To openly express one’s views is a fundamental right in any liberal democracy. However, in the age of social media, the questions of what is allowed to say and how public discourse should be regulated are ever more contested. We present a pre-registered study to analyze citizens’ preferences for online hate speech regulation in several countries. We construct vignettes in forms of social media posts, mimicking actual cases of hate speech to bolster external validity, that vary along the following key dimensions of hate speech regulation: sender as well as target characteristics (e.g., gender, group membership, anonymity), act of speech (e.g., discrimination or call to violence), and targets’s reaction (e.g., appealing to norms, counter-aggression, or blocking/reporting). Respondents are asked to judge the posts with regards to actions that should be taken by the platform providers and other consequences the sender of hate speech should face. The experiment is embedded in online surveys that wer run in eight countries in different regions of the world, which allows us to analyze context- as well as individual-level determinants for online hate speech regulation.