@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial Issues4yrs ago

Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech laws?

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.

Answer Overview

Response rates from 224 Filipino [people] voters.

55%
Yes
45%
No
31%
Yes
36%
No
17%
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence
5%
No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government
8%
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
4%
No, and increase penalties for hate speech

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 224 Filipino [people] voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 224 Filipino [people] voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Filipino [people] voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8Z6V5DPfrom Bataan  answered…3yrs3Y

No, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

 @8Y969SZfrom Agusan del Norte  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however people who engage in hate speech should not be free from the consequences of the speech. The speech itself may be protected, but the results of that speech should be taken into account.

 @8LWJR8Hfrom Mindoro Occidental  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes because the so-called "hate speech" is non-existent

 @8L246Z9answered…4yrs4Y

No, it is hate speech it does nothing else but hate, is it even needed for people to talk about and share to others

 @996XKCKfrom Mindoro Occidental  answered…2yrs2Y

yes,but the use of hate speech is towards communists,liberals, criminals, and corrupt politicians

 @98DHHNRfrom Bukidnon  answered…2yrs2Y

Hate speech like racism, threaten violence, incite insurrection should and must not be protected by freedom of speech laws. But if criticizing the government is considered as "hate speech," the latter must be protected.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Hate Speech” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…9mos9MO

Brazil threatens to regulate social media after clash with Elon Musk

Brazil’s attorney-general has demanded “urgent regulation” of social media sites after Elon Musk threatened to disobey a court order banning certain profiles on his X platform and then called for a Supreme Court justice to “resign or be impeached”.“It is urgent to regulate social networks,” said Jorge Messias.“We cannot live in a society in which billionaires domiciled abroad have control of social networks and put themselves in a position to violate the rule of law, failing to comply with court orders and threatening our authorities.”The comments came after X’s global government affairs team posted that it “has been forced by court decisions to block certain popular accounts in Brazil”. “We do not know the reasons these blocking orders have been issued [and] We are prohibited from saying which court or judge issued the order, or on what grounds.”The profiles are probably linked to far-right movements, which have found fertile ground on X and other social media platforms, including Telegram.Musk suggested the court orders came from Alexandre De Moraes, a Supreme Court justice who has been a vocal advocate of cracking down on anti-democratic content online, particularly following riots on January 8 last year when thousands of far-right demonstrators stormed government buildings in Brasília.Musk, the billionaire owner of X, vowed on Sunday to “publish everything demanded by [De Moraes] and how those requests violate Brazilian law”.He called for Moraes to “resign or be impeached” and said the judge had “brazenly and repeatedly betrayed the constitution and people of Brazil”.Musk, a self-declared free speech absolutist, bought X in late 2022 and quickly relaxed its moderation policies and reinstated several previously banned accounts. The moves have been welcomed by some on the right, but critics including civil rights groups have argued the platform is failing to adequately police hate speech and extremist content.Musk’s latest comments echo talking points of Brazil’s far-right, which has long accused De Moraes and the Supreme Court of censorship and running a “judicial dictatorship”.De Moraes is widely considered to have played a role in protecting Brazilian democracy during the 2022 presidential election, when the president at the time Jair Bolsonaro was spreading unsubstantiated claims about the integrity of the electoral system.De Moraes also took a hard line in the aftermath of the Brasília riots, handing down lengthy sentences and accusing the demonstrators of trying to launch a coup.Orlando Silva, a lawmaker aligned with the government, said Musk had disrespected the judiciary and that in response he would propose legislation setting out a “responsibilities regime for these digital platforms”.“We have reached a limit. It is a response in defence of Brazil,” he said.The extent of the threat to Brazilian democracy in 2022 was highlighted by a police investigation in February, which has alleged that Bolsonaro, in conjunction with several military officers, considered an armed intervention to prevent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from taking office. Bolsonaro denies the claims.As part of the alleged plot, Bolsonaro had De Moraes put under constant surveillance for weeks following the polls in October 2022, according to federal police.Social media platforms have faced increasing pressure to comply with new laws in countries such as India and Turkey, which can require them to take down content or face bans, fines or the imprisonment of staffers.Critics argue such rules are oppressive and can be abused by country leaders to silence dissidents and activists.Despite regularly espousing free speech ideals, Musk has previously come under fire from critics for appeasing censorship demands from various governments. More recently, however, X has taken to posting publicly about the requests they receive.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…9mos9MO

