Main Edition
US
FR
October 31, 2024 - 4:15pm
Four-fifths of Americans believe that speech can be a form of violence, according to a new poll.
As part of its quarterly Free Speech Index, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) — in collaboration with YouGov — surveyed 1,000 Americans about their views on free speech. Only 20% completely disagreed with the statement “words can be violence”, and a combined 80% of respondents said the statement at least “slightly” represented their thoughts on the matter. That figure includes 22% who said the statement reflects their thoughts “completely”.
Respondents were pessimistic about the current state of free speech in the US. Slightly more than half at least slightly believed the First Amendment goes too far in protecting free speech, and 64% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction on the issue. Fewer than half said they were not worried at all about losing their jobs as a result of something they’d said, and only 24% believed the right to freedom of speech was very or completely secure.
The survey also found low levels of support for several types of constitutionally protected speech. Only 37% said Americans definitely or probably should have the right to use profanity when speaking with elected officials, and only 55% said Americans should have a right to mock candidates for public office in parody videos. The latter question was inspired by a California law, which was recently blocked in court, banning political “deepfakes”.
These results track with prior polls’ findings that, while Americans strongly support free speech in the abstract, they’re sceptical about the specifics, particularly when it comes to controversial speech. For example, Kamala Harris’s running mate Tim Walz said in a vice-presidential debate at the start of this month that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech or disinformation — a statement US legal precedent does not support.
The idea that speech can constitute violence has flourished at universities in the past decade, and has been received positively in some corners of the media. Since 7 October last year, this has played out in the form of pushback against anti-Israel protesters in the name of combatting antisemitism. For instance, in March, Texas Governor Greg Abbot ordered universities to “update free speech policies to address the sharp rise in antisemitic speech”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is a personal and highly subjective observation I’m going to relate.
I’m a first wave Boomer, so this will identify a timeframe for my observation. I’m pretty much of a working class, first-in-family college type, with pretty much normal experiences of the era: sports, dating, beer drinking, etc. College sophisticated me, as much as was possible.
I want to emphasize that VERY MANY males of that era had similar experiences.
When I first read of speech being compared to violence a few years back, I was puzzled how anyone could make this linkage. Had they never played football? Had they never wrestled with siblings or gotten into shoving matches or fistfights as they grew up? If they had, I reasoned, they’d surely recognize that the two were in no way comparable. Speech might be descriptive of violence, but not violence itself, as I recognized the word.
Well, after exchanging with many interlocutors on various forums, I found that a) many who inflexibly linked speech to violence were female; and b) of the males, few had either played a sport in which physical contact was a major component–an end in itself–like wrestling, football, rugby, boxing, etc.
And fewer still seemed to have ever had a physical confrontation that included shoving or punching.
So I was left with the working conclusion that people who likened speech to violence had never directly experienced violence, which is one reason they do not apparently see the profound difference. To them, talking about an action and performing that action are pretty much the same thing. They also seemed to feel that using strong language was just as intimidating as being physically pushed around. They feel badly if they’re the target of such language, and they imagine it’s not different than being sucker-punched in a parking lot somewhere.
But it is.
Curious about the demographics of the 1000 polled.
Having been raised in NYC in the 60s and 70s, I can expound for these folks on what violence looks like, a little show and tell maybe?
Free speech is a basic human right. There is no right to gratuitously insult anyone, however” Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me” is a popular playground rhyme from many a childhood. Implicit in this is that words can only cause emotional distress if permitted to. True free speech should not be personalised by the speaker or their audience. No platforming someone who does not accept self chosen pronouns is nonsense.
There should be no limits on free speech except where incitement to break the law is clearly the intent. Any country prohibiting free speech should forfeit international recognition and international trade.
Very discouraging.
“Words are violence” – A perfect example of a left-wing totalitarian slogan. It’s simple, stupid, self evidently untrue and can be rhythmically chanted over and over again by the placard waving brain-dead.
I’m curious to know the sampling demographic of this poll. 1000 people is really very small and if it was conducted, say, in the environs of Berkeley or Portland then I’m not remotely surprised by the results.
Don’t be mindlessly abusive. Don’t you realise people will be held responsible for their words as well as their actions?
Especially in America, where personal responsibility a religion.
These surveys are so full of contradictions, by the time you get through them you might as well have not bothered for all the insight you get.
.’ Only 37% said Americans definitely or probably should have the right to use profanity when speaking with elected officials, and only 55% said Americans should have a right to mock candidates for public office in parody videos.’
‘Four-fifths of Americans believe that speech can be a form of violence, according to a new poll’
‘ These results track with prior polls’ findings that, while Americans strongly support free speech in the abstract’
So. They beleive in freedom of speech, but then they aren’t sure if swearing and mocking should be allowed, all the while simultaneously believing that speech can be violent.
