Free Speech Principles Research Articles

Conditionally supporting freedom of speech: how cognitive sophistication and social identity affect adolescents’ support for freedom of speech and its restrictions

ABSTRACT Democracy requires the socialization of young people into democratic values. Yet, support for these democratic values cannot be unconditional, because they conflict in concrete situations. This paper aims to explain to what extent and why young adolescents support freedom of speech in uncontested and contested situations. We combine insights from moral development, political socialization, and social identity theory as mechanisms behind support for specific types of speech across different groups. We use large-scale, nationally representative data collected among 2355 young adolescents in 42 schools in the Netherlands, at the very start after they tracked into secondary education. We find that young adolescents differentiate between various types of speech. They combine high support for the abstract principle of free speech with lower support for types of speech in conflicted situations. Cognitive sophistication explains why abstract support for free speech is higher among students in pre-academic education than in pre-vocational education, whereas we find the inverse in contested situations. Social identity theory explains why adolescents are more reluctant to support free speech when it challenges their in-group. These findings underpin that adolescents have a fine-grained understanding of democratic values, and the need to focus on democratic trade-offs in scholarly research.

Inconsistency of Americans’ opinions on free speech: evidence from three survey experiments

ABSTRACT A conventional wisdom is that Americans strongly support freedom of speech. However, recent experimental studies show that opinions on specific controversial cases involving freedom of speech can be affected by ideology and partisanship. In this research note, we explore the consistency of Americans’ support for the general principles of free speech. In three survey-experimental studies that ask questions about different aspects of free speech, we show that Americans’ opinions on free speech are inconsistent. First, responses to the free speech questions are strongly affected by their polarity. Second, reliability of the resulting scale is surprisingly low. Third, employing double-barreled questions that contrast free speech to other values (social justice and patriotism) increases the scale’s reliability. Taken together, these findings suggest that, first, abstract free speech questions simply measure tolerance and, second, framing free speech measures around specific controversies better captures free speech attitudes.

Self-certification: A novel method for increasing sharing discernment on social media.

The proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms has given rise to growing demands for effective intervention strategies that increase sharing discernment (i.e. increase the difference in the probability of sharing true posts relative to the probability of sharing false posts). One suggested method is to encourage users to deliberate on the veracity of the information prior to sharing. However, this strategy is undermined by individuals' propensity to share posts they acknowledge as false. In our study, across three experiments, in a simulated social media environment, participants were shown social media posts and asked whether they wished to share them and, sometimes, whether they believed the posts to be truthful. We observe that requiring users to verify their belief in a news post's truthfulness before sharing it markedly curtails the dissemination of false information. Thus, requiring self-certification increased sharing discernment. Importantly, requiring self-certification didn't hinder users from sharing content they genuinely believed to be true because participants were allowed to share any posts that they indicated were true. We propose self-certification as a method that substantially curbs the spread of misleading content on social media without infringing upon the principle of free speech.

A Renaissance of Civic Education and Civic Engagement in Higher Education in the Spirit of the American Founders and Constitutionalism

A growing number of states have responded to negative trends in civic knowledge, trust, and engagement by creating new institutes or schools at state universities, with the express aim of reinvigorating civic education and thoughtful, engaged citizenship. In seeking to increase civic knowledge, champion viewpoint diversity, model civil discussion of ideas, combat polarization, and embrace the civic responsibilities of higher education, these institutes can be seen as carrying forward the American founders’ vision of civic education, the moral foundations of law and constitutionalism, and the constitutional principles of free speech and federalism.

Heckling, Free Speech, and Freedom of Association

Abstract People sometimes use speech to interfere with other people’s speech, as in the case of a heckler sabotaging a lecture with constant interjections. Some people claim that such interference infringes upon free speech. Against this view, we argue that where competing speakers in a public forum both have an interest in speaking, free speech principles should not automatically give priority to the ‘official’ speaker. Given the ideals underlying free speech, heckling speech sometimes deserves priority. But what can we say, then, about situations in which heckling clearly seems to infringe upon people’s civil liberties, in a way that intuitively justifies intervention? In such cases, we argue, heckling infringes upon people’s associative freedom. We present and defend an ethical framework for the institutional management of ‘Speech Fights’, geared around this insight.

Free speech versus defence of the nation? The media as sources of national insecurity in Ukraine

ABSTRACT The media can cause concern in the context of national security: they are described as potential tools and targets of attack that can be “weaponised”, and as a space where “information war” is waged. Governments may try to block media that are deemed a security threat, but the rationale for taking such an action deserves careful consideration, given the tension between media restrictions and the democratic principle of free speech. This article scrutinises the security rationale for restrictions imposed by Ukraine on Russian and “pro-Russian” media from 2014. When justifying restrictions, Ukrainian officials highlighted the threat of media content both distorting perceptions of reality and weakening the foundations of Ukrainian nationhood. We, therefore, analyse survey data to investigate whether the use of the banned media was associated with variation in Ukrainian citizens’ perceptions of truth and national values. We find that the use of the banned media was linked to mistaken beliefs about the veracity of news headlines, both true and false; it was also associated with lower support for democracy in Ukraine (a key national constitutional value). This evidence from the Ukrainian case informs our discussion about the media’s impact on national (in)security and rationales for media restrictions in democratic contexts more broadly.

Speaking Truth to Power: A Tale of Two Universities

This article compares the experiences of resistance and accommodation by the University of South Carolina (USC) and Boğaziçi University to the imposition of a right-wing head of university by government fiat. I begin with a description of the USC case and examine one scholarly response. I offer a critique of that response in terms of the problematics about the gendered subject when involving the principles of free speech and the importance of speaking truth to power. I then turn to the Boğaziçi case and briefly examine two scholarly responses contained in a dossier published in the South Atlantic Quarterly. I conclude with a brief discussion of the differences between the two universities and thoughts about what radicalism entails in practice. JEL Classification: A13, I21, H75, B5

Small and specialist university approach to equality and diversity – the GuildHE anti-racism project

This brief considers how small and specialist higher education providers in England have approached creating an inclusive learning community, particularly focusing on ethnically diverse students. It notes that sector efforts are surrounded by controversy and sometimes viewed by politicians or the media as either misunderstood, deliberately positioned as “wokery” or against the principles of free speech. Yet there is substantial evidence and a regulatory requirement to improve the student experience and outcomes of diverse students. Through the models of anti-racism and allyship, GuildHE has created a package of support for small and specialist institutions to navigate the complexities of institutional change. This brief provides examples of how our members have made positive steps to become more inclusive, thoughtful, knowledgeable and impactful and provides recommendations to government, HEIs and individuals to continue to improve experiences and outcomes for students.

Neo-Gnosticism and the American Dissident Right

Neo-Gnosticism and the American Dissident Right

Prudent Forbearance in the Public Sphere

Much of the discussion surrounding freedom of speech relates to the importance of promoting speech. On this approach, the more speech the better, both for individuals and for democratic society. This line of thought, typically associated with the work of J. S. Mill, has obvious merit. Yet unrestrained speech also poses perils to individuals and society. In this paper, we argue for two theses: (1) Examination of On Liberty shows that Mill in fact supported the notion that forbearance in public speech is ethically justified (albeit not legally enforceable), and (2) Anyone supporting utilitarian principles should give serious consideration to the possibility that prudent forbearance in public speech is a civic virtue. In other words, a reasonable concern for free speech as an integral part of social well-functioning should lead us to temper our manners of expression in circumstances when this is appropriate, and when a policy of complete license in public expression would likely undermine both the well-functioning of the society of which we are a part and the free exchange of ideas that free speech principles were intended to foster in the first place.

The Essence of the Principle of Free Speech in Administrative Proceedings and its Elements

The paper elucidates the concept of publicity as a principle of proceedings in administrative offenses The essence of the principle of publicity is expressed in the requirements to ensure public consideration of an administrative offense and guarantee access to information concerning it. Based on a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, international law, the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and legal standings of the highest judicial authorities, the paper explains elements of the principle of publicity characterizing its content in administrative proceedings. The paper examines existing exceptions and limitations regarding the requirements of openness in administrative proceedings as well as statutory gaps and contradictions in implementation of the principle of publicity. On the ground of decisions in specific cases, the paper highlights the importance of legislative guarantees of the principle of transparency in administrative proceedings.

‘A one-sided view of the world’: women of colour at the intersections of academic freedom

ABSTRACT Academic freedom is a necessary principle. Current attempts to (re)conceptualise, (re)frame, and reduce the principles of free speech from universal concepts to specific and narrow conceptions are however underpinned by political expediency and accompanied by erosions to press freedom and protest rights. The current enacting and policing of academic freedom is purposely acontextual, colour-blind, and ignorant of differential costs of dissent and (non)compliance. This paper focuses instead on the interlinked conditions of precarity, neoliberalisation, internationalisation, digitisation, and state-encouraged intervention that lead to increased surveillance, (self-)censorship, and cultures of silencing, to show that women and people of colour are caught in the crosshairs of the ‘culture wars’ in unique ways. Drawing primarily on the United Kingdom Higher Education (UKHE) sector alongside other international examples, this paper contends that the conditions, structures, and policies around research and teaching amplify state-encouraged backlash against the teaching and research on specific topics. It shows that the renewed fervour for academic freedom continues to disguise bad faith ideologies whilst amplifying politicised interests keen to reinforce the status quo. Historically excluded and minoritised academics face new risks and greater pressures building on already deep-rooted institutional cultures of targeted silencing.

The Unfortunate Consequences of a Misguided Free Speech Principle

The Unfortunate Consequences of a Misguided Free Speech Principle

Balancing Inclusion and Diversity with Upholding Free Speech Rights in Canadian Universities: Challenging but Feasible

The tension emanated from deeply polarized socio-cultural values has found its way into the Canadian university campuses. In their endeavour to strike a balance between promoting diversity, inclusion and respecting free speech, the Canadian higher educational institutions have encountered formidable challenges. Central to the contention revolving around the free speech debate is an assertion that institutional pressures for consolidating a culture of political correctness is believed to have the potential to curtail and stifle freedom of expression which has in turn triggered governmental intervention in certain Canadian provinces. The lack of a proper balance between the quest for promoting inclusion, diversity and free speech can in the long run undermine the socially vital mission of universities, and hence corroding the public trust in the higher educational institutions. Obviously, there is no single solution that can function as panacea to surmount theses pressing demands faced by the Canadian universities. However, it will be argued that the extension of constitutionally protected freedom of expression to the Canadian universities is not only geared to address the shortcomings of academic freedom, but it is also conducive to harmonizing the pursuit of promoting diversity and inclusion with upholding free speech principles.

Free Speech and Social Movements — Demonstration by Occupation in a Democracy

Protest by occupation of public spaces has been a feature of 21st century activism around the world. The Occupy movement, ‘Arab Spring’, Occupy Central in Hong Kong and the Sunflower movement in Taiwan have sparked popular interest in such demonstrations. However, there has been relatively little legal analysis of American occupation-based protests and the role of social movements in a democracy. The article takes the Occupy movement as its case study, examining intermediate court Occupy cases to show how political expression is limited by the US Supreme Court’s free speech principles. It argues that First Amendment free speech principles are ill-suited to protecting the protest activities characteristic of contemporary social movements, and should be revised. The article is interdisciplinary, drawing on the work of well-known social scientist Charles Tilly. It is presented in three parts. The first explains Tilly’s theory of a social movement, then focusses on the intersection between social movement campaigns and the right to free speech. The second part analyses the definitions of freedom of speech developed by the US Supreme Court, relying on Tilly’s work to show that the definitions do not fully recognise the expressive nature of social movements. The failure of the intermediate court Occupy cases can be explained by the courts’ inability to appreciate the significance of occupation-based protest, due to their reliance on the Supreme Court doctrine. The third part contends that Supreme Court principles need to be revised to fully recognise the contribution of the social movement to American public discourse. The article contributes to the journal theme by providing an analysis of the role of today’s social movements as agents of change. It highlights the opportunities for those movements—and the limits on them—to bring about social change through free speech litigation.

Poe in Cyberspace: When Pokerishness Went Viral

Poe in Cyberspace: When <i>Pokerishness</i> Went Viral

"I Won the Election!": An Empirical Analysis of Soft Moderation Interventions on Twitter

Over the past few years, there is a heated debate and serious public concerns regarding online content moderation, censorship, and the principle of free speech on the Web. To ease these concerns, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook refined their content moderation systems to support soft moderation interventions. Soft moderation interventions refer to warning labels attached to potentially questionable or harmful content to inform other users about the content and its nature while the content remains accessible, hence alleviating concerns related to censorship and free speech. In this work, we perform one of the first empirical studies on soft moderation interventions on Twitter. Using a mixed-methods approach, we study the users who share tweets with warning labels on Twitter and their political leaning, the engagement that these tweets receive, and how users interact with tweets that have warning labels. Among other things, we find that 72% of the tweets with warning labels are shared by Republicans, while only 11% are shared by Democrats. By analyzing content engagement, we find that tweets with warning labels had more engagement compared to tweets without warning labels. Also, we qualitatively analyze how users interact with content that has warning labels finding that the most popular interactions are related to further debunking false claims, mocking the author or content of the disputed tweet, and further reinforcing or resharing false claims. Finally, we describe concrete examples of inconsistencies, such as warning labels that are incorrectly added or warning labels that are not added on tweets despite sharing questionable and potentially harmful information.

