Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

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

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

i support the pirate party

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

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

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.

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.

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

Freedom of speech is bad Hate speech is good hail hitler

No, for protected classes and for incitement and vilification

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Australia has no freedom of speech laws

Need to be open and accountable

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".

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

No, it should be banned.

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.

dont hate on me cause i get the bag

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.

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

Yes, but only if it does not incite to violence