A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has revealed Americans’ opinions on the freedom of speech guaranteed to them under the Constitution’s First Amendment.
The poll conducted in July surveyed 1,000 Americans about their views on free speech in general and on specific, currently relevant issues surrounding speech.
FIRE discovered that a concerning 53 percent of Americans believe at least to some degree that the First Amendment goes too far.
The question asked respondents the degree to which they agree with the statement, “The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.”
The largest subset of respondents, 47 percent, did not agree at all with the statement, but the rest agreed to varying degrees.
Nine percent slightly agreed, while 12 percent wholeheartedly agreed that the First Amendment gives too much freedom to Americans, with the rest of the respondents falling somewhere in between the two.
While many Americans are seemingly skeptical of freedom of speech, the vast majority—69 percent—believe that free speech rights are moving in the wrong direction.
FIRE also found that 42 percent of Americans believe that their First Amendment rights are either not very or not at all secure, while only a meager 5 percent believe that they are completely secure.
Fears about freedom of speech extend beyond government censorship, as the poll found that 38 percent of Americans are at least slightly worried about losing their jobs based on things they have said, and only 31 percent are completely certain that their jobs would not be at stake.
FIRE plans for its poll to become quarterly, with its general questions repeated every time the poll is administered and other questions shifting based on current events.
This summer, the poll focused its questions on speech regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas, particularly on the massive pro-Palestine protests that swept across campuses at the end of the school year, causing some colleges to shut down and hold remote graduation ceremonies.
More Americans opposed the protests, 40 percent, than supported them, 28 percent, while 32 percent neither supported nor opposed them.
Despite this, more people, 38 percent, believe that police should have allowed the protests to go on compared with 28 percent who believe that police should shut down the protests, and 34 percent who are unsure.
Strangely, those questions do not mention that, in many cases, the campus protesters were being arrested due to vandalism and violence rather than their speech, information that would be extremely relevant in determining whether the incidents were criminal activity worthy of a police response rather than an exercise of free speech.
In its final question, FIRE found that 30 percent of Americans would support restrictions on speech in support of Hamas.
Since the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists, increasing numbers of Republicans have seemingly softened their stances on free speech, at least when it comes to antisemitic or anti-Israel speech.
In May, U.S. House Republicans voted in favor of a bill defining antisemitism for the purpose of enforcing anti-discrimination laws, which effectively labeled some speech critical of the Israeli government as antisemitic hate speech.
Polls can be twisted to produce any desired out ome.
Although the US Constitution isn’t taught any more and hasn’t been for decades.
Free speech is one of the backbone rights of our Constitutional Republic. But, as was pointed out, ”protesters were being arrested due to vandalism and violence rather than their speech”.That’s is a huge distinction. FIRE’s poll is misleading and NEEDS to be qualified. Otherwise, it’s a useless waste of time.
The difference between freedom of speech and a treasonous act is razor thin and should be clearly defined
by scotus
It would be helpful if The Maine Wire would either include a link to the text of the FIRE poll or include the text of the poll in the above article, so we can see for ourselves what is being asked of citizens. Also, it would we interesting to know how FIRE conducts its poll…how it chooses which citizens to poll.
The Constitution was written in plain English so that the common Man could read and understand the content . If we didn’t have Lawyers we would not need Lawyers …
That “poll” of a thousand people did not say how many polled were conservatives and how many were communists. Some “poll”. You can do a poll to give you any outcome you wish. Rush L used to say polls are NOT to measure public opinion but rather to INFLUENCE that public opinion.
There is currently a common phenomenon regarding speech in general. Every one seems to inject their image of what you are saying before you even explain it. Drawing conclusions well before listening is now standard practice. The only objection I see to free speech – there should be some way to prevent others from stepping on what we have to say.
Even simple things. Its a compulsion to step on others comments. Its as if people believe they can assume the end of the story before reading the beginning. This is a big problem on Zoom. Too often one person will try to dominate the conversation. Instead of “raising hands”, they just but right in even when others have waited in line for their turn legitimately.
Its also true on Zoom that people will talk over you so that you cannot express your POV. Does freedom of speech go too far? Just because we don’t like some aspects of it, we have no idea what would be the consequences of changing those rights. Yes, it could get worse. Remember that the first amendment and others were intended to protect citizens from government. Do you want the government to tell you what to say or do? Oh Hell No!
No article belongs on the web without an anonymous comment section. When you notice how few of them actually have one, that pretty much sums up where free speech and first amendment rights are headed.
If any article was legitimite, why would its writer or writers not include an anonymous comment section?
Refuse to read any article that does not have anonymous comment section.
Our Constitution should be with anonymous comment section, shouldn’t it? Otherwise, how are we ever going to improve it?