Americans’ views on free speech are constantly changing. One of those moments was during protests at U.S. universities against the war between Israel and Hamas. As scholars who study free speech and public opinion, we wanted to find out what happened and why.
The Supreme Court itself declared as recently as 1989 that the “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 objectionable.”
For years, conservative politicians and commentators have warned that universities do not adequately protect free speech. Yet when demonstrations have occurred, the same people have complained that the protests are filled with anti-Semitic hate speech. Leading conservatives have declared that the demonstrations must be banned and ended, with violence if necessary.
Liberals made a similar about-face, with many of them supporting greater regulation of hate speech against minority groups. But during protests on campus, they warned that the crackdown by university administrators, state officials and police violated protesters’ freedom of speech.
As researchers on Vanderbilt University’s Unity and American Democracy and The Future of Free Speech project, we wanted to find out where Americans stand. We were inspired by a November 1939 survey in which 3,500 Americans answered questions about free speech. In June 2024, we asked 1,000 Americans the same questions.
From the abstract to the concrete
We found that the vast majority of Americans – then and now – believe that freedom of speech is a prerequisite for democracy. At least in the abstract.
However, as the questions become more specific, their support wanes.
Only about half of respondents in the 1939 and 2024 polls agreed that anyone in America should be allowed to speak on any topic at any time. The rest believed that some speech—or certain topics or speakers—should be banned.
This pattern is not unique to the U.S. A 2021 survey of 33 countries by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank based at Vanderbilt, found similarly high levels of support for free speech in general across all countries, but lower levels of support overall for specific speech that offends minority groups or religious beliefs.
We conducted surveys in March and June 2024 to ask which topics or speakers should be excluded. We thought that the public’s desire for free speech might have waned in the wake of the unrest on campus. We found the opposite.
When asked whether seven people with very different views should have their say, the proportion who answered “yes” increased between March and June. Some of the differences were within the polls’ margin of error, but it is still notable that they all trended in the same direction.
While these polls show a slight increase in desire for free speech, they still fit the general contradiction: Large majorities of Americans passionately defend free speech as a cornerstone of democracy. But fewer of them support free speech when it comes to certain controversial speakers or issues.
1. Change no a la carte menu
Our polling found that the public has a nuanced view of freedom of speech. For example, in our June 2024 poll, we added some additional categories of potential speakers to the list we asked about in March. More respondents felt comfortable with a pro-Palestinian speaker than with a Hamas leader, and with a scientist who believes IQ varies by race than with an outspoken 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 contradicts the purpose of the First Amendment, which is to protect unpopular speech. The amendment was explicitly 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 logic and principles underlying free speech.
In 2020, a Knight Foundation poll found that members of both political parties reject speech that goes against their values or beliefs.
Later polls, including those conducted by other organizations, came to more concrete results: For example, Democrats were more willing to support censoring racist hate speech or false information about vaccines.
And Republicans opposed drag shows and kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.
A national poll commissioned by The New York Times and Siena College in February 2022 found that 30% of Americans believe that “sometimes we need to stop undemocratic, bigoted, or simply untrue speech.”
A return to basics
With the 2024 election approaching and Americans becoming increasingly polarized, some people may want only those who agree with them to have their say.
But a true commitment to the basic principles of free speech requires that people make room for the expression of controversial and even offensive views.
History shows that censoring hateful ideas is often a cure worse than the disease itself: it deepens social divisions. James Madison, one of the main authors of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, wrote in 1800:
“A certain amount of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of all things… it is better to allow some of its harmful branches to grow luxuriantly than to impair by pruning the vitality of those which bear the proper fruit.”
The Founding Fathers knew that respect for different viewpoints and the ability to express those views – whether good, bad or harmful – in public are essential to a healthy democracy.
John Geer is senior advisor to the chancellor, director of the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy, and co-director of the Vanderbilt Poll at Vanderbilt University. Jacob Mchangama is research professor of political science and executive director of The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
