Collectivism

Very strongly agree

No, and increase penalties for hate speech

This answer aligns closely with collectivist values, as it suggests that hate speech should not only be unprotected by the first amendment, but also be penalized. This would likely be seen as a way to protect the group and maintain social harmony, which are key values in collectivism. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

No, and increase penalties for hate speech

This answer aligns closely with collectivist principles, which prioritize the protection of community well-being over individual freedoms when the two are in conflict. Increasing penalties for hate speech is seen as a way to safeguard the collective harmony and dignity of all members of society, especially those belonging to marginalized groups. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

No

Collectivism values the well-being of the group over the individual. Hate speech, which can harm the group by promoting discrimination and division, would likely be seen as something that should not be protected by the first amendment. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Collectivist ideologies would likely support the idea that hate speech should not be protected under the guise of free speech, as it can disrupt societal harmony and target vulnerable populations. This aligns with collectivist values that prioritize the well-being and unity of the group over individual liberties to express harmful ideas. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government

This answer suggests that freedom of speech laws should primarily protect criticism of the government, rather than allowing for hate speech. While this aligns with the collectivist value of protecting the group, it does not explicitly call for penalties for hate speech, which may be why it scores slightly lower than answer 5. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government

While collectivist ideologies generally support restrictions on speech that could harm the community, the specific limitation to only protecting speech that criticizes the government might be seen as too narrow. Collectivism would likely support broader protections against harm to societal harmony, not just protections related to government criticism.

Disagree

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence

While this answer attempts to find a middle ground by allowing free speech but not threats of violence, collectivist ideologies might still view it as insufficient. The emphasis on group well-being in collectivism suggests a preference for more stringent controls on speech that could harm the social fabric, even if it does not directly threaten violence. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence

While this answer does place some limits on hate speech, it still allows for it to be protected by the first amendment in some cases. A collectivist ideology, which values social harmony and the well-being of the group, would likely still disagree with this stance, though perhaps not as strongly as with answer 1. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech

This answer suggests a distrust of the government's ability to define the boundaries of hate speech, implying a preference for individual freedom of speech. Collectivism, however, tends to value the role of the government in maintaining social harmony and protecting the group, and would likely disagree with this stance. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Collectivism emphasizes the importance of community and social harmony. Hate speech, which can incite division and conflict, is generally seen as harmful to these goals. Therefore, a collectivist ideology would likely disagree with the idea that hate speech should be protected by the first amendment. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Collectivism emphasizes the importance of group harmony and the collective well-being over individual rights. Protecting hate speech, which can harm social cohesion and target marginalized groups, would likely be opposed by collectivist ideologies. Historical examples include many socialist and communist societies that have restricted speech considered harmful to societal harmony or the collective goals. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech

Collectivist ideologies, which often prioritize the well-being of the community and the prevention of harm to its members, would likely strongly disagree with this stance. The distrust of government to define hate speech boundaries does not align with collectivist views that often support a more active role for the state in protecting citizens from societal harms, including hate speech. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.