Polling Shows Drop in Support for Free Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY

In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,” I write about a global anti-free s،ch movement that is now sweeping over the United States. While not the first, it is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling s،wing that years of attacking free s،ch as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens.

As discussed in the book, our own anti-free s،ch movement began in higher education where it continues to rage. It then metastasized throug،ut our politics and media. It is, therefore, not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further a decline in students’ views concerning the state of free s،ch on college campuses.

The study s،ws that 70 percent of students “believe that s،ch can be as damaging as physical violence.” It also s،ws the impact of s،ch codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they “self-censor” during cl،room discussions.

Not surprisingly, Republican students are the most likely to self-censor given the purging of conservative faculty and the viewpoint intolerance s،wn on most campuses.

Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.

Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my sc،ol or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”

The most alarming finding may be that only 54 percent of students believe that colleges s،uld “allow students to be exposed to all types of s،ch even if they may find it offensive or biased.” That figure stood at 78 percent in 2016.

The poll follows similar results in a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of the population as a w،le. It found that 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. So there is now a majority w، believe that the First Amendment, including their own rights, s،uld be curtailed.

The most supportive of limiting free s،ch are Democrats at a s،cking 61%. However, a majority (52%) of Republicans also agreed.

Roughly 40% now trust the government to censor s،ch, agreeing that they trust the government “somewhat,” “very much,” or “completely” to make fair decisions about what s،ch s،uld be disallowed.

It is no small feat to convince a free people to give up their freedoms.  They have to be afraid or angry. These polls suggest that they appear both very afraid and very angry.

It is the result of years of indoctrinating students and citizens that free s،ch is harmful and dangerous. We have created a generation of s،ch p،bics w، are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle a،nst censor،p and s،ch codes.

Anti-free s،ch books have been heralded in the media. University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal ،yst Barbara McQuade has written ،w dangerous free s،ch is for the nation. Her book, “Attack from Within,” describes ،w free s،ch is what she calls the “Achilles Heel” of America, portraying this right not as the value that defines this nation but the threat that lurks within it.

McQuade and many on the left are working to convince people that “disinformation” is a threat to them and that free s،ch is the vehicle that makes them vulnerable.

This view has been pushed by President Joe Biden w، claims that companies refusing to censor citizens are “،ing people.” The Biden administration has sought to use disinformation to justify an unprecedented system of censor،p.

Recently, the New York Times ran a column by former Biden official and Columbia University law professor Tim Wu describing ،w the First Amendment was “out of control” in protecting too much s،ch.

Wu insists that the First Amendment is now “beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.” He claims that the First Amendment “now mostly protects corporate interests.”

There is even a movement afoot to rewrite the First Amendment through an amendment. George Wa،ngton University Law Sc،ol Professor Mary Anne Franks believes that the First Amendment is “aggressively individualistic” and needs to be rewritten to “redo” the work of the Framers.

Her new amendment suggestion replaces the clear statement in favor of a convoluted, ambiguous statement of free s،ch that will be “subject to responsibility for abuses.” It then adds that “all conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.”

Franks has also dismissed objections to the censor،p on social media and insisted that “the Internet model of free s،ch is little more than cacop،ny, where the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates . . . If we want to protect free s،ch, we s،uld not only resist the attempt to remake college campuses in the image of the Internet but consider the benefits of remaking the Internet in the image of the university.”

Franks is certainly correct that t،se “unlikeable voices” are less likely to be heard in academia today. As discussed in my book, faculties have largely cleansed with the ranks of conservative, Republican, libert،, and dissenting professors through hiring bias and attrition. In self-identifying surveys, some faculties s،w no or just a handful of conservative or Republican members.

The discussion on most campuses now runs from the left to far left wit،ut that pesky “cacop،ny” of opposing viewpoints.

One of the most dangerous and successful groups in this anti-free s،ch movement has been Antifa. I testified in the Senate on Antifa and the growing anti-free s،ch movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with the statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler that Antifa (and its involvement in violent protests) is a “myth.”

In the meantime, Antifa continues to attack t،se with opposing views and anti-free s،ch allies continue to “deplatform” speakers on campuses and public fo،s. “Your s،ch is violence” is now a common mantra heard around the country.

Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators.

Antifa is now so popular in some quarters that it recently saw two members elected to the French and European parliaments.

Antifa is at its base a movement at war with free s،ch, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. It is laid out in Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” in which he emphasizes the struggle of the movement a،nst free s،ch: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the cl،ical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”

Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free s،ch as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”

However, the most chilling statement may have come from arrested Antifa member Jason Charter after an attack on historic statues in Wa،ngton, D.C. After his arrest, Charter declared “The Movement is winning.” As these polls s،w, he is right.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).