Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Americans would probably ban hateful speech—if we could agree on what speech is hateful
Americans would probably ban hateful speech—if we could agree on what speech is hateful
Feb 1, 2026 10:35 PM

A slight majority of Americans oppose banning hateful and offensive speech—but mostly because we can’t agree on what speech is hateful and offensive.

That’s a key takeaway from the Cato Institute’s new survey report, “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America.” The findings in almost every category are distressing for those who abhor offensive speech but believe it should remain legal to express such sentiments in the public square.

According to the report, only 59 percent of Americans say people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people, while a substantial minority (40 percent) say government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech against certain groups in public.

The divide is mostly based on race, ethnicity, and partisan affiliation. While solid majorities of Republicans (72 percent) and independents (60 percent) oppose government banning hate speech, Democrats stand out with a slim majority in support (52 percent). However, African American and Latino Democrats largely drive these numbers with a majority (55 percent) of white Democrats saying government should allow public hate speech, but majorities of black Democrats (59 percent) and Hispanic Democrats (65 percent) saying it should prevent such speech in public.

Among college graduates, 64 percent say hate speech should be legal and a third (36 percent) say it should not. But current college and graduate students are equally split on the issue, with nearly half (49 percent) of current students saying government should ban hate speech and nearly half (49 percent) saying it should not.

Libertarians (82 percent) are the most opposed to hate speech laws, followed by Conservatives (75 percent) and a slim majority (53 percent) of Liberals. However, nearly two-thirds of Populists (64 percent) say government should prevent hate speech in public.

It seems the main thing holding back hates speech laws (aside from the First Amendment) is that American can’t agree on what constitutes hate speech:

59 percent of liberals and 17 percent of conservatives say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder39 percent of conservatives and 17 percent of liberal believe it’s hate speech to say the police are racist80 percent of liberals and 36 percent of conservatives say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported87 percent of liberals and 47 percent of conservatives say it’s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn’t fight in bat roles90 percent of liberals and 47 percent of conservatives say it’s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin.

While there is disagreement on what counts as hate speech, you can find almost one-third of Americans who would support banning it for just about any group.

Consider the percentage of Americans who would ban hateful or offensive speech against the following groups: African Americans (46 percent), Jewish Americans (41 percent), immigrants (40 percent), armed service members (40 percent), Hispanics (39 percent), Muslims (37 percent), the police (37 percent), gays, lesbians, and transgender people (36 percent), Christians (35 percent), white people (32 percent).

In fact, you can find almost a third of Americans who consider it morally acceptable to use physical violence against Nazis as a reaction to their speech (32 percent), support banning Holocaust denial (35 percent), and believe revoking a person’s citizenship is a reasonable response to flag burning (39 percent).

Perhaps the most disturbing finding of the survey is that more than half of Americans (53 percent) say hate speech is an act of violence. While two-thirds (66 percent) of Democrats say hate speech is violence, 58 percent of Republicans say hate speech is not violence. Independents are split, with 51 percent who disagree hate speech is tantamount to violence.

African Americans (75 percent) and Latinos (72 percent) are nearly 30 points more likely than white Americans (46 percent) to believe hate speech is violence. Instead, a slim majority (53 percent) of white Americans believe it is not.

While nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of women believe hate speech is violence, a majority (56 percent) of men disagree.

Americans under 30 (60 percent) and seniors (57 percent) are also more likely than middle-aged Americans (35-64) to believe hate speech is violence (49 percent).

If speech is violence, how much longer will Americans allow it to be protected by law? And how long do we have before opposing banning “hateful” speech is considered a hate crime in America?

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Charles Krauthammer on America as a ‘commercial republic’
“We are not an imperial power. We are mercial republic. We don’t take food; we trade for it. Which makes us something unique in history, an anomaly, a hybrid.” –Charles Krauthammer This week, wereceived the sad newsthat Charles Krauthammer has passed away due to a recent battle with cancer.As a longtime conservative columnist and media pundit, Krauthammer was known for his clear and mentary. Although he focused his attention on matters of foreign policy, Krauthammer had a memorable way of...
If Masterpiece Cakeshop has right to associate, so does the Red Hen
When the owners of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave because she works for President Trump, the mob of public opinion on both sides promptly took up their torches, pitchforks, and Twitter accounts. Charlie Kirk and others condemned the Red Hen as “backward thinking intolerant leftists.” But were the actions of the Red Hen really so much more “intolerant” than those of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop? In...
It’s official: the United States has entered a trade war
What do soybeans and washing machines have mon? One is grown in the United States, and the other produced in China, but both are affected by the recent clash on trade. A trade war is defined as, “a situation in which countries try to damage each other’s trade, typically by the imposition of tariffs or quota restrictions.” Yet, adjustments to trade are mon occurrence, so when do trade disagreements e trade wars? A trade war begins when a country institutes...
True diversity seen at Acton University, says college president
On Friday, Glenn Arbery, president of Wyoming Catholic College in Lander, Wyoming, praised Acton University for the “good diversity” that it demonstrated. Arbery argues that diversity today is too often pursued for its own ends, rather than for the truly virtuous end of coherence, of “unity in the good.” At Acton University, he says, there is true diversity, not simply “praising… the colors on a palette.” ments follow, with permission, in full: Good Diversity Many good Catholics in their critique...
Radio Free Acton redux: Why Abraham Kuyper matters
On this episode of Radio Free Acton, we revisit a segment aired 2 years ago. Marc Vander Maas, Audio/Visual Manager at Acton, talks to Jordan Ballor, Senior Research Fellow and Director of Publishing at Acton, about why the Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper remains relevant to this day. Check out these additional resources on this week’s podcast topics: Read “How Kuyper can bring evangelicals and Catholics together” by Joe Carter Watch abook discussion on Kuyper and Islam Read “Themelios...
Statement from Rev. Robert A. Sirico on the Supreme Court’s Janus Decision
The Catholic Church has supported workers’ rights from Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum to the present day when es to defending worker safety and human dignity. Catholic social teaching has never said that people may be forced to join unions or financially support unions, private or public. Such coercion would violate the principle of free association upon which popes from Leo XIII have grounded the right to form and join unions. What the Supreme Court determined in the...
North Korea: Another ‘mode of development’? (video)
As noted, some members of the Alt-Right have an unusual affinity for North Korea as a bastion of nationalist, anti-imperialist, racial collectivism. Not all of the Kim dynasty’s supporters are utterly powerless. Aleksandr Dugin has stated North Korea represents another “mode of development” in opposition to Western capitalism and liberal democracy, one it may wage nuclear war to preserve. Dugin has been described as Vladimir “Putin’s Brain” or, because of his beard, “Putin’s Rasputin.” In 2008, it was Dugin who...
Kubrick, Clarke, and the Higher Power of 2001: A Space Odyssey
Much analogy is made between the artistic plishments of James Joyce and Stanley Kubrick in Michael Benson’s 50th anniversary examination of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1968 sci-fi classic film directed by Kubrick and co-written by Arthur C. Clarke. For one, both Joyce and Kubrick tip their respective hats to Homer’s Odyssey in both title and content. Joyce’s 1922 novel Ulysses requires no explanation as it updates the journeys of Odysseus and crew in a 20th century Dublin setting. Kubrick’s...
Explainer: Supreme Court upholds free speech and free association for public sector workers
What just happened? In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today in the case of Janus v. AFSCMEthat government employees who are represented by a public sector union to which they do not belong cannot be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The ruling overturned a forty-year-old precedent first set inAbood v. Detroit Board of Educationthat allows government agencies to mandate union dues or agency fees as a condition of employment. What was...
6 Quotes: Free speech and the Supreme Court’s ruling in ‘NIFLA v. Becerra’
Earlier today the Supreme Court handed down a ruling inNIFLA v. Becerra, one of the most important free speech cases of the year. Althoughthe case was a challenge to a California law that imposed two different sets of requirements on pro-life pregnancy centers, the ruling issued by the Court has broad implications for the free expression of almost all Americans. Here are six quotes from the ruling that you should know about. Justice Thomas: “Although the licensed notice is content-based,...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved