Polls

Students Against Free Speech, Political Correctness Run Amok, and Other Findings from Cato's New Survey

Students are split on whether the government should restrict hate speech.

|

Survey
Igor Mojzes

About half of the country's college students (51 percent) believe disrespectful people should be stripped of their free speech rights, while 55 percent of Americans overall think the opposite—that people are entitled to free speech regardless.

That's according to the Cato Institute's new, massive survey of American opinions on free speech. The poll contains plenty of useful information, but I was particularly struck by the stances taken by college students. The results support the idea that civil libertarians should be concerned about the views of young people.

Cato found strong support for keeping hate speech legal among Americans with a college education: 64 percent said the government should not restrict hate speech. But current students were evenly split on the same question. And Americans under the age of 30 were the most likely demographic to say that hate speech is equivalent to violence: 60 percent believed this, compared with 57 percent of senior citizens and just 49 percent of middle-aged Americans.

Students seem to be getting exactly what they want out of college, and what they want is more suppression of offensive speech. Just 30 percent of students oppose bias reporting systems, compared with a majority (though a narrow one: 51 percent) of all Americans. Students were also more likely than Americans overall to think university administrators should oppose offensive Halloween costumes.

Here are five other interesting findings:

There is widespread agreement that political correctness has gone too far. The idea that America has become too politically correct is one of President Donald Trump's talking points, but even about half of Democrats think P.C. is "a big problem." Ninety percent of Republicans and 78 percent of independents agree. Most Americans avoid saying what they really think because other people might find it offensive.

Democrats and Republicans are both intolerant, but in different ways. Conservatives often castigate liberals—especially young liberals—as delicate snowflakes who are easily offended. The college outrage beat provides plenty of support for this view, since students all over the country are frequently involved in efforts to derail conversations that make them uncomfortable. But as Sarah Ruger argued in a recent Inside Higher Ed piece, conservatives are also keen to shut down offensive speech, a version of political correctness that Cato's Alex Nowrasteh has called "patriotic correctness."

Cato's data provide plenty of evidence of this. Republicans are wildly in favor of National Football League teams firing players who refuse to stand for the national anthem (65 percent). Similarly, 54 percent of Republicans think a business executive should lose his job if he burns the American flag. Majorities of Democrats disagreed with both of these positions; instead, 58 percent of Democrats said employers should fire employees who make insensitive comments on Facebook.

People of color think free speech hurts them and helps their enemies. People of color are more inclined to say there should be formal consequences for hateful or offensive speech. One likely reason for that: Black and Hispanic Americans are much more likely than white Americans to believe "free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority opinions." Most Black Americans (59 percent) and nearly half of Hispanics (49 percent) agreed with this statement, whereas only 34 percent of white Americans did.

In other words, they think that "free speech" just means defending Milo Yiannopoulos's rights. This suggests to me that civil libertarians should do more to highlight the far-from-rare cases where the censored party belongs to a racial or ethnic minority.

Microaggression theory is really stupid. Cato listed a number of popular examples of microaggressions and asked people of color whether they were offended by them. In most cases, the resounding answer was no. Only one of the examples—saying "you are a credit to your race"—was deemed offensive by a majority of the black people surveyed.

This finding supports Scott Lilienfeld's research on microaggression theory, which characterized the concept as incoherent in its current form. Educational institutions like Oberlin College that are currently training—and even paying—students in microaggression awareness should read the data.

Only the hard left supports violence against nazis. Most Americans do not believe violence is an appropriate response to Nazi ideas. In fact, 68 percent think it's morally impermissible to punch someone just for being a Nazi. A majority of Democrats (56 percent) shared this view. Nazi-punching was more popular among black people than among Latinos and white people, and more popular among millennials than among older Americans. But support for Nazi-punching was under 50 percent for all these subgroups.

Just one subgroup felt differently: strong liberals, 51 percent of whom said punching Nazis was morally acceptable.

Advertisement

NEXT: Venezuelan Socialism in Action: Starvation for the People, Desk Empanadas for the Powerful

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just one subgroup felt differently: strong liberals, 51 percent of whom said punching Nazis was morally acceptable.

    And yet they are very likely a group that doesn’t know how to make a fist.

    1. Make sure you tuck your thumb on the inside, kids!

      1. I like to keep my thumb fully extended, so it looks like I’m giving a thumbs up to myself as punch down armies of facists and nazis. Mowing them down left and right in a completely justified manner. Getting a throbbing erection from my power and domination over others rights and speech. A completely justified erection.

