Monthly Archives: March 2022

In recent years, discussions around freedom of speech have expanded beyond debates on the limits of the First Amendment and into a broader conversation on the culture of free expression in the U.S. Some argue that Americans should not only have a right to speak their minds, but also a right to speak their minds without fear of being shamed or shunned. Others contend that freedom of speech does not entail freedom from social consequences for your speech.

In a recent YouGov survey, we attempted to distill common beliefs about the countrys culture of speech into brief statements and measured the extent to which Americans agree or disagree with them. While there are drawbacks to agree/disagree-style questions, they are useful for comparing attitudes among different groups such as Republicans and Democrats.

While most Americans 64% agree that Americans are generally free to express their views, we find significant partisan divides on many issues relating to free speech, including what threatens it and what limitations should be applied to it. The vast majority of Americans including majorities of Republicans and Democrats agree that part of exercising free speech is having to deal with people who disagree with you. Far fewer less than half of Republicans and Democrats agree that limits on the speech of some people can expand free speech for people overall.

Agreeing to disagree

One thing 84% of Americans can agree on is that part of exercising free speech is having to deal with people who disagree with you. Only 6% disagreed with this statement. Of all the questions asked, this produced the smallest partisan gap an equal share of Democrats (89%) and Republicans (90%) say free speech involves disagreement.

Free from consequences

Most Americans (70%) agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech, while 14% disagree. Though a majority of all groups we studied agree, there are some divides. Adults 30 and under (56%) are less likely to agree than adults 65 and older (81%). Republicans (60%) are less likely to agree than Democrats (85%).

Biting your tongue

A majority of Americans (61%) agree that it isnt always a bad thing when people avoid publicly expressing views that may offend others, while only 18% disagree. Some groups were more likely to agree with this than others, including Democrats (74%) and Americans 65 and older (72%). Adults under 30 were significantly less likely to agree (48%) and more likely to say they were unsure (34%).

Protecting civil rights

About half of Americans (54%) agree that we should generally discourage people from expressing views that advocate removing the civil rights of others, while about a quarter (26%) disagree with this. While all groups we looked at were more likely to agree than disagree that we should discourage people from advocating for the removal of civil rights, fewer Republicans (47%) than Democrats (71%) agreed.

The marketplace of ideas

About half of Americans (52%) agree that the truth is most likely to emerge when ideas can compete in unregulated public discourse. A significant portion 35% are unsure and only 14% disagree. Americans 65 and older are about twice as likely to agree (62%) as are adults under 30 (34%). Other groups we looked at with relatively high rates of agreement include: Republicans (61%), Americans living in the West (61%), and people in families earning $100,000 or more each year (65%).

Keeping up with the times

Half of Americans (52%) agree that the norms of socially acceptable speech are changing too quickly to keep up with, while 26% disagree with this. Republicans (68%) are more likely to say its hard to keep up with changing norms than Democrats (41%) are. Americans 45 and older are more likely to say its hard to keep up than adults under 45.

Misunderstood

Nearly half of Americans (49%) say they often worry that a view they express will be misinterpreted in a negative way, while 32% say they dont often worry about this. Of the groups examined, Trump supporters (61%) were the most likely to agree.

Top-down tyranny

Americans are divided on whether the government poses the biggest threat to speech: 45% agree it does, while 32% say it doesnt. Republicans (69%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (28%) to say the government poses the biggest threat to speech.

Testing the limits

Americans are almost twice as likely to agree (41%) than disagree (22%) that people who test the limits of free speech by sharing controversial views I disagree with are making a positive contribution to society. Among the groups analyzed that are most likely to agree with this are Trump supporters (56%), Republicans (54%), and men (46%).

Good intentions

Americans are somewhat more likely to agree (40%) than disagree (31%) that what matters is the intent of the person speaking, not how what they say is understood. Americans 65 and older are evenly divided (39% agree, 39% disagree), while adults under 30 are twice as likely to agree (39%) than disagree (17%).

Limits on some

Almost half of Americans (46%) disagree that sometimes limiting the speech of a small number of people expands freedom of speech for people overall, while 28% agree with this. Black Americans (36%) and Democrats (40%) were somewhat more likely to agree than to disagree.

Carl Bialik contributed to this article

See the toplines and crosstabs from this U.S. News Poll

Methodology: This U.S. News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adult citizens interviewed online between March 21 - 23, 2022. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education based on the 2018 American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as news interest and 2020 Presidential votes (or non-votes). Respondents were selected from YouGovs opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. citizens. The margin of error is approximately 4% for the entire sample.

