Hate speech is an open expression of prejudice against a sensitive group based on gender, sexual orientation, race, disability and so on away. Characterizing a crime with consistency, clarity and certainty has always been a subjective practice and only the court should be asked to do so. Restricting hate speech has become a way to address issues related to incitement or intimidation. There is no consistency in hate speech laws around the world. Britain bans offensive, abrasive and disempowering speech. Denmark and Canada have blacklisted irritating and degrading speech. In the blacklist of India and Israel there is talk of insults and incitement to racial and religious contempt. In the Netherlands it is a crime to deliberately attack a specific social issue. Australia prohibits speech that aggravates attacks, demeans or panics individuals or social occasions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay While we should condemn hate speech, it should not be used as a means to deny people the ability to express themselves freely. JSMill has views on free speech states that no matter how immoral a doctrine may be, there should be freedom to discuss and profess that doctrine and the only case in which a person can deny the power to eliminate his power of speech is when the his speech is intended to harm others. Every society should have the right to free speech. Free speech helps us consider the truth when we believe a false belief about something and the view on that matter is true. Furthermore, free speech helps us grasp a true belief about an issue in question and that view of that issue is not true. The only way to believe that something could be true or false is to discuss the issues. Therefore to exclude this discussion is to prevent people from believing the truth. a discussion helps us consider the point of view of others and this helps us adapt our confidence regarding the opinions we have. Freedom of speech is one of the many rights enjoyed by a democratic nation. It should not be limited in compelling and extreme circumstances. Furthermore, criminalizing offensive and objectionable viewpoints is the slippery path to purging and censoring the door to open debate. We risk preventing the real solution to hate speech, which is mass education and open debates. Therefore hate speech should be opposed and protested, not criminalised. Offensive speech should be limited. Harm occurs when we are hurt, our well-being disturbed, offended, and when our opinions are drastically limited. Any speech that may lead to lower self-esteem, increase the risk of discrimination and violence, or undermine the interests of others may be considered hate speech. But then many things can lead to loss of self-esteem and therefore blaming speech for loss of self-esteem can be subjective and biased. Furthermore, if someone practices discrimination and violence, we should punish these acts. Hate speech is an act of expressing hatred, and simple hateful opinions should not be criminalized. The most effective way to curb hate speech is through educating the public about the effects of hate speech.