Michael Anthony Peroutka

Very strongly agree

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence

This answer aligns most closely with Peroutka's views. He would likely agree that while hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, it should not be protected if it threatens 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.

Very strongly agree

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

Peroutka, as a constitutionalist, would likely strongly agree with this statement. He would likely argue that it is not the government's role to define the boundaries of hate speech and that doing so could lead to an infringement on individual liberties. 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

Yes

Michael Anthony Peroutka is a constitutionalist and believes in the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He would likely agree that the First Amendment protects all speech, including hate speech, as long as it does not incite violence or pose a direct threat to public safety. 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

No

Peroutka's strict constitutionalist views would likely lead him to disagree with this statement. He would likely argue that limiting the First Amendment in this way infringes on individual liberties. 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

No, and increase penalties for hate speech

Peroutka would likely strongly disagree with this statement. His constitutionalist views would likely lead him to argue that increasing penalties for hate speech infringes on the First Amendment rights of individuals. 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

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

Peroutka would likely strongly disagree with this statement. As a constitutionalist, he would likely argue that the First Amendment protects all speech, not just speech that criticizes the government. 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.