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.
Yes as long as it does not threaten violence or democracy
@8M7TL4C3yrs3Y
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
@mrmustacheo4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if those who are exposed to it consent to viewing it
@9KFBDW3Conservative4wks4W
The boundaries of hate speech are too hard to define broadly so course of action must depend on context.
@9JWTCPT1mo1MO
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence... You shouldnt have to see it if you don't want to. Opt out options
@9HXL8D53mos3MO
We do not have freedom of speech in Canada, we have freedom of expression. Therefore this is irrelevant to Canadians.
@9HJBY7T4mos4MO
depends on what, since everyone perspective is difference and is different at what they stand for, so no
@9HCP7QV4mos4MO
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.
@9H645854mos4MO
Yes but shouldn’t threaten violence and the government cannot be trusted to define the boundaries without bias
@9FNQCN76mos6MO
Yes, because than it's easier to address and correct misinformation and hateful ideologies.
@9F5KMPV7mos7MO
No, hate speech is harmful and discriminatory and should not be protected free speech should cover ability to criticize the government that's it.
@9FQ2ZJY6mos6MO
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.
@9FQ2ZJY6mos6MO
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.
@92MWQCF2yrs2Y
Yes, but others have the right to criticize you
@92274HB2yrs2Y
Free speech shouldn’t exist
@8ZX3GXZConservative2yrs2Y
Depends on the definition of hate speech
@8YZ4N542yrs2Y
Say what you want but learn to shut up.
@8YVZFFFRhinoceros2yrs2Y
There should not be hate
@8Y699982yrs2Y
Yes but you have to face the consequences for it.
@8XJ8R6V2yrs2Y
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!
@8W6Q9G92yrs2Y
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
@8VN2PC83yrs3Y
Freedom of speech is all speech.
@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.
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
@8SYPXJX3yrs3Y
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.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...