Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
Political theme:
Borough:
@9S7WCBR6mos6MO
All speech should be protected from prosecution or litigation, but private companies should be free to ban certain kinds of speech from their workplaces or platforms
@9DCWFC21yr1Y
The definition of hate speech needs to be agreed and widely disseminated in the population before it can be penalised.
Holding religious beliefs that others see as intolerant or holding so called gender critical beliefs should not be in themselves hate speech.
@9PFL4XB8mos8MO
no. freedom of speech does not cover speech intended to cause harm but the explicit expression of opinion.
You should be free to express your view in a clear and concise way, and for people to challenge that view
@94XCQ2T2yrs2Y
yes, but freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequence
People should not be free to openly incite racist violence or make any other kind of discriminatory remark, but hate speech that is perceived to be spoken for the good of the people should be protected.
@B2GZJSW2wks2W
Hate speech should be pretecred by freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you free from the consequences
@9WYK55W3mos3MO
Common sense. Personal opinion should be protected on the condition that it does not encourage or do harm to others.
Hate speech should not be protected as such but there should be a difference between a one off comment and actual verbal abuse. As a bisexual man, I'm not going to call the police if someone calls me a ****** in passing but, if I was on a bus and someone cornered me and starting hurling abusive slurs, this should be handled by authorities
@9RCBVT8Conservative6mos6MO
Because it falls under speech, yes, however I do not believe that freedom of speech means freedom of consequence and therefore there should still be heavy condemnation, and only government intervention at the point of inciting violence
@9Q7XG4H7mos7MO
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, so a person using sex based pronouns is not hate speech. Gender is a social construct designed to pigeonhole people according to stereotypes. We should be breaking down stereotypes not reinforcing them.
@9Q65SPG 7mos7MO
Yes however if threatening harm to another it should be investigated and punished in line with law in an appropriate manner.
@9Q636GC7mos7MO
What is hate speech ? How can it be regulated? True hate speech should not be protected ,however there is a lot of opinion and truth that is now considered hate towards particular groups . Have clear definition of hate speech
@9PS79WH7mos7MO
No, but there’s a difference between hate speech & criticism!! (It isn’t hate speech/antisemitism to criticise the idf.)
@9PRGGCL7mos7MO
Hate speech in social media and by people on their mobile phones is rampant and horrendous. It causes dreadful mental harm and sometimes physical harm. Speech against some ideas and actions should be allowed as freedom of speech if shows reasonable attitudes, not hate.
@9QLP6XF7mos7MO
Yes - but only because otherwise it may still happen but in enclosed secretive spaces where people are in an echo chamber with others sharing the same views. Hate speech needs to be in the open to an extent to be directly challenged and perhaps even to change people’s opinions by being introduced to information that counters their hate views.
@9QLCPR77mos7MO
Should be protected to voice any opinion but also to be accountable for, and have any opinion scrutinized.
@9QKML2V7mos7MO
Hate speech is wrong and should be punished (via fines or maybe some time locked up), but we should be free to criticise the government
@9QHWPGS7mos7MO
Everyone has the right to their own thoughts and freedom of speech as long as you don't break any laws in doing so.i.e peace protest.
@9QFXD4B7mos7MO
Unfortunately hate speech is part of a person’s freedom of speech and therefore should be protected. However, there should be a strong penalty when hate speech is weaponised to marginalise a said group of people and falls under a scope of inciting violence and or the threat of it. This penalty should include imprisonment and or other. Hate speech should be well define as to not discriminate against groups of people as has been the case presently towards Christians and conservatives
@9QFNMXY 7mos7MO
No, and it should be penalised, though there needs to be a clear understanding on what hate speech is first. Being a racist pig should get you penalised, but *calling* someone a racist pig should not. If someone is criticizing their suppressor, that should not be penalised.
@9Q8XZ6V7mos7MO
No, but it isn’t right that the government and the dominating demographic within, should be the ones to set the boundaries of hate speech.
@9Q3CF477mos7MO
Yes because views on what constitutes hate speech are far too subjective for it to be determined and controlled by government and it seriously impinges on free speech rights and could potentially be manipulated and exploited by some individuals who would weaponise it for their own personal gain
@9PY2QSJ7mos7MO
Freedom of speech no matter how much I hate this, means freedom of speech. However it shouldn't include threatening or inciting violence
@9PX32Y37mos7MO
This is an extremely complex issue and I would rather each case be considered in it's merits through the legal / court process.
@9PW9Q957mos7MO
Yes and No, it needs to be handled in a sensitive manner that targets large groups stirring up hate speech
@9PFB5TGAnimal Welfare8mos8MO
Freedom of Expression and Human Rights should be protected by law, NOT HATE SPEECH! Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, essential for democratic societies.
@9J6VSLY1yr1Y
There is no such thing as "hate speech." One persons "hate" is another persons deeply held conviction
@9GJ4MT71yr1Y
Freedom of speech should be protected The government has failed to do this in recent years. All speech should be allowed unless it incites or calls for violence. People should be allowed to voice their opinions even if they are wrong so they can be challenged in an appropriate manner.
@9GH9YLF1yr1Y
No, hate speech should be defined as spreading misinformation and inciting hate and propaganda against a group of people. Which should not be legal considering the social and political ramifications.
@9PYTXB57mos7MO
People can say what they believe but it shouldn’t be worded in a manner that incites behaviour and individuals should be held accountable for actions that arise from what is said
@9PPL6987mos7MO
No, but people/goverment should not be allowed to lable concerns about their own behaviour as hate speech.
@9PK59G67mos7MO
Yes, so long as it does not threaten violence. However, organisations whose sole purpose is to proliferate such speech and discrimination should be banned.
@9PDMWR28mos8MO
No, Foreign and otherwise conflicting speech against Public Interest should have increased penalties
Hate speech should be defined with respect to the job role as well as the context of the rationale, it also depends upon who defines hate speech, different people have different metrics. That being said, if you sing Hitler Youth songs in the middle of a town it should disqualify you from running as an MP.
@9PCGLSSConservative8mos8MO
As these laws can be used and misused, I would like to see hate speech specifically coded and not given a general outline that can be abused. Specific calls to violence, or to silence others shold be protected against. Freedom of speech should be universal, but only if it does not actively endanger others.
@9P7Q4GVLiberal Democrat 8mos8MO
Protect freedom of opinion, but not hate/any kind of speech which actively encourages/elicits violence against social groups.
@9P63Y76Liberal Democrat 8mos8MO
What is the definition of hate speech. In principle free speech should be the driver for discussing political/social views but personal attacks on e.g. what people look like should be monitored and closed down. How you do that I don’t know.
@9P5XVFX8mos8MO
People have a right to views but should not be openly allowed to promote hate and encourage violence
@9NYCH9G8mos8MO
Freedom of speech laws should protect you from criticising government, influential people and organisations but should not incite violence, acts of discrimination in public life or unsafe behaviour
@9NY5NFY8mos8MO
it depends upon the severity, as "hate speech" has so many different flavours its untrue, i think we need to discuss what is meant and narrow down on the exact fundamentals at which point we can decide then
@9NTVFS68mos8MO
People should be allowed freedom of speech, however there have to be consequences. Having an opinion on something is different to being openly hateful towards a demographic. If you are spreading vitriol and other hateful and incorrect messages, you should be held accountable.
@9NK69QK8mos8MO
I feel this is very subjective and what one person or group may deem as hate actually isn’t. Tough one
@9N6YPY98mos8MO
No but the definition of hate speech needs to be more clearly defined so that accidental slip ups compared to actual hate speech is differntiated.
@9N2ZDXB8mos8MO
Yes, however freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence; i.e. saying something racist and being fired
@9N2N3KL 8mos8MO
Yes, but only to a certain extent. Once your right of speech starts to infringe on someone else rights to live peacefully then that’s when it becomes a problem
@9MZQWFH8mos8MO
If you're a racist, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic pig then you do not deserve to make disgusting comments and get away with it.
@9MYXF7C8mos8MO
Yes, but if it promotes violence against minorities or is supporting terroristic beliefs it should be banned.
@9MWMSZB8mos8MO
I don't support racism, but i don't want things to be so restrictive that art will be affected. You can write a racist character and not be racist.
@9MTVRCH8mos8MO
There is no set answer as it is all dependant on the situation. Time would have to be spent to resolve the issue
Define hate speech! We have laws on racism. If hate speech is someone being upset by an opinion then it’s those offended who need locking up. Affirmation of opinion is not the only way.
@9MR7G5Q8mos8MO
Opinions should be able to be shared but proportionality should be applied. Some non violent threats should also be censored as well as all threats of violence.
@9MPWSXM8mos8MO
Yes all comments must be protected by freedom of speech providing all sides are listened too and reasoned with.
@9MD996Q9mos9MO
Hate speech is often used to demonise minorities and communities and therefore it should not be protected as technically it causes mental distress to those affected by the abuse
@9M3YBGL9mos9MO
Any speech that goes against the bible which is God's authoritative word is rebellion against the Almighty who we will all have to give account at the judgement day.
@9M37GWZ9mos9MO
Most hate speech is by immigrants who hate everything about the UK and western world yet love to come for our benefits. Deport those people.
@9LVHD7H9mos9MO
It should never be encouraged and only punished when directed at somebody. Allow its use in education about ill-opinionated peoples
@9LPL9DN9mos9MO
If the views aren't based off of hatred of others for the qualities they don't control, such as race, gender, ability, if the speech is meant to give people a wake-up-call they should be protected, if they are meant to preach to a religion/cult they should be persecuted, if the preachers, preach about non-existent problems such as the patriarchy, they should be chased away
@9KZK6X711mos11MO
Freedom of speech isn't free if it doesn't work both ways. if someone has the right to be offended then someone should have the right to offend. At the end of the day they are only words and it is the individual that allows it to affect them.
@9KVTHMG11mos11MO
Hate speech should be decriminalised but monitored and in extreme cases diversity training should be mandated.
@9K22Y7712mos12MO
Yes, all except for if it promotes violence against others, or is by a person with authority like Police or community leader and is not in private
@9JHYPPS1yr1Y
Yes, as long as such speech does not explicitly threaten or promote violence, because I don't currently trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.
@9JFXTM91yr1Y
Yes, because I don’t trust any government, bureaucracy, agency, social media platform, corporation or any other military-industrial complex entity to define the boundaries of hate speech
@9JDNGYD1yr1Y
I believe that hate speech should not be said towards somebody in a discriminatory way, and should not threaten violence.
If views are not voiced they cannot be challenged. If no violence is being threatened then people have the right to express their view. You can't have freedom of speech for some and not others.
@9HXWLPH1yr1Y
No, and increase hate speech punishments, but abolish investigation into non criminal hate incidents
radicalized hate speech should have more consequences, hate speech leading to violence should not be protected, reactive hate speech should be protected.
@9HTKK9V1yr1Y
Yes, but only if it does not incite violence. Eg, "I don't like Muslims" is an opinion, but "all Muslims should be shot" can incite violence.
@9HQT4ZJ1yr1Y
Yes and No, I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech. It depends really on the nature of the hate speech - so this would include as long as it does not threaten violence.
@9HJYLBJ1yr1Y
I would say no depending on whether the definition of hate speech - because mindless hate shouldn't be spread. Freedom of speech is a right for people to safely discuss difference of opinions and criticisms rather than hate speech
@9HCY58Q1yr1Y
Yes, but again it depends on the situation, people should be allowed to speak their mind but within reason
@9HBJMY31yr1Y
No, as speaking out publicly against certain genders, races or religions is going to incite violence and should not be tolerated and should involve punishment. Everyone is allowed a personal opinion but to announce it publicly has serious consequences.
@9GZF2LZ1yr1Y
No, but the definition of hate speech must be tightly defined, so as to not criminalise legitimate criticism of other cultures (eg FGM, honour killings, religious attitudes to homosexuality or premarital relationships)
@9G5MCLJ1yr1Y
No, increase penalties. Freedom of speech laws, though initially made to protect you from criticising the government, now has more meanings, and a separate idea created for this, but boundaries should be properly established between freedom of speech and radical/extremist/offensive/harmful views.
No, hate speech often leads to the inciting of violence against minorities. Although it will be practically impossible in the court of law to prove a particular persons hate speech led to another committing a hate crime.
@9FPC4WL1yr1Y
Yes, as long as they are not against the police
@9NHFJLNIndependent8mos8MO
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. If you spout targeted hate speech towards minorities or other protected groups, you should be charged with it and deserve whatever punishment you get.
@9NB9CR38mos8MO
I do not agree as hate speech can lead to really terrible things and I think it needs to be monitored
@9NXM4P68mos8MO
We should be doing more to discourage hate speech but with an element of common sense at the heart of it.
@9NXPRVX8mos8MO
No, but only if it is undeniable hatred. The guy with the “Nazi pug” had no real hatred so therefore should not have been punished.
@9PHH4VR8mos8MO
Yes, but education and resources are needed to educate those on the impact of words and speech which is used and how it can affect the public and the risk it imposes to public safety
@9PHWRXW8mos8MO
Hate speech depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a democracy. However, hate speech transgresses the rights of those being targeted to live in a reasonable manner. There has to be some control but the options are too crude as they stand
@9B84XHJ2yrs2Y
@93NYNSP3yrs3Y
yes people can voice their opinions however not in front of a person who fits into the category of their hate speech due to mental health risks
@93L83GG3yrs3Y
It depends on the events depending on the statement
It depends. Sometimes, fighting against extreme right wing views and hate for minorities is treated as hate speech. It should not protect bigoted people, who are harmful to others.
No speech against the government
@932HQN43yrs3Y
Yes - however incitement to violence or promotion or glorifying terrorist or similar actions against others should continue to be criminalised. “Hate speech” may include non violent criticism of the government, individuals or communities so long as it does not incite violence and is not libellous. Free speech is an extremely important part of a democratic society.
@92RM5KC3yrs3Y
No and the penalty should match the level of hate speech (i.e. Homophia has a lesser punishment than threatening to kill someone)
@jexflies3yrs3Y
There is no such thing as free speech because free speech allows hate speech which can censor and ban others free speech and banning hate speech censors and bans free speech
No, though people arguing against oppressors should be exempt.
Yes, but this should not protect from social consequences.
@92NX2XD3yrs3Y
No, there is a difference between hate speech and expressing opinion.
@92NNDCS3yrs3Y
No, people should be able to sue for libel, slander or other (mental health) damage it has caused, but damage has to be proven in court by expert witnesses such as psychiaters. Also, inciting violence should be a criminal offence.
@92DSGXNLiberal Democrat3yrs3Y
Yes but only if not aimed at individuals
@92CBY5B3yrs3Y
Yes, and free speech should be considered the single most important human right.
@8ZGN59JLiberal Democrat3yrs3Y
No, freedom of speech shouldn't mean free from consequence
@8Z736C43yrs3Y
Yes. The government doesn’t have the right to dictate what anyone can say. Society can shame them all they like, but the government nor any police force should be involved.
@8Z57CDH3yrs3Y
yes but they should not be protected from the consequences of their speech
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.