Young Americans' support for free speech declines sharply
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 at at which 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 United States 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 and1924, to Gen X, born between 1965 and 1979.
But Gen Z, those born between 1995 and 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 to 24 now identify as slightly more conservative than those ages 25 to 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 a research professor of political science and executive director of The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
14 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How Doubling Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Will Hit U.S. Businesses and Consumers
Canned foods, cars, houses, and a range of other goods could soon get more expensive as businesses face a newly doubled tariff rate of 50% for steel and aluminum imports. President Donald Trump described the increase, which raised the levies from the 25% rate announced in February beginning on Wednesday, as an effort to 'further secure the steel industry in the United States' during a Friday rally at a steel mill in Pittsburgh, Penn.—once the heart of the domestic steel industry. But while American steel industry groups have hailed the tariff hike, economic experts have sounded alarms, saying it could further disrupt the already-volatile global supply chain and put more strain on businesses—and Americans' wallets. 'Consumers will have to pay the price,' says Virginia Tech economics professor David Beiri. 'The continued uncertainty that is created by the government is poisoning business plans.' How will steel and aluminum tariff hikes impact businesses? The United States is highly reliant on steel imports, bringing in more of the material from abroad than any other country in the world, according to the International Trade Administration. More than 26 million metric tons of steel were imported last year, most of which came from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and China. 'We are equally dependent on aluminum,' says Jonathan Colehower, managing director at consulting company UST. The domestic steel industry has voiced support for the increased tariffs, saying they will help it weather increased competition from foreign steel manufacturers. 'Chinese steel exports to the world have more than doubled since 2020, surging to 118 million MT in 2024—more than total North American steel production,' the American Iron and Steel Institute, one of several trade associations representing the American steel industry, said in a statement after Trump announced the higher rate. 'This tariff action will help prevent new surges in imports that would injure American steel producers and their workers.' But experts worry about the industry's ability to meet increased demand as businesses, facing the additional import costs, seek cheaper alternatives for their products. While the U.S. once dominated the steel industry, the boom has died down in the last century. 'With domestic capacity not necessarily being able to produce what we might need…there is going to be a transitory effect,' says Beiri, referring to the adjustment period the steel industry will have to navigate as the supply chain changes. Colehower says the domestic steel supply may tighten as a result of the increased tariffs, which could cause domestic prices to rise amid high demand. 'There's absolutely no way it's going to be able to make up the difference immediately,' he says of the domestic steel industry. The Aluminum Association, a trade group that represents both U.S.-based and foreign companies, said it supports tariff-free Canadian aluminum, pointing to the American aluminum industry's reliance on the country's northern neighbor. 'Aluminum is a critical material for our economy and national defense – used in everything from cars to beverage cans to fighter jets. Today, the United States is investing significantly and will need both smelted and recycled aluminum to meet growing demand,' the association said. 'In the years if not decades it will take to build new U.S. smelter capacity, our metal needs must be met by importing.' How will the higher tariffs impact the prices of goods? Steel and aluminum are used in various products, from beer cans and office supplies to automobiles—the prices for all of which are likely to rise as a result of the doubled import taxes. The Can Manufacturers Institute, the trade association of the metal can manufacturing industry, opposed the tariff increase in a statement after Trump announced the coming change in the rate, saying it would 'further increase the cost of canned goods at the grocery store.' The can manufacturing industry imports nearly 80% of its tin-mill steel from foreign countries. 'Doubling steel tariffs will inflate domestic canned food prices, and it plays into the hands of China and other foreign canned food producers, which are more than happy to undercut American farmers and food producers,' the trade association said. Beer companies and other beverage businesses are also set to be impacted. The real estate and construction industries, both of which use steel to build homes, warehouses, and other structures will be footing a bigger bill, as well, Colehower says. He predicts businesses such as Lowe's and Home Depot, the latter of which vowed before the tariff hike that it would not be increasing the cost of its goods, will be severely affected. Farm equipment and transportation vehicles, including cars, bicycles, and others, will also likely cost more as a result of the new tariff rate, Colehower says. Some companies could seek to adjust their business models in the face of increased costs. Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, for instance, said in February that the company would consider making more beverages in plastic bottles to offset aluminum price hikes under the tariffs announced that month. Negotiations over the tariffs are ongoing between the U.S. and its trading partners, several of which have expressed ire at the increased import taxes. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, called the steel tariffs a 'direct attack on Canadian workers.' A European Commission official on Friday said the decision 'adds further uncertainty to the global economy and increases costs for consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' The U.K. has been spared from the tariff hike; Mexico announced Wednesday that it plans to ask for a similar exemption. Canada, Mexico, and the European Union were previously exempt from steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed during his first term in 2016, but are subject to the current levies.
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's early-term momentum has hit a wall. Here's why.
Trump's early-term momentum has hit a wall. Here's why. From Gaza to Ukraine and from federal judges to the Federal Reserve, President Donald Trump has seen his early White House successes take a back seat to emerging struggles. Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk slams Trump's big tax bill on X Days after leaving the White House, Elon Musk slammed President Trump's big tax bill on X. WASHINGTON − Governing? Harder than it looked. Just as Donald Trump is pushing to pass the centerpiece of his domestic agenda, former BFF Elon Musk is trashing his "big, beautiful bill" as "a disgusting abomination." The president's prediction that Vladimir Putin would heed his entreaties to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours is stretching into Month Five. Judges he appointed to the bench are daring to rule against him. From cutting federal spending to deporting illegal immigrants, from reaching a nuclear deal with Iran to negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza, Team Trump is running into roadblocks that are making it difficult to deliver on promises he confidently made before moving into the White House. More: Trump erupts when asked about 'TACO trade' ― a new nickname mocking his tariff approach There are some skid marks where the rubber has met the road. To be sure, some of Trump's problems come from a surplus of early successes and from the breadth of his ambitions. Through a flood of executive orders and actions, he has launched a transformation of the USA's approach to the world and the federal government's role in Americans' lives. Congressional Democrats are still struggling to craft a consistent and coherent strategy against him. But the pushback from other forces has become increasingly problematic for the White House − pushback from skeptical judges, foreign leaders with their own priorities, a steady-as-she-goes Federal Reserve and the reality of budget arithmetic. If Trump's first 100 days were a rollercoaster, the second 100 days, a span that ends on Aug. 8, are proving to be a bit of a slog. Ukraine: 'It'll be done within 24 hours' The question for Trump − as it was for many of his predecessors in the White House − is how he chooses to respond, whether he doubles down or adjusts his goals and tactics when obstacles loom. Consider Ukraine. In dozens of campaign speeches, candidate Trump said he would settle the war in Ukraine within a day of taking office, and perhaps even before he moved in. More: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor': What to know about Ukraine's audacious drone strike "I know Zelenskyy, I know Putin," he said at one Pennsylvania rally, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart "It'll be done within 24 hours, you watch. They all say, 'That's such a boast.' It will be done very quickly.'" But Putin has swatted away Trump's demands for a quick ceasefire, and Ukrainian forces have engineered a stunning drone assault on Russian military forces. An end to the war seems nowhere in sight. "I'm very disappointed," Trump said on May 28. What does he do next? More: Russia demands harsh terms at Ukraine peace talks Trump has threatened sanctions on Russia but is clearly loath to impose them. He has also suggested the United States may just walk away, leaving the conflict to the two warring parties and the Europeans to figure out. He faces similar calculations on tariffs, where he has delayed or reduced his most far-reaching threats to China and elsewhere when they seemed to rattle the stock markets. Does he follow through on his July 8 deadline for trading partners to make deals or be hit with the most stringent tariffs in close to a century? And on Gaza, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longtime ally, has resisted the administration's efforts to negotiate a ceasefire. "Get it over with and let's get back to peace and stop killing people," Trump had vowed during the 2024 campaign. But the region is still wracked by chaos and violence, in recent days over the distribution of food aid. For presidents, a familiar problem Trump is hardly the first president to find himself stymied by the realities of governing and the frustrations of the balance of power. Franklin D. Roosevelt was so enraged by Supreme Court decisions undercutting his New Deal that in 1937 he proposed packing the court with additional, and presumably friendlier, justices. That idea went nowhere, though the high court started to be more welcoming to his initiatives. More than a half-century later, Bill Clinton adopted a strategy of cooperation with the new Republican House speaker, Newt Gingrich, when Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. The policy, dubbed "triangulation," dismayed liberal Democrats but led to welfare reform and a balanced budget. More: Elon Musk slams President Trump's big tax and policy bill as a 'disgusting abomination' After Democratic setbacks in the 2014 midterms, Barack Obama said he still had the ability to deploy "the pen and the phone" − that is, to sign executive actions and to activate outside allies. Trump enjoys considerable political assets, including the discombobulation of Democratic leaders and the loyalty of congressional Republicans. More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill That is being tested by the battle over the bill known as reconciliation. The sprawling measure would extend and expand tax cuts from Trump's first term, add billions of dollars for border security, and trim billions from Medicaid and clean-energy tax credits. It would also increase the national debt by a budget-busting $2.4 trillion over 10 years, according to the updated estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In previous showdowns, Trump has prevailed in Congress, in part because GOP members see their reelections at risk if an unhappy president backs primary challengers against them. He is lobbying for the bill as "arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country." But Musk, who until May 27 led Trump's DOGE budget-cutting initiative, has weighed in on the other side, warning the legislation would create a "crushingly unsustainable debt." His warnings are being cited by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and a handful of other GOP senators alarmed by the bill's impact on the federal budget deficit. The tech billionaire posted an electoral threat of his own on X. The social-media platform is a political asset, too, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that the world's richest man has been willing to spend in the past on political campaigns. "In November next year," he proposed, "we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people."
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"An unwarranted betrayal": Karine Jean-Pierre leaves Democratic Party, announces new book
Karine Jean-Pierre has left the Democratic Party. The former press secretary announced her decision on Wednesday, along with the news of her upcoming book, "Independent." "Until January 20, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the President of the United States," Jean-Pierre said in a statement. "At noon that day, I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes." Set to release on October 21, the book's subtitle promises a "look inside a broken White House" and hints at a defense of the Biden administration. In a description from the publisher, Democratic Party pressure to force Biden to end his campaign is painted as a "betrayal." The description goes on to call the book a guide to carving out "a political space more loyal to personal beliefs than a party affiliation." Jean-Pierre's book will follow Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson into the suddenly crowded market of post-mortems on Biden's single term in the Oval Office. Her departure-cum-book announcement drew mockery from her former colleagues, who called it a "joke" and a "grift." "She made a joke about being an independent last year, and now it's a book," an anonymous former White House staffer told Politico. "All ideas are monetary, even the dumb ones."Democratic strategist Caitlin Legacki pushed back against KJP while speaking to the outlet, saying that Biden and Harris did "hero's work" in preventing a Republican supermajority in Congress. "It's more productive to focus on that, and thank Biden for doing the responsible thing by stepping aside, than it is to pretend this was an unwarranted act of betrayal," she said.
