Last week, FIRE released results from April’s National Speech Index, a quarterly poll designed to track Americans’ changing attitudes and beliefs about free speech.
The conclusion I would draw here is that conservatives are far more likely to let people hear speech they want, unimpeded, without disruption.
It’s also unclear what “illegal protest” means here. Except for use of violence to stop a speech, none of these things are strictly illegal. Heckling, shouting down a speaker, and blocking entry are *illiberal* but not necessarily illegal.
In far too many cases it appears alleged "elite" institutions in particular are indoctrinating students to be just another woke brick in the wall. Times have certainly changed since that song came out 45 years ago.
The contents of this piece is great, fair and even handed.
But the title of the piece is dishonest at best, a lie at worst, when it claims that “conservatives oppose even legal protest”.
Because as the data shows clearly, there are NO examples where a majority of conservatives support that position.
Where the piece does indeed provide evidence of majorities of so-called “liberals” supporting illegal protests.
The conclusions *within* the piece - that conservatives are more likely to oppose even legal protest, e.g. - are perfectly fair and honest.
The headline is dishonest and should be changed. Or at minimum, amended to indicate that only half of the headline is actually true, while the second half of the headline is merely directionally accurate.
Free expression as distinct from speech. Protesting is performed under free expression but it is closer to a grunt or a fart and rarely if ever rises to the level of speech in the sense of communicating a logical idea. While the right of assembly is guaranteed, as well as the people the right to petition and present grievances to the government, underlying and sometimes explicitly the assembly is meant to convey or be perceived as a threat of violence to come, or in a milder form, present a nuisance to the public. Based on the facts of many protest events, SCOTUS should revisit time, place and manner restrictions - increase them - to recognize the empirical truth of many protests.
Again we see the actions of people who are frightened of ideas, and by implication, unsure of the solidity of their own ideas. College administrators tend to be limp-wristed in response, but what they should do is tell students who want to shout down speakers to get some therapy and grow up.
The conclusion I would draw here is that conservatives are far more likely to let people hear speech they want, unimpeded, without disruption.
It’s also unclear what “illegal protest” means here. Except for use of violence to stop a speech, none of these things are strictly illegal. Heckling, shouting down a speaker, and blocking entry are *illiberal* but not necessarily illegal.
Some of the things you claimed are not illegal in fact are illegal.
Blocking entry, for example, is usually illegal.
In far too many cases it appears alleged "elite" institutions in particular are indoctrinating students to be just another woke brick in the wall. Times have certainly changed since that song came out 45 years ago.
The contents of this piece is great, fair and even handed.
But the title of the piece is dishonest at best, a lie at worst, when it claims that “conservatives oppose even legal protest”.
Because as the data shows clearly, there are NO examples where a majority of conservatives support that position.
Where the piece does indeed provide evidence of majorities of so-called “liberals” supporting illegal protests.
The conclusions *within* the piece - that conservatives are more likely to oppose even legal protest, e.g. - are perfectly fair and honest.
The headline is dishonest and should be changed. Or at minimum, amended to indicate that only half of the headline is actually true, while the second half of the headline is merely directionally accurate.
Free expression as distinct from speech. Protesting is performed under free expression but it is closer to a grunt or a fart and rarely if ever rises to the level of speech in the sense of communicating a logical idea. While the right of assembly is guaranteed, as well as the people the right to petition and present grievances to the government, underlying and sometimes explicitly the assembly is meant to convey or be perceived as a threat of violence to come, or in a milder form, present a nuisance to the public. Based on the facts of many protest events, SCOTUS should revisit time, place and manner restrictions - increase them - to recognize the empirical truth of many protests.
Again we see the actions of people who are frightened of ideas, and by implication, unsure of the solidity of their own ideas. College administrators tend to be limp-wristed in response, but what they should do is tell students who want to shout down speakers to get some therapy and grow up.
Your response is unsafe.
You should be cancelled.
Was the survey question just "it is never acceptable" agree/disagree or was it a five-option scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always)?
Looks like it was Always, Sometimes, Rarely, and Never.
https://www.fire.org/research-learn/national-speech-index-april-2026