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
Aug 25, 2025 6:10 AM

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
Christmas consumerism: Spending for the glory of God?
The Christmas shopping season is well underway—and with it, a peculiar blend of hyper-generosity and hyper-consumerism. Indeed, while many celebrate the social and spiritual glories of gift-giving and merriment, others are quick to warn about the steady creep of materialism and self-indulgence. Over at Made to Flourish, Matt Rusten explores these tensions, asking, “Does worshipping the Christ of Christmas necessarily conflict with the proliferation of shopping and festivities during the holiday season?” plaints are many, as Rusten aptly summarizes: “The...
Wine caves or fox holes?
The sixth Democratic primary debate featured seven presidential hopefuls and four references to wine caves. The candidates’ rhetoric should bring the issue of wealth and political power into greater clarity than a Swarovski crystal. The term “wine cave” lit up the internet after Senator Elizabeth Warren used cabernet as a cudgel against South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. “Mayor Pete” held a closed-door fundraiser at the Hall Rutherford wine caves of California’s Napa Valley, giving her a line of populist attack...
The gift of the Incarnation
All of life is God’s gracious gift. This graciousness applies not only to ourselves and our neighbors, each of whom is made in His image and likeness, but applies as well to the whole of creation which was entrusted to the human family’s care and cultivation (Gen. 1:26-31). This gracious gift, both of ourselves and the creation, was marred by our own disobedience, born of ingratitude, and resulted in our separation from that gracious Giver. Sin and death are the...
Clarence Thomas on the harmony of faith and reason
In the Christmas season, the secular West begrudgingly nods toward its faithful past. Yet amidst the darkness, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joined with one the nation’s most distinguished colleges to highlight patibility of faith and reason. Justice Thomas spoke at the dedication of Hillsdale College’s Christ Chapel on October 3, 2019. Thomas told the students that a university chapel joins two of the institutions on which liberty relies: Christ Chapel reflects the College’s conviction that a vibrant intellectual environment...
The government funds U.S. farmers – and their competitors
When government es sufficiently large, its impact on private citizens is not just harmful; it’s self-contradictory. U.S. policy toward dairy farmers offers a poignant example. Joseph Sunde recently explored one aspect of U.S. agricultural policy: The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, signed by new President Jimmy Carter, intended to artificially raised the price for dairy products (and led to a 500-million-pound stockpile of “government cheese”). Government intervention in the market, which inevitably confuses price signals, forced U.S. consumers to...
Acton Line podcast: Breaking down Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society with Amity Shlaes
On May 22nd, 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson launched his program for a “Great Society” in a speech at the University of Michigan. “The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all,” Johnson began. “It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are mitted in our time. But that is just the beginning.” 84 bills later, Johnson’s war on poverty was in full effect, expanding to sectors in education, medicine, housing, and many more. Did the...
Explainer: What was in the Queen’s Speech of December 2019
On Thursday, December 19, 2019, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II delivered her 66th Queen’s Speech. The speech – which followed her last Queen’s Speech by just two months – set out the policy agenda of the newly emboldened Prime Minister Boris Johnson for this term of Parliament. For an explanation of the Queen’s Speech, which opens every session of Parliament, see this article. Today’s speech, which made reference to more than 30 pieces of legislation, touched on the following topics:...
Slavery, Shmi Skywalker, and Star Wars
As the final installment of the final trilogy of the Star Wars saga opens today, it’s worth thinking about where this blockbuster franchise and cultural phenomenon started. And by that I mean where the story of Anakin Skywalker started in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. I got to revisit some of this as the earlier movies have been playing on repeat on cable TV leading up to today’s opening. The part I noticed as I flipped through the channels was...
Acton Line podcast: Behind China’s drive for global domination
During Christmastime in China in 2015, 1,700 churches were torn down or vandalized, a result of the Chinese government growing increasingly hostile to Christianity. In 2018, The Chinese government raided and shut down churches ahead of Christmas and detained pastors and members caught celebrating. From reports of labor camps in the country to growing surveillance through technology, China is increasingly cracking down on freedom. This is all laid out in a new book, titled Deceiving the Sky: Inside Communist China’s...
Turning points in Catholic social teaching
In a recent Acton Line podcast I began by asking Father Robert Sirico the very large question, what is Catholic social teaching and why is it important today? He answered that the Church has always had a social teaching but that when we usually discuss Catholic social teaching today we begin with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum. George Weigel’s latest book, The Irony of Modern Catholic Historysheds much historical and theological light on just why that is. Francesca Murphy,...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved