Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

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.

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

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.

yes, but freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequence

People should be free to express their opinions, even offensive ones, but they should not be protected from the consequences if their speech harms, threatens, or discriminates against others.

It depends, if it's towards the government, yes. If it's blatant racism, sexism, etc, no.

No, but you are still responsible for the consequences of your actions if you speak poorly to someone else.

Yes, but the publishing of hate speech content should be censored heavily in media especially regarding hate disinformation

Depends on the definition. I believe the laws already exist regarding this, without adding more penalties on mere opinion.

Freedom of speech is important, but we should learn boundaries and understand actions have consequences

No. Free speech is important, but if you are using discriminatory language, threatening language or other discriminatory language, that is not free speech. It’s hate speech. People should feel free to express political opinions and opinions on certain current events etc. but they should never be allowed to resort to using derogatory language or threaten physical or emotional violence, or cause any sort of harassment or distress. That being said, unless it is clearly discriminative or violent, hate speech and political speech should not be held in the same regard, and differences in opinion are entirely different to using derogatory slurs or threatening/harassing someone.

The issues with hate speech are too difficult to summarily give a simple binary answer to. Overall, I think that speech promoting or insinuating that some groups should be discriminated against/are lesser should be considered as problematic, because it promotes division in communities and society, which thus distracts from real issues. But similarly, things should not be conflated as hate speech if the analysis is strictly regarding those real issues and happens to cross-examine in a specific way; rather that should be further reflected on and analysed to deal with the real issue without adversely affecting the community/people who may be getting conflated with the issue.

Hate speech and having an opinion are 2 different things. I believe people should be able to express their opinion so long as it is not inciting violence or harm to others.

Yes/ Undecided, we need freedom of peach, but that doesn't nessecerily equal freedom of consequence. However our current government doesn't protect basic free speah and I don't trust this government to define hate speach

Yes, hate speech is thrown around for anything a stupid Muslim doesnt like to hear so any false accusations of hate speech should be met with punishments.

Yes, as long as it does not threaten physical violence or criminal damage to property, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.

Yes, as long as it isn’t directed at a specific person/group of people (whom are physically present), incite violence or have a clear impact on the image of the country

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

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

Yes, as long as it can be proven that it doesn't threaten or incite violence.

No, but this has to be heavily scrutinized to prevent loopholes being abused.

It depends what you define as "hate speech". Insults and offence should not be banned — it shouldn't be illegal to be a d*ckhead — but threats and incitement are dangerous and must be taken seriously with appropriate legal consequences.

No, absolute free speech is dangerous. Free speech allows you to say what you like, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Freedom of speech should only apply to individuals, not organisations or institutions. Freddom of speech using mass media should be limited

Yes, as long as it doesn't threaten violence and also because I don't trust the government or the police to define the boundaries of hate speech properly.

Should depend on if the victim takes offence, and if they do, the punishment should be some form of public humiliation e.g. a publicly disclosed, lengthy statement of acknowledgment & remorse, as I feel this would probably be more effective & appropriate. Repeated incidents should be treated as public indecency, and alongside such charges, some kind of therapy should be provided to get to the bottom of why the perpetrator is prejudiced in the first place, ideally paid for out of their own income.

Apart from that, it’s a highly sensitive issue.

No, if it’s just deeply conservative nonsense at people who look different then just keep an eye but if it’s borderline facist or nazi then they should be detained.

No but strict penalties should only be given to public figures and authority figures. Such as politicians, celebrities, teachers, and journalists.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Yes, as long as it doesn't incite violence or become harassment. I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.

It depends on the subject of the matter and what can be called hate speech as things are now being labelled as hate speech left right and centre with people like Donald Trump saying that Mahmoud Khalil (someone convicted of speaking out as pro palestinian) and labelled him as hate speech

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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.

Yes, as long as they are not against the police