Yves here. This post confirms America’s widespread hypocrisy of free speech: it’s good as long as your ideological opponents don’t use it. It’s sad as someone who was apolitical and non-conformist in the 1970s and 1980s, when free speech was taken for granted and the left of the day was determined to defend the right of bitter opponents like the KKK to exercise it. , that the dignitaries are so afraid of debate that they all get off on showing an open opinion. This sad development is accompanied by the rise of intolerance and the demonization of perceived opponents. They are no longer dissenting citizens who may be allowed to plead with you, or join you in some, but not all, of the enemies that must be silenced and crushed.
Note that this article does not address the fact that hate speech is not defined under the law, only hate crime. I am appalled at the efforts to criminalize hate speech. In this age where young people are trained to see microaggressions as real injuries, the bar may be set very low by historical standards.
In addition, this article skips over the ongoing suppression of political speech against government agencies, such as the recent FBI attack on Scott Ritter, which was about the false impression that he was a foreign agent.
By John G. Geer, Senior Advisor to the Chancellor, Head of the Vanderbilt Project on American Unity and Democracy, and Executive Director of the Vanderbilt Poll, Vanderbilt University and Jacob Mchangama, Research Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech. , Vanderbilt University. Originally published on The Conversation
Americans’ views on free speech are constantly changing directions. One of those times was during protests at American universities about the Israel-Hamas war. As scholars of free speech and public opinion, we set out to find out what happened and why.
The Supreme Court itself, as recently as 1989, has declared that a “fundamental principle” of the First Amendment is that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an opinion merely because the public finds the opinion itself offensive or objectionable.”
For years, conservative politicians and commentators have warned that college campuses are not strong defenders of free speech. But as protests broke out, these people complained that these protests were full of hate speech. Leading leaders declared that protests should be banned and stopped, by force if necessary.
The Liberals have made similar changes. Many of them have supported more regulation of hate speech against minority groups. But during the campus protests, liberals warned that attacks on university administrators, government officials and the police violated protesters’ rights to free speech.
As researchers at Vanderbilt University’s Project on Unity and American Democracy and The Future of Free Speech, respectively, we want to determine where the American people stand. We found inspiration in a survey conducted in November 1939 in which 3,500 Americans answered questions about freedom of speech. In June 2024, we asked 1,000 Americans the same questions.
When an Abstract Concept Gets More Concrete
We found that the majority of Americans – then and now – agree that democracy requires freedom of speech. That’s in the abstract.
The more powerful the questions become, however, the less support they receive.
Only about half of the respondents to both the 1939 and 2024 polls agreed that anyone in America should be allowed to speak on any subject at any time. Some believed that certain speech – or certain topics or speakers – should be banned.
This pattern is not only American. A 2021 survey of 33 countries by The Future of Free Speech, a nonprofit think tank based at Vanderbilt, similarly found high levels of support for free speech across the board but low support across the board for specific speech that offended minorities. groups or religious beliefs.
We delved into surveys in March and June 2024, asking which courses or speakers should be banned. We thought that the public’s desire for free speech might have weakened amid the turmoil at the center. We found the opposite.
When asked if seven people with different views should be allowed to speak, the number of people who said “Yes” increased per person between March and June. Some of the differences were within the poll’s margin of error, but it’s notable that they all shifted in the same direction.
Although they reflect a slow growth in the desire for free speech, these fines still correspond to a complete contradiction: Most Americans passionately uphold free speech as the foundation of democracy. But few of them support free speech when faced with certain controversial speakers or topics.
The First Amendment is not an a la Carte Menu
Our survey found that the public has a different view of freedom of speech. For example, in our June 2024 survey we added other categories of potential speakers to the list we asked about in March. More respondents were more comfortable with a pro-Palestinian speaker than the leader of Hamas and a scientist who believes that IQ varies by race rather than the ideal white person.
This pattern suggests that society distinguishes between extreme and moderate positions and does not tolerate the rights of those with an extreme view.
This change goes against the intent of the First Amendment, which was intended to protect unpopular speech. This amendment was not intended to apply only to certain speakers or views.
Ours is not the only survey to find that many people do not fully understand the concept and principles that support free speech.
In 2020, a Knight Foundation poll found that members of both political parties oppose speech that conflicts with their values or beliefs.
Recent polls, including those conducted by other organizations, found more details: For example, Democrats are more likely to support censoring racist hate speech or vaccine misinformation.
And Republicans oppose drag shows and kneeling during the national anthem.
A February 2022 national poll commissioned by the New York Times and Siena College found that 30% of Americans believe that “at some point you should shut down speech that is anti-democratic, racist, or just plain untrue.”
Back to Basics
As the 2024 election nears and racial divisions increase among the American people, some people may want only those they agree with to be allowed to speak.
But a true commitment to the basic principles of free speech requires that people allow room for controversial and even offensive ideas to be circulated.
History reveals that the suppression of hateful ideas is often a cure worse than the disease, reinforcing social divisions. James Madison, the principal architect of the US Constitution and the First Amendment, wrote in 1800:
“A certain degree of abuse is inseparable from the good use of everything … it is better to leave a few of its dangerous branches, in their rich growth, than to cut them, to injure the strength of those that bear proper fruit.”
As the founders knew, respect for diverse opinions and the ability to express those opinions – good, bad and dangerous alike – in the public sphere is essential to a healthy democracy.
Source link