Image: Getty

Read the original here:
Democrats and Republicans agree that exercising free speech means having to deal with disagreement - YouGov US

PHILADELPHIA, March 29, 2022 A new study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education analyzes the state of free speech at 26 Michigan colleges and universities. State of the Speech Codes: Michigan finds that well over half of those colleges maintain free expression policies that restrict or could too easily be interpreted to restrict student speech.

Too many Michigan college students study in the shadow of restrictive or overly broad policies that threaten their rights, said FIRE Program Officer Ryan Ansloan, who authored the report. I hope this report lights a fire under college admins to re-evaluate these policies and protect student and faculty rights.

FIND OUT HOW MUCH PROTECTED SPEECH YOUR COLLEGE RESTRICTS

The report includes new research on policies at 11 institutions and reviews and updates the ratings of 15 institutions already included in FIREs Spotlight database. FIRE rates schools as red light, yellow light, or green light institutions based on how much speech protected by First Amendment standards their policies restrict in a number of categories, including protest, online speech, harassment, and civility. Private schools that promise free speech rights to their students are rated using the same standards as public ones, while private colleges that clearly place other values above free speech rights earn a Warning rating.

Over a quarter of Michigan institutions 27% received an overall red light rating, FIREs lowest rating, for maintaining speech codes that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech. Universities with a red light rating include Aquinas College, Davenport University, Grand Rapids Community College, Lake Superior State University, Muskegon Community College, Oakland University, and Western Michigan University.

Only one of the institutions FIRE reviewed, Michigan Technological University, does not maintain any policies that compromise student expression, earning it FIREs highest green light rating. This rating is held by only 58 colleges nationwide. Meanwhile, half of Michigans institutions earned a yellow light rating. While less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies still prohibit or have an impermissible chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech and must be revised.

The report also notes that the kinds of restrictive policies adopted at Michigan universities, including technology and harassment policies, occur in Michigan with roughly the same regularity as they do in the rest of the country. The report analyzes the problematic policies by school and includes FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoffs five ways university presidents can improve the state of free speech on campus.

Overly vague and broad policies can affect not only college students, but also faculty members. One such problematic policy at Ferris State University was recently used as an excuse to oust professor Barry Mehler. Mehler ran afoul of the universitys excessively broad Employee and Student Dignity Policy when he used profanity in a class introduction.

Its tempting to put off policy reform because policies seem theoretical, but bad policies can quickly lead to censorship and rights violations, said Ansloan. FIRE wants to make sure that doesnt happen to other Michigan students and faculty.

FIRE stands ready to defend students and faculty members whose rights are threatened on campus. We also invite college administrators to work with us to reform their institutions policies.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at Americas colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience the essential qualities of liberty.

CONTACT:

Katie Kortepeter, Media Relations Associate, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Read more from the original source:
Study shows just 2% of Michigan students attend a university that respects free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Deputy prime minister DominicRaabhas said his plan to replace Labours Human Rights Act will would ensure the principle of free speech became a legal trump card.

The justice secretary said his proposals would stop free speech and democratic debate from being whittled away by wokery and political correctness.

The governments plan to replace the landmark Human Rights Act with a new UK Bill of Rights currently out for consultation will better protect media freedom, Mr Raab claimed.

The senior minister said free speech had to be given different status in the pecking order of rights.

Mr Raab told the Daily Mail: Effectively, free speech will be given what will amount to trump card status in a whole range of areas.

He said: The thrust is going to be making sure that when we balance rights, whether its the right to free speech and the right to privacy or other rights, we make sure that the greatest overriding importance and weight is attached to free speech.

Despite the promised changes, MrRaabsaid checks would remain on free speech to prevent the incitement of violence or promotion of terrorism.

We will still be clamping down on those who try and use either media or free speech to incite violence, to radicalise terrorists, or to threaten children. All of those safeguards will be in place, he said.

Mr Raab said: But weve got to be able to strengthen free speech, the liberty that guards all of our other freedoms, and stop it being whittled away surreptitiously, sometimes without us really being conscious of it.

I feel very strongly that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate are being whittled away, whether by the privacy issue or whether its wokery and political correctness.

He added: So it will have a different status in the pecking order of rights and I think that will go a long way to protecting this countrys freedom of speech and our history, which has always very strongly protected freedom of speech.

MrRaabalso told the paper the UK Bill of Rights would make deportation mandatory for all foreign criminals jailed for at least a year.

Meanwhile, The Telegraph reports that, as part of a wider reform of parole proceedings, MrRaabis set to take back powers to override the Parole Board when it comes to the release of dangerous criminals from jail.

It follows public outcry at the decision to release double child killer and rapist Colin Pitchfork from jail.

Excerpt from:
Raab vows to protect free speech from wokery with plan to scrap Human Rights Act - The Independent