It seems pretty clear that the public opinion trends concerning freedom of expression are pointing in a more libertarian direction. We can see that in responses to questions regarding flag burning, hate speech, and indecent speech. The State of the First Amendment (SOFA) Survey has been asking questions related to these issues for a decade, and the results from the survey Stephen Ansolabehere and I conducted in July (with some questions on these topics added by my colleague Jamal Greene) seem consistent with responses on those surveys. [Please forgive some of the alignment problems in the tables below; novice blogger that I am, I cannot figure out how to make the columns line up.]
Our survey did not include a flag burning question but the issue is covered in Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. At the time of Texas v. Johnson (1989), between 64 and 78 percent of the population supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning, according to various polls. Most recent polls show a population either split on the issue or with a majority opposing the amendment. The 2009 SOFA survey, for example, found that 60 percent oppose an amendment.
Our survey included the same hate speech questions that the SOFA surveys have included for the past decade. Below are the questions with the results from the 2008 and 2000 SOFA survey for comparison:
“In general, do you agree or disagree that people should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to racial groups?”
2009 SOFA 2008 SOFA 2000
Strongly agree 20% 24% 15%
Mildly agree 28% 19% 17%
Mildly disagree 23% 12% 15%
Strongly disagree 28% 42% 52%
“In general, do you agree or disagree that people should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups?
2009 SOFA 2008 SOFA 2000
Strongly agree 25% 32% 22%
Mildly agree 29% 23% 24%
Mildly disagree 21% 12% 15%
Strongly disagree 23% 30% 38%
Our results are close to recent SOFA surveys in terms of total “agree” versus “disagree”, but their sample seems to show greater numbers at the extremes. The trends seems pretty clear from all available surveys on offensive speech of this character, though. A narrow majority approves allowing offensive speech against religious groups but opposes allowing such speech against racial groups. The support for allowing speech of either class has gone up considerably over the past decade.
The same could be said regarding allowing offensive speech in other contexts, such as indecency and pornography. Since 1997 the SOFA survey asked about agreement or disagreement with the statement: “Musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics that others may find offensive.”
1997 2008
Strongly agree 23% 42%
Mildly agree 28% 23%
Mildly disagree 16% 9%
However, our survey found a relatively even split on a different question, which may have more to do with people’s attitudes toward television stations than free speech more generally:
“Do you think that the government ought to be able to fine a television network or station if it broadcasts a live interview or live performance where a person uses certain foul language or dirty words?” Yes 46% No 53%
For what it is worth, a 2005 Time poll found that only 28% thought that the government should fine CBS for Janet Jackson’s nudity during the Super Bowl halftime show. The General Social Survey also has also shown for some time that most Americans would not favor laws prohibiting sale of pornography to adults, with a slight shift in a more libertarian direction in the last decade.
The GSS asks: “Which of these statements comes closest to your feelings about pornography laws? There should be laws against the distribution of pornography whatever the age. There should be laws against the distribution of pornography to persons under 18. There should be no laws forbidding the distribution of pornography.”
In 1998, 38% said laws against whatever the age, 57% said laws against for persons under 18, and 4% said no laws. In 2008, 32% said laws against whatever the age, 64% said laws against for persons under 18, and 3% said no laws.
archon says:
I hate to say it but the 14 point shift to the first question, in just one year, might be because we have our first black president.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 4:03 pmyankee says:
Do you have any idea why your survey produced such different numbers from the 2008 survey? It seems unlikely that public opinion has changed that much; is there some methodological difference that explains it?
Quote
November 18, 2009, 4:05 pmarchon says:
Yankee–
For your answer see Obama and those who were calling people that questioned his policies racists.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 4:09 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I think it is much more significant to view the public influences that leads to forming opinions then what someone might think. For example, someone thinks it is wrong to be offensive to racial groups in order to avoid being labeled a “racist.”
Quote
November 18, 2009, 4:37 pmStrict says:
Everyone’s a racist. So being racist or “a racist” without more means nothing.
