes to a slight degree. there is a difference between hate speech and speech you hate
@8RWM2474yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence, and because I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.
@8RM3N7X4yrs4Y
Everyone has the right to say what they want, but they must be aware of the consequences they may suffer.
@8R9F82D4yrs4Y
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.
@8R97F664yrs4Y
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.
@8R854XR4yrs4Y
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
@8QZTFS34yrs4Y
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
@8QVYYDR4yrs4Y
I do not believe hate speech should be normalized, rather constructive criticism for anything.
@8QF74GY4yrs4Y
No, because any speech that undermines the safety of others should not be protected under freedom of expression.
@8QDY4PP4yrs4Y
No, but I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
@8QB29MV4yrs4Y
Yes it should be protected, however, that does not clear it from consequences.
@8Q5X7HR4yrs4Y
Has to be more descriptive to what hate speech is. Everybody gets offended from anything.
@8PYFGKY4yrs4Y
no but current hate speech laws need to be reevaluated.
@8PY95VJ4yrs4Y
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
@8PSDLFZ4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence or is blatantly incorrect
@8PJMGYM4yrs4Y
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!
@8P3QP584yrs4Y
I’m unsure where I stand on this
@8KG75SD4yrs4Y
The restriction of thought and speech is tantamount to tyranny.
@8GRFR6X4yrs4Y
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.
@8CRV6LZ4yrs4Y
Depends on who's definition of hate speech. If I disagree and think that transpeople are exhibiting signs of body dysphoria or that it reinforces gender stereotypes is that considered hate some would also I think their shouldn't be legal consequences for speech just social ones.
@8CR52T64yrs4Y
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
@mrmustacheo4yrs4Y
Only if those who are exposed to it have consented to being so
@mrmustacheo4yrs4Y
Only if those who are exposed to it have consented to doing so
@9CBVDMH1yr1Y
Yes, but there should be consequences for actual threats of terror/violence
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.