Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

Depends, what constitutes as hate speech by this government (unless it’s actually promoting hate and violence)? I don’t trust the government on this type of matter.

As long as it doesn't threaten violence or spread misinformation.

Yes, I don't trust a government to define hate speech. I believe however that a social consensus must be made on discriminatory beliefs and that societies in general should see genuinely harmful beliefs as a threat and the proponents of such speech should be held accountable for their harmful beliefs.

No, it should be banned but it would have to be monitored so no agency or person could use it to their advantage

Yes as long as it supports all sides of an argument at the moment it only supports the far left and left of politics

Depends, what was said? And what does the government consider as hate speech?

Depends on what was said, what does the government constitute as hate speech?

No, freedom of speech and communication is for offering your views, not a license to berate people.

No, any speech directed based on hating another person or group based on there race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is unacceptable. However, I think Australia is going down a path of categorising criticism around people related to these options (among other options) leading to the population feeling scared and angry that they can't criticise groups or people who truly do bad things because they are a religious group or a certain race - because of the consequences that come with "hate speech". I believe that Australia should cut out a lot of laws that prohibit free speech and really tighten what is hate speech. Also free speech doesn't mean you are free from consequences.

I think hate speech is fine. I also hate freedom of speech. The government knows best shut it uninformed people

Yes, but the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech should be included in all education curriculums.

Free speech protects the right to express ideas without government interference — but it doesn't protect anyone from the consequences of harmful speech. When words cross into defamation, threats, incitement, or dangerous misinformation, accountability should follow. Expression is free; harm is not.

it depends on the hate speech and the use of the protection and therefore the penalties of using it. people are offended all too often by far more than what is offensive.

No and punching someone while standing directly in front of them who is using hate speech should be legal.

Is hate speech blatant racism and disrespect. Or truth telling that is uncomfortable to hear. Anything rooted in facts. Is not hate speech.

Freedom of speech only covers political speech, not *any* speech, and so should be limited to "truthful utterances of a political nature".
Other forms of speech are already restricted - such as libel, defamation, hate speech and so on.
We need to police ourselves so as to prevent harm to others in society. Sauce for goose is also sauce for gander, so 'anti-Semitism' should be partnered with anti-Islamaphobia for example. We need LESS divisive speech, not MORE. That should be enough of a definition.

Yes, as long as its not hate speech against Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Afrikaners, Whites in general, and biological men and women.

No, because we do not have freedom of speech laws and never did in the history of Australia post-colonialism

No, but I'm unsure, and I don't trust the government, especially the Australian government, to define the boundaries of hate speech.

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence, though I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech. Hard question...

No; freedom of speech should protect individual expression of opinion, but not at the detriment of becoming a proponent, or device, for individuals, or groups, to incite violence, discrimination, or mistreatment against others based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation etc.

It’s a sliding scale, an accurate definition of hate speech is required in order to fully engage with this issue.

No, freedom of speech should be used for protecting one's political view, not allow them to needlessly persecute social, societal and cultural groups and minorities.

Depends on what was being said. Also don’t trust the government to decide what constitutes as hate speech.

Depends on how badly it is. Some people think what some people say is hate speech when it really isn’t

Freedom of speech should protect individual expression of opinion, but not at the detriment of becoming a proponent or device of individuals, or groups, to incite violence, discrimination, or mistreatment against others based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation etc.

No, but I believe everybody has the right to an opinion as long as it isn't promoting hatred or violence.

I believe some cultures do not integrate with others and they need to be called out on it. I have seen I countries such as Turkey where they are being taken over by another culture - same thing happened with the Fijiians with the Indians. It worries me we are bringing in too many of the same race, we need to spread it around more and try to get people from Canada, USA, Europe, places that truly integrate with Australia's culture

No, as long as what constitutes hate speech is well defined and doesn't stifle criticism, scrutiny, satire or parody.

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech

No, but only for a person's identity (ethnicity, sex, gender). Voluntary actions, such as commercial or criminal behaviour, should be valid topics for discussion.

what constitutes as hate speech and how can the government decide what is and what isn’t? very nuanced question.