You cannot believe in freedom of speech and then say that speech can be violent. As soon as you say that, you have to start defining which speech is violent, introduce a load of nonsense laws to curtail said violent speech, which therefore limits your right to freedom of speech in the first place.
Mind blowing levels of contradictions happening in some peoples heads.
“Free speech isn’t violence, it’s the best alternative to violence ever invented.”
Exactly.
If you believe in freedom of speech and that speech is violence, don’t you believe in freedom to be violent?
You don’t seem to understand personal responsibility at all.
Would you like to expand on that. That is a statement, not a fact. What are your basing your psychological assessment of me on.
That words can be violence is established law. The typical scenario is that in a relationship, one partner is physically violent, the other emotionally violent. Though our legal system is prejudiced against physical violence, it is accepted by courts that extreme emotional violence can excuse, to an extent, a physically violent reaction.
For this situation to apply, however, there has to be a power framework binding the partners together.
If you can walk away without cost, then speech is not violence.
“Established law”?
You must not live in the United States.
it is accepted by courts that extreme emotional violence can excuse, to an extent, a physically violent reaction.
Do you mean like domestic abuse, for instance, the years and years of verbal abuse which is emotional abuse?
“…Years and years of verbal abuse…”
You’re talking about that Champaign guy, aren’t you?
a combined 80% of respondents said the statement at least “slightly” represented their thoughts on the matter. That figure includes 22% who said the statement reflects their thoughts “completely”.
That headline is not correct. Why do you do this Unherd? 22% said they agree with the statement, “words can be violence”, completely. The article says that “only” 20% said the statement does not reflect their thoughts. The word “only” is Unherd’s. So why not make the headline 78% said they don’t believe in the statement, “words can be violence”, completely.
In the US freedom of speech is guaranteed by our good constitution not by miss guided majority opinion, thank god… What is concerning is that US leftists are intending to weaken the constitution (see the likes of the degenerate John Kerry).
Strengthen the Constitution according to most Americans.
“Speech can be a form of violence” is a typical slogan of the political side that calls their opponents nazis, garbage, deplorable, who should be arrested at all costs… just before calling for them to tune down the rhetoric…
In other words, both sides. It’s as bad as that.
Wait a minute… isn’t the phrase also “Silence Is Violence”? Therefore EVERYTHING is violence! Well it was a nice experiment while it lasted.
‘Silence is violence’ and the idea that some speech is violence are – taken together – a totalitarian way of forcing speech into an narrow channel in which silence or wrongspeak are not options.
A survey of a 1000 people, by the dubious YouGov, is not s poll I’d put faith in. I simply do not believe this and suspect those parting part in the poll were of the ‘progressive’, snowflakery, persuasion. This is summed up in the comment:
“The idea that speech can constitute violence has flourished at universities in the past decade, and has been received positively in some corners of the media” Hurty words are only voilent if the hearing it choose to believe it.
Kids should learn the old rhyme ‘stick and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me’
Don’t restrict the speech of antisemites and other assorted specimens. I would rather see them for what they are. Freedom of speech makes it harder for evil to hide.
Thank you, progressive controlled American schools, for spending decades refusing to teach children the fundamental truths of American democracy. It’s all coming together now, even as it all comes apart.
Speech is also the easiest means ever invented to excite violence. Witness the Jan 6 invasion of US Congress, and the shooting in a crowded pizzeria in Washington while keeping in mind very many instances of KKK violence in the past.
Words do hurt and have the potential to cause great damage, but I am not convinced that restricting freedom of speech is desirable. Not at any rate when a statement can be justified.
Insofar as the concept — ancient in the common law — is accepted, it is a form of violence, circumstances depending.
Well, when you hear some of the things said and how they are said, they would certainly count in this country as menacing behaviour for a start if not Hate Crime. My relatives there, on both sides, experience it as violence.
Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Ohio, Arizona, California, even Delaware.
That poll is worth a large pinch of salt.
Hate speech is a subjective term used by censors to justify their censorship.
There is a clear difference between saying you support Trump over ‘Chuckles’; versus saying ‘if you support Trump I will kill you.’
Not surprised, but it depends on the questions. 50 years ago you could go to jail for using the F word in public, now everyone uses it in basic daily communications. The free speech debate can be compared to Porn as the porn has become increasingly violent and exploring some really dark areas. So have the zealots who feel liberated my telling you go F yourself but don’t want to give you right to criticize them, you are a hater. We are screwed in America if this trend continues. Basically the Dem leaders are a combination of Fascist, Socialist, and Communists. They can tell you to F off but if you do the same thing to them, they will use their legal system to destroy you. It’s up to us to change that.