Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

No, but hate speech must be clearlt defined.

Most hate speech should be banned but we need a clear and concise definition

What is hate speech? what was probably deemed hate speech a short time ago has helped make our society more accepting today.

No, and hate speech boundaries should be defined by those affected by it

The Freedom of speech and thought are the most important freedoms in life, you can't change stupid by suppression of thought, that only hides and breeds ignorance, education and discussion change people not legislation

No threaten by violence and isolated by the local police and find out more information by the gangs of squad teams

Expression is healthy but a lil regulation and education in schools taught for and required for healthy boundries

No, clear definition of what hatr speech is needs to be defined and how it will be enforced, charged

Certainly not if hate speech criteria are broadened as intended. Historical hate speech criteria were adequate.

hate speech allows us to know who to stay away from - we should work harder towards spreading more positivity that it drowns out the hate speech.

Too difficult to answer like this. There needs to be freedom of voice but not being able to incite violence.

Yes, because to legislate against any form of speech only forces people with those points of view into underground communities that share their views. This is more commonly known as an echo chamber. To educate, we must first be able to hear what they have to say. We can't do this by gagging people with the legal system.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental of life. But inciting violence against others is not ok. Would need more discussion

Yes, particularly if it is aimed to be spoken out loud, in public, or online social media, or in print and especially if it threatens violence

no but it shouldn't be a law and they get fine or anything either. I'm unsure.

I believe in the freedom of speech, but not hate speech that degrades any human beings.

Yes because if you say no then it’s not classify as freedom of speech

Yes, but there is no protection from consequences. I.e termination of employment as your speech is not in line with company values

It depends on how broadly or narrowly the Government defines hate speech but based on the assumption that the general public sees hate speech as something that incites violence or severe harassment, no.

Not if it is used to threaten people or try and recruit people to think as you do without allowing their freedom and of speech

Hate speech laws are important to protect people, they should come with a clear definition and not defined by government but many reliable independent experts.

Yes, however if the speech is promoted or associated by/with an entity and/or platform that entity and/or platform has the right to limit, suppress and disavow the speech and speaker, along with the right to discipline and/or distance the speaker.

No, as Hate Speach is too subjective.

People should be allowed to say what they want but should not be free of the consequences of their words when harm is done

hate speech should have consequences but needs clear definition

depends on how people see it

Freedom of speech is important hate speech is ideological for weak minded people who's feelings are crushed when they accidentally stand on a snail

No accepatbe definition of hate speech

I hate vicious personal attacks but The phrase hate speech is too prone to be hijacked by particular political ideology/PC. There needs to be freedom to respectfully think differently and disagree without being accused of hate speech.

True Criticism of any group is ok however threatening a group is not

"hate speech" what is that? A different opinion to the narrative? What? Bad question. Oh no gasp! Was that a hate statement?!

Hate speech should be protected by freedom if speech laws but not from public backlash

No, Freedom of speech is defined as the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. It does not allow you to say whatever you want without consequence.

I subscribe to Karl Popper's ideas around hate speech in that if we don't regulate hate speech, violent words become violent actions and even dictatorial regimes.

depends what is considered hate speech

It depends on how offensive the language is

No, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

As long as it is not racist nor aligns with the agreeance of the abuse of children or violence. Then I agree

Not if it is likely to promote or incite violence toward a minority or to strip a minority of their rights.

Generally, no. Certainly it should be squelched on social media because the algorithms inflate views that engage people's rage or trolling tendencies. People should still be able to spout their nonsense as long as they don't encourage or advocate violence, don't purport to be a legitimate news site, and don't access media that artificially inflates and "normalises" their views and puts people in their cross hairs in real danger from followers who believe their hate speech.

Hate speech is unacceptable

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence, and causes person, groups, communities to be excluded as a result of hate speech.

No, any speech that endangers or threatens vulnerable peoples should not be protected under freedom of speech

No, if the speech is inhibiting the freedom of another person. For example, unrelenting verbal harassment of another individual.

No, freedom of speech laws should not protect you from inciting violence or hatred.

No Free Speech

No, hatred is a sin. Love thy neighboor, not hate thy neighboor.

As long as it only from speaking and not too a particular platform

No, freedom of speech is not an absolute human right but is subjected to