Main Edition
US
FR
August 1, 2024 - 8:20pm
More than half of Americans believe the First Amendment goes “too far” in guaranteeing free speech, according to new polling from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
In total, 53% of Americans, including 61% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans, believe the First Amendment goes too far. About 40% at least somewhat trust the Government to determine which speech is problematic, joined by about 25% who trust the Government “a little” on this front.
Under the First Amendment, the US has more robust free speech rights than other Western nations, with Americans free to make offensive and inflammatory comments that would be banned in much of Europe without Government penalty. Germany’s ban on Holocaust denial, and the UK’s criminal penalties for obscene and offensive social media posts, would both be unconstitutional in the US. These rights, however, are not universally celebrated by Americans.
Left-wing individuals and organisations have been cited as being more responsible for opposing free speech in the past decade, pushing for the deplatforming of conservative speakers on college campuses and leading pressure campaigns to have conservatives fired from their jobs. This includes the resignation of Mozilla Firefox co-founder Brendan Eich in 2014, who had previously donated to a California ballot initiative which opposed same-sex marriage, a moment often cited as the beginning of contemporary cancel culture. More recently, reporters have released the names and personal information of anonymous Right-wing social media influencers, and elected Democrats have suggested journalists who covered the Twitter Files story posed a danger to the country.
Elements of the Right, however, have also been softening on their commitment to free speech. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley explicitly cited anti-Israel content as a motivating factor for banning TikTok last year, a violation of the principle that Government restrictions can’t be content-based. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbot similarly called for a crackdown on campus protesters in the state on the basis of alleged antisemitism, rather than a content-neutral application of anti-trespassing laws.
“Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties,” Fire Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens said in a press release. “Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator’s fantasy.”
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.
SubscribeThe main problem with any freedom is that it goes hand in hand with responsibility.
I wish they would ask them if they want to be slaves at the same time.
Plenty of people want to restrict other people’s right to speak but there are not many who want to restrict their own right.
As Chomsky said: if you’re in favor of freedom of speech it’s precisely for views you despise. Otherwise every tyrant in history was in favor of free speech.
As for offensive speech, we can establish right away that there’s always someone offended by almost anything. I would say it’s not up to the state to decide who has a right to be offended and who is not.
More than half of Americans believe the First Amendment goes “too far” in guaranteeing free speech
Obviously these should be the first people we censor.
We are a different matter 🙂
” “Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties,” Fire Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens said in a press release. “Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator’s fantasy.” ”
Well yes, but this represents an insight by Sean Stevens about wider society, not about the people who say this. The people who say this wish other people had fewer civil liberties, not themselves. They are just too stupid to understand that it is impossible to turn this into a general principle without it biting themselves in the arse in due course.
“…In due course.”
This brings to mind one of the oddest phenomenon of our political sh*t show. Everyone seems to have lost the ability to foresee even the most obvious near-future blowbacks of their own actions.
For instance, chasing Trump in and out of one court after another in a freely admitted attempt at keeping him out of the White House. Now, of course, this is likely to become the new normal. A pox on all of us.
And, predictably, it backfired spectacularly.
Or the continued devotion to NetZero, well after it’s been demonstrated that the math simply doesn’t work.
Madness, madness.
Social engineering always results in the opposite of what is supposedly intended. The UK’s welfare state, and the US Great Society, to remedy inequalities and provide a safety net for the poorest, have both resulted in a dependency culture where individual and parental responsibilities have been abandoned, and children are more unequal, poorer, and more disadvantaged than before. Blair’s opening the doors to uncontrolled immigration to guarantee a populace beholden to Labour alienated its core electorate, and betrayed the party’s raison d’etre. There are dozens more examples; the law of unintended consequences.
I disagree completely about government sponsored social welfare. It would be beastly to not at least try to help. Empathy and charity are pillars of Western civilization. Even if we can’t put an end to poverty we’re duty bound to try.
All good things in moderation.
Applies also to welfare state.
Assistance to the vulnerable is a must for any civilised society, but this assistance should be well thought-out and very well targeted. This is necessary, not least, in order to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to those who really need them.
It’s amazing that the 1st Amendment (1A) has survived so long actually. The normal situation in most places throughout history is that speech and, consequently thought, are tightly circumscribed. Even 1A has limits on direct incitement. (time and place) but it always seemed to me the best thing about America. That ultimately you could defend yourself against officialdom and call them out. But if even this beacon is to be sut down then what has America got left.
George Washington, Address to the officers of the army, March 15, 1783
We see in the soft totalitarianism state that in the UK what happens with strong protection of free speech. Police show up at your door to intimidate dissidents.
Am I correct in saying that “In total, 53% of Americans, including 61% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans, believe the First Amendment goes too far.” is a barefaced lie? Those percentages are of those polled and then extrapolated to cover the rest of the population. A model. Would it not also depend on the type, location and demographic of those polled which could skew the poll in the way it was intended? Serious question from an ignoramus.
Err, yes this is what’s polling and social surveys actually are! They are usually pretty reliable guides to public opinion. How on the whole called general elections correctly. You take a statistically representative sample perhaps stratified by different social groups race etc removing biases far as you can. Of course if you just ask a party of a group of MAGA Republicans or BLM activists an extrapolate from that it will be wildly unrepresentative. But is ought to be common wisdom to any vaguely intelligent person!
To use the term “bare faced lie” about using statistical techniques to understand societies a ludicrous hyperbole.
What would be interesting is whether your extreme reaction to polling depends on the subject in question. People tend to be very inconsistent about applying principles generally, having an entirely different view on free on whether they are sympathetic or not to the cause. Many Republicans have indeed been opposing the free speech and cancellation of people they don’t like after opposing this vigorously for years when he was the other side mostly doing it.
Not a dictator’s fantasy, a dictator’s dream. A fantasy never comes true, a dream is an attainable goal. They, the wanna-be dictator’s are close. In my world, their dream is my nightmare.
In the name of so-called comity and unity, we destroy ourselves in order to comply. We become evil’s useful idiots and handmaids.
Sorry, that is inadvertently hilarious! I love the way certain people make their case by redefining words to suit themselves. I would say in this context that the words “fantasy” and “dream”, neither of which indicate true events that actually happen in the real world, mean exactly the same thing!.
As both new legislation, and various technological means to identify and control the population, are eminently achievable, as in China, neither term is exactly accurate here. But both are well known figures of speech.
just like “bans” on everything.. people alwasy want bans on things that do not affect them..
I’d be surprised if that’s accurate. It’s a YouGov poll ultimately. Panel polls have a history of producing ultra-totalitarian results due to how they are run and how the makeup of the panel changes over time. YouGov also did a poll where their panel said anyone who didn’t take a vaccine should be forced to by the police. The Daily Sceptic did an article at the time that showed the panel was heavily skewed and the weighting they do to try and fix it is known not to work outside the context of things like elections, where they have a ground truth.
Really, Americans take their personal comfort (i.e. not to be challenged on any intellectual level or having to do any serious thinking as a result) far too seriously. This rejection of the First Amendment is akin to the physical obesity that marks the majority of Americans….their comfort is their prime concern. Slouching towards……anyone?
This convinces me that Eric Hoffer’s True Believer needs to be required reading for everyone with U.S. citizenship.