Young Americans' support for free speech declines sharply
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


The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: Trump ‘militarization' of cities ‘violates everything that we believe in'
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday denounced President Trump's 'militarization' of cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, claiming it 'violates everything that we believe in.' MSNBC's Alicia Menendez asked Goldman if GOP lawmakers are as 'unanimously in favor' of Trump's federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) as the president seemingly believes. 'I would really, really hope not, because the militarization of our cities and our domestic law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus law and violates everything that we believe in [as] Americans,' Goldman responded. 'But just as I thought there would be Republicans who would stand up for their constituents and prevent them from losing health care, prevent them from losing food benefits, prevent million — billions of dollars of offshore wind investment in their own districts, I thought they would stand up for their own districts, and they didn't,' the New York Democrat told 'The Weeknight' host, referring to provisions included in the massive spending and tax bill signed into law last month. Trump earlier this week deployed National Guard troops to the nation's capital and declared a crime emergency in the district, giving the administration temporary authority to take control over the local police force under the city's Home Rule Act. The president on Wednesday told reporters that he will seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to lengthen the initiative. Democrats, from local officials to members of the House and Senate, have decried the move as 'unnecessary' and ' unlawful,' as data shows the crime rate shrinking. He also ordered National Guard troops and some U.S. Marines to go to Los Angeles earlier this year when protests spread throughout the city — and beyond — in opposition to the White House's robust immigration agenda, including an uptick in detainments and deportations by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).


The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Raskin: Maxwell prison move ‘speaks to the irregularity of the process'
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Wednesday questioned disgraced socialite Ghislaine Maxwell's recent prison transfer, as lawmakers press the Trump administration to release more files related to its probe of the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. Maxwell, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years as Epstein's co-conspirator, was quietly transferred from a Florida prison to a lower-security prison camp in Texas earlier this month, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The move comes as she is appealing her case to the administration and Supreme Court. 'It was practically instantaneous. And of course, that then speaks to the irregularity of the process leading up to it,' Raskin said during a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC's 'The Last Word.' 'Remember that this was preceded by the sacking of Maureen Comey, who was one of the senior prosecutors leading that prosecution, and they simply fired her,' he continued. 'And then that's when [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche decided to take matters into his own hands.' Blanche, who formerly defended President Trump during criminal proceedings, met with Maxwell one-on-one in Florida for two days to discuss Epstein. The case resurfaced after the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI released a joint memo last month finding the disgraced financier did not keep a 'client list.' It also sought to dispel conspiracies around his 2019 death in a New York City jail cell, which has been ruled a suicide. Raskin suggested Blanche helped move Maxwell because he liked what he heard in the closed door meetings. 'So look, I think it seems pretty clear to the vast majority of Americans, as you're pointing out this evening, that Donald Trump's got one major interest in this whole affair at this point, which is burying any information that reveals the connection between him and Jeffrey Epstein,' the Maryland Democrat said. 'We know that they had more than a thousand FBI agents working 24 hour shifts, looking for mentions of Donald Trump's name in the Epstein files and looking for photographs of him, video snippets of him, whatever it might be,' he added. President Trump, following pressure from his base, ordered the DOJ to make transcripts of the five days of Epstein and Maxwell's grand jury testimonies public and to ask the court to unseal exhibits related to the case. A judge days later denied the request. While Republican lawmakers left Washington earlier this summer to avoid the controversy, it is likely to ramp up once again when they return in September.


Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
What to know about the Vladimir Putin-Donald Trump summit in Alaska
The U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska is happening where East meets West — quite literally — in a place familiar to both countries as a Cold War front line of missile defense, radar outposts and intelligence gathering. Whether it can lead to a deal to produce peace in Ukraine more than 3 1/2 years after Moscow's invasion remains to be seen. Here's what to know about the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, the first summit in four years: The summit takes place Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson outside Anchorage starting about 11:30 a.m. (1930 GMT, 3:30 p.m. EDT), between Putin and Trump as well as a meeting of the delegations, said Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign policy adviser. It's Putin's first trip to the U.S. since 2015 for the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Because the U.S. isn't a member of the International Criminal Court, which in 2023 issued a warrant for Putin on war crimes accusations, it's under no obligation to arrest him. Both countries confirmed a meeting between only Putin and Trump, despite initial suggestions that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy might take part. The Kremlin has long pushed back against Putin meeting Zelenskyy -– at least until a peace deal is reached by both sides and is ready to be signed. Putin said last week he wasn't against meeting Zelenskyy 'but certain conditions need to be created' and were 'still a long way off.' That raised fears about excluding Ukraine from negotiations. Kyiv and its European allies stressed that peace cannot be achieved without Kyiv's involvement. Zelenskyy was in Berlin for virtual meetings Wednesday with Trump and European leaders to try to ensure Ukraine and its allies are heard before the summit. The Ukrainian president told the group Putin 'is bluffing' about his military might and the effectiveness of sanctions, and 'is trying to apply pressure … on all sectors of the Ukrainian front' to try to show that Russia is 'capable of occupying all of Ukraine.' In reality, sanctions are 'hitting Russia's war economy hard,' Zelenskyy said. Zelenskyy also met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London on Thursday. It will be the first visit by a Russian leader to Alaska, even though it was part of the czarist empire until 1867, the state news agency Tass said. Alaska was colonized by Russia starting from the 18th century until Czar Alexander II sold it to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. When it was found to contain vast resources, it was seen by Russians as a naïve deal that generated remorse. After the USSR's collapse, Alaska was a subject of nostalgia and jokes for Russians. One popular song in the 1990s went: 'Don't play the fool, America … give back our dear Alaska land.' Sam Greene of King's College London said on X the symbolism of Alaska as the site of a summit about Ukraine was 'horrendous — as though designed to demonstrate that borders can change, land can be bought and sold.' Trump has appeared increasingly exasperated with Putin over Russia's refusal to halt the bombardment of Ukraine. Kyiv has agreed to a ceasefire, insisting on a truce as a first step toward peace. Moscow presented ceasefire conditions that are nonstarters for Zelenskyy, such as withdrawing troops from the four regions Russia illegally annexed in 2022, halting mobilization efforts, or freezing Western arms deliveries. For a broader peace, Putin demands Kyiv cede the annexed regions, even though Russia doesn't fully control them, and Crimea, renounce a bid to join NATO, limit the size of its armed forces and recognize Russian as an official language along with Ukrainian. Zelenskyy insists any peace deals include robust security guarantees to protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression. Putin has warned Ukraine it will face tougher conditions for peace as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a 'buffer zone.' Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for territory under Ukrainian control in the four annexed regions annexed by Moscow. Zelenskyy said Saturday that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' But Trump said Monday: 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both.' Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region it still controls as part of a ceasefire deal, a proposal the Ukrainian categorically rejected. Kyiv won't give up territory it controls, he added, saying that would be unconstitutional and would serve only as a springboard for a future Russian invasion. He said discussions led by the U.S. on ending the war have not addressed key Ukrainian demands, including security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression and including Europe in negotiations. French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that Trump was 'very clear' in a virtual meeting with European leaders and Zelenskyy that the U.S. wants to achieve a ceasefire. Macron added that Trump had been clear that 'territorial issues relating to Ukraine … will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president.' Trump said Wednesday there will be unspecified 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to stop the war after the summit. Putin sees a meeting with Trump as a chance to cement Russia's territorial gains, keep Ukraine out of NATO and prevent it from hosting any Western troops so Moscow can gradually pull the country back into its orbit. He believes time is on his side as Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances along the front amid swarms of Moscow's missiles and drones. The meeting is a diplomatic coup for Putin, isolated since the invasion. The Kremlin sought to portray renewed U.S. contacts as two superpowers looking to resolve various global problems, with Ukraine being just one. Ukraine and its European allies are concerned a summit without Kyiv could allow Putin to get Trump on his side and force Ukraine into concessions. 'Any decisions that are without Ukraine are at the same time decisions against peace,' Zelenskyy said. 'They will not bring anything. These are dead decisions. They will never work.' European officials echoed that. 'As we work towards a sustainable and just peace, international law is clear: All temporarily occupied territories belong to Ukraine,' European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. 'A sustainable peace also means that aggression cannot be rewarded.' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Sunday he believed Trump was 'making sure that Putin is serious, and if he is not, then it will stop there.' 'If he is serious, then from Friday onwards, the process will continue. Ukraine getting involved, the Europeans being involved,' Rutte added. Since last week, Putin spoke to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as well as the leaders of South Africa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, the Kremlin said. That suggested Putin perhaps wanted to brief Russia's most important allies about a potential settlement, said pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov. Putin also met with top government officials on the eve of the summit.