Scotland’s "hate speech law" sparks global outrage

A new Scottish law that criminalizes the “stirring up of” hatred against some groups has triggered a debate far beyond its borders, pitting human rights activists who say it’s needed against a rising tide of harassment and violence against conservative celebrities and politicians who say the law threatens free speech.Scotland’s law, enacted last week, makes it an imprisonable offense to incite hatred on the basis of race, religion, transgender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability.“If … it’s intended to stir up hatred because of their membership of that group, then that is a criminal offense,” Nick McKerrell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, said in a telephone interview Monday. In Scotland, prosecutors recorded 1,884 hate crime charges relating to sexual identity in 2022-23 — representing an eighth consecutive year-on-year increase — in addition to 55 charges relating to transgender identity.Rights groups say the change is a much-needed extension of hate crime protections, consolidating them into a single statute for the first time. Its opponents — including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling — say they are concerned that the protections are so broad that they could unfairly criminalize free expression. (Critics have also argued that women should be listed as a protected category, too; the Scottish government says it intends to do this through separate legislation.)The furor underlines the polarizing impact of attempts by legislators around the world to find a balance. Backlash to the law has been so fierce that it reportedly prompted far-right agitators to flood police with crime reports to overwhelm them in protest.Legal experts and the Scottish government say the threshold for criminality is high enough to prevent the stifling of debate, pointing out that the law cannot be used to censor jokes or views that are offensive or shocking.“The test is that it has got to be threatening or abusive to someone, or it has to cause them fear or alarm,” McKerrell said. “That’s a very high threshold.”In a series of social media posts, which misgendered trans women and mocked their physical appearance, Rowling — who lives in Scotland — wrote that “freedom of speech and belief are at an end … if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal,” and dared Scottish police to arrest her “if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offense.”Rowling’s remarks last week drew condemnation from rights groups — Stonewall, Britain’s largest LGBTQ charity, said they “trivialise the very real violence committed against us.” Scottish police said Rowling’s comments were “not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken,” the Associated Press reported.Scotland’s leader, Humza Yousaf, told the BBC the newly created offenses “have a very high threshold for criminality.”“JK Rowling’s tweets may well be offensive, upsetting and insulting to trans people,” Yousaf said, “but it doesn’t mean that they meet a threshold of criminality of being threatening or abusive and intending to stir up hatred.”Outside Britain, Elon Musk and Joe Rogan were among the high-profile celebrities to critique the legislation. In an episode of his podcast last month, Rogan described the new law as “ridiculous” and incorrectly suggested that it empowered Scottish police to specifically target comedians.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  1811 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Trump supports immigration visas

President-elect Trump told The Post Saturday he supports immigration visas for highly skilled workers, appearing to side with Elon Musk in the roiling intra-MAGA debate on the issue.“I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them,” Trump said by phone, referring to the H-1B program, which permits companies to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations. “I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program,” added Trump, who restricted access to foreign worker visas in his first administration and has been critical of the program in the past.Musk and other tech barons argued this week that the H-1B visa program is critical to ensuring American companies can find highly skilled labor which may not be easily available in the U.S. labor force and must be expanded.MAGA hardliners want Trump to follow through with his promise to promote US workers and impose tougher restrictions on immigration.Trump’s Saturday comments come a day after Musk vowed to go to “war” on the issue, telling one mocking opponent to go “f–k yourself.”The flare-up happened after X user Steven Mackey jabbed the billionaire’s defense of the program by using the billionaire’s own words against him.“Stop trying to optimize something that shouldn’t exist,” a line often used by Musk, Mackey wrote. “Let’s optimize H-1B,” he sarcastically added.Musk fired back: “The reason I’m in America along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla, and hundreds of other companies that made America strong is because of H1B.”

▲  1013 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2014 replies3 agree