40% Millennials Okay Limiting Free Speech

#1

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
67,686
Likes
55,162
#1
Scary

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities | Pew Research Center

We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
No surprise here. Tone policing is becoming a painfully prevalent trend in discourse, and not only on social media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#10
#10
#13
#13
Nearly twice as many Democrats say the government should be able to stop speech against minorities (35%) compared with Republicans (18%).

Is it okay for the government to restrict what you can or can not say in public?

Republicans

8OdMC8o.gif


Democrats

oh_yeah_obama.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14
#14
I do not believe in limiting speech because what is said is offensive. Further, I don't see it gaining traction without an amendment to the Constitution which ain't gonna happen.

That said, speaking freely and spewing forth hateful or offensive speech isn't free. The costs of voicing an opinion is likely to get more expensive in the future as the near instant spread of information makes it easier to mobilize the masses. This I have no issue with. Just as it is your right to make offensive comments it is society's right to ostracize you for those comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#15
#15
Troubling.

Wondering how the bar graph would look if you changed the question? What would millenials say if you broadly asked "is it OK to limit free speech?" How would that answer compare to what boomers would have said in the 60s? etc. What would boomers be saying now if you asked them if it's OK to say f*** on TV?

I think censorship of public airwaves is a different issue.

you don't have a Constitutional right to use broadcast media and it's well established practice to regulate said media.
 
#17
#17
Because the ability to call someone a ****** in public isn't exactly the core of free speech.

Ah but that word is just one of many things considered "offensive". To me the operative word is offensive as in someone will be offended by what you say and if they are a minority the government can stop you (ie. criminally punish you) for offending someone.

That is at the core of the first amendment
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#18
#18
I do not believe in limiting speech because what is said is offensive. Further, I don't see it gaining traction without an amendment to the Constitution which ain't gonna happen.

That said, speaking freely and spewing forth hateful or offensive speech isn't free. The costs of voicing an opinion is likely to get more expensive in the future as the near instant spread of information makes it easier to mobilize the masses. This I have no issue with. Just as it is your right to make offensive comments it is society's right to ostracize you for those comments.

My complaint here is that there is no arbiter of offensive and we see many cases where the bar is very low.

So yes there are consequences to speech but we certainly have gotten the consequences way out of whack with the perceived offense.

It is a tactic that silences debate and accordingly flies in the face of the ideal of the First Amendment.
 
#19
#19
There should be a law preventing those 40% of millennials from saying that, imo.
 
#21
#21
My complaint here is that there is no arbiter of offensive and we see many cases where the bar is very low.

So yes there are consequences to speech but we certainly have gotten the consequences way out of whack with the perceived offense.

It is a tactic that silences debate and accordingly flies in the face of the ideal of the First Amendment.

I disagree. You can exercise free speech without fear that the government can punish, but days of spewing hate with consequence are over. Has their been an over correction? Probably, but I imagine it will correct itself.
 
#22
#22
I disagree. You can exercise free speech without fear that the government can punish, but days of spewing hate with consequence are over. Has their been an over correction? Probably, but I imagine it will correct itself.

I'm not talking about spewing hate.

I'm talking about stating opinions and being accused of those opinions being deemed offensive by someone or some group.

If I made statements about the tactics of BLM I open myself up to being accused of offensive speech to that group. In my current job if I did that I risk any manner of sanctions.

If I question why AA students at Missouri want a space where no white students are allowed and suggest that sounds like segregation there are people who would consider my speech offensive.

It's not about freedom to say the "n-word" or spouting KKK philosophy. It's about the scrubbing of all speech that could possibly be considered offensive.
 
#23
#23
And people really think the republicans still have a chance in 2016?

Somehow this issue most often becomes one revolving around liberals and minorities, but I've seen examples of Republican social conservatives attempting to limit First Amendment rights as well.

Heck, we had Crazy Camp and his Crazy Campers trying to hijack the First Amendment and place strictures on teachers/administrators/staff ability to use terms like "gay" and "homosexual" in public schools in East Tennessee.

Now, what's the difference between that and the poll? I'd even wager that there are several posters on this very forum who will rail against Millennials in this poll but who supported or would have supported (if privy) Crazy Camp's attempt to bar the First Amendment from public schools.

Let's be honest with ourselves here: a great deal of strong social conservatives and of strong social liberals do not believe in the First Amendment. They only believe in manipulating it for social advantage, then curtailing it when it is not advantageous.

The real supporters of free speech in this country are common sense conservatives and liberals as well as our radical centrists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
I'm not talking about spewing hate.

I'm talking about stating opinions and being accused of those opinions being deemed offensive by someone or some group.

If I made statements about the tactics of BLM I open myself up to being accused of offensive speech to that group. In my current job if I did that I risk any manner of sanctions.

If I question why AA students at Missouri want a space where no white students are allowed and suggest that sounds like segregation there are people who would consider my speech offensive.

It's not about freedom to say the "n-word" or spouting KKK philosophy. It's about the scrubbing of all speech that could possibly be considered offensive.

You're replying to too many people that aren't understanding this. That's what these "Safe Spaces" are now, that's what professors are limiting in their classrooms, it's not people standing up and calling black people the n-word or other people words similar to that, it's simply saying things that others don't agree with. Saying things people "Feel" are offensive. It doesn't have to be. Someone just has to find whatever you said offensive and you're done. No doubt that's what the kids in the poll are considering.

It's f'n ridiculous.
 

VN Store



Back
Top