From defenders to skeptics: The sharp decline in young Americans' support for free speech
By Jacob Mchangama
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 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?
Shift from past generations
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.
Political drift and cultural realignment
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.
Attitudes toward hate speech
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.
Broader implications
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.
Jacob Mchangama is Research Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
External Link
https://theconversation.com/from-defenders-to-skeptics-the-sharp-decline-in-young-americans-support-for-free-speech-254953
© The Conversation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
16 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Asks Congress to Defund PBS and NPR
Tom Brenner/For The Washington Post The entrance to NPR's Washington headquarters. CPB received $525 million in federal funding in 2024 and $535 million in 2025. But under the new plan, if passed into law, it would see its federal budget completely slashed for 2026 and 2027. A spokesperson from the White House Office of Management and Budget told The Washington Post that it is requesting to rescind about $1.1 billion in funding, and in a post on X called the organization 'left wing.' 'Federal spending on CPB subsidizes a public media system that is politically biased and is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer,' OMB Director Russell Vought wrote in a letter to the president, which was included in the formal rescission request. The proposed cuts to CPB's budget are part of a larger $9.4 billion rescission package that otherwise largely targets foreign aid through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In a budget appendix released Friday for fiscal 2026, the White House proposed cutting all but $30 million in federal funding to CPB, 'to conduct an orderly closeout of Federal funding for the Corporation.' CPB is an independent nonprofit established by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that steers congressional allocations to public media entities like PBS and NPR, and their member stations. But President Donald Trump has sought to end taxpayer support for what he considers 'biased' media. In April, he first confirmed his intent to request formal rescission from Congress before attempting to unilaterally defund CPB through a May 1 executive order. On May 27, NPR sued the government in U.S. District Court in Washington, alleging that the executive order violates its First Amendment rights. PBS followed with a similar lawsuit against the government Friday. Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, wrote in a statement that the rescissions would 'have a devastating impact' on PBS member stations, meaning Americans will lose important local coverage. 'There's nothing more American than PBS and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media,' Kerger wrote. 'Public media is a public-private partnership and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress. 'During this fight we will demonstrate our value to Congress, as we have over the last 50 years, in providing educational, enriching programs and critical services to all Americans every day free.' Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, wrote that the organization cannot take criticism seriously and work to improve if its funding is completely cut. 'Federal funding for the public broadcasting system is irreplaceable,' Harrison wrote. 'Public media serves all – families and individuals, in rural and urban communities – free of charge and commercial free. American taxpayers rely upon and trust public media for high quality educational content, information, and lifesaving alerts.' NPR CEO Katherine Maher wrote that this bill would hurt Americans. 'This rescission would have a negligible impact on reducing the deficit and provide little-to-no savings for taxpayers, yet it would harm all Americans, shutting off access to local news, national reporting, music and regional culture, and emergency alerting,' Maher wrote in a statement. Trump has also taken aim at individual CPB officials. Three of CPB's five board members received letters of termination from a White House official on April 28. The next day, CPB and the board members in question sued the government, saying the president – who nominates board members, who are then confirmed by the Senate – does not have the power to unilaterally remove them. The ordeal has been just one prong of a multifaceted war on the media initiated by the Trump administration. The administration has feuded in court with the Associated Press over access to covering White House events, and the president personally sued CBS over an interview with rival Kamala Harris and has since encouraged the FCC to investigate the network. The administration is also in the process of dismantling Voice of America and government-funded nonprofit media networks. Federal funding to PBS and NPR makes up about 15 percent and 1 percent of their respective budgets. Those numbers are higher for PBS and NPR member stations: 18 percent and 13 percent, respectively. More Americans support federal funding to public media than oppose it, the Pew Research Center found in a survey published in March. About 43 percent of U.S. adults said that PBS and NPR should continue receiving taxpayer dollars while 24 percent disagreed and another 33 percent weren't sure. But the issue was much more popular among Democrats, with 69 percent support, as opposed to Republican respondents – only 19 percent thought funding these media outlets was a good idea.
Yomiuri Shimbun
17 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Tulsa Announces Reparations for the 1921 ‘Black Wall Street' Massacre
Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post Women and children wait in line for malaria medication at a health center in Nametil, Mozambique, in 2023. The city of Tulsa, home to one of the most horrifying racial-terror massacres in U.S. history and the people who tried to cover it up, has announced a $105 million reparations package that will put dollars and actions toward redress. 'For 104 years, the Tulsa Race Massacre has been a stain on our city's history,' Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols said in a speech Sunday announcing the reparations package, which will pump millions into the restoration of families and communities that had their trajectories derailed by the 1921 attack. 'We have worked to recognize and remember, but now it's time to restore,' Nichols said. It was something that families of survivors and victims have been waiting generations to hear. 'This marks a historic moment where the city of Tulsa is not just acknowledging past harm, but taking real steps toward repair,' said Kristi Williams, a justice activist in Tulsa and a descendant of survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. It took decades of research by historians and journalists – and reports and investigations by state and federal commissions – to uncover the violence that claimed more than 300 Black lives, torched at least 1,100 Black homes, led to survivors being put into displacement camps and decimated the prosperous enclave of Greenwood, known as 'Black Wall Street.' More than a riot, 'the massacre was the result not of uncontrolled mob violence, but of a coordinated, military-style attack on Greenwood,' according to a news release that accompanied a Justice Department report issued in January. 'The Tulsa Race Massacre stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,' Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in the news release. Reparations for historical injustices have been studied and talked about for years as Americans reckon with the cruelties of the past and how they reverberate in society today. Legislators in D.C., Maryland and California have considered ways to right the societal inequities that resulted, but with little success. In 1994, Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles (D) signed a $2.1 million compensation bill for the Rosewood massacre of 1923. Nine survivors received $150,000 each. A state university scholarship fund was established for the families of Rosewood survivors and their descendants. In 2021, Evanston, Illinois, became one of the first U.S. cities to pay reparations to Black residents. It's complicated to put a monetary value on cruelty and the opportunities it devoured. But the Tulsa case provides clear examples of families and businesses that were impacted, as well as voices that can outline their visions of justice. The reparations will be powered by the charitable Greenwood Trust and built with private capital. The target is to spend $24 million in investments for affordable housing and homeownership; $60 million for historic preservation; and $21 million in scholarships, small business grants and to continue identifying the victims of the massacre buried in mass graves, according to Nichols's plan. 'The Department of Justice's report, while laying out the undeniable facts of the massacre, does seem to suggest that justice – in the context of the massacre – will always be acquainted with an asterisk,' Nichols said. The plan addresses that lingering question of justice, some of the families said. 'We're grateful for the community that shaped these recommendations, and we're ready for the work ahead,' Williams said. 'One of the strongest demands we heard from the community was housing. That's why we recommended $24 million for home repairs and down payments because repair without investment is just rhetoric. The mayor's support shows that Tulsa is ready to do more than talk.' The plan tries to replace the post-catastrophe mechanisms, such as lawsuits and insurance claims, that usually kick in to help victims recover. None of the thousands of White Tulsans who took part were ever arrested; no insurance claims covering the torched businesses were paid out; the suspected attackers are all dead; and the statute of limitations has expired, Nichols said. 'Every promise made by elected officials to help rebuild Greenwood at the time was broken,' he said. The survivors haven't let the city forget. 'For generations, Greenwood descendants and advocates of Black and North Tulsans have kept the flame of justice lit,' said Greg Robinson II, a member of the 'Beyond Apology' task force for reparations. Nichols, Tulsa's first Black mayor, made it a priority. 'The Greenwood community has waited over a century for meaningful repair,' Tulsa City Council member Vanessa Hall-Harper said. 'Our call for $24 million in housing reparations is a direct response to the generational theft of Black wealth that began in 1921 and continued through redlining, urban renewal, and neglect. This moment reflects what is possible when leadership listens to the people, and I am proud that we have a mayor who has done just that.' The attack was sparked in an elevator on May 30, 1921, when a shoeshiner named Dick Rowland stepped into an open wire-caged elevator operated by a 17-year-old White girl named Sarah Page. Witnesses said that Page screamed when the door opened and that Rowland fled. The Tulsa Tribune had a headline the next day that said, 'Nab Negro for Attacking Girl in Elevator,' and Rowland was arrested. Decades later, most historians believe Rowland may have stepped on Page's foot or bumped into her. The charges were dropped, and Page later wrote a letter exonerating him. But simmering racial hatred and the incendiary headline sent a White mob to the Tulsa Courthouse where Rowland was being held. That was a common pattern across America. Newspapers regularly reported on hundreds of lynchings that happened after a Black man was arrested – usually on flimsy charges – and a mob overtook the jail, dragged the prisoner out and executed him. But the murderous search for vengeance in Tulsa went beyond a single person. Black World War I veterans who heard the calls to lynch Rowland went to the courthouse to protect him. They clashed with the mob, and a shot was fired. In less than 24 hours, as many as 10,000 White Tulsa residents, many of whom had recently drilled as part of an organized, militaristic 'Home Guard,' arrived and systematically destroyed the 35 blocks of Greenwood, according to the federal investigation. Witnesses reported that planes dropped turpentine bombs on the burning city. Greenwood had been a uniquely prosperous Black community, with 'a nationally renowned entrepreneurial center – a city within a city where places like the Dreamland Theatre, the Stradford Hotel, grocery stores and doctor's offices flourished,' Nichols said. 'At the same time, churches provided the foundation of faith needed to thrive in a segregated society.' All of it was decimated. 'Personal belongings and household goods had been removed from many homes and piled in the streets,' the Tulsa Daily World said on June 2, 1921. 'On the steps of the few houses that remained sat feeble and gray Negro men and women and occasionally a small child. The look in their eyes was one of dejection and supplication. Judging from their attitude, it was not of material consequence to them whether they lived or died. Harmless themselves, they apparently could not conceive the brutality and fiendishness of men who would deliberately set fire to the homes of their friends and neighbors and just as deliberately shoot them down in their tracks.' The massacre was covered up. Former Oklahoma state representative Don Ross said he had never heard about it until he was about 15 and one of his teachers, a survivor, described it in class. 'More annoyed than bored, I leaped from my chair and spoke: 'Greenwood was never burned. Ain't no 300 people dead. We're too old for fairy tales',' Ross wrote in the state's 2001 report on the massacre. His teacher set him straight. Tulsa finally apologized for its role in the massacre in 2021. Two of the last known survivors, Viola Ford Fletcher and Lessie Benningfield Randle, sued for reparations. The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed their case last year. The announcement of the reparations plan restored hope that the city has a commitment to move past the horror. 'June 1, 2025 was the culmination of that commitment,' Williams said. 'Tulsa has finally committed to moving beyond apology to justice.'
Asahi Shimbun
18 hours ago
- Asahi Shimbun
Resource-rich Mongolia faces political uncertainty after the prime minister resigns
A protestor holds a sign that reads ''Resign, Kettle, Resign' in reference to Mongolia's Prime Minister, at the Sukhbaatar Square in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, on May 22. (AP Photo) TAIPEI--Resource-rich Mongolia is facing political uncertainty following the resignation early on Tuesday of its prime minister in the wake of protests over endemic corruption in the landlocked Asian country, squeezed between China and Russia. Before he lost the confidence vote in the parliament, Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai warned that his removal could undermine Mongolia's fledgling democracy. The vote followed weeks of protests sparked by reports of lavish spending by his son and calls for him to step down. The reports, which cited expensive jewelry and helicopter rides for the son's female companion, underscored the vast gap between Mongolians who have grown extremely wealthy off the country's exports and much of the rest of the population, mired in poverty. Here is a look at why what is happening in Mongolia matters: Mongolia, a country of about 3.5 million people, borders Russia to the north and China to the south. Its stunning alpine mountains interspersed with vast deserts hold an abundance of coal, copper and other natural resources used in high-tech manufacturing. The question of who benefits from the wealth has been a key issue since Mongolia began negotiating with foreign mining giants — rumors of secret deals and under-the-table payments have circulated for years. After Mongolia threw off Communism at the end of the Cold War, it lost generous Soviet Union aid packages. Since then, it has been slowly becoming a democracy but is struggling to avoid falling into debt while holding Chinese and Russian interests at bay. China is a particularly important neighbor as its ruling Communist Party buys up 92% of Mongolia's exports. Over the years, the capital of Ulaanbaataar transformed itself from a city of clunky Soviet-era buildings surrounded by traditional herders' felt tents known as gers, into a metropolis of shopping malls and fancy hotels. The protesters have said the country's mineral riches have benefited business interests and the wealthy, while many Mongolians still live in poverty. Early on Tuesday morning, Oyun-Erdene only got 44 votes of support in the 126-seat legislature — the State Great Khural — well short of the 64 needed, according to the head of the counting commission, M. Narantuya-nara. Oyun-Erdene accepted defeat, saying it had been an honor to serve the nation through the coronavirus pandemic, Russia's war on Ukraine and the ongoing strife over U.S. tariffs. But he also warned of the threat of a 'spider's web' of special interests that he said are working to hold the Mongolian people back. Oyun-Erdene, who ran a coalition government, will remain prime minister until his replacement is elected in parliament, most likely from the ranks of opposition lawmakers. Those who pick his successor will likely also have to find a platform that will satisfy the demands of the largely young and well-educated class that has led the protests. That could include moving ahead with a national sovereignty fund introduced recently to better help spread the wealth. In stepping down, Oyun-Erdene defended his integrity but said he had made the mistake of 'paying insufficient attention to social and internal political matters.' He also warned of political instability ahead, saying it 'could lead the public to lose faith in parliamentary rule and potentially put our democratic parliamentary system at risk of collapse.' Erin Murphy, deputy director and senior fellow of India and emerging Asian economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it's not easy to 'build that foundation for democracy' at a time when Mongolia also must tackle economic problems. Julian Dierkes, a Mongolia expert at the University of Mannheim in Germany, said he doesn't expect any major policy changes, whoever becomes the next prime minister. 'They will be selected on the basis of personal networks and patronage,' Dierkes said. Many people on the street seemed worried for the future and some defended the outgoing prime minister on Tuesday. Oyun-Erdene should not be responsible for his son's failings, said Gansukh Batbayar, a military retiree in Ulaanbaatar who lauded what he described as Oyun-Erdene's efforts to 'confiscate illegally earned assets and money of corrupt officials' and distribute it more fairly. 'We barely survive in these chaotic times and our pensions are very small,' said an older woman on a public bus in Ulaanbaataar, who declined to give her name to speak about the political developments. She counts on her children 'to have food to eat and a roof over my head,' she said.
