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
Jan 20, 2026 12:32 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
Macron’s African statement ignores human ingenuity
A French media outlet has captured an otherwise ment from French President Emmanuel Macron that Africa is overpopulated. When asked about a possible “Marshall Plan for Africa,” Macron listed among the continent’s current problems the need for “demographic transition,” lamenting the fact that some African “countries still haveseven to eight children per woman.” His concerns seem particularly worth examining today on World Population Day. During a July 8 press conference about the G20 summit, Macron began by naming truly concerning...
What Genesis says about the nature of work
Is every aspect of Christian life valuable to God? Many, if not all Christians would confidently respond “Yes, of course! Everything we do should be done for the glory of God.” While this response is natural pletely true, its message seems to lose meaning when Christians enter the workplace. Scott Rae, professor of the philosophy of religion and ethics at Biola University, addressed this topic in his recent Acton University lecture, “Theology of Work.” He emphasized that Christians often make...
Lenin’s Trip to Infamy
One hundred years ago, the man Winston Churchill dubbed a “plague bacillus” journeyed back from his exile in Europe to eventually seize the reins of power in his native Russia. Vladimir Lenin’s itinerary could not have been more fraught with peril and subterfuge, which makes it an ideal framing story for a recap of the rise of 20th century totalitarianism. The result was millions suffering and millions more murdered, tortured or starved to death by Lenin’s – and, later, Stalin’s...
Explainer: What you should know about the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)
, their budget reconciliation proposal to repeal-and-replace the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Here is a summary of the changes being proposed: • Eliminates the individual mandate tax penalty (by reducing the amount owed to $0). • Eliminates the employer mandate tax penalty (by reducing the amount owed to $0). • Delays implementation of the so-called Cadillac tax until taxable periods beginning January 1, 2026. • Allows all individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market the option to purchase...
How ordinary economic thinking helps constrain political chaos
In an age where chaos and cronyism seem to be the defining characteristics of our politics, and where the political system is increasingly decried as being “rigged” by populists from both the left and right, the time seems ripe for a renewed focus on political constraints. When such concerns arise, we are quick to point back to the U.S. Constitution, and rightly so. Yet economist Peter Boettke sees another guide that can also offer some value. For Boetkke, our politics...
Did Spider-Man read Thomas Aquinas?
For many of us, what is heroic about Spider-Man is not his ability to do “whatever a spider can,” but rather his effortless inclination to do what is good. But what makes Spider-Man good? In his book Leisure: The Basis of Culture, Josef Pieper argues against the notion that “Hard work is what is good.” He says that this phrase, although seemingly harmless, has dangerous implications. It implies that the amount of effort something takes directly corresponds to how good...
Understanding the President’s Cabinet: EPA Administrator
Note: This is the post #24 in a weekly series of explanatory posts on the officials and agencies included in the President’s Cabinet. See the series introductionhere. Cabinet position:EPA Administrator Department:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Current Administrator:Scott Pruitt Department Mission:The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA’s purpose is to ensure that: all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;national efforts to reduce environmental...
When a labor union gets upset about job-stealing goats
While the rest of nation continues to fret about various threats to labor demand — whether from technology, trade, or immigration — an influential labor union is worrying about goats. Yes, goats. In a surreal set of circumstances that seems closer to Bastiatian satire than actual reality, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has filed a grievance against Western Michigan University for hiring a herd of goats to clear undergrowth on campus land. From the Battle...
Can Christ and Burke solve the ‘European intifada’?
As Donald Trump stood alongside Emmanuel Macron at a parade on Friday, memorated more thanBastille Day. The presidents of the U.S. and France burst into applause as a marching band paid tribute to the 86victims of last July 14th’sNice terrorist attack. The ever-growing string of terrorist “incidents” gained momentum with the murders at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012. But the situation, which one Israeli official dubbed the “European intifada,” broke into public consciousness following the 2015Charlie Hebdoattack. A...
Saving Charlie Gard
“The case of 11-month-old Charlie Gard continues to garner international attention and pleas for his life from Donald Trump and Pope Francis,” says Anne Rathbone Bradley in this week’s Acton Commentary. “Cases like Charlie’s, while exceptional and rare, are important because they establish precedents regarding the relationship between the individual and the state.” When we think about it in this way, Great Ormond Street Hospital – which has been the target of much criticism – is actually almost an incidental...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved