Amazon.com Widgets

Geert Wilders convicted of hate speech: Should this speech be protected?

  • Yes, this speech should be protected.

    The articles on the case don't report any encouragement of violence or insinuation that Moroccans are inherently evil or bad. They point out that he asked a crowd a question and they responded by chanting "fewer, fewer". While this wouldn't be considered politically correct in the United States, it could have been referring to an immigration problem in the Netherlands. There is no evidence that it was hate speech.

  • Hate in Thought - Not in Action

    Words are just that, words. People of any developing nation must have freedom of speech, regardless if we agree with the argument or not. The freedom to express ourselves and what we believe is key to any free nation. As long as that person is not performing hateful acts, then his thoughts or speech must be protected.

  • Yes, hate speech should be protected.

    Yes, hate speech should be protected. The content of speech should not be judged for its values. Instead, all speech should be treated the same. Both citizens and elected officials should be able to voice their opinions without fear of being fined or jailed. It would be unfair to do otherwise.

  • No it should not.

    Hate speech is akin to death threats. Freedom of speech protectsb people from being prosecuted for criticizing others including political officials and the government. It does not allow people to lie or slander others. It does not protect people from being prosecuted for making threats against others or otherwise slandering them.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.