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 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
The Mainichi
13 hours ago
- The Mainichi
You really can see Russia from Alaska, and other things to know ahead of Friday's Trump-Putin summit
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- When U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Alaska on Friday, it will be the latest chapter in the 49th state's long history with Russia -- and with international tensions. Siberian fur traders arrived from across the Bering Sea in the first part of the 18th century, and the imprint of Russian settlement in Alaska remains. The oldest building in Anchorage is a Russian Orthodox church, and many Alaska Natives have Russian surnames. The nations are so close -- Alaska's Little Diomede Island in the Bering Strait is less than 3 miles (5 kilometers) from Russia's Big Diomede -- that former Gov. Sarah Palin was right during the 2008 presidential race when she said, "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," though the comment prompted jokes that that was the extent of her foreign policy experience. Alaska has been U.S. territory since 1867, and it has since been the location of the only World War II battle on North American soil, a focus of Cold War tensions and the site of occasional meetings between U.S. and world leaders. Here's a look at Alaska's history with Russia and on the international stage: Russian trappers and Seward's Folly The fur traders established hubs in Sitka and on Kodiak Island. The Russian population in Alaska never surpassed about 400 permanent settlers, according to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. State Department. Russian settlers brutally coerced Alaska Natives to harvest sea otters and other marine mammals for their pelts, said Ian Hartman, a University of Alaska Anchorage history professor. "It was a relationship that the Russians made clear quite early on was not really about kind of a longer-term pattern of settlement, but it was much more about a short-term pattern of extraction," Hartman said. Meanwhile, Russian Orthodox missionaries baptized an estimated 18,000 Alaska Natives. By 1867 the otters had been hunted nearly to extinction and Russia was broke from the Crimean War. Czar Alexander II sold Alaska to the U.S. for the low price of $7.2 million -- knowing Russia couldn't defend its interests in Alaska if the U.S. or Great Britain tried to seize it. Skeptics referred to the purchase as "Seward's Folly," after U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward. That changed when gold was discovered in the Klondike in 1896. World War II and the Cold War The U.S. realized Alaska's strategic importance in the 20th century. During World War II the island of Attu -- the westernmost in the Aleutian chain and closer to Russia than to mainland North America -- was captured by Japanese forces. The effort to reclaim it in 1943 became known as the war's "forgotten battle." During the Cold War, military leaders worried Soviets might attack via Alaska, flying planes over the North Pole to drop nuclear weapons. They built a chain of radar systems connected to an anti-aircraft missile system. The military constructed much of the infrastructure in Alaska, including roads and some communities, and its experience building on permafrost later informed the private companies that would drill for oil and construct the trans-Alaska pipeline. Last year the Pentagon said the U.S. must invest more to upgrade sensors, communications and space-based technologies in the Arctic to keep pace with China and Russia, and it sent about 130 soldiers to a desolate Aleutian island amid an increase in Russian military planes and vessels approaching U.S. territory. Past visits by dignitaries Putin will be the first Russian leader to visit, but other prominent figures have come before him. Japanese Emperor Hirohito stopped in Anchorage before heading to Europe in 1971 to meet President Richard Nixon, and in 1984 thousands turned out to see President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II meet at the airport in Fairbanks. President Barack Obama visited in 2015, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to set foot north of the Arctic Circle, on a trip to highlight the dangers of climate change. Gov. Bill Walker welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping at the airport in Anchorage in 2017 and then took him on a short tour of the state's largest city. Four years later Anchorage was the setting for a less cordial meeting as top U.S. and Chinese officials held two days of contentious talks in their first face-to-face meeting since President Joe Biden took office two months earlier. Critics say Alaska is a poor choice for the summit Sentiment toward Russia in Alaska has cooled since Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. The Anchorage Assembly voted unanimously to suspend its three-decade-long sister city relationship with Magadan, Russia, and the Juneau Assembly sent its sister city of Vladivostock a letter expressing concern. The group Stand Up Alaska has organized rallies against Putin on Thursday and Friday. Dimitry Shein, who ran unsuccessfully for Alaska's lone seat in the U.S. House in 2018, fled from the Soviet Union to Anchorage with his mother in the early 1990s. He expressed dismay that Trump has grown increasingly authoritarian. Russia and the U.S. "are just starting to look more and more alike," he said. Many observers have suggested that holding the summit in Alaska sends a bad symbolic message. "It's easy to imagine Putin making the argument during his meetings with Trump that, 'Well, look, territories can change hands,'" said Nigel Gould-Davies, former British Ambassador to Belarus and senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. "'We gave you Alaska. Why can't Ukraine give us a part of its territory?'"
The Diplomat
a day ago
- The Diplomat
India-Philippines Ties Now Strategic Partnership on Upward Trajectory
Visa-free travel, direct flights, technological cooperation and cultural exchanges are set to complement the new defense-heavy alignment, aiming to turn a once-distant relationship into a broad-based alliance. This August, the visit of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to India marked a historic milestone in the relations between the two nations. The president's visit, which took place between August 4-8, was the first such state visit since 2007. On August 5, India and the Philippines formally elevated their ties to a Strategic Partnership, backed by a comprehensive bilateral Plan of Action (2025–2029) signed in New Delhi. In all, 13 memoranda and agreements were signed during Marcos Jr.'s visit. The partnership spans defense, maritime cooperation, trade, digital technologies, tourism, space cooperation, culture and science. However, the transition from a prolonged historic stasis to the current phase of strategic dynamism has not been sudden. While India and the Philippines established bilateral diplomatic relations in 1949, thanks to Cold War politics, for decades, their partnership remained largely symbolic — anchored in mutual goodwill but unfulfilled potential. Initial limitations were rooted in geographical distance, divergent regional priorities and systemic constraints. Over time, however, India's Look East policy, re-branded in 2014 as the Act East policy, began paving the way for more meaningful engagement through ASEAN frameworks, and India's initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative and Security and Growth for All in the Region, whose acronym SAGAR means ocean in multiple Indian languages. This was upgraded to Mahasagar, meaning the great ocean, in March 2025. The expanded acronym stands for Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions. As India and the Philippines celebrate 75 years of bilateral ties, they stand stronger together at the cusp of making qualitative leaps in their relationship. Defense Ties Key Unlike several of its Southeast Asian peers, the Philippines does not have a strong trade relationship with India. The defense and security partnership has thus become the central pillar of the New Delhi-Manila strategic alignment. This is aptly reflected in the agreement on the sale of BrahMos supersonic cruise missile systems to the Philippines. This makes it the first country to procure these missiles from India. India's BrahMos cruise missile system, delivered in two batches (first in April 2024 and the second in April 2025), now empowers the Philippine Marine Corps with advanced coastal defense capability. This was India's first major defense export. During Marcos' recent visit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that defense cooperation is 'a symbol of deep mutual trust.' In turn, Marcos emphasized the Philippines as a vital partner in India's Act East and Mahasagar vision. Manila is also eyeing procurement of the Akash surface-to-air missile system from India. Strategic Calculus and China On the eve of Marcos' visit, the Indian and Philippine navies conducted their first-ever joint exercises in the South China Sea on August 3-4. The drills were held inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, as part of Manila's broader efforts to counter China's maritime assertiveness. India deployed three warships – INS Delhi, INS Shakti, and INS Kiltan – while the Philippines fielded BRP Miguel Malvar and BRP Jose Rizal. Chinese vessels reportedly followed the Indian-Philippine flotilla. This shift signals a strategic evolution in India's posture toward the Indo‑Pacific. Barring a few exceptions, India had previously avoided direct mentions of the South China Sea. However, New Delhi now explicitly endorses adherence to the 2016 South China Sea arbitration award, drawing focus on upholding a rules-based maritime order. For India, the South China Sea issue is no longer a peripheral concern, but is integral to its maritime and economic security as well as its regional leadership claims. The partnership with the Philippines is a tangible expression of India's Indo‑Pacific ambitions. India's presence there through joint naval patrols and supplying BrahMos to the Philippines reflects an operational follow-through, not just a diplomatic alignment. The aim is deterrence and presenting a viable counterweight to China's claims in a region critical to global trade, through which about $3 trillion worth of goods transit annually. Manila's pursuit of deeper ties with extra-regional partners such as India represents a deliberate move to reduce dependence on any single ally (for example, the U.S.) and forge multi-directional security and economic collaborations. Looking at the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea, as the part within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone is called) issue from the Philippine perspective, it is clear that — barring perhaps Vietnam on occasion — no country has faced as much harassment over territorial claims at the hands of China as the Philippines has. Recognizing the need to balance China's assertiveness, both countries are prioritizing maritime cooperation, information sharing and defense engagements to protect a rules-based order in the area. Diversifying its security and defense partnerships would not only reduce the Philippines' dependency on any single country but also empower the Philippines and India to navigate the complex interplay of regional strategic dynamics effectively. Beyond Security This strategic realignment extends into non-military domains too. For instance, India and the Philippines announced visa-free entry for Indian tourists and free e-visas for Filipino nationals, alongside plans for direct Delhi–Manila flights, expected to expand bilateral tourism and people-to-people exchanges. It has not gone unnoticed in Manila that Thailand and Malaysia offered visa-free entry to Indian tourists and, as a result, saw great benefits in tourism. These recent moves promise to further strengthen people-to-people linkages between the two countries. The two sides have also agreed to launch a preferential trade negotiation, as bilateral trade remains modest ($3.3 billion in 2024), but has abundant room for growth. This is in tune with the ongoing review of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement that was implemented in 2010. India-Philippines collaboration frameworks span space exploration, digital innovation, culture, health and agriculture, all underpinned by the 2025–29 Plan of Action. India's strengths, including IT, digital inclusion, pharmaceuticals, and space, align closely with the Philippines' development goals, positioning the partnership for substantive impact beyond security. Once characterized by distant potential and limited interaction, the bilateral relationship between India and the Philippines is now evolving into a strong strategic partnership. In a changing Indo-Pacific region marked by increasing great-power rivalry, this partnership stands to benefit India's pursuit of its strategic objectives, and the Philippines' efforts for strategic diversification. Originally published by
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Mothers Are Leaving the Workforce, Erasing Pandemic Gains
Working mothers, who helped drive much of the job market's post-pandemic comeback, are leaving the workforce in large numbers this year. The share of working mothers age 25 to 44 with young children has fallen nearly every month this year, dropping by nearly 3 percentage points between January and June, to the lowest level in more than three years, according to an analysis of federal data by Misty Heggeness, a professor at the University of Kansas and former principal economist at the Census Bureau. The drop has been enough to wipe out many of the gains made by working mothers after the pandemic, when remote work arrangements and flexible schedules lured many back to the labor force. But the reversal of many of those policies – with major corporations and government agencies now requiring employees to be back in the office five days a week – has had the opposite effect, Heggeness said. Sweeping federal layoffs have also been a setback for women and other caregivers, who have long relied on the government for stable and flexible employment. 'It's become harder for women, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities, to thrive in this job market,' she said, likening the moment to the 'Barbie' movie when Ken takes over the feminist land of Barbie with masculine ideals. 'It's clear that we're backsliding in the Ken-ergy economy, that the return-to-office chest pounding is having a real ripple effect.' In some cases, mothers say they are giving up jobs happily, in line with MAGA culture and the rise of the 'traditional wife' (#tradwife on social media), which celebrates women choosing conventional gender roles by focusing on children instead of careers. The Trump administration has doubled down on its message that Americans should be having more babies, with Vice President JD Vance promoting the benefits of having a parent at home, saying 'young children are clearly happier and healthier' in such arrangements. This year's pullback among mothers is part of a broader shift: Some 212,000 women over 20 have stopped working or applying for jobs since January, with particularly pronounced drops for Black women and those ages 25 to 34, Labor Department data shows. And while the unemployment rate, at 4.2 percent, remains low, the share of women in the workforce has fallen since January. In interviews with more than a dozen women who've recently left the workforce, many cited a confluence of factors – from layoffs to waning work-from-home flexibility while caring for children or aging parents. Many also noted a discernible shift in workplace attitudes, including return-to-office mandates and discarded diversity policies, that made it feel like they were less valued at work. Several said they struggled to find new work after losing their jobs and decided to go back to school instead, or stay home with their children. Almost all of the women said the decision to stop working felt uncharacteristic for them, and wasn't something they would've considered a year ago. 'Work was a big, big part of my identity, but all of these little things added up,' said Isabelle Beulaygue, 37, a sociologist in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who left her job as a university professor earlier this year to stay home with her infant. 'I was always super career-focused, but it started feeling like women were expendable at work, like they weren't really respected anymore.' There wasn't any one thing that led her to quit, she said, but rather a culmination of small changes – including a move for her husband's job, growing pressure to be in the office for long hours and worsening morale because of federal budget cuts. When she had to leave work early a few times to care for her sick baby, it was difficult to coordinate. 'Flexibility feels like a thing of the past,' she said. The pullback comes at a time when the broader labor market is cooling after years of hefty post-pandemic growth. U.S. employers added 106,000 jobs between April and July – less than one-third of jobs added in the same period last year, according to the latest Labor Department data. 'The U.S. is the only advanced economy that's had declining female labor force participation in the last 20 years, and a lot of that is because of lack of social safety net and caregiving supports,' said Kate Bahn, chief economist at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. 'It's a long-term trend that appears to be getting worse.' Although Black women are more likely to be in the workforce than White or Hispanic women, Bahn said they have been disproportionately hit by recent overhauls, including federal government cuts and the dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The labor market has slowed down considerably for all workers, but the unemployment rate for Black women over 20 has risen by nearly an entire percentage point so far this year, to 6.3 percent in July, its highest level in almost four years. After six months of job-searching, Jovanna, who was laid off from her health care copywriting job in early February, is changing course entirely. The mother of two, who is Black and lives in the Midwest, recently enrolled in a 15-week project management certification program in hopes of switching careers. 'I sent out at least 500 applications, worked with three different career coaches, and networked as much as I could,' said Jovanna, who asked to be identified by her middle name only, because she worries about jeopardizing future employment. 'I am depleting my savings and ended up having to borrow against my 401(k), so it got to the point where I had to make a bigger change.' Economists say they worry that the latest labor force departures could indicate a longer term setback for women, especially if they decide to return to work. Historically, breaks in work history have coincided with lower pay and fewer opportunities for advancement, said Heggeness of the University of Kansas. 'There are huge implications for the women themselves,' she said. 'Their lifetime earnings will be lower, they will most likely come back to a job that does not pay the salary they were making when they left. It'll be harder for them to get back in, harder to move up the ladder to senior management positions because they've had this gap in employment.' Emily Santoni left her position as a chief marketing officer at an energy consulting firm in Houston to stay home with her children, ages 1 and 3, this year. It wasn't a decision she made lightly – she and her husband spent months lining up their finances and preparing for the transition. Last year, the couple spent more than $140,000 on a full-time nanny and other child care. It was financially doable, Santoni said, but she couldn't shake the feeling that she was missing out. 'I worked hard, I had a great career, we were both making great money,' the 39-year-old said. 'But I was working so much, there were weeks when I saw my kids for maybe 30 minutes a day. Finally it was like, 'Let's slow this down so I can be a present mother.'' Plus, her workplace was doing away with a policy that allowed parents to work from home two days a week. That wasn't a 'major deciding factor,' Santoni said, 'but it was one more thing that was like, 'Blargh, this sucks.'' Major corporations around the country, including J.P. Morgan, AT&T and Amazon, as well as large swaths of the federal government, have begun mandating that employees clock in to the office five days a week. Although enforcement has been uneven, labor economists say those requirements have added extra strain for many workers, particularly those with young children. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Santoni says leaving the workforce has been a refreshing change. She's spending a lot more time with her children, and is also going to more workout classes and happy hours with friends. Although it took a few months to find her rhythm, she's now encouraging other women in her circle to consider stepping back from the labor force. 'My decision to leave my corporate role had nothing to do with politics or a movement telling women to stay home. It had everything to do with what success looks like for me right now,' Santoni said. 'I've worked relentlessly since I was young, and now I choose to give my best energy to my kids while they're little. For moms choosing to leave the workforce for this same reason, it's not weakness or submission – it's power.'
