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
Nov 22, 2025 7:22 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
The social welfare of price discrimination
Note: This is post #51 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Is price discrimination bad for society? How does it affect output, and what is its effect on social welfare? If price discrimination increases output, it is likely beneficial for society. If output isn’t increased, social welfare is reduced. In this video by Marginal Revolution University, economist Tyler Cowen consider the effect of price discrimination. (If you find the pace of the videos too slow, I’d mend watching...
6 ways economic freedom benefits the global poor
Even most critics admit the free market is the greatest wealth-generating system in history, but they say the poor benefit more from interventionist economic systems. In fact, economic liberty elevates the least well-off in more laissez-faire nations to a better position than those living in unfree economies based on such factors as average e, life expectancy, literacy, and other forms of personal liberty. The data bearing out each point are contained in theFraser Institute’s most recent“Economic Freedom of the World”...
Sec. DeVos defends school choice in speech at Harvard
In a speech last Thursday at the Harvard Kennedy School, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos made a powerful defense of school choice: One of the many pernicious effects of the growth of government is that its people worry less and less about each other, thinking their worries are now in the hands of so-called “experts” in Washington. There is perhaps no better example than our current education system. Many inside — and outside — government insist a government system...
No, it’s not absurd for conservatives to worry about socialism
The Library of Law and Liberty has published a pilation of essays that address the recent claims made by First Things editor, Rusty Reno, about Michael Novak and his understanding of capitalism. In pilation, Michael Matheson Miller, research fellow at the Acton Institute, writes that Reno’s view of Novak is an inaccurate “caricature” and “misses the point.” Reno was incorrect on several points he made about Novak and the present state of the economy, including his characterizing Novak as a...
Radio Free Acton: Tom Lindsay on the future of higher education in America; Upstream on The Devil and Father Amorth
On this week’s episode of Radio Free Acton, Paul Bonicelli, director of programs and education at the Acton Institute talks about Acton’s ing Education & Freedom conference and the future of education in America with Tom Lindsay, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Higher Education. Then, on the Upstream segment, Bruce Edward Walker talks with Sam Buntz, writer at The Federalist, about “The Devil and Father Amorth,” a new documentary by William Friedkin, director of the classic...
What is ‘economic man’?
“Intellectuals are often vocal critics of capitalism. Most of them lean left politically, so it is easy to identify anti-capitalism with progressivism,” says Kishore Jayabalan in this week’s Acton Commentary. “It is therefore no coincidence that the modern welfare state has been administered by elites eager to correct supposed market failures on the way to a more egalitarian society. Leftist elites tend to be university professors rather than captains of industry, but elites they remain.” How, then, are we to...
Audio: Rev. Sirico on the air
Acton President Rev. Robert A. Sirico has been busy on the airwaves of late; here’s a roundup of his latest radio interviews: On September 19th, Rev. Sirico joined hostThaddeus Romansky on RED-C Catholic Radio in Waco and College Station, Texas to discuss patibility of social solidarity and free markets, and the interface of religion and economics more generally. On September 22nd, Rev. Sirico joinedhost Justin Barclay and Samaritas CEO Sam Beals on WOOD Radio’s West Michigan Liveto talk about the...
Explainer: What you need to know about Catalonia’s independence 1-0 referendum
Voters who took part in yesterday’s national 1-0 referendum overwhelmingly supported Catalonia’s independence from Spain, and images of the Spanish National Police brutally suppressing the election have flooded the international media. But any honest accounting of the 1-0 referendum requires a deeper nuance that leaves no party looking heroic. The 1-0 referendum On October 1, Catalonia held an election asking voters,“Do youwantCatalonia to e an independent state in theform of a republic?” Catalonia, which has seen its autonomy wax and...
5 Facts about federal regulations
Vice President Pence will be giving a speech today emphasizing the importance the Trump administration places on reviewing regulatory policy. Today’s date of October 2 was selected to mark the start of the next fiscal year, when federal agencies will be expected to generate below zero dollars in net new regulatory costs. Here are five facts you should know about federal regulations: 1.Regulations are rules that have the force of law and that are issued by various federal government departments...
How Christians can bridge the gap between work and wage
As Target races against Walmart to voluntarily raise its minimum wage to $15 per hour, we’re reminded that upward fluctuations in the price of low-skilled labor are more than possible without the blunt interference of government control (and its deleterious side effects). Even still, critics will predictably proclaim that such changes are far too little, too late, arguing that the government plays a valuable role in accelerating these developments when employers fall short. Or, as one of economist Don Boudreaux’s...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved