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
Jul 5, 2025 7:50 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
Acton Line podcast: What is Christian humanism? A conversation with Bradley J. Birzer
Bradley J. Birzer, professor of history and the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies at Hillsdale College, joins this episode of Acton Line to speak about his newest book, “Beyond Tenebrae: Christian Humanism in the Twilight of the West.” What is Christian humanism and what role does it play in the Republic of Letters? What does it mean to live as a Christian humanist? Birzer helps lay down some of the foundational ideas in his book and explains the...
How John Paul II reminded us that liberty and truth are inseparable
On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the late John Paul II’s birth, it’s worth underscoring that one theme which permeated his pontificate from its beginning to the end was that of truth. Many remember Pope John Paul II as playing a crucial role in Eastern Europe’s liberation from Marxist tyranny. But he also insisted that liberty needed to be grounded in and guided by the truth knowable via reason and faith. If freedom and truth e separated—as they...
Awe and wonder: The keys to curbing COVID-19 hubris
In our information age, armchair economists and epidemiologists are many. Society remains deeply divided—preoccupied with social media squabbles over the credibility of our leaders and the rightness or wrongness of their proposed solutions. Of course, the actual experts are divided, as well. Scientists and researchers are still arguing over the validity of various mathematical models. Inventors, businesses, munity institutions have adopted wide-ranging approaches to adapt to the virus. Governors and legislators remain split on how to interpret the bigger picture—weighing...
We must cure the global pandemic of loneliness
Millions of people within our country are experiencing extreme social isolation and loneliness. In a time defined by a pandemic and lockdowns, one would naturally expect people to feel this way, being cut off from family, friends, and neighbors. In actuality, the coronavirus has just exacerbated an existing pandemic that had been plaguing the United States for many years: a broad cultural trend of increased social isolation and alienation. Long before the coronavirus started, large segments of our society were...
For St. John Paul II’s 100th birthday, Italy gets gift of religious freedom
Today, May 18, is a very good day, indeed. It is a heroic day for the Italian Catholic Church on the 100th anniversary of Pope St. John Paul II’s birth. There could not be a better birthday gift from a saint who, fluent in 13 languages, was a veritable Paraclete-on-earth. He spoke courageously and often, raising his voice against persecution of religious freedom. He did so not just in his munist Poland, but throughout the entire secularized world. By the...
Rev. Sirico: How central planning created tunnel vision on COVID-19 response
Did central planning in health care and government make the COVID-19 pandemic worse by making the response more ineffective? Rev. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, offers his thoughts on how centralization in health care and the economy has marginalized other perspectives and pushed aside notions of subsidiarity. ...
The making and unmaking of European democracy
If there is anything that we have learned over the past five years of political turmoil in Western countries, it is that large numbers of people across the political spectrum are increasingly dissatisfied with the workings of modern democracy. These trends reflect, as numerous surveys illustrate, deep distrust of established political parties and, more particularly, those individuals whose careers amount to a series of revolving doors between elected office, government service, the academy, and politically-connected businesses. What’s often missing from...
R.R. Reno, masks, and the vacuity of social media
First Things magazine is no stranger to controversy. In recent years, it has been increasingly critical­ of the market economy, made bizarre defenses of kidnapping in the guise of a book review, and e a clearing house of contrarian and moralistic perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this week, First Things editor R.R. Reno took to Twitter to accuse those who try to avoid the spread of the coronavirus by wearing masks of cowardice. The tweets, since deleted, were widely...
Rev. Robert Sirico: COVID-19 lockdown orders are the state-mandated ‘marginalization of religion’
Perhaps nowhere is the disconnect between private citizens’ views and those of the government clearer than when es to the role of religion in society. Acton Institute President and Co-founder Rev. Robert A. Sirico told a nationally syndicated radio program that state orders that effectively ban clergy from caring for sick patients represent “the marginalization of religion as a non-essential service,” and this “flies in the face of our entire history as an American republic.” “Who knows best what is...
What’s behind COVID-19 racial health disparities?
Soon after COVID-19 infection rates began to skyrocket in New York City and other densely populated urban areas, progressives and Democrats demanded data on the racial disparities of testing, treatments, and deaths. The data showed that blacks and Latinos were much more likely to die from the virus than whites and Asians. As expected, progressives moved to explain these disparities in terms of structural, systemic injustice in America’s health care system: Such injustice follows the country’s material and economic inequality....
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved