Should Free Speech include Hate Speech?

[BrentWil]

First, I understand the current constitution and how the first amendment is enforced. The current standard is what it is and it would take a constitutional amendment to really change it.

With that being said, America does have the most extreme interpretation of free speech in the world. If you compare our laws to other European countries, for example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech ) many societies actually do limit hate speech and sometimes people can face criminal penalties including jail time.

So the question is, is our current protection of freedom of speech the best or should freedom of speech be interpreted with more limitations, in an ideal world?

[jberryhill]

1. I don't know if there is a "best"

It seems that Americans don't trust themselves enough to draw a line here.

[MerryBlooms]

2. Hate crimes become hate crimes because of the addition of hate speech, right?

So, we don't protect all speech... I believe we only prosecute hate speech when it's accompanied with actions, not prosecuted on purely verbal or thought.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. But that is considered a factor in the intent of the hate crime, not the speech itself.

You can't criminalize speech, no matter how bad it is.

[MerryBlooms]

30. Speech can definitely be a mitigating factor.

Speech that is also vandalism can be prosecuted as a hate crime, but as I said before, there's no hate crime prosecution without some sort of physical action and no hate crime without hate speech.

[Sgent]

86. Intent

is a long established legal issue. For instance the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent (in common law).

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Yes.

The 1st Amendment works just fine, and doesn't need "fixing".

[FreeJoe]

4. Only if I get to decide what is hate speech.

Honestly, do you think it would take that long before protest against the wrong people would become hate speech?

[JitterbugPerfume]

6. It is a slippery slope

Who decides what is (or isn't) hate speech?

[BrentWil]

17. Normally the courts, as with all speech NT

[Warren Stupidity]

7. We assassinated American citizens for their al Qaeda supporting web site.

I'm not so sure that our alleged free speech rights are quite as unfettered as you believe. I think there are still laws on the books, such as the Smith Act, that criminalize political speech.

[BrentWil]

10. At set it as an extreme...

There are restrictions, but they are less restrictions then other places. It is all relative

[Hugabear]

8. Pass the popcorn

I just want to see the "what if" scenarios you come up with for this thread.

[BrentWil]

12. I enjoy my threads...

I am not sure why I am being taken as something I am not by some members of DU.

[HopeHoops]

16. I enjoy my threads as well. I've got this one t-shirt that's like 35 years old...

Seriously. I really do. It has "Pi" on it (but it isn't accurate past the sixth decimal place - just random numbers). It's thread-bare and my youngest daughter owns it now. I also have a "Death Before Disco" shirt with a skull on front with a dagger in its head and my name on the back. My middle daughter appropriated it some time ago.

Oh, wait - did you mean DU threads?

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. I think the real cure for hate is knowledge, thus the founders had wisdom.

Ideas like racism can't handle illumination, they break. For instance I knew a person in high school who lived a sheltered life and talked a racist line, then sure enough fell in love with a person of another race. After they were together, and even after they broke up, this person was first to speak out against racism any time... Life had taught them wisdom.

The cure for racism, like any ignorance isn't to bottle it up and pretend you don't have it, the cure is to have it addressed as a deficiency in wisdom. When you have a deficiency in wisdom people should know, so they can give you knowledge. So they can show you the right way. So there is wisdom in allowing people to say ignorant things, insofar as it shows us all that this person is ignorant...Where if there speech was blocked, we would never know.

[Moostache]

13. THIS ^^^^^ (well said!)

We do NOT need additional laws to govern speech - the ones we have for actions do just fine thank you!

[cthulu2016]

11. Yes, of course.

There is no argument for any claim that the government can properly tell people what to say or not say.

The fact that one is not allowed to go around credibly threatening to murder everyone's children, or make random obscene phone calls does not open the first amendment to intellectual games-playing trying to come up with ways to degrade it.

That said, it would be somewhat funny to see some left-authoritarians in the USA dragged off to prison for hurting Rick Santorum's feelings. It would be a "teachable moment."

[pinto]

14. No Constitutional expert here, but it's obviously a much debated and fluid set of standards.

As with much of our Constitution's parameters. Personally, I favor limits on the biggies - advocating armed rebellion; public threats of harm directed to individuals, social, political or religious groups and institutions; incendiary statements from public officials deemed likely to incite violence, etc.

That said, I'd encourage repeated judicial review (i.e. challenges) on 1st Amendment issues. I side with the "living document" view of the Constitution. It's not set in stone, imo. Nor do I think it was intended to be.

Great topic. Thanks for the post.

[HopeHoops]

15. Unless it includes a direct threat, then yes, it should be allowed.

It's already a crime to threaten somebody explicitly or implicitly, but without hate speech how could the likes of Limbaugh and FOX survive? They thrive on it, and yes it is protected. Without the Fairness Doctrine, lies and single-sided propaganda are just as legal. Unfortunately, stupidity is also legal. The best we can do is hope for evolution to continue and bigotry and general stupidity to decline. You can fix ignorance but you can't fix stupid.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. you can be verbally assaulted- words do have power

using words to hurt others should be regulated. In an "ideal world" we'd care enough about each other not to do that - in an "ideal" world we wouldn't need to have laws would we?

[JSnuffy]

21. That's a pretty stupid and unenforcable idea...

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Send me my ticket...

[dems_rightnow]

22. That was hurtful

I propose 30 days in the slammer.

[JSnuffy]

25. Good lord...

... if there were judicial ramifications for hurt feelings I would be on death row 42 times over...

[Bluerthanblue]

46. verbal abuse can result

in harm, including death.

We punish children for bullying- (as we should) Why should adults be allowed to bully others verbally without concequence?

[TalkingDog]

49. Because children on the receiving end of abuse internalize it.

If you have grown to adult hood without developing the coping skills that allow you to discount "hurtful" language and place it in a proper context, then you may need a psychological evaluation.

[Bluerthanblue]

53. If you can really believe that becoming an "adult"

and developing "coping skills" that allow you to "discount" the effects of verbal assaults then you must have been fortunate to not have been exposed to much of it, or known someone who has.

What do you think a 'psychological evaluation' could do to restore the self-worth or peace of mind to those who are harmed by hate speech?

"By words one person can make another person blissfully happy or drive them to despair, by words the teacher conveys his knowledge to his pupils, by words the orator carries his audience with him and determines their judgments and decisions. Words provoke affects and are in general the means of mutual influence among men."[1]

[1]. Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis (1916) reprinted in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 15, James Strachey, ed. (1963), p. 15.

[TalkingDog]

75. Actually quite the opposite. My mother had bouts of paranoid schizophrenia and BPD.

She was, at times, a very scary lady to live with.

You seemed to have missed my point. I don't think seeing a psychologist will "restore" anything.

I'll say it again, slowly and with smaller words so it's easier to understand. (if that snark hurts your feelings, deal with it):

Most adults learn how to cope with rude or unthinking people as they come to maturity. They learn that people have bad days and say things off the cuff. They learn that some people use humor to deflect hurt. Sometimes the humor is not always the good kind. They learn that other people grew up in houses where ribbing (from the gentle kind to the very rude and hurtful kind) was an everyday occurrence and the people who grew up that way expect others to be the same way or to have developed the necessary thick skin.

In other words, they learn that in the larger scheme of trying to live and survive that a few mis-spoken words generally don't mean a hell of a lot.

Instead they prefer to be generous (instead of overly sensitive, whining, and controlling) and give people the benefit of the doubt. Barring that, even if they don't feel generous, they learn that they can give people a fucking break on a fairly regular basis and their world and their person-hood remains intact.

If the barrage of rudeness or insensitivity becomes constant or if they are having a bad day and don't feel like being polite enough to ignore it, mature adults know that they can make others aware of the problem in a timely and appropriate manner. In many cases the offending person will apologize, because they had not realized their misstep. Even if this does not occur, the mature adult will know they have taken steps to maintain their sense of self worth and dignity.

And mature adults know that co-dependent behavior, like having another person step in and "defend" them robs them of their person-hood and does not allow them to develop their own coping skills. So the mature adult will avoid letting people "take up for them", preferring to fight their own battles.

If you haven't developed any or all of these coping skills, or if as a grown adult, you have not matured to the point where seeing this point of view is even possible, then you may need assessment by a trained professional (aka psychologist) because this more nuanced understanding of others and self is a fairly normal part of becoming an adult. A psychologist can assist in developing some cognitive strategies to deal with rude or insensitive people.

That's all I'm saying. And in case you haven't realized, this information in this post was not directed at the OP or the snarky person you berated.

[TalkingDog]

77. Oh and ... really Sigmund Freud? Really?

Cocaine fueled egomaniac who thought that women who talked about their fathers raping them were "fantasizing".

Not so much a respecter of Dr. Freud, but thanks for playing along at home.

[JSnuffy]

50. That is absolutely untrue...

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)

... no one has ever been talked to death. Ever... In the history of mankind...

Let's just assume that we are going to take on your grand plan to remove the asshole nature from humanity. What would you do to codify and enforce this amazing new policy. Anyone who is offended by another's speech can claim damages? Only for minorities (religious, racial, left handed people)?

I double triple dog dare you... make an fair, equitable and ethical system to do this that doesn't stomp all over the 1st amendment or the nature of man itself.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. some people think a picture of a naked boob on the internet is an "assault"

sorry, I'll fall on the side of no censorship.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. a picture of someones breast on the internet isn't

'speech' imo.

Touching someone could be considered physically assaulting them. Spitting on someone is another instance. I agree that enforcing and determining what steps over the line and what doesn't wouldn't be easy- but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be held accountable words which promote hatred and are designed to demean and marginalize others.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Touching and spitting on are not speech, in fact can technically be considered assault

Whereas images (not to mention text) on the internet are communication, i.e. speech.

Sorry, free speech- even that which "promotes hatred" (as per an inevitably opaque, subjective judgment) or is "designed to demean and marginalize others" (the same)- is protected by the 1st Amendment, which protects ALL speech, even the speech of bigots and hate-filled assholes.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. I didn't make the point I was trying to very well-

When I said that touching someone or spitting on them can be considered assault- I was trying to illustrate your point about something that would fall short of what many people would consider 'physically assaulting' another, but which is not allowed.

I don't claim that determining what would qualify as hate speech would be easy- but the question the OP asked was do we think it should be regulated.

Personally, I think that it would be a good thing for hate speech to be controlled. That the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should include the right not to be verbally harrassed by others who hide their hatred under the banner of the 1st Amendment. Their right to 'speak' shouldn't trump anothers right to simply exist.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Okay, but for one, that is not just difficult, it's basically impossible to determine.

And two, even if you could draw a bright line between what constitutes "hate speech" and what doesn't, we still shouldn't be in the business of silencing ideas or opinions, no matter how awful.

Like I said, this is not just an academic exercise for me: I come from a Jewish family in the Chicago metro area. We watched the Nazis march in Skokie. One can simultaneously hate noxious, vile speech and still understand why permitting it; permitting the most noxious, vile forms of speech- IS standing up for the things, usually, that that sort of speech is directly in conflict with. Censoring the Nazis would have been giving them a victory; letting them air their shit was, conversely, a defeat for them and all they stood for.

And speech- I don't care how vile- does not have the power to "trump anothers right to exist". Speech, in and of and by itself, is not capable of negating anyone out of existence. Harassment is one thing - for instance, a bigoted homophobe doesn't have the right to continually call a gay person on the phone and yell at them- that's harassment. However, bigoted homophobes do have the right to express their opinion, just as we have the right to call them a fucking bigoted ass.

[Bluerthanblue]

60. a decent definition of what

would constitute "hate speech" imo would be:

Speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, social class, appearance, mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

Your statement -Speech, in and of and by itself, is not capable of negating anyone out of existence. While that may be 'literally' true, the damage done by words used to cause others to adopt the view that people who they see as different from them are less than human, not entitled to live without being disparaged or belittled does influence the quality of life for the victims of their hatred.

there is an interesting article here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/booknotes-Destruct.shtml

which talks about the effects of 'hate speech' on society.

Words are powerful.

thanks for the discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. How do you determine intent behind what someone says?

And it's not just 'literally' true that speech in and of itself is not capable of negating anyone out of existence, it is also literally true, without quotes.

Are there potential societal effects to speech? Absolutely. But the answer to speech we don't like, or that we don't like the effects of, is more speech. Censorship- the censoring of any speech- is the first step on the road towards totalitarianism; that's why I said that, despite being from a Jewish family that had relatives in the camps in WWII, even, I understood that to let the Nazis march in Skokie was a defeat for them. Censoring them, conversely, paradoxically, would have been an endorsement of their approach to things.

Words are powerful, which is one of the many reasons why the 1st Amendment is so important. Free speech is only as good as the right of the person you MOST don't want to hear, to be heard.

[Terry_M]

38. Perfect Illustration of the Slippery Slope Argument Against.

By applying a broad category 'words that hurt others' you open up all sorts of possibilities.

Different people are hurt by different words and combinations of words. Then there's 'hurting someone with words' intentionally or through negligence, both of which could have consequence for the perpetrator, though in varying degree and would be disputed (when I said this hurtful thing, did I do it intentionally or did I simply not think it through thereby making it a case of negligently hurting someone, or, is it that the hurtful consequence was not reasonably predictable, as the hurtful effect was very specific to the victim's sensibilities, and no negligence was involved at all).

I suppose if our goal is to create more jobs for lawyers and judges... =/

[Xithras]

19. I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist.

Nobody should be in prison for wearing a t-shirt, or waving a flag, or shouting a slogan. There was a recent incident in Great Britain that really contrasted the difference between our countries. In a nutshell, a woman was on a bus griping to a couple of people about all of the "immigrants" in their country. It was the kind of discussion that you could hear on American radio any day of the week, and the kind of discussion that millions of Americans have every day (for better or worse). There was no yelling, no violence, no threats, just a couple minute conversation about how bad immigrants were.

To her bad luck, someone recorded the conversation on a cell phone camera. She was arrested, imprisoned over Christmas, and eventually tried and convicted of hate speech charges.

I will never support any politician who advocates bringing those kinds of laws to the U.S., and will actively work toward their defeat.

Education is the cure for ignorance. Not prison. Nobody has the right to tell you what you can think or say.

[provis99]

39. oh?

What if at a crosswalk, a person told a blind pedestrian it is safe to walk, and the pedestrian got killed by a bus the seeing person saw coming? Would you protect this seeing person's right to free speech?

[TalkingDog]

52. Supreme Court has already settled this: You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Causing someone physical harm is the limit of free speech. Still that is understood to include context and content.

[BrentWil]

55. Do you support the Citizen United Decision, then?

Just Curious.

[X_Digger]

20. No more limitations, thanks.

The answer to bad speech is good speech.

[BrentWil]

56. I agree. What is your thoughts on Citizens United?

[X_Digger]

61. I'm ambivalent, to tell the truth.

I can agree with the reasoning, but I think just as regular speech can be subject to time / place / manner restrictions, so should corporate speech.

[mzteris]

23. can you yell

FIRE in a crowded theater?

Can you communicate real THREATS?

To me hate speech is a form of a real threat to the life and livelihood of the target of the "speech".

[Warren DeMontague]

26. The Supreme Court has pretty much nullified the 'fighting words' objection to speech

The idea that "you can't say that because it might piss a lot of people off" is a dubious justification for censorship, and generally fails the 1st Amendment test.

[mzteris]

29. I didn't say "piss people off"

I said fomenting violent acts against peoples because they're "x" (different from your). There's your hate speech. They may not come right out and say "kill the ____________ (oppressed people of your choice)" but that's what they MEAN and everyone knows it.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. making a direct threat isnt protected. Being a bigot is protected.

this is not just an academic exercise for me; I come from a Jewish family that saw the Nazi/Skokie thing unfold up close. But the 1st Amendment protects 'hate speech', and while 'everyone knows' what bigots and racists, etc may mean, it's one thing to call them on it and another to twiddle with the first amendment in an attempt to silence disagreeable opinions, as noxious as they may be.

[Viking12]

31. Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater

You cannot, however, falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic.


As for the OP, Who defines what equals hate?

No thanks.

[NYC Liberal]

43. Of course you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

How else would you get people out if there was a fire?

[tishaLA]

24. Judith Butler's Excitable Speech: The Politics of the Performative is instructive re: hate speech

IMO. It's not a perfect book, but it is smart about some things, including its observation that state-sponsored prohibitions of hate speech simultaneously propagates the very speech is intends to prohibit.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. The 1st Amendment protects the speech of bigots, assholes and shitheads, too

just as it protects my right to call them bigots, assholes and shitheads.

[X_Digger]

64. Popular speech needs no protection- by it's very nature. n/t

[Odin2005]

28. IMO society has the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. But

Who will decide which speech rises to the level of intolerant?

A liberal would say that those who speak out against gay marriage are intolerant (and I agree)

A conservative would say that those who speak out against fundamentalist religious beliefs are intolerant (and I would agree)

Whose ox will be gored and will it change constantly depending on who is in power?

I say leave it like it is.

[RZM]

63. Who decides what constitutes 'intolerant'

For instance, I don't see how anybody could argue that DU isn't 'intolerant.' Lots of kinds of speech are not allowed here and posters often strongly ridicule other Americans for their beliefs and sometimes even for where they are from or which family they are born to.

See where I'm going here? DU would have no place in a society that doesn't tolerate intolerance.

Free speech, period. That's how we do things in this country.

[Odin2005]

70. Your speech is intolerant if it terrorizes another group of people, AKA, Hate Speech.

[RZM]

72. It's hard enough to come up with a definition of 'terrorism'

I hardly think we could agree on what constitutes 'terrorizing speech'

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. So anything that frightens people can be banned?

Or is it only if you think that they had a "right" to be frightened.

We already have laws against incitement to violence or crime, and against threats of violence or crime.

But if you ban speech because it's hostile or unpleasant to a group of people without actively threatening illegal actions you are against free speech.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

82. Agree 100% n/t

[Broderick]

32. Gee we can't determine acceptable words here - see the meta discussions

So who determines what speech is hate or not? Intended as such or not? Free speech is vital. Private sites can ban certain things all they want. Everyone has the right to say stupid shit on their own site or time and it shouldn't be illegal.

[markpkessinger]

35. If we were to ban "hate speech" outright, all we would succeed in doing is . . .

. . . driving it underground. Far better to have all of it out in the open where it can be confronted for what it is. One either believes in the "marketplace of ideas," or one does not. And of course, there is the problem of how to define the term, and of who gets to define it. Sorry, I remain fairly absolutists about it (excepting, of course, speech that could reasonably be expected to imminently endanger the life, health or safety of others (the old, "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater' standard).

If you've never read any of Nat Hentoff's books or articles on this topic, I would highly recommend them.

[BrendaBrick]

79. +1 Far better to have it in the open where it can be confronted for what it is. Yup.

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED - Given the alternative, (as you suggest) than to drive it underground instead...I agree.

Reality Check: Once it is driven underground, the fact STILL remains that it exists either way, right? So, following that logic, only under the cloak of secrecy it quite possibly lends itself to recruiting and incorporating even MORE "followers" in the dark than perhaps those who are willing to 'get on board' and be seen in the light of day by comparison.

Let's face it: This is NOT a perfect world by any stretch of the imagination and there will always be bigots and misinformed people yesterday, today and tomorrow. The way I see it, it is better to have these folks 'acting out' and 'speaking out' in a public way where they can be DIRECTLY challenged as opposed to living and operating under a realm of secrecy where the target is much harder to address, hit, pinpoint and ultimately, to counteract.

Lastly, I would like to add that one possible societal backlash to their misconceptions (since, let's face it - bigotry is something that is not innate but rather something that is LEARNED) might be this:

http://www.unlearn.com/

No. Not the answer in a nutshell...but a pretty good start if ya ask me by engendering perhaps a better, much more popular mindset (or at least pandering to the societal, inclusive mindset that no one (I don't think) truly wants to be considered on the fringe) once their faulty belief system(s) might be challenged and/or exposed by the rest of society...and thus just might...MIGHT give at least the opportunity to self-reflect in an non-confrontational way... which otherwise would not have given cause for such silent and personal concern or contemplation to really decide for THEMSELVES just what is real and (after all) what is chasing after a bigoted 'carrot on a stick' which really serves them no good in the end as both a human being and as a positive, contributing member of this society.

Would seem to me...

[Justice wanted]

36. Very good question and I may be flamed for this... Honestly. IF you want Freedom of Speech REAL

Freedom of speech you need to take the bad with the good. That's not to say I encourage speech that is truly threating to a person's life like saying "If I don't win I'm going to kill the winner".


BUT

The one thing about EUROPE (Probably one of the few things I dislike-because if I ever have the money I'd leave this country) is that Hate Speech Law. To me it is a slippery slope that they are taking.

Once you start punishing one way of thinking because it is offensive you find OTHERs wanting another form of speech banned for being "Offensive".


I think the reasonable and logical thing is to allow Freedom of speech and HOPE you have given your citzens the tools and skills to educate themselves.


Yes, we have Racists and sexists and bigoted people in this country and they are going to say some hurtful and rude things AND sometimes -like in this election year they are running for the GOP nom BUT just because someone who says (Not going to use a REAL example) Redheads are the spawn of the devil because they have red hair. Logic would hope that the majority of the population realize how stupid this idea is and do not act on it.

Unfortunately there will be people who are crazy or stupid enough to act on stupid narrow-minded comments BUT to deny someone the right to speak this view point just to keep someone acting upon the idea than do you REALLY have Freedom of Speech?

I believe it was Voltaire that said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".


To me that is the standard of free speech.

Now I will take my flaming now

[Warren DeMontague]

40. I actually think most people here agree with that assessment.

not flame-worthy at all.

[X_Digger]

66. Voltaire didn't say it (one of his biographers did)- but it does summarize his position nicely.

And I agree with the sentiment!

[Justice wanted]

81. Thank you. I always thought he said that.

[ProSense]

41. Isn't that

So the question is, is our current protection of freedom of speech the best or should freedom of speech be interpreted with more limitations, in an ideal world?

...a contradiction? In an "ideal world" freedom of speech would have no limitations. How exactly does imposing more limitations on freedom of speech make it better? That's like saying there is value in stiffling free speech. If that's the case, then it isn't freedom of speech, is it?

[Hippo_Tron]

42. I like our system, but I respect the right of other nations to do differently

Germany doesn't allow holocaust denial and in their opinion there's a good reason for that. Personally I like the first amendment's unfettered right to free speech, aside from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[MrSlayer]

44. Putting someone in jail for their words is ludicrous.

I disagree completely with the countries that have laws against free speech. So to answer your question, yes, free speech includes hate speech. It's helpful in a way, it lets the assholes identify themselves in public.

[NYC Liberal]

45. Yes. And jail time for speech alone is abhorrent.

Incitement to violence and threats have never been protected under the First Amendment. There is no need to change that.

[former9thward]

51. How anyone who posts on a political bulletin board

could suggest there should be limits to free speech is beyond me.

[BrentWil]

57. Someone is suggesting that?

[former9thward]

67. You want it discussed.

"So the question is, is our current protection of freedom of speech the best or should freedom of speech be interpreted with more limitations, in an ideal world? " Isn't that the word "limitations" I see in there?

[BrentWil]

85. Yes...

But asking a question doesn't mean I actually want limitations.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. I wouldn't want to empower the state to define the difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech

[ZombieHorde]

65. Yes, in my opinion, free speech should include hate speech.

I have been accused of using hate speech against the RCC for complaining about their mistreatment of women and children, and I don't think I should be punished for those complaints.

[NotThisTime]

69. Yes with the exception of death threats or calling for or encouraging the death of someone

[Iggo]

71. YES.

It's the best there is.

And NO, there should not be any more limitations.

[Marrah_G]

73. Yes it should

[Major Hogwash]

74. USA! USA! USA! We are the best!!!!

But we need to ban Nazis.
And anyone that espouses their rhetoric.

Seriously.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. "Hate speech" is primarily a euphemism for "Free speech I want to see banned".

If you don't permit "hate speech", you don't have free speech, full stop.

[Nye Bevan]

80. The German laws banning Holocaust denial are ill-conceived, in my opinion.

You are allowed to state that the Earth is flat, but you are not allowed to claim that the Holocaust never happened. But Holocaust deniers should be exposed to equal ridicule that flat-Earthers are. By banning Holocaust denial, it's almost like the Government is afraid that the message of the deniers is so dangerous, and so insidiously persuasive, that it needs to be censored. Holocaust deniers should be a public laughing-stock, not sent to prison.

[justiceischeap]

83. Rick Santorum is elected President

Do you want him picking what is hate speech?

[Terra Alta]

84. Free speech should always be protected

even if it is hate speech. The only exception is when it's threatening someone.

Although I'm all for someone using hate speech to be fired from their job(a public school teacher making homophobic or racist comments, for example). However, I don't think there should be criminal penalties for hate speech.

[Jack Sprat]

87. Reluctantly, I would say yes.

People hate all the time about somebodies or somethings. It is not in their best interest to do so, but who doesn't or hasn't been guilty of hating something. Did people hate Hitler and the Third Reich? Yes, of course. Was it real hate? Yes, of course. I'm not sure it's real freedom of speech if you place restrictions on it. I could be wrong, but it seems you were asking for opinions.