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
Dec 2, 2025 8:10 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 podcast updated for iTunes
For those of you who enjoy listening to podcasts, Acton has updated its own podcast to be more iTunes friendly. We’ve added an iTunes graphic to the feed, updated our description tags, and categorized it on the iTunes music store. For those interested in checking it out, please follow this link to the iTunes Music Store (iTunes is required). ...
George Weigel at Calvin College
On Jan. 6, Rev. Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, will introduce author George Weigel at the Calvin College January Series in Grand Rapids, Mich. Weigel’s topic will be “Revolutionary Papacies: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the Future of the Catholic Church.” You may also listen to the program live (Friday, Jan. 6 @ 12:30pm EST) through this link on the Calvin site. ...
‘Some stiff, righteous stuff’
The Real Clear Politics Blog passes along an op-ed from Bob Herbert, “Blowing the Whistle on Gangsta Culture,” a NYT Select item (subscription required). In the column, Herbert discusses the “profoundly self-destructive cultural influences that have spread like a cancer through much of the munity and beyond.” Tom Bevan calls the piece “suprisingly candid,” and “some stiff, righteous stuff – all the more ing from the source.” Herbert, of course, has been a NYT columnist since 1993, and Bevan thinks...
One man’s trash…
Sometimes one man’s trash is just trash. “Most people have no clue what’s involved with taking a garbage bag of stuff and getting it to the person who needs it,” said Lindy Garnette, executive director for SERVE Inc., a Manassas-based nonprofit that operates a 60-bed homeless shelter and food bank. According to this story, “Eager for Treasure, Not Trash: Charities Sort Through Piles of Donated Goods, Some of Which They Can’t Use,” by Michael Alison Chandler in The Washington Post,...
Steyn on secularism and demographics
There’s a lot of buzz in the blogosphere on Mark Steyn’s “It’s the Demography, Stupid”, which appears in today’s and is originally published in the January 2006 issue of The New Criterion. As usual, Steyn has many excellent observations about our present crises, but this article is a more extended look than his op-eds. Some highlights: The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective...
A case of common domain
The US government is getting set to open up a set of airwave frequencies, vacating the prime estate for obscure channels that will serve its purposes just as well. In addition, the newly available channels will provide a big boost to the capabilities of current wireless providers. As Gene J. Koprowski writes for UPI, “It’s something like an eminent-domain case — except this time, the government is vacating the space in order to further the technology economy, rather than the...
The education monopoly and intelligent design
Public schools are now embroiled in the controversy over the teaching of intelligent design. Eric Schansberg points out that we wouldn’t have this problem if there were more choice in education. But neither education elitists nor theocrats are big on educational freedom. “They wage battle within the monopoly, hoping to capture the process and force their view of truth down the throats of others,” he writes. Read mentary here. ...
The moral dilemmas of end-of-life care
I’ve written about the narrower problem of generational conflict as it relates to social security policy, here and here. From a perspective that passes the broader, related cultural, economic, and moral issues, Eric Cohen and Leon Kass write in Commentary the most thoughtful and thought-provoking piece I’ve read on the matter of intergenerational responsibility and end-of-life care. Credit to Stanley Kurtz at The Corner. ...
PowerBlog top 5 of 2005
Here are the Top 5 Acton Institute PowerBlog posts of 2005 (by number of visits): The Ethics of ‘Price Gouging’, Monday, August 29, 2005Benedict XVI on Markets and Morality, Thursday, May 5, 2005Bono: Aid or Trade?, Thursday, June 2, 2005Puggles, Malt-a-Poos, and Labradoodles, Oh My!, Tuesday, August 23, 2005Museum of Plastic Cadavers, Friday, May 20, 2005 ...
Brief Stark review
First item in this month’s Christianity Today Bookmarks. Conclusion: “Disconcertingly, Stark argues without qualification, nuance, and the balancing of perspectives that academics love so much. Nonetheless, he may be right.” ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved