Try the political quiz

2.4k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs

Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs

No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government

@97T4JZCConservativefrom Ontario  answered…2wks

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

@97N7CDFfrom Alberta  answered…3wks

This is a paradox of tolerance. “A friend to all is a friend to none” - Aristotle

@97BRZXPfrom Ontario  answered…3wks

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

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…1mo

No, because it normally promotes, encourages or threatens violence

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…2mos

@965WGSDfrom British Columbia  answered…2mos

Yes, because everyone will be offended by something, you can't regulate it, and hateful words should be and are seen more as taboo

@965GMBKfrom British Columbia  answered…2mos

@95QY385from Alberta  answered…2mos

this guy in Britain taught his dog to be a nazi and got sued for hate speach or offensive material (it was specifically a joke) so I think they shouldn't have that much power when dealing with hate spech unless it's threatening or harassment.

@93RSFHYfrom Ontario  answered…5mos

No, but I do not trust the government to adequately define the boundaries of hate speech

@92JXK3J from New York answered…5mos

Yes, but make sure people who use hate speech understand the consequences of using hate speech, especially those that threaten violence.

@92YHQCV from California answered…6mos

At this point, I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech, but it should all depend on the circumstances. Yes, a person’s hate speech can be protected by the first amendment, just as long as it does not encourage people to commit acts of violence against others. Still, I (personally) believe that the freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government.

@9389F5Vfrom Ontario  answered…6mos

Yes as long as it is considered an eminent threat or causes harm against another person directly

@937NJWWfrom Ontario  answered…6mos

@9334YP3 answered…6mos

Yes, all speech is protected by the first amendment, including hate speech, incitement and calls to violence, because sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

@92ZQ397from Ontario  answered…7mos

as long as you're not being a total **** or using religion to excuse it😍😍

@92YT8JT from New York answered…7mos

@92YKHH6from Alberta  answered…7mos

@4PTBWS5 answered…7mos

Yes, sort of, not protected but tolerated so long as it does not constitute direct abuse or call for violence.

@4PTBWS5 answered…7mos

Yes, to tolerating it as long as it does not threaten violence, but not to protecting it.

@92S34SB from California answered…7mos

Yes because hate speech is still freedom of speech, however there should be increased penalties for hate crimes.

@92RTRZZfrom Ontario  answered…7mos

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.

@4PTBWS5 answered…7mos

It should be legally tolerated so long as it does not threaten violence, but not protected.

@92MWQCFfrom British Columbia  answered…7mos

@3HNRB33 answered…7mos

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence and as long as it's not completely restricting someone rights. Although I'm a black woman, I still think that people have a right to say what they want as long as it does not infringe on my rights or threaten my life or way of living.

@8ZXFX3Ffrom Ontario  answered…8mos

As long as all parties that are exposed to it have consented beforehand.

 @ForWheelen from Florida answered…9mos

Only if it is political speech. The first amendment applies only to political speech whereas the government is being spoken of. I don't endorse hate speech at all, but where it is protected it should be protecred

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…9mos

No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, race, religion or sexual orientation

@8Z47MQGfrom Ontario  answered…10mos

@8YZCDBRNew Democraticfrom British Columbia  answered…10mos

Depends on the case. Hate speech that threatens others physically should be handled accordingly

@8YZ4N54from Ontario  answered…10mos

@vacheesehead answered…10mos

Yes but, this is a slippery slope in terms of constitutional protection. The first amendment does not specify what type of speech is protected. Additionally, supressing any more speech unprotected opens the door for more censorship. However, any type of speech that promotes or insights violence, which certain hate speech can, should be enforced against.

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…11mos

No, because it advocates and incites violence based on an individual or group's political beliefs, religion or sexual preference

@8Y69998from British Columbia  answered…11mos

 @75YJY9V from Texas answered…11mos

Yes, hate speech should be punished by society instead of censored by the government

@8X85NGX from Georgia answered…12mos

No-- but the government has to clearly define "hate speech" in a manner that every citizen can understand. It cannot fluctuate from state to state, or administration to administration.

@4VSB86P answered…12mos

Only if hate speech is clearly defined as objectively posing an immediate threat of violence.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...