@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 5yrs agoActive 3wks 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 x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 672 Manitoba voters.

48%
Yes
52%
No
21%
Yes
46%
No
19%
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence
4%
No, and increase penalties for hate speech
7%
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 672 Manitoba voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 672 Manitoba voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Manitoba 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

 @B46V7MRfrom Alberta  answered…4wks4W

Yes. There is no such thing as "hate speech". The term, as it's used, is a manipulative tool of a globalist elite intended to stamp down in-group preference and pride in western countries by lending a negative connotation to expressions of in-group and nationalist preference

 @9RQNPMRfrom Nova Scotia  answered…9mos9MO

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…5yrs5Y

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

 @B3G88N2from Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

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…2mos2MO

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

Latest News

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

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1yr1Y

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…1yr1Y

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…5mos5MO

Texas Offers Trump 1,400 Acres for His Mass Deportation Dream

Officials in Texas have offered President-elect Trump a 1,400-acre ranch for his mass deportation plan.Dawn Buckingham, land commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, said in a letter to Trump Tuesday that her office was “fully prepared” to work with federal agencies that are going to be involved in Trump’s immigration plan, and specifically deportation.Buckingham offered Trump a 1,402-acre lot in Starr County. The lot is owned by the Texas General Land Office and is roughly 35 miles west of McAllen, Texas.She said the agency is ready to work with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the U.S. Border Patrol to build a facility on the land for “the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history.”“I am committed to using every available means at my disposal to gain complete operational security of our border,” Buckingham wrote.The letter and offering of land were first reported by The Texas Tribune. Last month, the state bought the land along the U.S.-Mexico border and has plans to build a wall.In the letter, Buckingham criticized her predecessor for not allowing a border wall to be built on the property. Those actions “enabled cartel members and violent criminals to sexually abuse migrant women and children on this land,” she said.On Monday, Trump signaled he would declare an immigration national emergency and use military assets to support his mass deportation plan when he returns to office.

▲  1625 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

Active 2 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6mos6MO

Trump’s Puerto Rico Problem Erupts in Pennsylvania: Latino Voters Fire Back

Donald Trump has a serious Puerto Rico problem — in Pennsylvania.Many Puerto Rican voters in the state are furious about racist and demeaning comments delivered at a Trump rally. Some say their dismay is giving Kamala Harris a new opening to win over the state’s Latino voters, particularly nearly half a million Pennsylvanians of Puerto Rican descent.Evidence of the backlash was immediate on Monday: A nonpartisan Puerto Rican group drafted a letter urging its members to oppose Trump on election day. Other Puerto Rican voters were lighting up WhatsApp chats with reactions to the vulgar display and raising it in morning conversations at their bodegas. Some are planning to protest Trump’s rally Tuesday in Allentown, a majority-Latino city with one of the largest Puerto Rican populations in the state.And the arena Trump is speaking at is located in the middle of the city’s Puerto Rican neighborhood.“It’s spreading like wildfire through the community,” said Norberto Dominguez, a precinct captain with the local Democratic party in Allentown, who noted his own family is half Republican and half Democratic voters.“It’s not the smartest thing to do, to insult people — a large group of voters here in a swing state — and then go to their home asking for votes,” Dominguez said.The timing couldn’t be worse for Trump. Almost a week before Election Day, he’s pushing to cut into Harris’ margins among Latinos, especially young men who are worried about the economy. But the comments from pro-Trump comedian Tony Hinchcliffe Sunday night, referring to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” has reverberated throughout Pennsylvania and elsewhere, prompting even the former president’s Republican allies to defend the island and denounce the comments. And with the race essentially a toss up, every vote counts — especially in Pennsylvania.“This was just like a gift from the gods,” said Victor Martinez, an Allentown resident who owns the Spanish language radio station La Mega, noting some Puerto Rican voters in the area have been on the fence about voting at all.

▲  3117 replies