The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly guard their right to free speech (88%). But, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just over half (53%) say the United States should refrain from banning so-called “hate speech.”

Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it is a good idea to ban hate speech, which is loosely defined as comments intended to put down or incite violence against people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other legally protected categories. Nearly one in five voters (19%) are undecided on whether such a ban is necessary.

Women are less opposed to banning hate speech than men. African-American voters are evenly divided while White voters oppose such a ban by a 57% to 24% margin. Many African-American leaders argue for protection from racist hate crimes.

Support for a ban on hate speech declines when voters are reminded that government would define what constitutes “hate speech.” Seventy-four percent (74%) say it is better to allow free speech without government interference than to let the government decide what types of hate speech should be banned. Only 11% disagree and would give government the power to decide what speech should be banned. These answers parallel findings in other recent Rasmussen Reports surveys showing that voters overwhelmingly view the government as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests.

Opponents of hate speech legislation argue that it violates Americans’ freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions.

Most recently, they cite an ongoing case in Canada in which Maclean’s magazine is being prosecuted for publishing an article by an author who contends the rise of Islam is a threat to Western values. The article prompted a complaint from the Canadian Islamic Congress which, according to the New York Times, argues that the magazine should be forbidden from publishing such things, forced to rebut the original article and compensate Muslims for hurting their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.” A ruling from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is expected soon.

In a similar case, actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was recently fined $23,000 in a French court for “provoking racial hatred” because she criticized the manner in which sheep were killed in a Muslim religious ceremony.

According to the New York Times report, a number of other countries, including England, Germany, Australia and India, have laws against hate speech or have signed international conventions banning it. Now some U.S. legal scholars are debating whether similar steps should be taken here.

But U.S. voters are strongly opposed to any such changes in the law. Asked specifically about the Canadian and Bardot cases, 75% say U.S. law should not be changed to outlaw comments like the ones at issue. Eight percent (8%) say the law should be changed, while 17% are undecided.

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters also think news reporters regularly abuse the freedom of speech rights, but 33% say they do not and 22% aren’t sure.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.