By John G. Geer and Jacob Mchangama
Americans’ views on free speech change directions every so often. One of those times was during the protests at U.S. 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 the “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment is that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
For years, conservative politicians and commentators have warned that college campuses are not strong enough protectors of free speech. But as demonstrations erupted, these same people complained that the protests were filled with antisemitic hate speech. Leading conservatives declared the demonstrations should be banned and halted, by force if necessary.
Liberals executed a similar reversal. Many of them have supported increased regulation of hate speech against minority groups. But during the campus protests, liberals cautioned that crackdowns by university administrators, state officials and the police violated protestors’ free speech rights.
As researchers at Vanderbilt University’s Project on Unity and American Democracy and The Future of Free Speech, respectively, we sought to determine where Americans stand. We drew inspiration from a poll done in November 1939 in which 3,500 Americans answered questions about free speech. In June 2024, we asked 1,000 Americans the identical questions.
When an abstract concept gets more concrete
We found that the vast majority of Americans – both then and now – agree that democracy requires freedom of speech. That’s in the abstract.
When the questions get more concrete, though, their support wanes.
Only about half of the respondents in both the 1939 and 2024 polls agreed that anybody in America should be allowed to speak on any subject at any time. The rest believed some speech – or certain subjects or speakers – should be prohibited.
This pattern is not unique to Americans. A 2021 survey in 33 countries by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank based at Vanderbilt, similarly found high levels of support for free speech in the abstract across all countries but lower support across the board for specific speech that was offensive to minority groups or religious beliefs.
We dug deeper in surveys in March and June 2024, asking which subjects or speakers should be banned. We thought the public’s appetite for free speech might have weakened amid the campus turmoil. We found the opposite.
When asked whether seven people with widely varied viewpoints should be allowed to speak, the share of people who said “Yes” rose for each one between March and June. Some of the differences were within the surveys’ margins of error, but it’s nevertheless noteworthy that all of them shifted in the same direction.
While showing a slightly increased appetite for free speech, these polls still fit with the overall contradiction: Large majorities of Americans passionately uphold free speech as a cornerstone of democracy. But fewer of them are supportive of free speech when faced with specific controversial speakers or topics.
The First Amendment is not an a la carte menu
Our surveys found that the public has a nuanced view of free speech. For instance, in our June 2024 survey we added some additional categories of potential speakers to the list we had asked about in March. More respondents were comfortable with a pro-Palestinian speaker than a leader of Hamas and with a scientist who believes that IQ varies by race rather than an outright white supremacist.
This pattern suggests that the public distinguishes between extreme and more moderate positions and is less tolerant of the rights of those with more extreme views.
This shift runs against the purpose of the First Amendment, which was intended to protect unpopular speech. The amendment very specifically was not intended to apply only to certain speakers or viewpoints.
Ours is not the only survey to find that many people don’t fully appreciate the logic and principles behind free speech.
In 2020, a Knight Foundation poll found that members of both political parties oppose speech that goes against their values or beliefs.
Later polls, including those conducted by other organizations, found more specifics: For instance, Democrats were more likely to support censorship of racist hate speech or vaccine misinformation.
And Republicans opposed drag shows and kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.
A February 2022 national poll commissioned by The New York Times and Siena College found that 30% of Americans believed that “sometimes you have to shut down speech that is anti-democratic, bigoted, or simply untrue.”
AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast
A return to fundamentals
With the 2024 election looming and polarization increasing among Americans, some people may want only those who agree with them to be allowed to speak.
But a true commitment to the fundamental principles of free speech requires people to allow space for controversial and even offensive viewpoints to be aired.
History reveals that censorship of hateful ideas is often a cure that is worse than the disease, deepening social divides. James Madison, a key drafter of both the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, wrote in 1800:
“Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing … it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches, to their luxuriant growth, than by pruning them away, to injure the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.”
As the founders knew, a respect for diverse viewpoints and the ability to express those views – good, bad and harmful alike – in the public sphere are essential to a healthy democracy.
John G. Geer is Senior Advisor to the Chancellor and Head of Vanderbilt’s Project on Unity and American Democracy, and Co-Director of Vanderbilt Poll, Vanderbilt University. Jacob Mchangama is Research Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Engin Ruslpostur says
You are certainly entitled to your free speech but when it includes expletives and hate messages directed at a specific religious group, encourages violence or supports criminal activity then your entire thesis is, well, bullshit. Antisemitism is hiding in the open at many Palestinian demonstrations.
