“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — United States Bill of Rights 1791
The concept of free speech dates to Ancient Greece in the fifth century BC and was codified in America’s founding documents with the ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. The 45-word First Amendment prohibited Congress from “abridging freedom of speech, or of the press,” a prohibition that has incorporate all levels of government across all of the states.
James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights (the first ten constitutional amendments), initially penned a more forceful rendition of the First Amendment, one that articulated its fundamental rationale: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
However, a recent poll on censorship conducted by RealClear Opinion Research finds that, while most Americans express support for free speech, there are demographic and partisan differences that are very troubling to see. For example, the poll, directed by Spencer Kimball, finds that Democrats exhibit a greater inclination toward government regulation when it comes to free speech, displaying a tendency to grant more authority to the state than do Republicans.
Kimball also found that younger generations, particularly Millennials and Gen-Z, display more openness to government censorship. Forty-two percent of individuals under thirty prioritize government protection of national security over safeguarding the right to free expression. “National security” is a well-known dog whistle for right-wing speech. The poll also found men were much more likely than women to support the right to free speech.
However, the most significant divide in perspectives on free expression remains between Democrats and Republicans. On this issue, contrary to the popular view that Republicans are more authoritarian in spirit than Democrats, Republicans are in fact much more supportive of free speech, while Democrats exhibit a worrying proclivity for government regulation.
The report frames this in terms of a change in liberalism, since Democrats have not been in the past as eager to endorse censorship. But this is the wrong albeit typical way to put this. Liberalism is a system of norms and values. The system doesn’t change over time. Liberalism doesn’t become whatever those who claim to be liberal but deviate from its principles become. Rather people and parties are either liberal or illiberal, i.e., authoritarian, in which case they falsely claim to be liberal.
The report tells us that, traditionally, those who have identified as liberal in the United States have staunchly opposed censorship, whether imposed by the government or corporations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded in 1920 to champion and defend free expression. This ideal was a core tenet of liberal thought, legal frameworks, and jurisprudence throughout much of the 20th century.
However, times have changed, and the recent RealClear Opinion Research poll reflects a gradual shift on the left regarding free expression. What they actually mean here is that Democrats have moved from liberal to progressive. While liberalism is a left-wing politics, in that seeks to emancipate the individual from state control, progressivism is a statist political philosophy and, as such, form of a rightwing politics.
The numbers are startling. Almost three-quarters of Republicans (74 percent) believe that speech should be legal under any circumstances, while only a little more than half of Democrats (53 percent) agree. More than a third of Democratic voters (34%) believe that Americans have “too much freedom,” compared to only one our of seven Republicans (14.6 percent). Nearly half (46 percent) of Republicans feel that Americans have too little freedom, while only roughly one-fifth (22 percent) of Democrats share this sentiment. A majority of Democrats (52 percent) approve of government censoring social media content for national security purposes, while only one-third of Republicans endorse this approach. Again, among Democrats, “national security” is a dog whistle for right-wing speech.
Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31 percent of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51 percent of Republicans. Democrats are notably more inclined to believe that the government should limit “hateful” social media posts (75 percent), whereas Republicans are divided (50 percent) in favor of government intervention. Democrats are more willing than Republicans to support the restriction of free speech rights for political extremists. In this, Republican views don’t vary by content. GOP voters who favor censorship do so whether the content is associated with the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, or the Communist Party.
These findings are consistent with a broader shift in so-called Democrat attitudes towards free expression, as documented in a study by Ruth Appel and Jennifer Pan of Stanford and Margaret Roberts of the University of California, San Diego. Their study, “Partisan Conflict Over Content Moderation Is More Than Disagreement about Facts,” examined Democrats’ greater willingness to embrace censorship of online content. Their research indicates thatDemocrats are increasingly willing to embrace online content censorship and that their desire to do so is often driven by partisan motives. (The RealClear Report distorts the paper by substituting the word “liberal” for Democrat.)
“Even when Republicans acknowledge that the content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to advocate for its removal and more than twice as likely to view removal as a form of censorship,” the authors find. In essence, Democrats were more likely to apply situational ethics, excusing misinformation that benefited their side, while most Republicans did not differentiate based on the direction of the false information.
In 2017, a thorough survey conducted by the Cato Institute revealed a comparable pattern. When asked a range of questions about which speakers should be prohibited from college campuses, Democrats tended to make their decisions based on the political orientation of the speaker, often advocating for the removal of conservative voices but not liberal ones. In contrast, Republicans displayed a more cautious approach towards the idea of censorship as a whole. The Cato study also uncovered that, even in situations where one might anticipate Republicans to be more concerned, they were still less inclined than Democrats to endorse the removal of speakers.
While fluctuations in support for the First Amendment have occurred over the centuries, the current era stands out due to the fervent advocacy for, and pursuit of, censorship by mainstream media figures, including politicians and journalists who align with different ideologies. The contemporary landscape demonstrates a significant departure from historical liberal principles emphasizing free expression, and these shifts are reflected in the RealClear Opinion Research poll, which confirm the findings of other major studies.
Now you know why Democrats are so eager to portray Republicans as the censors. They portray the effort to remove pornography from public school classrooms and public libraries as “book banning.” Keeping pornography out of public schools and libraries is not book banning. Preventing the sexualization of children is not censorship. It is child safeguarding. The hypocrisy is actually on the progressive side. Who cancelled Dr. Seuss? Who desires the removal from bookshelves and the censorship of great works such as those by Mark Twain and Harper Lee? (See Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. Who Wants to See Cartoons of Muhammad Anyway?)
I discuss these issues at length in several essays. In addition to the above, see, for example, The Threat of Compelled Speech to Free and Open Societies; Refining the Art and Science of Propaganda in an Era of Popular Doubt and Questioning; Science Politics at the University of Wisconsin—Deliberate Ignorance About the State of Cognitive Liberty and Viewpoint Diversity on College Campuses; Death of the Traditional Intellectual: The Progressive Corruption of US Colleges and Universities; The Rules of Inclusion Represent the Totalitarian Desire to Punish Heretics and Infidel; Some Notes on Free Speech, What It is, and What Constitutes Justifiable Restrictions of It; NIH and the Tyranny of Compelled Speech; The University Cannot Punish Me for My Speech Beyond the University; My Right to My Views is Your Right to Yours.
* * *
In free speech related news, Roger Waters, one of the co-founders of Pink Floyd and their principle lyricist, faced a ban from addressing the University of Pennsylvania campus due to accusations of anti-Semitism stemming from his attire at a Berlin concert, which featured Nazi-inspired uniforms and imagery. (I debunked that story in a June essay Authoritarianism and Genocide in Historical Comparisons.) The songwriter had been scheduled to participate in a panel discussion as part of the Palestine Writes Literature Festival on Saturday. However, upon arriving in Pennsylvania, he took to Instagram to reveal that he had been informed he would now be participating via Zoom instead.
“I was supposed to be taking part in a panel in a couple hours time this afternoon, but I’ve been told I’m not allowed into the Irving Arena because they made arrangements for me to attend the panel via Zoom,” Waters recounted. “And the fact that I came here all the way to be present, because I care deeply about the issues that are being discussed, apparently cuts no ice with campus police or whoever it is.” Water’s correctly observed, “If they can get you thinking and talking about anti-Semitism, then you won’t be thinking about the fact that Palestinians have no human rights in the occupied territories.” He then continued in third person: “This is what we should be talking about in the Daily Pennsylvanian, not whether Roger Waters is an anti-Semite or not.”
Waters is the victim of two forms of idea suppressions. First, that he is prevented from appearing in person is a form of constraining the impact of his words. Anybody who has appeared at an event via remote transmission is well aware of the difficulty it presents in conveying ideas in the give and take of debate. Second, he is the victim of poisoning the well, a rhetorical device and logical fallacy that involves discrediting an argument, claim, or person by presenting negative information about them before they have had a chance to make their case or argument. The goal is to prejudice the audience or listener against the person or argument in question before they even have the chance to present their perspective.
freedom and reason 