Polling on Free Speech in the US

[Laika]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

 

[Sunstone]

Advocating for violence should not be allowed, in my opinion.

Perhaps also revealing names -- as that could lead to harassment and violence.

 

[Mister Silver]

I am all for free speech.

It does not mean, however, that I will be tolerant of someone's intolerant speech.

 

[YmirGF]

Advocating for violence should not be allowed, in my opinion.

That would get you arrested in Canada (or at least detained).

In regards to the OP, I'm more inclined to allow ANY kind of speech that does not go against the Hate Speech law of Canada. It's one of the few areas our lawmakers nailed pretty well. In short, do not advocate the use of violence against ANY identifiable group or incite violence (by others) against said group(s). Other than that, say whatever you like.

Reality update: Now, as it stands, one might want to think twice before they offer anything remotely approaching criticism of Islam lest one be judged by the court of public opinion as suffering from the effects of Islamophobia.

 

[Kemosloby]

All those are fine but speakers who use polls are very annoying.

 

[Polymath257]

All should be allowed to speak. Whether they should have been invited in the first place is another question. Not all ideas deserve a forum provided by a university.

 

[Quetzal]

That would get you arrested in Canada (or at least detained).

Let me know when you have a vacant couch. I can cook and clean! (Not very well, you see. But I can, theoretically, do it.)

 

[Quintessence]

As someone who works at a university, I vote no for all of them. The ideas espoused in all cases are counter to the mission of the university, and lately there's been a push to focus more on the diversity/inclusivity aspects of our institution. This is, of course, assuming those little soundbytes are the thesis of the presentation. There have been a number of lectures on controversial topics here, and I expect them to continue. But a presentation whose sole purpose is to reinforce various prejudices? No, it wouldn't fly.

 

[Jesster]

Should I be allowed to speak in front of a college audience? I have words. "Banana" and "deracinate" are two examples of those words.

 

[Nous]

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

Frankly, I just can't imagine the first 2 speakers being invited to speak at a university--in both cases those messages could incite violence.

In the other cases, the messages seem to be mostly distasteful or stupid. If I were a politically inspired person (which I never have been), I might protest some of those speakers in some civil way--such as signing an uninvite letter. Other than that, I'm sure my indifference will win the day.

 

[Quintessence]

Frankly, I just can't imagine the first 2 speakers being invited to speak at a university--in both cases those messages could incite violence.

Yes, you're spot on - they wouldn't. The first topic would probably be grounds for lawsuits or other sorts of investigations that no public institution wants to get involved with.

The second topic? Honestly, I find that scenario implausible to begin with. For a speaker to have the names, they'd have to be given info by a university employee. Student information is private and handing it out like that violates federal laws governing student information (FERPA to be precise). Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, student records don't include immigration status (ours don't) so this "list" would basically be created by fingering anyone who isn't caucasian (as we do track ethnicity). The employee responsible for violating FERPA would be fired and jailed, and the speaker probably would be too for being complicit in the act.

 

[sun rise]

The link itself had a couple of to me more interesting tidbits. First the overall question itself and a conclusion:

Would you say that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people; or that government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech against certain groups in public?

(and)

An under-appreciated feature of the First Amendment is that even as it assures that almost everyone will hear that which offends them, it spares the country lots of thorny policy fights over speech and expression that would divide an already-polarized country deeply along partisan and racial lines.

 

[Quetzal]

The ideas espoused in all cases are counter to the mission of the university

This is important. I also work on a college campus. Universities have every right to dictate what happens on their campuses. This isn't a violation on the freedom of speech, it is the owner of the building/property saying you are not welcome here. Two different things.

 

[Quintessence]

This is important. I also work on a college campus. Universities have every right to dictate what happens on their campuses. This isn't a violation on the freedom of speech, it is the owner of the building/property saying you are not welcome here. Two different things.

There are also other venues that we have where these speakers could spread their word, so to speak. I don't imagine any presenter with these topics as a thesis being invited to be a presenter for a lecture series. I do imagine (and it has happened and will happen again) these speakers setting up a space on central campus to harass (pardon... "educate") passers by.

 

[David1967]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

I think free speech applies to even things we may not like to hear or agree with. However , I draw the line against anyone who advocates for violent protests. That is not a protest, its a riot.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I dislike the messages listed here. Most of the people who claim that this information is fact are usually either older conservatives or decidedly misinformed. As for advocation if such-and-such, it's biased and generally unfavored by the general populace on account of their privacy and safety. However, free speech is a useful tool that we can use to adjust factors such as freedom of education. I don't think hateful opinions should be blotted out, they're either ignored or shunned by many people anyway. It's rarely effective to limit free speech or to make drastic attempts to change ones opinions.

 

[Nakosis]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

I'm of the mind that anyone should be free to speak their mind. Especially since it's better IMO to hear it directly from the horse's mouth.

A lot of times you get a biased narrative of what was actually said.

Still it seems a lot of folks these days can be greatly influenced by mere words. Perhaps they no longer teach critical thinking at these colleges.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)

That's where I draw the line; advocating violence, to me at least, seems self explanatory, and the illegal immigrants being an issue of privacy and safety. I can't think of any other reason to do such a thing other than to attempt to stir up a "witch hunt" against them.

In regards to the OP, I'm more inclined to allow ANY kind of speech that does not go against the Hate Speech law of Canada. It's one of the few areas our lawmakers nailed pretty well. In short, do not advocate the use of violence against ANY identifiable group or incite violence (by others) against said group(s). Other than that, say whatever you like.

My first ""philosophy teacher""--a hardcore Christian Conservative who had no business teaching philosophy--she actually mentioned how such a thing is a bad thing just because you can go to jail just over saying things, including some of the things she said in class. Because, ya know, apparently words aren't actions and words, though having the potential to have real world consequences, just should be subject to legal consequences even if they do lead to a violent protest and violence against a certain group.

Reality update: Now, as it stands, one might want to think twice before they offer anything remotely approaching criticism of Islam lest one be judged by the court of public opinion as suffering from the effects of Islamophobia.

I'd say someone has to be the first one to jump in the pool, but it seems more those already in the pool need more people to join with them. And history is filled with plenty of examples were speaking truth against beliefs and faith and feelings is filled with slings and arrows against those speaking truth, sometimes metaphorically while sometimes literally.

 

[leibowde84]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

Some of these speakers wouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment, which is a very good thing. Inciting people to violence is not protected.

When it comes to naming illegal immigrants, I don't think it is a free-speech issue. It is an issue with protecting the safety of students. The school should not invite the speaker, as they could be doing real harm to their students. I know a good number of undocumented immigrants who are extremely intelligent, hard-working, productive members of our society who contribute quite a bit. Their lives would be unduly harmed by being ousted, so I would certainly not want that speaker to show up. People complain that they are breaking the law, but who doesn't break the law now and then? Should everyone who smokes pot be named publicly? Should everyone who speeds in their car be ousted? Of course not. If ICE catches them, well, that is too bad. But, I think our country as a whole would be severely harmed if every undocumented immigrant left. So, maybe I'm a bit biased.

Personally, I think holocaust deniers should not be protected. Their dishonest, fraudulent claims do a great deal of damage and encourage racism to a significant degree. To me, it creates the same kind of damage as inciting violence; rather it incites intolerable hatred based on completely unsubstantiated claims. But, if one did show up at my school, I would want them to speak so I could attend and throw tomatoes at him/her ... and maybe worse. In very real way, holocaust deniers do incite violence.

 

[pearl]

At what point does advocating violence become the equivalent to 'falsely shouting fire' in a crowded theater'?