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:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Province/Territory:
@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
@9KFBDW3Conservative1yr1Y
The boundaries of hate speech are too hard to define broadly so course of action must depend on context.
@965GMBK3yrs3Y
Yes, because it's still speech
@8T3T55PConservative4yrs4Y
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
Yes, because anyone can say something is hateful when taken out of context. Especially atheists towards Christians.
@97T4JZCConservative2yrs2Y
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech and as long as it does not threaten violence. Free speech is also typically only to protect you from criticizing the government
@8ZX3GXZConservative3yrs3Y
Depends on the definition of hate speech
@9CBVFG6Conservative2yrs2Y
No, man up and just take it
@93RSFHY3yrs3Y
No, but I do not trust the government to adequately define the boundaries of hate speech
@8TB25RYConservative4yrs4Y
yes, hate speech isn't a real crime
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
