Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Hate Speech Be Legally Protected?
Hate speech should be legally protected
We ought to obey the U.S. Constitution's admonition against prohibiting free speech in the First Amendment.
All speech should be protected by default, due to the complexity and controversy of selecting an authority to determine what constitutes forbidden hate speech.
Making hate speech illegal sets a dangerous precedent, which could lead to curtailment of all speech.
Attempts to censor "hate speech" can in many ways actually strengthen the side of "hate speech" and sway public opinion/sympathy in their favor.
Criminalizing hate speech merely drives it underground.
The people of a nation should be free to hear ideas that the government doesn't want them to hear.
Hate speech is wrong, from an ethical point of view, and should therefore be made illegal.
Hate speech is too subjective to be defined, and thus should not be protected.
Hate speech has no benefit to society whatsoever and can therefore be banned without harm.
According to the
paradox of tolerance
, enabling certain liberties, such as hate speech, may have an overall negative impact over freedom.
In order for a peaceful and democratic debate to flourish, only respectful arguments should be allowed.
Defamation laws can easily be circumvented for members of vunerable communities without hate speech laws.
Hate speech is
and has, or attempts to have,
Hate speech has become a constant threat online, thus it should be regulated.
Should hate speech be illegal?
Should The 'Poor' Be A Protected Equality Group?
Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?