Latest news with #GeneralSocialSurvey
UPI
26-06-2025
- Politics
- UPI
Why fewer Americans speak up on political issues
Studies show that both Republican and Democratic supporters are now far more likely than in the past to view the opposing party with deep distrust. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 26 (UPI) -- For decades, Americans' trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey. A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust. That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study. Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as "affective polarization," meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace. Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation -- discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies -- difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they've confirmed they're speaking with someone who's like-minded. I'm a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare. The muting of the American voice According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views. And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one's community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to. About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era. Censorship in the U.S. and globally Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration. Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against "wokeism," and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out. The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years. How the 'spiral of a silence' explains self-censorship In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the "spiral of silence" to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual's willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue. The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority -- perhaps even sharp attacks. A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to "cancel" the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners. This kind of sanction isn't limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high. This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one's views. The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled. Not all issues are like this, of course -- only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral. The consequences for democratic deliberation The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only "acceptable" political views. No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel -- whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned -- because they fear being branded as antisemitic. Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy. But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas -- such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial -- are given space to flourish. The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself. James L. Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers professor of government at the Washington University in St. Louis. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Scoop
24-06-2025
- General
- Scoop
1 In 10 Young Adults Are LGBTIQ+
The LGBTIQ+ population is comparatively young, with 1 in 10 people aged 15 to 29 years being LGBTIQ+ (10.2 percent) in the 2023 Census, compared with 1 in 20 adults in the overall adult population (4.9 percent), according to a report released by Stats NZ today. LGBTIQ+ population of Aotearoa New Zealand: 2023 brings together information about the LGBTIQ+ population in the 2023 Census, as well as information on the LGBT+ population from the Household Economic Survey and the General Social Survey. The 2023 Census data has enabled detailed breakdowns of the LGBTIQ+ population and the groups within it, across age, ethnicity, and other census measures for the first time. Gender, sex, and LGBTIQ+ concepts in the 2023 Census has more information on the census concepts used for these breakdowns.
Japan Today
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
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 © The Conversation
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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 2025 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jacob Mchangama, Vanderbilt University Read more: Americans love free speech, survey finds − until they realize everyone else has it, too Trump's aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US Jacob Mchangama receives funding from The John Templeton Foundation. He is affiliated with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