        1. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link………

          ======================
          http://www.webcash20.com
          ======================

        2. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

          Read more here,,,,, http://www.onlinecareer10.com

    2. They said “strong” liberals, not “doctrinaire” liberals.

    3. How do you tell if the person throwing a punch is liberal or conservative? The liberal punches with his left hand and the conservative punches with his right. (snicker)

    4. Even if they learn to make a fist they will find the other side has a gun even if they succeed in making them illegal.

  2. Republicans are wildly in favor of National Football League teams firing players who refuse to stand for the national anthem (65 percent). Similarly, 54 percent of Republicans think a business executive should lose his job if he burns the American flag.

    But Robbieeeeee, that’s not free speech because the government isn’t there.

    1. Such questions need more digging. It should be a two-step question like:

      Would you like to see CEOs who burn flags lose their jobs? If yes, should the government force their termination or would you rather the company oust the CEO on their own?

      I’d wager you would get a very different picture.

    2. Indeed. Nowrasteh’s screed basically amounted to “Conservatives says things I don’t like so they’re totally the same as PC which actually attempts to impose sanctions through the government.” The logic is impeccable.

  3. . One likely reason for that: Black and Hispanic Americans are much more likely than white Americans to believe “free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority opinions.” Most Black Americans (59 percent) and nearly half of Hispanics (49 percent) agreed with this statement, whereas only 34 percent of white Americans did.

    In other words, they think that “free speech” just means defending Milo Yiannopoulos’s rights. This suggests to me that civil libertarians should do more to highlight the far-from-rare cases where the censored party belongs to a racial or ethnic minority.

    A lot of red meat here.

    Free speech does more to protect minority opinions, in actuality. Also, do we now categorize Milo Yiannopoulos as “majority opinion”?

    1. Nothing says “majority” more than a flaming English queer who loves to brag about being bottom for black men.

      1. Really, most people would adopt precisely that lifestyle if they won the lottery.

        /sarc

    2. And don’t get us started with “majority minority” areas.

        1. Up until the 2000’s all non-black Hispanics where, hence the checkbox, “White, non-Hispanic” on gov’t forms.

          1. And “Arab” wasn’t even a listed ethnicity. They were just white.

      1. Is there any more despised minority on college campuses than conservative Christians?

          1. They deserve it.

            /Electrical Engineer

            1. Electrical Engineer = Un-intentional Arc Welding Specialist, ye sparky, ye!

          2. Mechanical engineers make bombs, Civil Engineers make targets.

        1. I didn’t much care for Campus Crusade for Christ myself but instead of screeching at the sky I just ignored them. Kids these days.

    3. In my experience, every single person believes themselves to be a member of a persecuted minority. Every. Single. Person.

      1. That’s why us libertarians have such a good place to shout from, because we claim no minority is more persecuted than the individual.

        Trump that assholes.

        1. Unfortunately us libertarians are such a persecuted minority.

      2. Well, everyon is a minority of one and has probably caught crap from someone for a personality quirk, but that is just life.

    4. A lot of red meat here.

      Free speech does more to protect minority opinions, in actuality. Also, do we now categorize Milo Yiannopoulos as “majority opinion”?

      They also don’t experience any of the downside of their obsession.

      “Whiteness studies” would be labeled as virulent racism if done to, literally, any other group in existence.

    5. That is the problem. Identifying people by race. The ultimate minority is the individual. If we protect the rights of individuals all these categories become meaningless.

  4. People of color think free speech hurts them and helps their enemies. People of color are more inclined to say there should be formal consequences for hateful or offensive speech. One likely reason for that: Black and Hispanic Americans are much more likely than white Americans to believe “free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority opinions.” Most Black Americans (59 percent) and nearly half of Hispanics (49 percent) agreed with this statement, whereas only 34 percent of white Americans did.

    In other words, they think that “free speech” just means defending Milo Yiannopoulos’s rights. This suggests to me that civil libertarians should do more to highlight the far-from-rare cases where the censored party belongs to a racial or ethnic minority.

    Because more tribalism is just what the world needs. Just what cases would these be? My guess is they would involve conservatives or libertarians who happen to be black or Hispanic. I honestly can’t see these people caring anymore about that than they do about Milo getting shot down. Sorry Robby, but they hate you just as much as they hate Milo and would hate you even if you were black or Hispanic.

    They don’t like free speech because they don’t think the rules will ever be used against them. And given how college and our society works right now, who can say they are wrong?

