From defenders to skeptics: The sharp decline in young Americans' support for free speech
For much of the 20th century, young Americans were seen as free speech's fiercest defenders. But now, young Americans are growing more skeptical of free speech.
According to a March 2025 report by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank where I am executive director, support among 18- to 34-year-olds for allowing controversial or offensive speech has dropped sharply in recent years.
In 2021, 71% of young Americans said people should be allowed to insult the U.S. flag, which is a key indicator of support for free speech, no matter how distasteful. By 2024, that number had fallen to just 43% – a 28-point drop. Support for pro‑LGBTQ+ speech declined by 20 percentage points, and tolerance for speech that offends religious beliefs fell by 14 points.
This drop contributed to the U.S. having the third-largest decline in free speech support among the 33 countries that The Future of Free Speech surveyed – behind only Japan and Israel.
Why has this support diminished so dramatically?
In the 1960s, college students led what was called the free speech movement, demanding the right to speak freely about political matters on campus, often clashing with older, more censorious generations.
Sociologist Jean Twenge has tracked changes in attitudes using data from the General Social Survey, a biennial survey conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.
Since the 1970s, this survey has asked Americans whether controversial figures – racists, communists and anti-religionists – should be allowed to speak. Support for such rights generally increased from the Greatest Generation, born between 1900-1924, to Gen X, born between 1965-1979.
But Gen Z, those born between 1995-2004, has reversed that trend. Despite the fact that the Cold War, which pitted the communist Soviet Union and its allies against the democratic West, ended more than three decades ago, even support for the free speech rights of communists has declined.
At the same time, some data suggests that young Americans may be drifting rightward politically.
A Harvard Institute of Politics poll in late 2024 found that men ages 18–24 now identify as slightly more conservative than those ages 25–29. Another Gallup survey showed that Gen Z teens are twice as likely as millennials to describe themselves as more conservative than their parents were at the same age.
This shift may help explain changes in speech attitudes.
Today's young Americans may be less likely to instinctively defend speech aligned with liberal or progressive causes. For example, support among 18- to 29-year-olds for same-sex marriage, generally considered a liberal or progressive cause, fell from 79% in 2018 to 71% in 2022, according to Pew Research.
The Future of Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups.
Only 47% of those ages 18 to 34 said such speech should be allowed, compared with 70% of those over 55.
Similarly, tolerance for religiously offensive speech was 57% among younger respondents, down from 71% in 2021.
This concern over harmful or bigoted speech is not new. A 2015 Pew survey found that 40% of millennials believed the government should be able to prevent offensive speech about minorities.
More recently, a 2024 report by the nonpartisan free speech advocacy group FIRE found that 70% of U.S. college students supported disinviting speakers perceived as bigoted. Over a quarter said violence could be acceptable to stop campus speech in some cases.
Why does this matter?
The First Amendment protects unpopular speech. It does not just shield offensive ideas, but it safeguards movements that once seemed fringe. Whether it's civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights or anti-war protests, history shows that ideas seen as dangerous or radical in one era often become widely accepted in another.
Today's younger Americans will soon shape policies in universities, media, government, tech and the public square. If a growing share believes speech should be regulated to prevent offense, that could signal a shift in how free speech is interpreted and enforced in American institutions.
To be sure, support for free speech in principle remains strong. The Future of Free Speech report found that 89% of Americans said people should be allowed to criticize government policy. But tolerance for more provocative or offensive speech appears to be eroding, especially among young people.
This raises questions about whether these changes reflect a life-stage effect − will today's young people become more speech-tolerant as they age? Or are we seeing a deeper generational shift?
The data suggests Americans across all generations still value free speech. But for younger Americans, especially, that support seems increasingly conditional.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jacob Mchangama, Vanderbilt University
Read more:
Americans love free speech, survey finds − until they realize everyone else has it, too
Trump's aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it
What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US
Jacob Mchangama receives funding from The John Templeton Foundation. He is affiliated with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories Friday in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The court's conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in the first Supreme Court appeals involving DOGE. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Musk's departure from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the president to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that has restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. The Trump administration says DOGE needs the access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW.
Miami Herald
38 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Jobs report shifts Fed interest rate forecasts
Will they or won't they? With the relatively bland U.S. labor numbers for May bumping against randy trade deals and thirsty tariff tiffs, there's leverage for Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell to re-examine the expected three 25-basis point rate cuts later this year. The Department of Labor reported June 6 that hiring remained stable in May with employers adding 139,000 jobs, gains that were slightly higher than expected but down from April. The unemployment rate stayed the same at 4.2%, as expected by most economists. Leisure and hospitality plus healthcare sectors reported the highest numbers of jobs with the DOGE-ed federal workforce among the lowest. But the manufacturing and retail sectors also shed jobs, which coupled with the federal losses, display an irrefutable shock from the Trump administration's trade wars churning the global economy. Bloomberg/Getty Images President Trump, just days before the jobs report, blasted the central bank chairman as "unbelievable" and a "disaster" on Truth Social for Powell's delay in lowering interest rates, a move Trump maintains is choking economic growth. Trump's latest angry tirade against Powell was sparked after the payroll firm ADP reported private-sector firms added just 37,000 jobs in May, the lowest total in more than two years. An irked Trump demanded 'Too Late' "Powell must now LOWER THE RATE." Related: Bank of America predicts major housing market changes are coming soon Minutes from a meeting of the Federal Reserve Bank leaders, which was held in early May and released on May 29 show the central bank voted to undertake open market operations "as necessary" to maintain the federal funds rate in a target range of 4.2% to 4.50%. In a related action, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously in early May to approve the establishment of the primary credit rate at the existing level of 4.5 percent – which means interest rates for lenders, consumers and the rest of Americans won't be budging in the near term. This added fuel to Trump's increasing vitriolic displays against Powell (a mere harbinger of what the president started throwing down against former First Buddy and Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk on June 5.) Market participants remain downbeat about interest rate cut chances despite President Trump's demands. The CME's highly-watched FedWatch tool showed a decline in odds of an interest rate cut this summer. Related: Fannie Mae predicts major mortgage rate changes are coming soon The chances the Fed Funds Rate will be in a 4% to 4.25% range in July fell to 16.5% on Friday, June 6, from 30.4% on Thursday, June 5. The odds were nearly 57% one month ago. The Street's Chris Versace reports the market will need to reconsider the three 25-basis point rate cuts it expects per the CME Fed Watch Tool. "With Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic signaling ahead of this data that he sees room for just one rate cut, the growing likelihood is more Fed heads will fall into that camp based on the aggregate data published this week." Verace says. " We also have to wonder if Bostic's comment helps lay the groundwork for the Fed's upcoming set of economic projections that it will publish alongside its next policy decision on June 18.'' Thus, the odds of the Fed indicating just one rate cut in the second half of 2025 will increase if next week's May CPI and PPI data support the "May inflation data we've seen thus far and there is no meaningful progress on trade deals,'' Verace says. Related: Veteran fund manager who predicted April rally updates S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In win for Trump, Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data
WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on June 6 said Department of Government Efficiency can have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. The court paused a judge's order blocking DOGE from immediately getting broad access to the data which includes Social Security numbers, medical and mental health information, tax return information and citizenship records. The court's three liberal justices − Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson − disagreed with that decision. "The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now —before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor. "In essence, the `urgency' underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." Jackson said the court has "truly lost its moorings" when deciding what's worthy of emergency intervention and may be showing preferential treatment for the administration. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said access is warranted now because the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can have the information. A delay would harm the administration's reorganization efforts and not be in the public's interest, the majority wrote. In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland said DOGE was intruding on "the personal affairs of millions of Americans" in a fishing expedition that's based on little more than suspicion.' Hollander limited DOGE's access to the information while the courts assess the legality of the Trump administration's actions. The administration argued the judge overstepped, viewing DOGE staffers as the equivalent of intruders breaking into hotel rooms rather than as employees trying to modernize the agency's technology and root out waste – as DOGE officials said they intended to do. 'District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads,' Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. DOGE has sought access to multiple agencies as part of its mission to hunt for wasteful spending and dramatically overhaul the federal government. Musk has falsely claimed that millions of Americans who are deceased are still receiving Social Security checks. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued the SSA after DOGE began digging into personal data. They told the Supreme Court justices they shouldn't intervene because the administration hadn't shown an emergency need to access data beyond what the district judge allowed. In addition to overseeing Social Security benefits for retirees and disabled people, the Social Security Administration helps administer programs run by other agencies, including Medicare and Medicaid. A divided federal appeals court on April 30 rejected the Trump administration's request to block the district judge's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, said the government hadn't shown a need for unfettered access to the highly sensitive personal information that the American people had every reason to believe would be 'fiercely protected.' DOGE's mission can be largely accomplished through anonymized and redacted data, which is the usual way the agency has handled technology upgrades and fraud detection, he wrote. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data for now