What about the muslims as they openly threaten in front of the police and cameras nothing is done but you arrest preachers CHRISTANS EVEN SILENTLY praying and arrested for thought crime and we can't even fly australian uk and israel flag ship them and ship us out

Hate speech on religion by atheist is justified but religion on religion or race on race etc is not acceptable

Yes, this doesn't count towards threats of violence. The state shouldn't define what is hate speech.

i support the pirate party

Hate speech could be hard to define. I think it shouldn’t be protected from freedom of speech laws as it is just speech made to emotionally and physiologically effect the target in a negative way

No, it should be banned.

dont hate on me cause i get the bag

No, as long as the right to criticise the government is still protected

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence, Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech & "We Must Grant Our Devils their Due before the Law Turns on Us, that is a Truism that is Always there." – [by Dr.: "Michael Shermer.", (from Skeptic & Skeptic Magazine.).].

Yes, free speech only protects "hate speech".

Any speech that threatens violence against individuals or group should be subject to Freedom of Speech laws

Case by case is the only way. But penalties need to be considered. How about better education and transparency of authorship

I recognise neither "freedom of speech" nor "hate speech".

No, except for discrimination against religion such as Christianity

As long as freedom of speech is in place then hate speech, though vile and often times uncalled for, should be accepted in that law

No, hate speech can take many forms and be viewed through so many lenses. Hate speech and free speech differ but red tape for case by case determination costs lives.

Yes, because no one person or group should be allowed to define what is and what isn't defined as 'hate speech' unless it threatens violence

No freedom of speech law should only protect you from criticizing the government but increase penalties for hate speech

Yes, because i don't trust bureaucrats to define boundaries of hate speech and we have laws against definite and specific threats to take care of real threats of harm.

It Depends on what is classified as hate speech. straight up racial bigotry sure is hate speech, but by the same token some would deem the fact that my black friend like fried chicken is also hate speech and bigotry, there needs to be more defined lines that dont enable hate speech or false cries of hate speech from either politicians the extreme right or extreme left

Yes as long as it is not for same-sex or gay couples and individuals

People are allowed to display hate speech, but should face the punishment of it.

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence. Should also be equal for all. Currently discrimintes based on skewed version of political correctness

Yes, you have the freedom to express hateful language, however, this does NOT protect you from the consequences of expressing hateful language.

Yes but increased impartial oversight of procedure and review process

Depends on the changes and punishment

Yes, provided it is not vilification, or inciting violence.

Yes, as freedom of speech is an implied right and is "not really" a right

People should be free to say what they want and voice their opinions as long as it is done in a respectful and non discriminatory.

No, hate speech threatens others freedom of speech.

Yes, as long as it does not encourage or threaten violence to a person or group

Freedom of speech is bad Hate speech is good hail hitler

No, for protected classes and for incitement and vilification

yes but depends on what its baout if something really bad like hate in rascism then no

Yes, social criticism should govern what can and cannot be stated. Hate speech should be called out and or debated, but not be banned by government.

No one should support hate speech

These days hate speech is being labelled as opposed to narrative. Real hate speech is wrong & should be controlled.

Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech. But develop programmes for teaching people self worth, lessons to help people develop the social and mental tools so people words would not effect them as much.

Australia has no freedom of speech laws

Need to be open and accountable

No but it comes down to what is defined as hate speech

No, but their needs to be strict guidelines as to what constitutes hate speech and it needs to be applied fairly to all. It can't be a tool just for use against particular groups.

Should social media platforms censor hate speech, and where should they draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

How can we differentiate between hate speech and a strongly worded opinion without limiting personal expression?

In what ways can schools and educational institutions play a role in reducing hate speech among young people?

Have you ever witnessed someone change their mind about a group they previously expressed hate toward? What caused that change?

What responsibility do influencers and public figures have in preventing the spread of hate speech, and have you seen effective examples?

How does the anonymity of the internet contribute to the spread of hate speech, and what steps can be taken to counteract this?

Can humor or satire ever cross the line into hate speech, and how can we identify when it does?

No, but intention to harm, intimidate, or otherwise negatively impact an individual or group should be penalised. Freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences.

Yes, but only if it does not incite to violence

How does it feel when you encounter hateful comments about a group you identify with online, and how do you respond?

Reflecting on history, how does today's digital age compare in terms of the spread and impact of hate speech?

no, people have the freedom to speak their opinion and we can either agree or disagree with their statement.

Can words on the internet truly hurt, or are they just words? Share a personal experience or thought.