  5. It’s not that the hard left thinks it is acceptable to punch Nazi’s, it’s that the hard left thinks violence is acceptable against those you disagree with. 100 Million dead bodies int he last century speak for themselves, and they were all at the hands of hard left ideologies (yes, Fascism is a hard left ideology).

    1. No it isn’t. Just because authoritarian dictators peddled communism sometimes doesn’t make them liberals, you fucking moron.

      1. Did I say Liberals? No, they were not Liberal, they were leftists.

        1. Radical leftists have done terrible things. Not anytime recently, though. Our current clear and present danger is a radical right-wing grapefruit.

          1. Haha, precious. Those BLMers that gunned down random cops just didn’t happen? Cuba doesn’t exist?

            1. Ooh evil Cuba… doing all that driving old cars and shit.

              A radical rightwinger just ran over people in Manhattan. The white version of radical right-wingers frequently shoot up crowds, though mercifully they mostly just send death threats to people who believe in universal healthcare and women’s autonomy. For Jesus.

              1. Tony dreams of sucking Lenin’s communist cock.

          2. Not anytime recent??? Say that to the people of North Korea, you disingenuous slut!

          3. Radical leftists have done terrible things. Not anytime recently, though

            Venezuela is doing great…

          4. Venezuela, China, North Korea are doing terrible things.

      2. The Left is illiberal.

    2. And your typical proggie college student is indistinguishable from a Red Brigade Stalinist. Got it!

      1. Just missing their little red books these days.

        1. Who reads books anymore? If not on youtube it never happened.

  6. But as Sarah Ruger argued in a recent Inside Higher Ed piece, conservatives are also keen to shut down offensive speech, a version of political correctness that Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh has called “patriotic correctness.”

    Except his evidence of conservatives “shutting down” offensive speech seems to exclusively consist of tweets and quotes.

    Even when liberals think they’re taking the free speech stance it still involves crying about how offensive conservatives are.

    1. and by the way, I do think that conservatives can be oversensitive but, at their worst, they never come close to the prog’s opposition to free speech.

      Conservatives boycott of Starbucks’ red cup, as stupid as that is, isn’t in the same league as justifying violence against people who say things you don’t like.

      1. Exactly… a boycott used to create a market force that hopefully incites voluntary changes in behavior versus a jackboot to the face for wrongthink. How anyone sees these as the same is beyond me.

      2. Conservatives, IMHO, tend to have a moral compass and sense of right and wrong that many progressives lack. They’re necessarily not better people, they just see the world in more absolute terms of black and white, good and evil while progressives tend to see gray. Generally, of course.

        Conservatives tend to balk at what progressives seem eager to do to achieve their goals. The ends, to conservatives, doesn’t justify the means in many cases while progressives push full steam ahead oblivious to the moral implications. Again, in general.

        1. Nah. Liberals blame society for what’s wrong with people. Conservatives blame people for what’s wrong with society.

  7. Patriotic Correctness. I like that turn of phrase. Yes it describes Republicans very well.

  8. Most Americans do not believe violence is an appropriate response to Nazi ideas.

    Tell that to Jake and Elwood, before they run them off the bridge during their rally.

  9. In other words, they think that “free speech” just means defending Milo Yiannopoulos’s rights.

    Hmm I do think the author has a point. Perhaps they think “free speech” means “only letting the racists and bigots speak”. If that is what I thought “free speech” meant, then I wouldn’t be in favor of it either. And it is true that the loudest voices demanding that free speech be upheld also seem to be the ones parading around their Nazi flags. But ultimately the problem is that neither side views the other as human beings worthy of the rights that they have.

    1. This is always the inherent trouble with the defense of free speech.

      Pretty much by definition the only people who are going to be invoking it are people who are defending ideas that most people find unacceptable.

      It seems like basic logic, but a lot of people really seem to have trouble with the whole “why don’t free speech advocates ever stand up for anti-racist speech?” idea.

    2. So you’re saying the group currently being attacked arguably more than anyone else is also the loudest complainant? I could never have predicted that. Those making the rules, the antiNazis currently, generally don’t complain in that way.

      The problem is that anytime one group elevates their vitriol the opposing group will follow suit. So they’re both feeding one another and neither will receive any compassion from me. You want me to listen, then chill out and have something other than an emotional rejoinder.

  10. “About half of the country’s college students (51 percent) believe disrespectful people should be stripped of their free speech rights, while 55 percent of Americans overall think the opposite?that people are entitled to free speech regardless…The results support the idea that civil libertarians should be concerned about the views of young people.”

    That seems like an odd conclusion to draw from the data. A difference of 8% does not seem large enough to be able to make the claim that college students are bad on this topic but the general population isn’t. This smacks of sensationalist reporting.

  11. People don’t distinguish between free speech in public and constrained speech in private enterprise.

    A public (taxpayer funded) university or a public square will be open to all sorts of speech that people on the left or right may find offensive. As long as it’s not inciting immediate violence that speech can’t be suppressed, even if it includes wearing the flag on your ass.

    An executive can be fired for burning the flag if his company decides that burning the flag is bad publicity and bad for profits. A private company can fire a guy who posts opinions on a company-wide bulletin board and creates bad feelings within the corporation and outside if they consider this bad for profits. A private university can fire a professor who calls his students “snowflakes” causing them to complain to their alumni parents who stop donations even if the students are really snowflakes.

    A teenager who gets drunk and paints swastikas on my tool shed can be arrested for vandalism (if we find him) and he will probably get in more trouble than for painting his initials because the swastikas are offensive. That is on my private property, isnot free speech and it pisses me off.

    1. “A public (taxpayer funded) university or a public square will be open to all sorts of speech that people on the left or right may find offensive. As long as it’s not inciting immediate violence that speech can’t be suppressed, even if it includes wearing the flag on your ass.”

      I’ve never understood why the word “can’t” is appropriate here (not picking on you — noticed this a lot here). The US government suppresses public speech all the time. Why can’t they do it in the public university and public square? All you need are judges that concoct a justification for it, that’s all.

      1. I’m teaching my students about rights right now and I have to constantly correct them on the difference between “can’t” and “shouldn’t be able to”.

        They ask me “So a cop CAN’T do such and such?” My response is that they are free to recite their rights and tell the cop why he shouldn’t or why their rights are being violated but they will probably still end up in cuffs or worse.

        1. See… “can’t” by government officials needs to be enforced by the death penalty.

          “So a cop CAN’T do such and such?” No, that cop can’t do such and such unless they want to be executed.

          I get what you’re saying but far too much leeway has been given to government officials violating the rights of people and part of that is not enforcing constitutional restrictive phrases, like “….shall not be infringed”.

          1. Human beings are notorious for not behaving rationally. As a result, excessive punishment has never really worked. And making an example of people by using the criminal justice system is very un-libertarian (in that it’s a direct violation of individual rights and personal responsibility). So I’m not sure that the answer is that we need more of lock-’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key.

            My point was that we seem to be picking and choosing where it’s appropriate to suppress free speech, and then we get all up in arms when somebody suppresses the speech WE don’t like. The fact that the government has said that you can’t say fuck on the television still boggles the mind. And to me, that invalidates just about every issue of free speech there is. If they can declare certain words off-limits — not even concepts, but WORDS — then why the hell do we think there’s anything remotely resembling free speech in this country??

  12. If we’re calling those people at the end “liberals”, then words have lost all meaning. Call them progressives, or socialists since a lot of them are becoming comfortable with that word

    1. Call them a four letter word. Distorting the meaning of words is a trick used by (you guessed it) the far left. Nitpicking over what tortured word the other side of the aisle uses is a waste of time.

    2. I don’t use liberal anymore. That word was co-opted anyway. Historically, liberal meant something akin to libertarianism. Progressive is still co-opted. It’s sort of meaningless in the political sense. Don’t we all like progress? But that’s kind of how that side of the political spectrum operates. If they came out and told you they were socialist/communist/fascist, no one would buy it. But call it liberal or progressive and people get the warm and fuzzies…until the jack-booted thugs break down their doors and haul them off to the gulag.

      1. The Founding Fathers tended to be liberals as in pro-Liberty. The phrase was stolen after the term “progressivism” fell out of favor because people saw that it was actually socialism.

        Libertarianism as a phrase has come to take much of Liberalism back from the socialists plus it adds the desire to have fiscal conservativism.

        1. Yup, but that was over two centuries ago. Since then marxists and other nutcases have been on the march.

        2. I don’t think there’s any evidence whatsoever that the guys we tend to view as the “Founding Fathers” were pro-liberty. Some may have been, but Sheldon Richman has made a pretty compelling argument in his most recent book that their roles were predominantly to suppress liberty. Although the point has been made plenty of times before by other libertarians. And then that whole slavery thing makes them look a little hypocritical toward that end…

          The idea of “liberty” is a lot more subjective than we like to think. “Liberal” is going to be tough to take back if it ever was ours in the first place. But it doesn’t help that conservatives use the word “liberal” every chance they get to refer to their political opponents. If it’s lost its meaning among anyone, it’s conservatives.

    3. I’ve come to think the left is more fascist then socialistic. They’ve moved from outright ownership of all assets to controlling all assets through rules, regulations, and laws. Please notice that the majority of criminal offenses are created, not by elected officials, but by appointed or hired government employees.

      1. I agree. Honestly I don’t see a ton of socialism coming out of that camp from a practical standpoint. Maybe some of their soundbites have some socialist underpinnings, but in terms of actually enacting policy it smacks of fascism, especially given how strongly they advocate for mixed economies.

        I guess technically that would make them right wing, but that notion alone would make a shit ton of people angry.

  13. Snap! When I read the headline I thought it was saying that there was a group called Students Against Free Speech. Then I thought, hey, what about Student Against Free Expression or SAFE. It’s perfect.

  14. I’ll let you in on a little secret, Reasonoids. Students either think the opposite of what their teachers think or precisely what their teachers tell them to think, and the ones who suck up to their teachers and adhere to the party line are the ones who are infinitely more likely to succeed in US universities, where a substantial percentage won’t even graduate. People that age rarely develop very well reasoned political opinions, and many never will, regardless of whether they actually got a “university education”. What does it matter what the *students* think? We know full well whose opinions matter.

    The academic establishment in this country is a vast power-hungry bureaucracy and political interest group that thrives on the endless amounts of government funding and student debt, combined with a unique, exhaulted position conferred to it by the government. It is statist to the core and its politics veer far towards the left and utopian socialism. It is a political institution run by loyalists who rose up the ranks by following the rules, not a mirror of our “pluralistic, free” society.

    But if it is, our country is fucked.

    1. “…infinitely more likely to succeed in US universities, where a substantial percentage won’t even graduate.”

      I’ve been trying to make sense of this sentence, but no luck.

      Ultimately I agree with you when you say “What does it matter what the *students* think?” That’s really a key point right there. These are children, many of whom are venturing into their first experience of thinking about things. Cut them some slack. They’re not VP’s or elected leaders.

  15. Fascism and Communism are the bread that hugs the lunch meat of Totalitarianism. Two different excuses for taking all your rights in the name of someone’s ideals.
    Libertarians are close to the opposite end of the political circle, on the lawful side of Anarchy. Opposite them are mobsters and organized crime on the unlawful side of Anarchy.
    The political circle goes like this: Anarchy -Democracy-Libertarians- Republic- Oligarchy- Fascism- Totalitarianism- Communism- Socialism- Organized Crime- Democracy -and back to Anarchy. It’s not a straight line folks, and that’s why Fascism and Communism seem so similar to those on the receiving end of the jackboot.

    1. “Fascism and Communism are the bread that hugs the lunch meat of Totalitarianism.”

      That’s poetic…

      Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. The both want basically the same thing but they can’t agree on how to get there.

    2. Libertarianism includes fiscal conservativism and social liberalism which would put it in the middle of a right-left spectrum. Anarchy being on the left and monarch conservatism on the right.

      Fascism has been more used as tyranny of the state rather than a political view. Fascistis of Italy were socialists and similar to Nazis (minus the racial stuff) and progressives (use the state to control people).

      1. Fascism is a purely political movement, you retard.

        Fascists embrace racial/ethnic superiority, militarism, religion, and totalitarianism. Fascists hate liberalism most of all (you are a proto-fascist)

        1. “Fascism is a purely political movement, you retard.”

          There most certainly was an economic movement that came with fascism, and it’s been written about by libertarians for decades. But loveconstitution is incorrect that it is socialism. Fascists viewed themselves as an alternative to socialism and capitalism. Just because nazis put “socialism” in their name doesn’t make them socialists, and just because the Italians were allies with Nazi Germany does not mean they were socialists either.

  16. Sounds about right. Free speech is great…as long as people agree with it. Otherwise, it’s offensive and should be banned. I’d love to say this is because they don’t teach this stuff in school or that back in the day all Americans supported broad free speech but I doubt it. Stupid isn’t new.

  17. Dear children of the censor; the first amendment is not for the popular view. It is there, (among other things), to protect the UNPOPULAR viewpoint. I would rather have even Nazis state their poisition in full view, than to stay in the shadows and plot there; which they will do anyway. Let all speak, as long as it is SPEECH.

  18. You know, these polls and opinions are all well and fun. Eye-opening would be another way of saying it. That said, we are living within a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC under LAW.
    Of course, Law has never been codified. However, the Common Law or “the law” (9th Amendment) is known. We The People are to be under “the law” or Common Law and the federal government are to be under “the law” and Constitutional Law, It seems odd that this is not taught in schools (well, not really. If you want to undermine Personal Liberty/Responsibility, you simply need to make rules/”laws” from authority more important than “the law”. I’m sure it is shocking that this has been done so thoroughly for the past 130 years or so)
    What confuses me is that since we are a Constitutional Republic under Law, why do you, as Reason Mag. think that some sort of major democracy poll, should do anything more than scare the shit out of those who value their personal liberty/responsibility?
    The Founders stopped democracy at the district level for good “reason”.

    1. Cuz most people are idiots?

  19. Zeah, I guess the main problem I have with Nick is that he comes across as a perfectly reasonable person who inexplicably debases himself by associating with the worst kind of right-wing apologists.

  20. Only the hard left supports violence against nazis.
    Robby…Nazis are extreme leftists who are socialists at heart.

    Nazis being right-wing is a common misconception but you are a writer at Reason.

    1. “Because they have socialists in the name!”

      1. Because they were collectivists who believed in state control of labor, manufacturing and all industry!

        Because they believed in total governmental control of all citizens from the cradle to the grave!

        Because they did everything every other leftist organization does!

        1. None of those things are exclusive to socialism. In fact, many (most?) factions of socialism would reject your first sentence.

  21. Such Leftist concepts are a big reason the Democrats are here:

    “The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors’ mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday’s election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans.” http://www.vox.com/policy-and-…..ile-rubble

  22. On a related note, I read Milo Yiannopoulos’ book, Dangerous last month. The vast majority of it was good. It turns out that his mother is Jewish, which makes him as White as Barack Obama.

    1. Ah Milo, famous for being more tame and far less funny than an average drag queen.

    2. Umm… Jewish is a religion not a racial identity. You’ll find blond Jews, red-headed Jews, Italian-looking Jews, Arab-appearing Jews. There are Sephardic Jews with ancestry from Africa and there are lots more Ashkenazi Jews with ancestry from Eastern Europe and the Caucusus region, where the term “Caucasian” comes from.

  23. Is it possible those who have been on the receiving end of hate speech would dislike it? Is it also possible those who have been on the receiving end of hate speech more often would more likely dislike it more? Isn’t it also possible those who like to dish out hate speech rather than receive it are more inclined to support hate speech? Now, not all speech is hate speech, but isn’t all hate speech free speech? Am I wrong?

    1. WTF is “hate speech”?

      I hate collard greens. Is that hate speech?

  24. Jeeby saith: “Pack when ye enter the Temple, boys”.

  25. We need a poll to tell us this stuff?

  26. You know liberals are the half that want to restrict free speech, and they only want to ban ‘hate-speech’ if THEY get to decide what constitutes hate speech, thereby silencing all their opposition. Those commies haven’t come up with anything new since Lenin & Marx.

  27. ***. . . as Sarah Ruger argued in a recent Inside Higher Ed piece, conservatives are also keen to shut down offensive speech, a version of political correctness that Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh has called “patriotic correctness.”***

    “KEEN”? What the hell does THAT mean??

    I’d say this is a lame attempt at “moral equivalency,” a desperate effort to feign balance by asserting that many on both sides “oppose” free speech. But actions speak louder than words.

    One may viscerally wish some opposition speaker wasn’t going to speak, but only the Left over and over actively seeks to shut down such events, if not violently attack attendees. Okay okay, ONE event had some combative white supremacists show up seeking some payback against Antifa ET AL, but that stands out as the rare exception.

  28. So concervatives restrict free speech how? By saying in a survey they believe NFL players should be fired for taking a knee? Are they beating NFL players by swinging a combination lock at their heads? Are they rioting in the streets and destroying private busnesses to make their point? Has one conservative rushed the field to force any player to stand?

    C’mon, really?

    1. No, but I can think of one conservative who threatened to use the power of the state against the NFL if they failed to comply, and when they failed to comply, drafted a tax plan that followed through with that threat.

      1. Well, there you have it. Some clueless bozo (who happens to be POTUS) who totally lacks any grasp of the Constitution mentions in passing that we should withdraw tax favored status to an organization for political reasons
        — a policy already implemented by liberals running the IRS that crippled scores of conservative/libertarian nonprofits.

        Hence conservatives want to close down free speech. Got it.

  29. We should create a harmony in society, peaceful coexistence between the skin color . Visit http://colorswitch2.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.