What matters is how much such things pollute our minds, or alter our decision making, or make us angry or hostile, or interfere with our ability to socialize and get along with other people, etc.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 5:58 pmStrict says:
“Janet Jackson’s nudity”
A tiny PORTION of ONE of her nipples was exposed.
That’s nudity?
Is using a urinal public nudity too?
Quote
November 18, 2009, 6:30 pmTim says:
Here’s my post on The Torch (blog of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) on this topic in American high schools.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 7:53 pmtrotsky says:
Perhaps it’s fussy here, but I find the passive “should be allowed” questions a little vague — and free-speech violations thus easier to swallow, at least in theory — compared with the specific and active “Do you think the government ought to be able to fine ...”
I don’t think people should be allowed to spout racist commentary in public. I just think the correct response is to say offensive things about the racists’ mothers or otherwise talk back to them — and publicly. I’d speculate — OK, maybe I’d just hope — that the question “Should the government fine people who say in public things that might be offensive to racial groups?” would get a lower positive response.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 8:40 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Public Opinion and Free Speech -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Black, Free Stuff. Free Stuff said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Public Opinion and Free Speech http://bit.ly/4i5Cb5 [...]
corneille1640 says:
Trotsky beat me to it.
“should be allowed” might mean different things to different people. To some, it may mean “should the government forbid?” To others, it may mean “should someone have the right to call the other person out [on the offensive behavior in question]?”
Quote
November 18, 2009, 9:56 pmArrowSmith says:
Big Brother loves you. Yes he, watching you too.
Quote
November 19, 2009, 1:45 amsk says:
“It seems pretty clear that the public opinion trends concerning freedom of expression are pointing in a more libertarian direction. We can see that in responses to questions regarding flag burning, hate speech, and indecent speech.”
Au contraire, it doesn’t seem clear to me at all that this is the case. In fact, I’d argue that we have traded one set of socially acceptable speech for another set.
Ex: If you have ever watched comedians from 20 or 30 (maybe 30 or 40) years ago, there socially acceptable comedy (towards homosexuals, towards blacks, etc) is dramatically different from it is now (I’m thinking if a Dean Martin Roast in which Johnny Carson implied Red Foxx’s ancestors were cannibals, as well as general comedy towards homosexuality).
Political correctness (particularly on campuses) is another example of severe (but different) limits on speech.
These are merely anecdotes: but so is the flag burning example.
Furthermore, its not clear that ‘freedom’ is merely defined by the presence of absence of law. There are other limits on human behavior (social mores, religious limits, economic limits, etc) that can limit human behavior.
(example: we perceive the Victorians as a bunch of stuffy, uptight prudes, who were afraid to show women’s ankles, and afraid to mention sex, etc etc. That perception is not based on the laws of Victorian society, but the morals of that society. The Victorians were policing themselves, without the help of the State.)
If one society allows flag burning but bans jokes about homosexuals, and the other does the opposite, which is more ‘free’ in terms of freedom of expression?
If one society has laws against public nudity, and another society has no laws, but nevertheless has public mores that make such nudity so socially unacceptable as to be effectively impossible, which is more ‘free’ in terms of freedom of expression?
I’m not saying you are necessarily wrong. I’m simply saying that you are not ‘pretty clearly’ right about the progress of freedom of expression. Yes, I suppose its easier (or less socially odious) to burn a flag than it used to be. But that’s a minor example.
Sk
Quote
November 19, 2009, 9:42 amIt’s Not Just the Second Amendment | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] The First Amendment seems to be enjoying more public support these days too. I’m happy about this, but frankly, I’m disappointed free speech doesn’t have broader support than barely breaking a majority sometimes. That really shouldn’t be controversial. [...]
Grant says:
I’m with trotsky and the others who think that the poll wording is likely to significantly skew the results here. I’d bet that a question that said, “Do you think people should be criminally prosecuted for saying things in public that might be offensive” would get drastically different results.
Quote
November 19, 2009, 4:56 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
Quote
December 2, 2009, 10:59 pm