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.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
State:
Federal Electorate:
@8D2H6GM4yrs4Y
Freedom of speech is to be able to share your opinion without judgement. Hate speech is not an opinion, it’s hate and should not be protected.
@9F9VNPV1yr1Y
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.
@9HT24881yr1Y
No, it should be banned but it would have to be monitored so no agency or person could use it to their advantage
@8NSNY8S4yrs4Y
As long as it doesn't threaten violence or spread misinformation.
Deleted4yrs4Y
Yes as long as it supports all sides of an argument at the moment it only supports the far left and left of politics
@B2VQX4L1wk1W
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.
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.
@B22G8ZN2mos2MO
Depends on what was being said. Also don’t trust the government to decide what constitutes as hate speech.
@9X363DG4mos4MO
Depends on how badly it is. Some people think what some people say is hate speech when it really isn’t
@9353BBF3yrs3Y
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.
what constitutes as hate speech and how can the government decide what is and what isn’t? very nuanced question.
@9HRXJYL1yr1Y
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
@9HQ6N421yr1Y
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.
@9F9CM9C1yr1Y
i support the pirate party
@9JPP8661yr1Y
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
@8PST23F4yrs4Y
@8C79V8N4yrs4Y
dont hate on me cause i get the bag
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.
@9336MMR3yrs3Y
No, as long as the right to criticise the government is still protected
@932BQPD3yrs3Y
No one should support hate speech
@92ZBH5WOne Nation3yrs3Y
These days hate speech is being labelled as opposed to narrative. Real hate speech is wrong & should be controlled.
@92TP7CJ3yrs3Y
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.
@amenoire3yrs3Y
Australia has no freedom of speech laws
@92K3CC33yrs3Y
Need to be open and accountable
@92DKHTJLiberal Democrat3yrs3Y
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".
@929XVV53yrs3Y
Any speech that threatens violence against individuals or group should be subject to Freedom of Speech laws
@9273DCX3yrs3Y
Case by case is the only way. But penalties need to be considered. How about better education and transparency of authorship
@926XJ273yrs3Y
I recognise neither "freedom of speech" nor "hate speech".
No, except for discrimination against religion such as Christianity
@8ZNMKB63yrs3Y
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
@8Y7BS493yrs3Y
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.
@8THSFT74yrs4Y
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.
@8M853JB4yrs4Y
Yes but increased impartial oversight of procedure and review process
@8DWX55H4yrs4Y
Depends on the changes and punishment
@8DHFL2N4yrs4Y
Yes, provided it is not vilification, or inciting violence.
@97CDTDD2yrs2Y
Yes, as freedom of speech is an implied right and is "not really" a right
@9BMYKR72yrs2Y
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.
@99YMTFN2yrs2Y
No, hate speech threatens others freedom of speech.
@97ZL8PM2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as it does not encourage or threaten violence to a person or group
@96KQRRP2yrs2Y
Freedom of speech is bad Hate speech is good hail hitler
@93L6VQX3yrs3Y
No, for protected classes and for incitement and vilification
@93527KJ3yrs3Y
yes but depends on what its baout if something really bad like hate in rascism then no
@92P83Z23yrs3Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@8G64H7Z4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if it does not incite to violence
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@B3333Z61 day1D
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@8YTRXDDFamily First3yrs3Y
no, people have the freedom to speak their opinion and we can either agree or disagree with their statement.
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.