Poll Finds Majority of Americans Want First Amendment Rewritten to Curb Free Speech
“A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make “hate speech” a crime”
This is shocking and depressing news. Why would anyone want to give their freedoms away?
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
Poll: Majority of Americans Want First Amendment Rewritten
A majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to crack down on free speech, as well as the press, according to a new poll.
More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to “reflect the cultural norms of today.” The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results “indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed.”
“The findings are frankly extraordinary,” executive director Bob Lystad told the Washington Free Beacon. “Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them.”
Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in “hate speech.” Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution “goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America” and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make “hate speech” a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Founders, forgive them, for they know not what they demand.
I blame the parents. And the teachers. And the media. And the Democrat party. And the idiots who allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believe such stupidity.
The odd thing is that the first amendment didn’t override blasphemy or obscenity laws until recently (1950), so I’m sure with the right set of SCOTUS justices they can say whatever might be considered hate is shouting “fire”.
Then again, many pushing to ban the BDS movement don’t like the 1st amendment problems (see the Texas state contract requirement that was overturned).
But I do wish the obscenity laws were still there.
The odd thing is that the first amendment didn’t override blasphemy or obscenity laws until recently
And therein lies the problem. No one really believes in truly free speech, because that means allowing everything from credible death threats to the most vile kinds of porn. Where the line between “muh freeze peach” and “oh, well you can’t say that” is differs widely among Americans. You want the obscenity laws back; millenials want hate speech defined as obscene. You both want the same thing, you’re just differing on the details.
1. Obscenity laws are still allowed. Obscenity is one of the small list of recognized exceptions to the freedom of speech.
2. Blasphemy laws have never been allowed; they violate two clauses of the amendment: not only the freedom of speech but also the establishment clause.
3. Anti-BDS laws do not violate the first amendment; the Texas court was wrong, and if the state had not caved the decision would have been overturned on appeal. Requiring government contractors to certify that they don’t discriminate against Israelis is no different than requiring them to certify that they don’t discriminate against black people, which every government entity in the USA does without any dissent.
A poll that has a pool of 1,004 is not representative of the nation. Extrapolating a pool that small to extend to representing the nation’s opinions is ludicrous.
Question they didn’t ask:
“Do you think the First Amendment to the Constitution should be changed so that you can be banned from, or jailed for, expressing your opinion?”
Another question they didn’t ask:
“Do you think Antifa should be declared a hate group and banned from public assembly?”
That is a theoretical answer to a very carefully worded poll question. If it were a real legal issue, they would understand hue their answer on the poll was actually unconstitutional.
I had a sneaky social studies teacher in eighth grade. She asked us very carefully worded questions, and then we found out that we agreed with the Communist Manifesto.
the idea that it’s ok to limit speech that people consider “hate speech” is going to persist until the limitations are placed on the very people who are ushering in this abridgement.
There is nothing new under the sun. There are often majorities for amending the constitution to allow a ban on this or that unpopular thing. In the 1990s polls showed majorities in favor of a flag burning amendment. Through much of the 19th century you could probably have found a majority for amending the first to allow federal anti-Catholic discrimination. And there are often majorities for amending or repealing the second amendment.
There’s a reason the founders made constitutional amendments difficult.