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.
Show more types:
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Province/Territory:
Yes as long as it does not threaten violence or democracy
@9JWTCPT1yr1Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence... You shouldnt have to see it if you don't want to. Opt out options
@B3G88N22mos2MO
Hate speech is almost anything now days people are so sensitive and soft now days freedom of speech isn’t even a thing
@B3G5MP22mos2MO
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
@9HJBY7T1yr1Y
depends on what, since everyone perspective is difference and is different at what they stand for, so no
@8VN2PC84yrs4Y
Freedom of speech is all speech.
@9TKM3QW7mos7MO
No, freedom of speech laws should only protect the right to criticize the government and groups in a civil respectful manner.
@9M5D62212mos12MO
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.
@9KFBDW3Conservative1yr1Y
The boundaries of hate speech are too hard to define broadly so course of action must depend on context.
@8D4X4PW5yrs5Y
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.
@92ZQ3973yrs3Y
as long as you're not being a total **** or using religion to excuse it😍😍
@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
@8YZ4N543yrs3Y
Say what you want but learn to shut up.
@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!
@8VSL6WWNew Democratic4yrs4Y
Yes, it should be protected by the freedom of speech laws, but there should also be penalties under hate crimes
@8V7LPJX4yrs4Y
The definition of hate speech could be the bible. The bible is not. Some see it other ways. Some things should be protected
@8V6GHWQ4yrs4Y
No, and hate speech should have specific defined characteristics.
@Kerrnel4yrs4Y
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech.
@8V49CSW4yrs4Y
Free speech unless it calls for violence.
@8TZ48GP4yrs4Y
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.
Let's just not threaten each other or lie
@8T452LX4yrs4Y
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.
@8T42LDG4yrs4Y
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@8Q5X7HR4yrs4Y
Has to be more descriptive to what hate speech is. Everybody gets offended from anything.
Yes, because anyone can say something is hateful when taken out of context. Especially atheists towards Christians.
@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!
@8KG75SD4yrs4Y
The restriction of thought and speech is tantamount to tyranny.
@9BZ2SK62yrs2Y
No, but what constitutes hate speech should be clearly defined as it relates to freedom of expression
@9B495WX2yrs2Y
Depends on what kind of hate speech it is. If the person has a well-prepared argument, then you can't immediately criminalize him/her, but if the person ignorantly promotes violence, then should be sentenced to jail immediately.
@99RSJ3M2yrs2Y
the only speach that is not free speach is stocastic terrorism
@99HNL6X2yrs2Y
Hard to define what will offend someone, and therefore it is harder to define what hate speech actually is.
@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
@97BRZXP2yrs2Y
No cause hate speech isnt speech its abuse, its designed to strike against and reduce the freedom of others not to empower or unite the people
@9222SRD3yrs3Y
I don’t believe in free speech
@8ZX3GXZConservative3yrs3Y
Depends on the definition of hate speech
@93RSFHY3yrs3Y
No, but I do not trust the government to adequately define the boundaries of hate speech
@9389F5V3yrs3Y
Yes as long as it is considered an eminent threat or causes harm against another person directly
@937NJWW3yrs3Y
What is the definition of "hate speech"
@92RTRZZ3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it doesn't promote/threaten violence. I do not trust the government to define free speech fairly, or punish it justly.
@8VC9XFB4yrs4Y
We need to discourage any hate speech but allow any freedom of expression.
@8TPYGYV4yrs4Y
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
@8TG6NWW4yrs4Y
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).
@8TB25RYConservative4yrs4Y
yes, hate speech isn't a real crime
@8T9SCRW4yrs4Y
Yes, all speech must be protected.
@8CRV6LZ5yrs5Y
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.
@8CR52T65yrs5Y
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
@8V34KHM4yrs4Y
Perhaps superficially but the courts may need to deal with this on a case by case basis
@8SHNHYV4yrs4Y
Honestly, free speech has limits, but no.
@kuyugomodiLiberal5yrs5Y
Is this even a question or...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
