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 2, 2026 3:44 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 5 biggest problems with Oxfam’s 2018 income inequality report
Oxfam has just released its annualreport, and the media have dutifully covered its conclusion that “82% of all growth in global wealth in the last year went to the top 1%, while the bottom half of humanity saw no increase at all.” Here are five significant concerns every Christian should have with it: Inequality is not the same as poverty The report admits, “Between 1990 and 2010, the number of people living in extreme poverty (i.e. on less than $1.90...
What you should know about Jubilee Years
Many politically progressive Christians have latched on to the concept of a “Jubilee year” as a biblically endorsed excuse for debt cancellations and as a way to “dismantle economic inequality.” But as a new study by Charles A Goodhart and Michael Hudson explains, Jubilee Years didn’t originate in ancient Israel, they weren’t really about egalitarianism, and they can’t readily be applied outside of agrarian based economies. Here are a few highlights from their paper: The Israelites borrowed the idea from...
Why government is not just a necessary evil
In the Federalist Papers James Madison claimed that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But is that true? James R. Rogers, an associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University, explains why some form of government would be necessary even if man were still in a prelapsarian state of nature: [E]ven without the Fall, there would be a role for civil government for the duly recognized person who exercises civil authority. Even in an unfallen society,...
How a universal income could discourage meaningful work
In his popular book, Coming Apart, Charles Murray examined the key drivers of America’s growing cultural divide, concluding that America is experiencing an “inequality of human dignity.” Such a divide, Murray argues, is due to a gradual cultural drift from our nation’s “founding virtues,” one of which is “industriousness.” “Working hard, seeking to get ahead, and striving to excel at one’s craft are not only quintessential features of traditional American culture but also some of its best features,” Murray writes...
Economic problems are not driving opioid overdose deaths
The opioid epidemic has e one of the deadliest drug crises in American history. In 2015, more peopledied from drug overdosesthan in any year on record, and the majority of drug overdose deaths—more than six out of ten—involved an opioid. A study of emergency rooms in the U.S. also found that since 1999, the number of overdose deaths involving opioids (including prescription opioid pain relievers and heroin) nearly quadrupled. Altogether nearly half a million people died from drug overdoses in...
Ending America’s bigoted education laws
WhenJames Blaineintroduced his ill-fatedconstitutional amendmentin 1875, he probably never would have imagined the unintended consequences it would have over a hundred years later. Blaine wanted to prohibit the use of state funds at “sectarian” schools (a code word for Catholic parochial schools) in order to inhibit immigration. Since the public schools instilled a Protestant Christian view upon its students, public education was viewed as a way to stem the tide of Catholic influence. While the amendment failed in Congress, supporters...
Apply today for a 2018 internship at Acton
A 2016 NACE Center report on millennial hiring indicated that internships help 81.1 percent of graduates “shift their career directions either slightly or significantly.” At Acton, we place an emphasis on assisting young men and women to discover their vocational calling through internships. The holiday season may have just ended, but we already find ourselves anticipating the energy and enthusiasm that 18 young leaders will bring to the Acton office this summer. In addition, we have re-branded the Acton summer...
Asymmetric information in health insurance
Note: This is post #65 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. In this video by Marginal Revolution University, Tyler Cowen discusses asymmetric information, adverse selection, and propitious selection in relation to the market for health insurance. Health insurance e in a range of health, but to panies, everyone has the same average health. Consumers have more information about their health than do insurers. How does this affect the price of health insurance? Why would some consumers prefer to...
Radio Free Acton: Jennifer Roback Morse on family breakdown and the economy; Upstream on Darkest Hour
On this episode of Radio Free Acton, Trey Dimsdale, Director of Program Outreach at Acton, speaks with Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, about her ing Acton Lecture Series talk on family breakdown and the economy. Then, on the Upstream segment, Bruce Edward Walker talks to Acton’s Patrick Oetting on the new film Darkest Hour. Check out these additional resources on this week’s podcast topics: Register here to attend Acton’s Lecture Series event on January 25, featuring Jennifer...
The euro, Brussels, and the Russian bear
The government of Poland is part of the new surge of populism, openly defying the European Union on numerous policy fronts and rebuffing calls for an “ever-closer union.” So, why did its prime minister recently raise the possibility of adopting the euro? What is happening, and how should people of faith think about a single European currency? Are there moral issues at stake? “Adoption of mon euro currency should be understood first and foremost as politics, and only then as...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved