@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 4yrs agoActive 2 days ago

Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Hate speech is defined as public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Social Democrats

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.2k Social Democrats voters.

38%
Yes
62%
No
18%
Yes
53%
No
14%
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence
6%
No, and increase penalties for hate speech
6%
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
3%
No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.2k Social Democrats voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.2k Social Democrats voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Social Democrats voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9ZF7M5Hfrom British Columbia  answered…1mo1MO

Hate speech laws are a Trojan horse for censorship. If you don’t like what you see, get off the internet. Gives absolute power to individuals who get to dictate what constitutes as hatespeech. We have seen this particularly in the last few years in government particularly with the transgender movement as an example. Facts over feelings.

 @9ZVXZR7answered…2wks2W

if it is expressing an opinion which is not favorited it’s okay however there should be strict boundaries

 @9ZMM8LLanswered…4wks4W

No, but it should only apply to the defined protected characteristics (Gender, Age, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Membership of the travelling community, ethnicity and country of origin). It should also only apply to harmful speech that has the potential to cause actual harm.

 @9YM3T3Yanswered…1mo1MO

I think hate speech is horrendous however I do not believe a government should have the power to dictate what someone says.

 @9NXPTSZanswered…6mos6MO

Freedom of speech is already a poorly defined concept, many believing it simply means I can what I want whenever I want and no one can criticise me, in actual fact it’s quite the opposite you can say what you like but another person is more than in their rights to criticise said opinion. In this regard hate speech is technically free speech but can be scrutinised and used against the person

 @9NWX4CXanswered…6mos6MO

Freedom of Speech should be allowed for everyone. Only extreme hate speech like racial slurs and death mocking should be made illegal. Having a difference of opinion/belief based on race, sex or political stance is not hate speech.

 @9H7CKHYanswered…1yr1Y

No, though the situation surrounding the proper definition of hate speech in Ireland is muddled at best

 @9H76M6Ganswered…1yr1Y

I don't trust the government to define the boundaries especially if it's against them, however, when it comes to ganging up minorities and innocent people, that's obviously a crime

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Hate Speech” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…8mos8MO

Brazil threatens to regulate social media after clash with Elon Musk

Brazil’s attorney-general has demanded “urgent regulation” of social media sites after Elon Musk threatened to disobey a court order banning certain profiles on his X platform and then called for a Supreme Court justice to “resign or be impeached”.“It is urgent to regulate social networks,” said Jorge Messias.“We cannot live in a society in which billionaires domiciled abroad have control of social networks and put themselves in a position to violate the rule of law, failing to comply with court orders and threatening our authorities.”The comments came after X’s global government affairs team posted that it “has been forced by court decisions to block certain popular accounts in Brazil”. “We do not know the reasons these blocking orders have been issued [and] We are prohibited from saying which court or judge issued the order, or on what grounds.”The profiles are probably linked to far-right movements, which have found fertile ground on X and other social media platforms, including Telegram.Musk suggested the court orders came from Alexandre De Moraes, a Supreme Court justice who has been a vocal advocate of cracking down on anti-democratic content online, particularly following riots on January 8 last year when thousands of far-right demonstrators stormed government buildings in Brasília.Musk, the billionaire owner of X, vowed on Sunday to “publish everything demanded by [De Moraes] and how those requests violate Brazilian law”.He called for Moraes to “resign or be impeached” and said the judge had “brazenly and repeatedly betrayed the constitution and people of Brazil”.Musk, a self-declared free speech absolutist, bought X in late 2022 and quickly relaxed its moderation policies and reinstated several previously banned accounts. The moves have been welcomed by some on the right, but critics including civil rights groups have argued the platform is failing to adequately police hate speech and extremist content.Musk’s latest comments echo talking points of Brazil’s far-right, which has long accused De Moraes and the Supreme Court of censorship and running a “judicial dictatorship”.De Moraes is widely considered to have played a role in protecting Brazilian democracy during the 2022 presidential election, when the president at the time Jair Bolsonaro was spreading unsubstantiated claims about the integrity of the electoral system.De Moraes also took a hard line in the aftermath of the Brasília riots, handing down lengthy sentences and accusing the demonstrators of trying to launch a coup.Orlando Silva, a lawmaker aligned with the government, said Musk had disrespected the judiciary and that in response he would propose legislation setting out a “responsibilities regime for these digital platforms”.“We have reached a limit. It is a response in defence of Brazil,” he said.The extent of the threat to Brazilian democracy in 2022 was highlighted by a police investigation in February, which has alleged that Bolsonaro, in conjunction with several military officers, considered an armed intervention to prevent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from taking office. Bolsonaro denies the claims.As part of the alleged plot, Bolsonaro had De Moraes put under constant surveillance for weeks following the polls in October 2022, according to federal police.Social media platforms have faced increasing pressure to comply with new laws in countries such as India and Turkey, which can require them to take down content or face bans, fines or the imprisonment of staffers.Critics argue such rules are oppressive and can be abused by country leaders to silence dissidents and activists.Despite regularly espousing free speech ideals, Musk has previously come under fire from critics for appeasing censorship demands from various governments. More recently, however, X has taken to posting publicly about the requests they receive.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…8mos8MO

Scotland’s "hate speech law" sparks global outrage

A new Scottish law that criminalizes the “stirring up of” hatred against some groups has triggered a debate far beyond its borders, pitting human rights activists who say it’s needed against a rising tide of harassment and violence against conservative celebrities and politicians who say the law threatens free speech.Scotland’s law, enacted last week, makes it an imprisonable offense to incite hatred on the basis of race, religion, transgender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability.“If … it’s intended to stir up hatred because of their membership of that group, then that is a criminal offense,” Nick McKerrell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, said in a telephone interview Monday. In Scotland, prosecutors recorded 1,884 hate crime charges relating to sexual identity in 2022-23 — representing an eighth consecutive year-on-year increase — in addition to 55 charges relating to transgender identity.Rights groups say the change is a much-needed extension of hate crime protections, consolidating them into a single statute for the first time. Its opponents — including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling — say they are concerned that the protections are so broad that they could unfairly criminalize free expression. (Critics have also argued that women should be listed as a protected category, too; the Scottish government says it intends to do this through separate legislation.)The furor underlines the polarizing impact of attempts by legislators around the world to find a balance. Backlash to the law has been so fierce that it reportedly prompted far-right agitators to flood police with crime reports to overwhelm them in protest.Legal experts and the Scottish government say the threshold for criminality is high enough to prevent the stifling of debate, pointing out that the law cannot be used to censor jokes or views that are offensive or shocking.“The test is that it has got to be threatening or abusive to someone, or it has to cause them fear or alarm,” McKerrell said. “That’s a very high threshold.”In a series of social media posts, which misgendered trans women and mocked their physical appearance, Rowling — who lives in Scotland — wrote that “freedom of speech and belief are at an end … if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal,” and dared Scottish police to arrest her “if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offense.”Rowling’s remarks last week drew condemnation from rights groups — Stonewall, Britain’s largest LGBTQ charity, said they “trivialise the very real violence committed against us.” Scottish police said Rowling’s comments were “not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken,” the Associated Press reported.Scotland’s leader, Humza Yousaf, told the BBC the newly created offenses “have a very high threshold for criminality.”“JK Rowling’s tweets may well be offensive, upsetting and insulting to trans people,” Yousaf said, “but it doesn’t mean that they meet a threshold of criminality of being threatening or abusive and intending to stir up hatred.”Outside Britain, Elon Musk and Joe Rogan were among the high-profile celebrities to critique the legislation. In an episode of his podcast last month, Rogan described the new law as “ridiculous” and incorrectly suggested that it empowered Scottish police to specifically target comedians.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.