The problem of ignoring hate speech is undermining the world. In France, the founder of Telegram (a right leaning microblogging site like Twitter) has been arrested for aiding criminal activities. Telegram, which supports “absolute Free Speech” has become a planning ground for terrorists, drug dealing and human trafficking. X, formerly known as Twitter, will be banned Monday in Brazil if Musk doesn’t suspend several accounts that violate Brazilian law. In the USA, X has degenerated from a town square for conversation to a hate fest of lies and disinformation.
I assume you aren’t supportive of hate and criminal activity. I also assume that you know that the US rights to free speech have limits (provided by the constitution) and these limits are imperative to a free society. Wouldn’t the world have been much better off if someone shut Hitler up before he spread his propaganda filled hate message and killed millions?
Deborah Coffey says
Allowing controversial viewpoints is one thing; hate speech, inciting violence, and politicians LYING is quite another. I really think that deliberate lying by politicians should be a felony (i.e. the 2020 election was stolen, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, lies about Covid and vaccines, Democrats favor killing babies after they’re born, etc.)…but, good luck enforcing that law!
DaleL says
Deborah, I’m not sure that I support criminalizing “lying” by politicians. The catch is that a lie requires that what they say is: 1. false (the easy part) and 2. they know it is false (that can be tough).
Rather than criminalizing false political speech, maybe make it easier for groups to have standing to sue for defamation. The penalty would be civil fines in addition to compensation. The ability of groups to sue should be put into law. Claiming that pro-choice groups or Democrats favor murdering babies as they are born certainly seems like defamation to me. It also can be easily proved to be a lie. Similarly, claiming the 2020 election was stolen, especially after Attorney General Barr stated publicly it was not, defames every election official in the United States. Politicians might be a bit more circumspect in their speech if it might cost their campaigns and them money. Such a law would need to have penalties to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
Laurel says
I fully believe that while the white supremacist KKK can march in the street, I can stand on the sideline while holding a sign that reads “coneheads on parade.” When a neighbor of mine used the word “nigger,” and of course in a derogatory way, not like I’m using it here as an example, I told him to never use that word in front of me again. He never did. I support the ability of burning the flag (I don’t like it, I don’t even like people wearing it on their butts as a bathing suit either) because the repressed countries don’t allow it. We should always fight repression, even while offending some. I will protect your choice of bathing suits.
“Moms for Liberty” is repression. Project 2025 is repression. White *Christian* Nationalism is repression, DeSantis’ “Free Florida” is repression, Trump’s narcissistic, authoritarianism is repression.
George Carlin pointed out the seven dirty words (which I subjected to memory decades ago, like the multiplication table) that could not be said on TV, are now commonly used. Actually used way too much in my opinion (and probably used way too much by me). Comedian Lenny Bruce got in quite a bit of trouble for using the word “fuck” in his routines, his belief being that if we heard the word enough, it would lose its potency. Young people now use it frequently in public, without any sense of embarrassment. Good? Bad? I guess my only complaint here is a lack of manners. We have definitely become numb to the concept of manners.
The young people today think that freedom of speech is something they have invented, and need to defend. To a certain extent, that’s good, but they need to discover that offensiveness has its consequences. If you are gonna start yelling “fuck” on a playground, you just might get kicked off. We all know the “yelling fire in a theater” scenario. If you call so and so an “asshole” in public, you just may end up in court for defamation of character. That’s fair.
My question is, where do we draw the line on freedom of expression? As a society, we do not except child pornography as a freedom of expression. We have laws against it, thank goodness. I’m absolutely okay with the fun and entertainment of drag queens. From my point of view, if it does not involve exploitation, or harm, to children, seniors or animals, and it’s between consenting adults, that’s just fine. Just remember your manners in public, and carry on. With a little consideration of each other, no matter our viewpoints, we should be able to get along.
Sherry says
I really appreciate the last sentence of your comment Engin. It’s not only antisemitism that is globally systemic and on the rise, it is racism, chauvinism, and anti- many religions, across the board. Fascism in the form of “white nationalism” is malignant, especially in the US and Europe.
