Hi, Yves. This post confirms the widespread American hypocrisy regarding free speech: it’s fine as long as your ideological opponents don’t exercise it. As an apolitical moderate in the 1970s and 1980s, when free speech was considered foundational and the left at the time was keen to defend the rights of fierce opponents like the KKK, it’s depressing that the elites are so afraid of debate that they’re all in favor of stifling the public expression of opinion. This unfortunate development goes hand in hand with the growing intolerance and demonization of those perceived as enemies. They’re no longer different-minded citizens who may be persuaded, or who may agree with you on some but not all issues, but enemies who must be silenced and crushed.
Note that the article does not address the fact that hate speech is not defined in the law, only hate crimes. I am appalled by the move to criminalize hate speech. In an era where young people are being taught to equate microaggressions with actual harm, the bar is likely set very low by historical standards.
Moreover, the article makes no mention of the ongoing suppression of political speech opposed to government agencies, such as the recent FBI raid on Scott Ritter, which was nominally over the false idea that he was a foreign agent.
Article by John G. Geer, senior advisor to the president of Vanderbilt University, director of the Vanderbilt University Project on Unity and American Democracy, and co-director of the Vanderbilt Poll, and Jacob Machangama, research professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and executive director of the Future of Free Speech. Article originally published on The Conversation
American views on freedom of speech change direction from time to time, such as during protests at American universities against the Israeli-Hamas war. Freedom of speech and public opinionWe tried to figure out what happened and why.
The Supreme Court itself stated in 1989 that the “fundamental principles” of the First Amendment are:The government cannot prohibit the expression “Society rejects an idea precisely because it finds the idea itself unpleasant or repulsive.”
Conservative politicians and commentators have long College campuses don’t have enough protection It’s an infringement of freedom of speech. But when demonstrations break out, The same people complained The protests Anti-Semitic hate speechConservative leaders declared that the demonstrations should be banned and stopped. ForcefullyIf necessary.
The Liberal Party made a similar shift. Many of them Strengthening regulations of Hate speech against minority groups. But during campus protests, liberals warned of crackdown by university authorities, state authorities and police violated protesters’ freedom of speech right.
As a researcher at Vanderbilt University Project on Unity and American Democracy and The Future of Free SpeechEach of us tried to gauge where the Americans stood. A public opinion poll conducted in November 1939In this survey, 3,500 Americans answered questions about freedom of speech. In June 2024, 1,000 Americans were asked the same questions.
When abstract concepts become more concrete
I found that the vast majority of Americans then and now agree that democracy requires free speech. This is an abstract concept.
But as the questions become more specific, their support weakens.
In both the 1939 and 2024 polls, only about half of respondents agreed that anyone in America should be able to speak on any topic at any time. The rest believe some speech, or even certain topics or people, should be banned.
This pattern isn’t unique to Americans. A 2021 survey of 33 countries found that The Future of Free SpeechA nonpartisan think tank based at Vanderbilt University found similar results. A high level of support for freedom of expression in the abstract Approval is high in all countries, but support for specific statements that insult minority groups or religious beliefs is generally low.
The survey, conducted in March and June 2024, asked participants to elaborate on what topics and speakers they thought should be banned, some wondering whether the public’s appetite for free speech might be waning amid campus unrest, but the results showed the opposite.
When asked whether seven people with different opinions should be given the opportunity to speak, the percentage of people who answered “yes” increased between March and June. While there were differences within the survey’s margin of error, it is noteworthy that all of them moved in the same direction.
While indicating a slight increase in interest in free speech, these polls still fit an overall contradiction: Most Americans enthusiastically support free speech as a cornerstone of democracy, but fewer support it when faced with specific controversial speakers or topics.
The First Amendment is not an ala carte menu.
Our surveys have shown that the public has nuanced views on freedom of speech. For example, in our June 2024 survey, we added several more categories of potential speakers to the list we asked about in March. More respondents said they You can get along with pro-Palestinian speakers. He is less a Hamas leader and less a white supremacist and more a scientist who believes IQ varies by race.
This pattern suggests that the public distinguishes between extreme and moderate positions and is less tolerant of the rights of those who hold more extreme views.
This change is contrary to the purposes of the First Amendment. Intended to protect unpopular speechThe amendment was not intended to apply only to certain speakers or views.
Ours is not the only study to reveal that many people do not fully understand the logic and principles behind free speech.
According to a 2020 Knight Foundation poll, lawmakers from both parties Opposing speech that contradicts our values and beliefs.
Subsequent polls, including those conducted by other organizations, have provided more concrete results. For example, the Democratic Party More likely to support censorship Such as racist hate speech and misinformation about vaccines.
And Republicans opposed it. Drag Show and Kneeling during the national anthem.
According to a national poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College in February 2022, 30% of AmericansSometimes you have to keep your mouth shut It’s anti-democratic, it’s bigoted, or it’s just not true.”
Back to Basics
With the 2024 election looming, Increasing polarization Some Americans may want only those who agree with them to be allowed to speak.
but, A genuine commitment to the fundamental principles of free speech Demand that people be given space to express controversial and even offensive opinions.
History is revealing Censorship of hateful ideas In many cases The cure is worse than the diseaseSocial divisions deepened. James Madison, key author of the United States Constitution and the First Amendment, wrote in 1800:
“Some degree of abuse is inseparable From the proper use of everything…it is better to leave a few noxious branches and let them grow luxuriantly, than to prune them away and impair the vigour of those which produce good fruit.”
As our Founding Fathers knew, respect for diverse viewpoints and the ability to express good, bad, and harmful ideas alike in the public forum is essential to a healthy democracy.
