Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

111 Replies

 @9S7WCBRanswered…6mos6MO

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

 @9DCWFC2answered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9PFL4XBanswered…8mos8MO

no. freedom of speech does not cover speech intended to cause harm but the explicit expression of opinion.

 @9NHJP5DLabouranswered…8mos8MO

You should be free to express your view in a clear and concise way, and for people to challenge that view

 @94XCQ2Tanswered…2yrs2Y

 @8C6LGS2Labouranswered…4yrs4Y

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.

 @B2GZJSWanswered…2wks2W

Hate speech should be pretecred by freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you free from the consequences

 @9WYK55Wanswered…3mos3MO

Common sense. Personal opinion should be protected on the condition that it does not encourage or do harm to others.

 @9SKBZR9Greenanswered…5mos5MO

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

 @9RCBVT8Conservativeanswered…6mos6MO

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

 @9Q7XG4Hanswered…7mos7MO

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 answered…7mos7MO

Yes however if threatening harm to another it should be investigated and punished in line with law in an appropriate manner.

 @9Q636GCanswered…7mos7MO

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

 @9PS79WHanswered…7mos7MO

No, but there’s a difference between hate speech & criticism!! (It isn’t hate speech/antisemitism to criticise the idf.)

 @9PRGGCLanswered…7mos7MO

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.

 @9QLP6XFanswered…7mos7MO

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.

 @9QLCPR7answered…7mos7MO

Should be protected to voice any opinion but also to be accountable for, and have any opinion scrutinized.

 @9QKML2Vanswered…7mos7MO

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

 @9QHWPGSanswered…7mos7MO

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.

 @9QFXD4Banswered…7mos7MO

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 answered…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.

 @9Q8XZ6Vanswered…7mos7MO

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.

 @9Q3CF47answered…7mos7MO

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

 @9PY2QSJfrom Nicosia  answered…7mos7MO

Freedom of speech no matter how much I hate this, means freedom of speech. However it shouldn't include threatening or inciting violence

 @9PX32Y3answered…7mos7MO

This is an extremely complex issue and I would rather each case be considered in it's merits through the legal / court process.

 @9PW9Q95answered…7mos7MO

Yes and No, it needs to be handled in a sensitive manner that targets large groups stirring up hate speech

 @9PFB5TGAnimal Welfareanswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9J6VSLYanswered…1yr1Y

There is no such thing as "hate speech." One persons "hate" is another persons deeply held conviction

 @9GJ4MT7answered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9GH9YLFfrom Pennsylvania  answered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9PYTXB5answered…7mos7MO

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

 @9PPL698answered…7mos7MO

No, but people/goverment should not be allowed to lable concerns about their own behaviour as hate speech.

 @9PK59G6answered…7mos7MO

Yes, so long as it does not threaten violence. However, organisations whose sole purpose is to proliferate such speech and discrimination should be banned.

 @9PDMWR2answered…8mos8MO

No, Foreign and otherwise conflicting speech against Public Interest should have increased penalties

 @9PDFCJZLabouranswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9PCGLSSConservativeanswered…8mos8MO

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 answered…8mos8MO

Protect freedom of opinion, but not hate/any kind of speech which actively encourages/elicits violence against social groups.

 @9P63Y76Liberal Democrat answered…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.

 @9P5XVFXanswered…8mos8MO

People have a right to views but should not be openly allowed to promote hate and encourage violence

 @9NYCH9Ganswered…8mos8MO

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

 @9NY5NFYanswered…8mos8MO

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

 @9NTVFS6answered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9NK69QKanswered…8mos8MO

I feel this is very subjective and what one person or group may deem as hate actually isn’t. Tough one

 @9N6YPY9answered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9N2ZDXBanswered…8mos8MO

Yes, however freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence; i.e. saying something racist and being fired

 @9N2N3KL answered…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

 @9MZQWFHanswered…8mos8MO

If you're a racist, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic pig then you do not deserve to make disgusting comments and get away with it.

 @9MYXF7Canswered…8mos8MO

Yes, but if it promotes violence against minorities or is supporting terroristic beliefs it should be banned.

 @9MWMSZBanswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9MTVRCHanswered…8mos8MO

There is no set answer as it is all dependant on the situation. Time would have to be spent to resolve the issue

 @9MTDX7XUKIPanswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9MR7G5Qanswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9MPWSXManswered…8mos8MO

Yes all comments must be protected by freedom of speech providing all sides are listened too and reasoned with.

 @9MD996Qanswered…9mos9MO

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

 @9M3YBGLanswered…9mos9MO

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.

 @9M37GWZanswered…9mos9MO

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.

 @9LVHD7Hanswered…9mos9MO

It should never be encouraged and only punished when directed at somebody. Allow its use in education about ill-opinionated peoples

 @9LPL9DNanswered…9mos9MO

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

 @9KZK6X7answered…11mos11MO

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.

 @9KVTHMGanswered…11mos11MO

Hate speech should be decriminalised but monitored and in extreme cases diversity training should be mandated.

 @9K22Y77answered…12mos12MO

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

 @9JHYPPSanswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9JFXTM9from Maine  answered…1yr1Y

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

 @9JDNGYDanswered…1yr1Y

I believe that hate speech should not be said towards somebody in a discriminatory way, and should not threaten violence.

 @9HZ56RPLabouranswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9HXWLPHanswered…1yr1Y

No, and increase hate speech punishments, but abolish investigation into non criminal hate incidents

 @9HXFGHCLabouranswered…1yr1Y

radicalized hate speech should have more consequences, hate speech leading to violence should not be protected, reactive hate speech should be protected.

 @9HTKK9Vanswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9HQT4ZJanswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9HJYLBJanswered…1yr1Y

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

 @9HCY58Qanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, but again it depends on the situation, people should be allowed to speak their mind but within reason

 @9HBJMY3answered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9GZF2LZanswered…1yr1Y

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)

 @9G5MCLJanswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9FXF5WRGreenanswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9FPC4WLfrom Alabama  answered…1yr1Y

 @9NHFJLNIndependentanswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9NB9CR3answered…8mos8MO

I do not agree as hate speech can lead to really terrible things and I think it needs to be monitored

 @9NXM4P6answered…8mos8MO

We should be doing more to discourage hate speech but with an element of common sense at the heart of it.

 @9NXPRVXanswered…8mos8MO

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.

 @9PHH4VRanswered…8mos8MO

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

 @9PHWRXWanswered…8mos8MO

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

 @93NYNSPanswered…3yrs3Y

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

 @93CS9CRLabouranswered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @932HQN4answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @92RM5KCanswered…3yrs3Y

No and the penalty should match the level of hate speech (i.e. Homophia has a lesser punishment than threatening to kill someone)

 @jexfliesanswered…3yrs3Y

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

 @92PRNCCSNPanswered…3yrs3Y

 @92NX2XDanswered…3yrs3Y

 @92NNDCSanswered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @92CBY5Banswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and free speech should be considered the single most important human right.

 @8Z736C4answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @8Z57CDHanswered…3yrs3Y

yes but they should not be protected from the consequences of their speech

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...