Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Don’t Know

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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

Yes, as it informs people that discrimination does exist and something should be done about it

We need to properly define the nuance. Gaslighting, dog whistling and racially charged agendas shaped by Machiavellian spin doctors can make seemingly innocuous remarks into powerful cues for hatred and violence

No, because there is a huge difference between hate speech and freedom of speech.

Yes - with the acceptance that your freedom of speech does not give you freedom from the consequences of that speech

Yes it should, but it cannot be factually inaccurate, nor can it incite violence. In addition, it will not be free from consequence, such that if there is a public outcry, for example, then they must deal with the repercussions.

Yes, as long as it does not promote or threaten violence or discrimination of individuals

It should be allowed, but only if it is considerate, not threatening and enlightened. And not classed as 'hate' but mature 'disagreement'.

Yes, all speech, including threats, should be protected unless acted upon.

yes but if what is said is incitement to violence or cause someone else to commit an illegal act it should be possible to be prosecuted as a co conspirator

No, increase education on protected characteristics

The term hate speech is too broad a term to give a conclusive answer too, what could be deemed as being hate speech for some may not be by others. It's also not a good idea for government to decide what is hate speech, any assessment of speech of any kind especially hate should be dealt with by an independent body. I do feel though that views should be aired even if just to debate, debunk or counteract them and any very clear hate speech such as racism for example that has no merit or productivity within a conversation should be dealt with under existing means

Final speech team and court order win the criminal convictions in parts of rangement with new Zealand police and ministry of justice address in formed government ok

Yes, but fighting back against hate speech should be just as fine

Depends on circumstance and context. I lean more towards no.

Yes, in so much that there are clear rules on what can, and can not, constitute as hate speech and is not used as a bludgeon to cleanse the debate space. Bigotry is solved by teaching, not by a hammer tot he head.

Listen to different good speech can sometimes found the problem or advice

No, freedom of speech should only apply in cases where violence is not encouraged, and hate speech will always encourage violence

Any bigoted form of speech should hold consequences, whether social or criminal. The right to criticise the government should always be protected.

For a democracy to work things like hate speech need to be heard but they should also have the added notion that their are consequences for verbally assaulting another person

Yes, to an extent. It depends on how violent and who it threatens.

We need to repeal this law to end protecting hate speech & all the violence that comes withbit

No, there should not be a right that allows an infringement of another right

It depends on the context.

No because discrimination and hating against people is wrong and could cause violence and create uncontrollable problems.

No, but what is hate speech must be clearly defined to involve violence at a minimum