There are at least two schools of thought regarding any governmental action against "hate speech": (1) those who think that even "hate speech" should be protected under the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution; and (2) "hate speeches" should not be protected by the Constitution.

What is your personal opinion on this matter?

Do you think "hate speeches" should be restrained/prohibited/punished by government? If government restrains/punishes/prohibits "hate speeches" won't this violate the speaker's constitutional right to freely express himself?

There are at least two schools of thought regarding any governmental action against "hate speech": (1) those who think that even "hate speech" should be protected under the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution; and (2) "hate speeches* should not be protected by the Constitution. What is your personal opinion on this matter? Do you think "hate speeches" should be restrained/prohibited/punished by government? If government restrains/punishes/prohibits "hate speeches" won't this violate the speaker's constitutional right to freely express himself? Please explain your opinion and argue your position thoroughly