Disgrace: 51% of Democrats, 37% of Republicans support making “hate speech” a crime

posted at 4:01 pm on May 20, 2015 by Allahpundit

YouGov conducted a nearly but not quite identical poll (more on that in a minute) on this topic last October. I made a big deal about it at the time and have had liberal friends ever since telling me that it’s a fluke result, that most Democrats don’t really support banning hate speech, and that I’m generally being alarmist. Well, here’s YouGov’s sequel. I’m done entertaining doubts that this is a real problem.

Don’t start hissing at the left yet, though. I hate to say it but it ain’t their party that’s growing in support for making hate speech a crime.

hs

The question YouGov asked last year was similar but not quite exactly the same. In October, they asked whether people would support a law criminalizing public comments that “advocate genocide or hatred” against a group based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, or orientation. They dropped the genocide part in their new poll, which, you would think, would lead to less support for criminalizing hate speech. After all, you can imagine how someone might be leery of banning a concept as hazy as “hate” while feeling more comfortable banning advocacy of a more concrete course of action, like extermination. I wouldn’t ban either but I can understand why the latter would trouble people more than the former. Instead there’s more support for criminalizing hate speech now, with 41 percent in favor versus 37 percent opposed compared to a 36/38 split last October.

But as I say, it’s not Democrats who are driving it. Compare the partisan numbers above to the partisan numbers from October:

yg2

Democratic support for banning hate speech hasn’t increased at all; on the contrary, Dems are a bit more likely to oppose a ban than they were seven months ago, a rational reaction to the creepy spectacle of western media outlets self-censoring images of Mohammed cartoons after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It’s Republicans and independents who are slowly warming to hate-speech bans. Indie opposition has dropped 12 points, with an increase of eight points in support. GOPers are now 12 points more likely to support hate-speech bans than they were last year.

There’s movement within other demographic groups too.

hs-race

Support among whites and Latinos has increased slightly since October, when they split 32/43 and 49/20, respectively. The major shift is among blacks, who split 44/34 last time and now break massively in favor of banning hate speech, 62/14. Maybe that’s simple statistical error in polling a smallish subgroup, maybe it’s a reaction to heightened racial tensions this year, maybe it’s something else. But those are the numbers.

The age data is also … interesting:

hs-age

The 30-44 and 45-64 groups haven’t moved much since October. The big movers are young adults and — surprise — senior citizens. The former went from an even 38/37 split last year to a 42/26 divide now, a double-digit drop in opposition to criminalizing hate speech. More shocking, the 65+ crowd went from mild 35/39 opposition in October to strong 49/33 support now. That’s got to be statistical error, right? If not, the only explanation I can come up with is that seniors are watching Christian bakers and florists who refuse to cater gay weddings being hit with nasty, vitriolic boycotts from gay-rights activists and concluding that banning “hate speech” against religion would protect those business owners somehow. If that’s what’s happening here, they’re very, very naive about whom the state will favor and disfavor under a hate-speech criminal regime. If anything, it’s the business owners who’ll do time for their “hateful” refuse to provide services to a gay couple that’s getting married.

Exit question: I can understand why progressives would want a legal cudgel to silence their enemies but I can’t understand why conservatives increasingly would. Even if you don’t value free speech enough to abhor that sort of cudgel on principle, surely you understand that the “politically incorrect” will be the main target of prosecutions. Why on earth would you enable this?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If it weren’t for these stupid YouGov polls, Hot Air would lose half of it’s content. Does Hot Air get some sort of kickback for promoting this stuff?

Pork-Chop on May 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM

And, when you fund public art exhibits, but demand that certain art be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

sounds funny.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:53 PM

Sure.

Pssst , you always sound funny little boy.

CW on May 20, 2015 at 5:56 PM

And, when you fund public art exhibits, but demand that certain art be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

And most of us don’t want to fund any art exhibit.

You’re slow.

Mom should take you to the doctor. I bet your SS Disability payment will be increased.

CW on May 20, 2015 at 5:58 PM

Meanwhile back at the oasis the Arabs ate their dates.

MaiDee on May 20, 2015 at 6:01 PM

urban elitist , when will you ever grow up?

So sad knowing that you don’t own any of your supposed accomplishments. You owe it to us. How ironic is that there you mooch?

I laugh. When the reality hits you it will be joyful.

What a little child.

CW on May 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM

From Wikipedia regarding Urban Elitist’s claim..

“His artwork fueled a national debate over the public funding of controversial artwork.”

There is a HUGE difference between liberals like your wretched self protesting everyone else’s free speech and people not wanting their tax dollars to go for pictures of a cross in a jar of piss.

celt on May 20, 2015 at 6:04 PM

Pork-Chop on May 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM

YouGov predicted a Labour win in GB. Don’t know why Allah promotes them so much but lets face it, it would be CBS, NBC, NYT, ABC and the other liars if it wasn’t these hacks.

DanMan on May 20, 2015 at 6:08 PM

And, when you fund public art exhibits, but demand that certain art be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

Wrong. When public funds are used for any art, but not ALL of it, that’s censorship. Therefore, NO public funds should be used for any art.

questionmark on May 20, 2015 at 6:11 PM

I made a big deal about it at the time and have had liberal friends ever since telling me that it’s a fluke result,

You wouldn’t still have them if they knew who you were at HA ;)
Anonymity has its benefits; being a spy in the enemy camp is one of them.

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:14 PM

Exit question: I can understand why progressives would want a legal cudgel to silence their enemies but I can’t understand why conservatives increasingly would. Even if you don’t value free speech enough to abhor that sort of cudgel on principle, surely you understand that the “politically incorrect” will be the main target of prosecutions. Why on earth would you enable this?

You answered the question before you asked it.
Not all Republicans are getting their news from HA>

If not, the only explanation I can come up with is that seniors are watching Christian bakers and florists who refuse to cater gay weddings being hit with nasty, vitriolic boycotts from gay-rights activists and concluding that banning “hate speech” against religion would protect those business owners somehow. If that’s what’s happening here, they’re very, very naive about whom the state will favor and disfavor under a hate-speech criminal regime. If anything, it’s the business owners who’ll do time for their “hateful” refuse to provide services to a gay couple that’s getting married.

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:15 PM

And the next poll question should be “who do you think should determine what is and is not hate speech”?

rich8450 on May 20, 2015 at 4:19 PM

Everybody already knows the good folks in charge will be honest and fair-dealing.
What’s to worry about?

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:17 PM

So the liberals vs. cons just doesn’t really cover it here.
I’d suggest making it those who fully support free speech vs. those who don’t.

verbaluce on May 20, 2015 at 4:39 PM

verb and urb do have valid points.
1A and 2A (for & against) both seem to cut across political party lines.

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:20 PM

If it weren’t for these stupid YouGov polls, Hot Air would lose half of it’s content. Does Hot Air get some sort of kickback for promoting this stuff?

Pork-Chop on May 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM

Today’s Hot Air is about hits, not substance.

bw222 on May 20, 2015 at 6:21 PM

There were six congressional votes 1995 thru 2005 for a Constitutional amendment to criminalize the burning or ‘desecration’ of the flag. This was in response to SCOTUS overturning Federal and State laws banning Flag burning.

Have to go with verb on this one; I remember thinking at the time what a terrible bind American patriots were in, to have to put up with flag-burners because they were deliberately forcing the 1A issue.
However, note that the primary political line (then and now) is not free speech per se, but whose speech.

Every one of these amendment votes enjoyed majority Repub support…and majority Dem opposition.

verbaluce on May 20, 2015 at 4:53 PM

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM

Wrong. When public funds are used for any art, but not ALL of it, that’s censorship. Therefore, NO public funds should be used for any art.

questionmark on May 20, 2015 at 6:11 PM

+100%. The same should be true of public broadcasting.

bw222 on May 20, 2015 at 6:24 PM

Here is your Primer:

Liberals are totes for free speech, but NOT hate speech.

Free Speech = saying things they agree with, and like to hear
Hate Speech = saying things they don’t like, don’t want to hear, or are generally not nice about people the really like. However, its ok to say mean things about people they don’t like.

LilyBart on May 20, 2015 at 5:07 PM

This part doesn’t make it into the poll questions.

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:24 PM

How many Americans can tell you what the First Amendment is.Hell, even what the Bill of Rights is? All these polls really tell us is how sadly ignorant Americans have become regarding our government and our history.

redware on May 20, 2015 at 6:25 PM

“I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings — and I hate people like that!” — Tom Lehrer

Abelard on May 20, 2015 at 5:23 PM

Everything that was old is new again.

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:28 PM

And, when you fund public art exhibits, but demand that certain art be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

So Geller should apply for government funding for her next event. And you’d be totally cool with that.

ddrintn on May 20, 2015 at 6:35 PM

Meh.

A YouGov poll is easily made the victim of an “Operation Chaos”-type assault.

socalcon on May 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM

I look forward to being able to report SJWs to the FBI for tweets expressing hatred of white heterosexual men.

malclave on May 20, 2015 at 6:37 PM

I am not wrong – and not making stuff up.
There were six congressional votes 1995 thru 2005 for a Constitutional amendment to criminalize the burning or ‘desecration’ of the flag. This was in response to SCOTUS overturning Federal and State laws banning Flag burning. Every one of these amendment votes enjoyed majority Repub support…and majority Dem opposition.

verbaluce on May 20, 2015 at 4:53 PM

So were those Repubs right or wrong? I know these tu quoque arguments come in handy, but there should be some basic logic and reasoning as well.

ddrintn on May 20, 2015 at 6:38 PM

Today’s Hot Air is about hits, not substance.

bw222 on May 20, 2015 at 6:21 PM

It’s about time (again) for open registering, huh? –AP to Jazz

socalcon on May 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM

And, when you fund public art exhibits, but demand that certain art be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

Love that lefty logic. Just like if I don’t buy your birth control for you I’m denying you access to birth control.

gwelf on May 20, 2015 at 6:42 PM

urban elitist , when will you ever grow up?

So sad knowing that you don’t own any of your supposed accomplishments. You owe it to us. How ironic is that there you mooch?

I laugh. When the reality hits you it will be joyful.

What a little child.

CW on May 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM

Owe it you? An old crank who spends16 hours a day seeking solace for his failed life and support for his reactionary views on the internet?

So, you do think that public art exhibits should be required to show mohammed cartoons.

blink on May 20, 2015 at 6:20 PM

I don’t think a public exhibit should be required to exhibit anything. Or forbidden to.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 6:43 PM

Joke’s on them! It’ll take 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states!! … or 5 judges …

Axeman on May 20, 2015 at 6:44 PM

I am not wrong – and not making stuff up.
There were six congressional votes 1995 thru 2005 for a Constitutional amendment to criminalize the burning or ‘desecration’ of the flag. This was in response to SCOTUS overturning Federal and State laws banning Flag burning. Every one of these amendment votes enjoyed majority Repub support…and majority Dem opposition.

verbaluce on May 20, 2015 at 4:53 PM

One reason I’m a libertarian conservative.

gwelf on May 20, 2015 at 6:44 PM

Why on earth would you enable this?

Because my religion matters too. Because my race matters too.

YahwehPundit on May 20, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Thank BJ Clinton for getting the ball rolling with his hate crimes legislation.

The end result of all of this will be laws against hateful “thought” crimes.

Rest assured, based on their own projections, liberals will be charging a lot of conservatives with thought crimes.

Ruckus_Tom on May 20, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Very much on point.

Apparently there is a bridge too far, and Bahar Mustafa may have finally crossed it. A student at Goldsmiths, University of London, where she also works as a welfare and diversity officer, Mustafa first made headlines back in April when she announced that a diversity rally was off-limits to anyone who was white and/or male. She was in the news again last week after reacting to accusations that she’s a racist by insisting it is “impossible for women of color and minority genders” to be “racist or sexist.”

This time her views may cost her her job. Messages she has tweeted that include the hashtag #killallwhitemen have prompted other students at Goldsmiths to launch a petition, posted on the university’s Student Union website, that seeks to have her removed from her post via a vote of no confidence.

A second petition at Change.org goes a step further, demanding that London police arrest Mustafa for “hate speech and calls for murder.” The framers of the petition argue that Mustafa’s statements violate Britain’s Racial Hatred Act, noting further the irony of a “so called ‘Diversity Officer’ whom [sic] calls for the murder of a race due to their [sic] skin colour and gender.” So far, the petition has garnered close to 13,000 signatures.

Mustafa has argued that her tweets (which have since been scrubbed from her Twitter account) were intended as an “in-joke” among “people in the queer feminist community,”

Racism is always an in-joke in the first person (our racism); it is only in the third person (your racism) that it is hate speech.

AesopFan on May 20, 2015 at 6:51 PM

I don’t think a public exhibit should be required to exhibit anything.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 6:43 PM

So, you think they should be allowed to censor mohammed cartoons?

blink on May 20, 2015 at 6:46 PM

That doesn’t follow. You’re overreaching.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM

OT: Omaha Police Department Officer Kerrie Orozco and Suspect Killed

A sad day here in Omaha.

Yakko77 on May 20, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Owe it you?

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 6:43 PM

Yes. And talk about a crank. Look in the mirror.

You didn’t do it on your own. How sad.

You can thank me once reality hits you in the face …for now, stay in denial little boy.

CW on May 20, 2015 at 7:10 PM

Why not simply have a totalitarian state run by elitists who tell us what to think and say? Orwell would recognize it right away. We’re getting closer and closer to that reality, if anyone realizes it.

grumpyank on May 20, 2015 at 7:22 PM

Nobody even knows what “hate speech” is. Hate speech doubleplusungood.

grumpyank on May 20, 2015 at 7:23 PM

There is a price we pay for free speech…Geller, KKK, Westboro Baptists,Nazi’s marching through Skokie.
I accept that and I defend that.
But I’m not foolish or gullible enough to have glad eyes for those bozos.

verbaluce on May 20, 2015 at 4:29 PM

You seem to have forgotten sharpton, j.jackson, holder, farakan, wright, the Baltimore SA, and on and on. Or were your fingers tired? And, don’t forget the splc, black panthers, la raza, cair, msa, and on and on and on.
It would seem that you are, indeed, foolish or gullible enough to have glad eyes for those bozos.

You are certainly a hypocrite, verby. And a coward.

Solaratov on May 20, 2015 at 7:31 PM

grumpyank on May 20, 2015 at 7:22 PM

Or how much our income should be. Or what to spend it on. Or how much and what we should pay for medical care and rent.

DevilishSoda on May 20, 2015 at 7:32 PM

By the way, verby, the hillsborough baptist churh bozos have always been democrats.

And the kkk was started byy, supported by and protected by democrats…from the reconstruction era all the way up to the present day. They are yours…now and forever.

You cowardly hypocrite.

Solaratov on May 20, 2015 at 7:35 PM

Sorry. hillsborough should be westboro in the above.

My bad. //

Solaratov on May 20, 2015 at 7:37 PM

I sad to learn that so many people don’t know that we have the freedom of speech in our constitution. There is no freedom of from being offended by someone’s speech. Especially speech on political issues.

SC.Charlie on May 20, 2015 at 7:40 PM

The Bible will be labeled as hate speech.

RayNAiken on May 20, 2015 at 7:46 PM

I HATE THEM ALL EQUALLY, POLITICIANS THAT’S WHO!

woodhull on May 20, 2015 at 7:52 PM

The Bible will be labeled as hate speech.

RayNAiken on May 20, 2015 at 7:46 PM

And given the attitude of today’s left, the Qu’ran will not be labeled as hate speech.

Nobody even knows what “hate speech” is.

grumpyank on May 20, 2015 at 7:23 PM

Hate speech will be as the left / government defines it to be – and it will always be a moving and shifting definition. It will move and shift depending on whom is offended and whom is doing the offending.

Remember, to the left, all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Athos on May 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM

I doubt very many of these people polled could clearly define what hate speech is or have actually thought through it.

WisCon on May 20, 2015 at 8:15 PM

Why shouldn’t one be allowed to hate?

It’s natural to hate traitors like the current Administration and their slimy excreta like Hillary.

“Hate speech” is the catch-all b.s. phrase that despots use to silence their critics.

profitsbeard on May 20, 2015 at 8:20 PM

I may go along with the “hate speech” laws…PROVIDED that all of the following are included on the “hate list”:

…anything referring to “cost to the government”.

…anything and everything derogatory to Conservatives.

…anything and everything derogatory to the Tea Party.

…anything and everything which implies that I don’t pay enough in taxes.

…anything and everything which implies that I am responsible for things I had nothing to do with…like slavery, segregation, interment camps during WW2, Vietnam, the Spanish-American War, etc.

…and a few more things I don’t have time to add tonight…

landlines on May 20, 2015 at 8:27 PM

Back when I was a kid people said “It could never happen here”. Well that was then and this is now.

VorDaj on May 20, 2015 at 8:42 PM

.

Wait…was that hate speech?

Bishop on May 20, 2015 at 8:51 PM

.

Wait…was that hate speech?

Bishop on May 20, 2015 at 8:51 PM

good point.

SpongePuppy on May 20, 2015 at 8:57 PM

are we allowed to express hatred for hate speech?

because that would be hate speech.

SpongePuppy on May 20, 2015 at 8:59 PM

What’s the legal definition of ‘stir up hatred’?

I’m done entertaining doubts that this is a real problem.

Are you done entertaining doubts that the majority of the American electorate are idiots? And that we are governed by con artists elected by idiots?

Do you understand yet that universal suffrage democracy is doomed, grasshopper?

farsighted on May 20, 2015 at 9:05 PM

I’d love to hear an explanation from a Republican who wants “hate speech” made a crime. Are they under the impression that the crap Democrats say about Republicans, linking them to every tragic event that happens in the country, would qualify as hate speech? I’ve got a news flash for them, it’s like all the isms, only Republicans are capable of being guilty.

Cindy Munford on May 20, 2015 at 9:13 PM

Good Morning is hate speech to afternoon people.

RickB on May 20, 2015 at 9:17 PM

RE: Above discussion concerning free speech/art. Found this interesting:

Modern art was CIA ‘weapon’

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art – including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko – as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince – except that it acted secretly – the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art – President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: “If that’s art, then I’m a Hottentot.” As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

The Independent (UK)

Not sure I buy the explanation in the article though. I still think it’s more about the “goals of the Communist Party” supposedly read into the Congressional record 50 years ago. If true free expression were the case, then the CIA wouldn’t have been involved. But, historically speaking, the artist has always had to please his benefactors be they wealthy private individuals, the Church, royalty, etc.

So is “free expression” sponsored by the power and wealth of the U.S.Federal government really meaningful? At some point, the brainwashing of any group or industry can morph into certain tastes or at least acceptance by the public at large.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 20, 2015 at 9:28 PM

The Bible will be labeled as hate speech.

RayNAiken on May 20, 2015 at 7:46 PM

.
Someone else gets it…

listens2glenn on May 20, 2015 at 10:06 PM

Arrest me. I hate those 51% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans.

The Rogue Tomato on May 20, 2015 at 10:07 PM

Good Morning is hate speech to afternoon people.

RickB on May 20, 2015 at 9:17 PM

Heh… when I used to go to gaming conventions and got up early enough make the first slot, any time someone greeted me with “morning!” I replied “that’s not my fault.”

malclave on May 20, 2015 at 10:19 PM

…..people keep saying that we cannot advocate Violence as the ONLY appropriate answer to this kind of behavior……..I keep searching for other options…..

williamg on May 20, 2015 at 11:07 PM

A sad day here in Omaha.

Yakko77 on May 20, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Thanks for the acknowledgement Yakko—pretty sure they are dancing in the streets of North O tonight… a dead cop is a good day up there…

HatfieldMcCoy on May 20, 2015 at 11:37 PM

“Polling like this is why I gave up on politics. People get the government they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

njrob on May 20, 2015 at 11:38 PM

Idiocracy.

Good Lt on May 20, 2015 at 11:43 PM

Perhaps the Chinese aren’t wrong. Only 8% of their adults belong to the Communist Party, so you can argue they have a limited franchise based on achievement. Even non-Party members can vote. Their votes just don’t matter so much.

The 8% are almost all college graduates. They all vote. How many Americans actually vote? How many should be voting?

I used to believe the universal franchise was important. I am losing that religion.

The reason the Chinese are politically inferior to us has nothing to do with their voting limits. It is their lack of a Bill of Rights.

If we throw that away, as it appears so many of our fellow citizens would do, we are the trash.

fadetogray on May 20, 2015 at 11:47 PM

Can someone explain how libertarians are going to restore freedom when the 1st Amendment is now under negotiation?

antifederalist on May 20, 2015 at 11:56 PM

No,no,no!

When did we lose our backbone? There will always be people who try to diss others – it’s called humanity – albeit, the negative side.

Don’t know about many of you but I’m sick and tired of people getting upset over something someone else says. GROW UP.

Once you think you can define “hate speech” – all speech all become suspect.

As stated earlier, GROW UP.

MN J on May 21, 2015 at 12:11 AM

MN J on May 21, 2015 at 12:11 AM

+ a few million

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2015 at 1:03 AM

And, when you fund public art exhibits schools, but demand that certain art schools be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

FIFY

njrob on May 21, 2015 at 1:13 AM

The problem is, just who is going to define “Hate Speech?” Liberals consider anything they disagree with hateful, including many parts of the Constitution! This is definitely not a good idea!

Boats48 on May 21, 2015 at 5:10 AM

Yet another example of why the United States Constitution is smarter than ideologists and woosified morons.

kregg on May 21, 2015 at 5:11 AM

And, when you fund public art exhibits, but demand that certain art be excluded because you dislike it, you are censoring.

urban elitist on May 20, 2015 at 5:55 PM

The problem in your scenario is not the censoring, it’s the force used to obtain the art for the public exhibit.

beselfish on May 21, 2015 at 6:47 AM

Why in the world is anyone giving pollsters a bit of credibility. The polls are bought and paid for and designed to misinform the voters.

Lee Jan on May 21, 2015 at 7:20 AM

Can someone explain how libertarians are going to restore freedom when the 1st Amendment is now under negotiation?

antifederalist on May 20, 2015 at 11:56 PM

May I suggest utilizing the 2nd to support the 1st?

The 1st Amendment only stands because the 2nd Amendment is its ultimate backer.

ajacksonian on May 21, 2015 at 7:42 AM

Look, a lot of people who self identify on various parts of the political spectrum are simply going to respond to such a question based upon the issue at hand rather than considering the broader ramifications of creating such a law.

Ask a group of people the flag burning question. A certain percentage of people on the left and right will, of course, consider the broader implications of making a law banning flag burning and answer accordingly, but a certain percentage on each end of the political spectrum will respond based simply on whether they like or dislike the idea of burning the flag.
If you subsequently expose that same group of people to a period of advocacy for or against flag burning, you can recruit an additional number of conservatives and liberals who aren’t basing their response on the bigger picture. It doesn’t necessarily imply that more conservatives or liberals now favor the principle of making certain forms of speech or demonstrations illegal.

justltl on May 21, 2015 at 8:27 AM

Now, in the big big picture, if you want to control a population, make a huge number of laws, make many of them obscure or incomprehensible and have the law arbitrarily enforced. That way, every individual realizes that, at any moment, they could be considered to be a criminal by the State. They will therefore tend to mind their P’s and Q’s and not do anything to draw the ire of the State.
Since Leftists are, for the most part, Statists, they favor that overall approach.

justltl on May 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM

And while I’m ranting.

The bottom line is that Leftists hate you. They despise you. Compared to their own imagined magnificence, they view you as lower than a worm. They want to control every single aspect of your existence – from how you act to what you say and, to the extent that it is possible, to what you think.
Basically, they want to be able, at their whim and fancy, to kill you.

I wish that there could somehow, some way, be a national discussion about Leftism.

justltl on May 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM

This is about parents. No matter what the political leaning, parents will do anything to keep their precious snowflakes from enduring negativity.

MaxColossus on May 21, 2015 at 9:34 AM

When did the noun “hatred” become shortened to “hate”? Because if you say “hatred speech” you sound rather ridiculous, whereas the shortened “hate speech” is an Orwellian formulation designed to make you accept a concept which you would otherwise find an affront to free speech and thought. Compare:

1 Bellyfeel: The word bellyfeel means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea. The word likely comes from the idea that any good Oceanian should be able to internalise Party doctrine to the extent that it becomes a gut instinct – a feeling in the belly.

2 Blackwhite: this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

3 Crimethink: Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime (thoughts that are unorthodox, or are outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning “to commit thoughtcrime”. Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink.

4 Duckspeak: Duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be either good or “ungood” (bad), depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is in following with the ideals of Big Brother.

5 Goodsex and sexcrime: Goodsex is the normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman; all else is sexcrime

6 Ownlife: Ownlife refers to the tendency to enjoy being solitary or individualistic, which is considered subversive. Winston Smith comments that even to go for a walk by oneself can be regarded as suspicious

Pest on May 21, 2015 at 10:01 AM

Because a lot of Republican voters are not conservatives or libertarians, and simply want to push their own brands on nannyism as opposed to liberty in general. They’ll support this because 1) the race/gender/creed/blablabla language sounds like many existing laws and they think its a trick question, and 2) they’ll toss this in with the laws they wish to impose so you don’t call them “racist”

bernverdnardo1 on May 21, 2015 at 10:38 AM

They polled the people who aren’t that bright.

MCGIRV on May 21, 2015 at 11:56 AM

Welcome to Canada. Here we have the though police experiment where you are asked to prove that your intent was NOT malicious. That’s right. The burden of proof is on you if you are ever unfortunate to get hauled before a tribunal. Now if you are Mark Steyn, they will cry mercy, because they do NOT want the embarassment of facing off with a well known columnist. But if you are a nobody, especially a white christian male, with a less than nice opinion, watch out. One man has been given a ban against public displays of his criticism of homosexuality. He cannot deliver flyers to households or be held in contempt of court.

Faramir on May 21, 2015 at 4:21 PM

Why not simply have a totalitarian state run by elitists who tell us what to think and say? Orwell would recognize it right away. We’re getting closer and closer to that reality, if anyone realizes it.

grumpyank on May 20, 2015 at 7:22 PM

Bah! You sound like Emmanuel Goldstein!! Man I hate that guy!

Axeman on May 21, 2015 at 6:27 PM

It’s a tainted question because anyone advocating something with “cide” at the end of it is likely inciting crime, so why would we allow that? (Actually, we already do, because we sit around while muslims advocate the murder of Jews and Christians).

Yougov is also a UK-based (and therefore liberal) company whose work is pitched as an objective aid to market research. But there’s a difference between asking people which soap-powder is better and trying to discern their core political beliefs.

The mixture of “genocide” and “hatred” muddied the question in just the way they wanted it to. Everyone (except Muslims) is against genocide but “hatred” is in the eye of the beholder. So those voting against genocide are taken to agree with the criminalization of so-called “hatred”.

virgo on May 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM

Hate Speech, Politically Correct Speech, etc. All speech is free unless carried out. Therefore, making laws (empty words from empty heads) that make certain words illegal is a violation of the Constitution.

When a person carries out a specific act, such as using the “N” word and striking or otherwise assaulting the person the speech was directed at you have a case of assault and battery Therefore the left think you can meter out a higher level of punishment by trying assault and battery as Hate – in reality there is not difference in the crime thus no difference in the title of the crime.

Likewise, Politically Correct Speech simply allows those on the left to avoid having to defend their actions using words found in Webster’s or Funk and Wagnell’s

MSGTAS on May 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM