1
1
0
From Pew Research
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.
We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.
Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: - The Washington Times headlined their article on this survey "First Amendment under siege: Government should ban speech that offends minorities, millennials say". Is the headline likely to be misleading to those who only read the first three paragraphs of "the news"?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.
We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.
Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: - The Washington Times headlined their article on this survey "First Amendment under siege: Government should ban speech that offends minorities, millennials say". Is the headline likely to be misleading to those who only read the first three paragraphs of "the news"?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
Freedom of Speech
Politics
Freedom
Rights
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
COL Ted Mc
1SG (Join to see) - First; Don't count on it. Ignorance and pandering to the deliberately created fears of the masses can go a long way towards trumping the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) What Civics classes would you be talking about 1SG I think they stopped doing them years ago. Not that I think that is a good thing more the problem that they are doing nothing and not just doing something badly.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Mice should not vote for cats: ‘Mouseland,’ a political parable to make you think
On top of the ever-rising economic inequality and a pretty revoltingly flying death-robot-based foreign policy, we have now learned that it is possible that our current President lied through his teeth to make the assassination of Osama Bin Laden look super-action-movie-cool. It is also equally possible that our then-Secretary of State—who is also likely to become our next President—was in on it. All of this is all pretty discouraging...
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I hope freedom of speech and the other 1st Amendment freedoms are not going to be infringed any more than they have been COL Ted Mc.
We have a responsibility to be using our freedoms respectfully; but, there is no reasonable way we should be expected to keep track of what is considered disrespectful by every minority group member we come into contact with.
It seems many want their right to trump other people's rights until their own are infringed.
In too many cases tolerance has gone from a courtesy to a mandatory "right."
We have a responsibility to be using our freedoms respectfully; but, there is no reasonable way we should be expected to keep track of what is considered disrespectful by every minority group member we come into contact with.
It seems many want their right to trump other people's rights until their own are infringed.
In too many cases tolerance has gone from a courtesy to a mandatory "right."
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; As "Napoleon" says in Orwell's "Animal Farm" - "All animals are equal (but some are more equal than others).".
I'd almost support a Constitutional Amendment that says "[1] Neither Congress nor any of the several States shall enact any legislation to the effect that Americans shall have "the Right Not To Be Offended. [2] For greater clarity and certainty, the People SHALL NOT have "the Right Not To Be Offended.".
"Freedom of Speech" (and all other "rights") will continue to be "infringed" as long as they are not defended INCLUDING in the cases where you simply loathe the results of defending the "rights". Where people allow "rights" to be restricted simply because they don't like the application of a "right" to a particular situation those "rights" remain restricted and the restriction is used as justification for future justifications.
As an example (only) - it may be "reasonable and responsible" to restrict the general availability of "assault rifles", but that does not translate into it being "reasonable and responsible" to restrict the general availability of things that LOOK LIKE "assault rifles".
Personally, I wouldn't be overly keen on the Second Amendment being interpreted to mean that people were allowed to mount remotely controlled .50 cal machine guns on the hoods of their cars - even though 99.999% of the people who had them would be "solid and responsible citizens" who would never think of using them for any improper purpose or in any unsafe manner. (I realize that the NRA and the "conservatives" will completely disagree with my position on that point but that's just the way I feel about it.)
I'd almost support a Constitutional Amendment that says "[1] Neither Congress nor any of the several States shall enact any legislation to the effect that Americans shall have "the Right Not To Be Offended. [2] For greater clarity and certainty, the People SHALL NOT have "the Right Not To Be Offended.".
"Freedom of Speech" (and all other "rights") will continue to be "infringed" as long as they are not defended INCLUDING in the cases where you simply loathe the results of defending the "rights". Where people allow "rights" to be restricted simply because they don't like the application of a "right" to a particular situation those "rights" remain restricted and the restriction is used as justification for future justifications.
As an example (only) - it may be "reasonable and responsible" to restrict the general availability of "assault rifles", but that does not translate into it being "reasonable and responsible" to restrict the general availability of things that LOOK LIKE "assault rifles".
Personally, I wouldn't be overly keen on the Second Amendment being interpreted to mean that people were allowed to mount remotely controlled .50 cal machine guns on the hoods of their cars - even though 99.999% of the people who had them would be "solid and responsible citizens" who would never think of using them for any improper purpose or in any unsafe manner. (I realize that the NRA and the "conservatives" will completely disagree with my position on that point but that's just the way I feel about it.)
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
We now live in a country were there are "free speech" zones. Definitely in jeopardy
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Jared Bever - Spec; Are you actually allowed "free speech" inside those "free speech zones" or are you only allowed to say what you want to say within the parameters decided upon by those who set them up?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google