The “huge whole” in this article is that examining “speech” alone in a vacuum is ridiculous if the, often horrific, consequences of such “hate” speech are not taken into consideration. Words can be sublime, but they can also “radicalize” and “terrorize”!
Laurel says
Sherry: The reality is, bigotry and hate are not illegal. People think I hate Trump. I don’t. I hate what he does to many people in our country, and I should be able to legally make such comments.
This county is excuciatingly red, and I fully believe misinformed, but that’s not illegal either. We can’t have Fact Police, but we can ask people to provide facts, and wait for the willing.
Long wait, however.
Sherry says
Good Morning Laurel,
Smiling at the “long wait”. You and I often ask for facts or evidence when maga rants are posted here. It is my belief that almost 40% of our fellow US citizens are so highly influenced by FOX/Newsmax (etc.) far right winged propaganda that they truly relate to the world through that lens. 24/7 they are intentionally psychologically manipulated using “fear based” tactics and emotional triggers. So much so, that they are psychologically unhealthy. They are now paranoid and extremely angry. Many are armed with guns and that makes them very dangerous.
While words themselves may not be illegal, the physical violence they can incite via hate speech must be taken into consideration. The mental/emotional/terroristic violence perpetrated with bullying and hate speech causes suicides. Words can be very powerful weapons. It’s a complex issue, especially in these times when so many are needlessly filled with fear and hate while guns are so readily available.
Laurel says
Sherry: We know people who have Fox Entertainment running on their TV all day long, and it makes them angry.
You are right. It’s not healthy nor is it accurate. I wish these networks could be held responsible, but it’s opinions, not facts.
Sherry says
Good morning Laurel,
You are absolutely correct! I do turn on FOX for a few minutes occasionally. I can understand why, if you relied ONLY on FOX (and now Newsmax, Joe Rogan, Breitbart, etc.) for your understanding of the world, you would not only be misinformed, you would be “radicalized”.
Indoctrinated into the belief that our democratic government is allowing non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christen people to “take over” the United States. Murdoch has played the “long game”. The FOX commentators are wily in their deceptions. They have, over the years, broken down the morality of their watchers.
Lying/racism/homophobia/adultery/fraud/bribery/ is now OK, if it serves what they perceive to be the greater good. Meanwhile, “over education”/believing in science/immigration/being poor/needing any kind of helping hand/being a person of color/being gay/ being a strong woman/not being Christian/ not having children/seeking joy and laughing . . . and on and on. . . all those things are bad. . . because our government is bad and our country is bad. Those “libertards” have been raised the wrong way and only trump can fix it.
I have cousins in Florida who are “radicalized”. They are not bad people, just “victims” of Rupert Murdoch’s long termed campaign to create a fascistic movement towards dictatorship. They passionately resist “FACTS” unless they saw it on FOX. I have a cousin who said I was “going to hell” because I’m not Christian. She received no satisfaction from me because I responded “that’s OK, because I don’t believe in hell, but of course it’s fine if she does and if it gives her comfort”. Even that response made her extremely angry. That is the part I don’t understand. . . and, so in my compassion, I see her as a victim of radicalization.
There are those who comment here that I consider to be extremely radicalized and toxic. For me, my time is too treasured and valuable to spend any of it trying to create a “Fact Based” commentary to offset their indoctrinated diatribes/nonsense.
Sherry says
Dear Laurel,
I forgot to say that I really admire those, especially you, Jim, Skibum, and Joe D who do take the time to “try” and reason with those who have been indoctrinated. Especially those who apparently still have the ability to “think” but are still completely ruled by their psychological extreme right winged indoctrination. I sincerely hope you can (as my mother would say) “talk some sense into them”. There is tremendous honor in “trying”!
I disagree with the notion that intellectual rigor is all that is needed to gain credibility in these discussions. For me, principals such as honesty, ethics and integrity are fundamental to any kind of credibility. For what is intellect without the character to utilize it wisely and honorably?
Sherry says
that is “principles”. . . EEK! I really need to start reading over my comments before clicking on “post comment”. . . LOL! Sorry all!
Laurel says
Sherry: I’m afraid what is really needed is intervention. Professionals would have to grab a Trumper and whisk the individual away for a deprogramming. My comments here cannot infiltrate a cult.
Sherry says
That is “hole”. . . sorry. . . it’s way too early in CA on this Saturday morning.