@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 5yrs agoActive 1wk ago

Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

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.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 13.2k Canada voters.

42%
Yes
58%
No
23%
Yes
53%
No
11%
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence
3%
No, and increase penalties for hate speech
8%
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
2%
No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 13.2k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 13.2k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8NRHQC6from Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes as long as it does not threaten violence or democracy

 @8M7TL4Cfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @9RQNPMRfrom Nova Scotia  answered…7mos7MO

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.

 @9JWTCPTfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

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

 @mrmustacheofrom Quebec  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @B3G88N2from Ontario  answered…1wk1W

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

 @B3G5MP2from Ontario  answered…1wk1W

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

 @B3G2PTYfrom Quebec  answered…1wk1W

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.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Hate Speech” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…11mos11MO

Brazil threatens to regulate social media after clash with Elon Musk

Brazil’s attorney-general has demanded “urgent regulation” of social media sites after Elon Musk threatened to disobey a court order banning certain profiles on his X platform and then called for a Supreme Court justice to “resign or be impeached”.“It is urgent to regulate social networks,” said Jorge Messias.“We cannot live in a society in which billionaires domiciled abroad have control of social networks and put themselves in a position to violate the rule of law, failing to comply with court orders and threatening our authorities.”The comments came after X’s global government affairs team posted that it “has been forced by court decisions to block certain popular accounts in Brazil”. “We do not know the reasons these blocking orders have been issued [and] We are prohibited from saying which court or judge issued the order, or on what grounds.”The profiles are probably linked to far-right movements, which have found fertile ground on X and other social media platforms, including Telegram.Musk suggested the court orders came from Alexandre De Moraes, a Supreme Court justice who has been a vocal advocate of cracking down on anti-democratic content online, particularly following riots on January 8 last year when thousands of far-right demonstrators stormed government buildings in Brasília.Musk, the billionaire owner of X, vowed on Sunday to “publish everything demanded by [De Moraes] and how those requests violate Brazilian law”.He called for Moraes to “resign or be impeached” and said the judge had “brazenly and repeatedly betrayed the constitution and people of Brazil”.Musk, a self-declared free speech absolutist, bought X in late 2022 and quickly relaxed its moderation policies and reinstated several previously banned accounts. The moves have been welcomed by some on the right, but critics including civil rights groups have argued the platform is failing to adequately police hate speech and extremist content.Musk’s latest comments echo talking points of Brazil’s far-right, which has long accused De Moraes and the Supreme Court of censorship and running a “judicial dictatorship”.De Moraes is widely considered to have played a role in protecting Brazilian democracy during the 2022 presidential election, when the president at the time Jair Bolsonaro was spreading unsubstantiated claims about the integrity of the electoral system.De Moraes also took a hard line in the aftermath of the Brasília riots, handing down lengthy sentences and accusing the demonstrators of trying to launch a coup.Orlando Silva, a lawmaker aligned with the government, said Musk had disrespected the judiciary and that in response he would propose legislation setting out a “responsibilities regime for these digital platforms”.“We have reached a limit. It is a response in defence of Brazil,” he said.The extent of the threat to Brazilian democracy in 2022 was highlighted by a police investigation in February, which has alleged that Bolsonaro, in conjunction with several military officers, considered an armed intervention to prevent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from taking office. Bolsonaro denies the claims.As part of the alleged plot, Bolsonaro had De Moraes put under constant surveillance for weeks following the polls in October 2022, according to federal police.Social media platforms have faced increasing pressure to comply with new laws in countries such as India and Turkey, which can require them to take down content or face bans, fines or the imprisonment of staffers.Critics argue such rules are oppressive and can be abused by country leaders to silence dissidents and activists.Despite regularly espousing free speech ideals, Musk has previously come under fire from critics for appeasing censorship demands from various governments. More recently, however, X has taken to posting publicly about the requests they receive.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…11mos11MO

Scotland’s "hate speech law" sparks global outrage

A new Scottish law that criminalizes the “stirring up of” hatred against some groups has triggered a debate far beyond its borders, pitting human rights activists who say it’s needed against a rising tide of harassment and violence against conservative celebrities and politicians who say the law threatens free speech.Scotland’s law, enacted last week, makes it an imprisonable offense to incite hatred on the basis of race, religion, transgender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability.“If … it’s intended to stir up hatred because of their membership of that group, then that is a criminal offense,” Nick McKerrell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, said in a telephone interview Monday. In Scotland, prosecutors recorded 1,884 hate crime charges relating to sexual identity in 2022-23 — representing an eighth consecutive year-on-year increase — in addition to 55 charges relating to transgender identity.Rights groups say the change is a much-needed extension of hate crime protections, consolidating them into a single statute for the first time. Its opponents — including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling — say they are concerned that the protections are so broad that they could unfairly criminalize free expression. (Critics have also argued that women should be listed as a protected category, too; the Scottish government says it intends to do this through separate legislation.)The furor underlines the polarizing impact of attempts by legislators around the world to find a balance. Backlash to the law has been so fierce that it reportedly prompted far-right agitators to flood police with crime reports to overwhelm them in protest.Legal experts and the Scottish government say the threshold for criminality is high enough to prevent the stifling of debate, pointing out that the law cannot be used to censor jokes or views that are offensive or shocking.“The test is that it has got to be threatening or abusive to someone, or it has to cause them fear or alarm,” McKerrell said. “That’s a very high threshold.”In a series of social media posts, which misgendered trans women and mocked their physical appearance, Rowling — who lives in Scotland — wrote that “freedom of speech and belief are at an end … if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal,” and dared Scottish police to arrest her “if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offense.”Rowling’s remarks last week drew condemnation from rights groups — Stonewall, Britain’s largest LGBTQ charity, said they “trivialise the very real violence committed against us.” Scottish police said Rowling’s comments were “not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken,” the Associated Press reported.Scotland’s leader, Humza Yousaf, told the BBC the newly created offenses “have a very high threshold for criminality.”“JK Rowling’s tweets may well be offensive, upsetting and insulting to trans people,” Yousaf said, “but it doesn’t mean that they meet a threshold of criminality of being threatening or abusive and intending to stir up hatred.”Outside Britain, Elon Musk and Joe Rogan were among the high-profile celebrities to critique the legislation. In an episode of his podcast last month, Rogan described the new law as “ridiculous” and incorrectly suggested that it empowered Scottish police to specifically target comedians.

▲  21 reply

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Peace Over Party: Arab American Leaders Stun Democrats with Mass Trump Endorsement

Former President Trump earned endorsements from "highly respected" Muslim leaders and Imams during a campaign rally in the battleground state of Michigan. Trump, speaking to a crowd in Novi, Michigan, on Saturday afternoon, called the group of Muslim leaders "highly respected," before bringing them onstage."I’m thrilled to accept the endorsement of these highly respected leaders," Trump told the thundering crowd.The group of leaders cited Trump’s commitment to ending wars and ensuring global peace as a primary reason for their support, describing him as a leader who "promises peace, not war.""We, as Muslims, stand with President Trump because he promises peace, not war!" Imam Belal Alzuhairi said. "We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine," Alzuhairi said. "The bloodshed has to stop all over the world, and I think this man can make that happen. I personally believe that God saved his life twice for a reason.""We're going to stop the wars, we're going to make the United States safe again, and we're going to make the world safe," Bazzi said."What a nice endorsement," Trump said after Bazzi’s speech. "These are great people."The Muslim leaders official endorsement came after Amer Ghalib, the mayor of the Detroit-area suburb Hamtramck, announced his support of Trump in a Facebook post on Oct. 20."Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election and be the 47th president of the United States, but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time," Ghalib wrote in Arabic on his Facebook page. "I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I’m ready to face the consequences. For this, and for many other reasons, I announce my support and endorsement for the former, and hopefully, the next President of the United States, Donald Trump."Ghalib’s endorsement of Trump comes after the two met in Flint earlier this week for a private 20-minute conversation. Ghalib told The Detroit News that Trump "knew a lot about me before the meeting." "We talked about various topics including the debates, the polls updates, the statistics of votes in Michigan and Wayne County, the Arab American concerns and the Yemeni Americans in particular. We also talked about the situation in Yemen," Ghalib said.

▲  622 replies

Active 7hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies4 agree1 disagree6