Forty Percent of Millennials Favor Censorship of Offensive Speech By Government

Freedom_of_SpeechWe have long discussed the rapid decline of free speech protections in the West. I have long argued that the West appears to have fallen out of love with free speech, which is more often viewed as a rising scourge rather than a defining value in some countries. A recent poll of the Pew Research Center shows just how many people we have lost to those calling for greater censorship and criminalization of speech. It is not surprisingly more prevalent with younger age groups, though Democrats are almost twice as likely favor censorship that Republicans. The largest (and most alarming) group is the millennials — 40% of whom favor government censorship of speech offensive to minority groups.

Thirty-five percent of Democrats supported such bans as opposed to 18 percent of Republicans.

The least likely to support censorship were people who have lived long enough to know the dangers — only 21 percent of those 70 and older supported such censorship. The numbers go down by age (and experience).

The figures on Democrats is particularly disappointing. Democrats once rallied around free speech values in organizing campuses and protests in the 60s. Those baby boomers now appear to have acquired a taste for censorship and speech regulation.

It is good to know that some 58 percent of millennials have not fallen for the siren’s call of censorship. However, these numbers appear to be rising. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have even seen comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).

From the growing free speech regulations on campuses to the demands for the expansion of hate crimes, we are seeing the early signs of the taste for censorship that appeared in Europe years ago. Once people start to censor speech, they develop an insatiable appetite for censorship and criminalization of speech.

Here is the Pew Report.

51 thoughts on “Forty Percent of Millennials Favor Censorship of Offensive Speech By Government”

  1. Chipkelly….I don’t think that “current” generations, or the previous 2-3 generations who are still drawing breath, have been constrained in the expreesion of free speech.
    The fact that there appears to be a generational difference of opinion on the importance of free speech is troubling. The full ramifications and impact of stifling free speech would most likely fall on any generation(s) who view 1st Amendment protections as unimportant.
    I actually have a far greater concern about SCOTUS’ move to trash 4th Amendment protections, but I’ll save that for later.
    (Everrett Dirksen was a prominent U.S. Senator, and the father-in-law of Sen. Howard Baker. Baker recalled how he gave a lengthy speech upon his entance to Congress.
    Baker was self-depricating in an interview years later, recognising that his speech was much too long.
    He was anxious to know Sen. Dirksen’s opinion of the speech… classic Dirksen style, he told Baker that the speech was OK, but that he “should allow himself the luxury of an unexpressed thought”.
    My unusually high number of posted comments today reminded me what Dirksen said.

  2. More propaganda. This site can’t get enough of itself.

    as if your generation carried the mantle of free speech.

    What the hell did you do during Iraq?

    Even free speech “advocates” like Greenwald showed mild support.

    Give me a break.

    Millennials are the next generation of American society, so as a proud patriot you shouldn’t be so concerned with making yourself and other older males feel proud.

  3. A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.

    My “judge” threatened to incarcerate me if i didn’t sign a release for my medical records. When challenged, later, he lied and claimed he never said that. I have the court produced CD that proves otherwise. Additionally, because of Federal Regs, my medical records were off-limits, but he wouldn’t let me speak. He was busy calling me a criminal. It was a civil case.

  4. Now why doesn’t that surprise me? Stick to judicial Canons when it suits. Otherwise, let judges indulge in corruption. It is ok. No big deal. Justice is relative; it is a frame of mind. We can’t eliminate all corruption within the judiciary, so let it go man.

    Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence
    in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges
    depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be
    independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code.
    Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of
    the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the
    judiciary and injures our system of government under law

    Of course, “Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution.” So, all the Canons amount to nothing? Yes siree Bob!

    A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES (and when he doesn’t, consistently, don’t worry, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. Not a lawyer in the United States willing to pursue a judge guilty of egregious violations of the Canons. IOW, they have carte blanche.

    “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, (what reasonable inquiry is permitted by a judge under scrutiny for his hidden sins?) would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct.”

    Bologna. What a joke, a disgrace. What a hypocritical attempt to try to present an air of legitimacy to the system for holding judges accountable. No one takes these admonitions seriously. No public debate on these critical rules takes place. Judges consistently hide their biases and their hatred for particular litigants by controlling what is entered into the record. The average citizen has no one to turn to when judges wipe their feet on the integrity of the process to find justice. Not one lawyer is willing to take on this total and utter collapse of this once revered institution. Trust me, everyone of them knows full well what goes on. We are “hanging in the balance of the reality of man”, Dylan wrote.

    Who would like to see example after example of documented, egregious misconduct, anyone?

    Even someone as solid and upstanding as Jon Turley does nothing. We are in big trouble, my friends. Big big, big trouble.

  5. Put them all to work in a retail business and they will see what their fellow man is like!

Comments are closed.