Rosenberger’s Unexplored History

Rosenberger’s Unexplored History Rachael E. Jones (bio) Introduction Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia (1995), decided by the Supreme Court a quarter-century ago,1 addressed a key tension in the religious liberties doctrine. The case represented the collision of two lines of cases. “No Aid” cases such as Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)2 stood for the premise that funding of religion is explicitly prohibited. A conflicting line of “Equal Access” cases, beginning with Widmar v. Vincent (1981),3 stood for the proposition that the government could not exclude religious groups from open forums. Rosenberger, a challenge brought by a student at the University of Virginia, answered which line of cases would win out in this clash. Not only did Rosenberger dictate that the Equal Access cases would trump the No Aid cases, but it also extended the conclusions of the Equal Access cases. Rosenberger, for the first time, announced that the neutrality principle of equal access to resources extended not only to facilities but also to public funding. This is a crucial allowance, and reflections of this expansion can be seen in recent cases. Rosenberger also represents an important part of doctrinal trends in the religion context. As a whole, funding cases represent an area in which there has been a fair amount of doctrinal convergence, largely on the principle of neutrality.4 Rosenberger foreshad-owed this rise of the principle of neutrality. Rosenberger is also a turning point in the predominant doctrinal pivot from the position in early cases in which the key question was “to what extent is the state forbidden from supporting religion” to a point in which the key question is now “to what extent is the state required to support religion.”5 Rosenberger therefore represents an interesting inflection point as an early case asking essentially the latter question. The case is likewise a salient and early example of a trend toward a steady “unraveling” of limits on aid.6 On Shifting Ground: The Landscape Pre-Rosenberger The doctrinal framework and litigation strategy that led to Rosenberger originated years earlier. The case beginning the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence in earnest was announced in [End Page 107] 1947. Everson v. Board of Education involved public funds being spent on reimbursement for busing children to parochial schools.7 Justice Hugo L. Black, writing for the Court, discussed the inherent tension at issue: first, the state is bound by a no-aid principle, but at the same time, religious individuals cannot be excluded from receiving general public benefits. The Court’s jurisprudence has developed considerably since then, but the concerns at stake in Everson inform questions still at issue today.8 While Everson marks the beginning of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the specific line of cases leading up to Rosenberger began with Widmar v. Vincent. In Widmar, the University of Missouri prevented a religious group from meeting in University buildings. The district court upheld the restriction, finding that it was required by non-establishment principles.9 The Supreme Court ruled against the University, holding that once it had created a forum that was “generally open to student groups,” excluding the religious group was impermissible content-based discrimination.10 Widmar created a model litigation strategy for plaintiffs, and this basic structure would be repeated in a line of cases christened the “Equal Access” cases, including Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, Rosenberger, and Good News Club v. Mil-ford Central School. The Widmar formula involved challenging a public institution’s restriction on the use of its resources or facilities by raising a free speech challenge to exclusion from a public forum. Lamb’s Chapel, another installment in this line, followed blueprint. There, New York law allowed local districts to regulate after-hours use of schools but prohibited use for religious purposes.11 An evangelical church that was denied access challenged the regulation. As in Widmar, the district court upheld the regulation on Establishment Clause grounds, and as in Widmar, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the religious group was an impermissible violation of free speech principles.12 However, the principles of this line of cases were in some...

Free Speech Skepticism.

If the free speech clause of the First Amendment is interpreted to mean that speech is to be granted special protection not accorded to other forms of conduct, then a free speech principle, distinct from a principle of general liberty, must be posited and must receive a distinct justification. A defense of a free speech principle must explain why the harm principle either does not apply in the case of speech or applies with less force than in the case of all other forms of human conduct. In this article, I argue that none of the defenses of the right to free speech on offer succeeds in showing why even significantly harmful speech is deserving of special protection not afforded non-speech conduct. More work needs to be done to justify a free speech principle and, until such work is done, the belief in the existence of a free speech principle that undergirds and justifies our current free speech practices is no more than an article of faith.

Sport and Expression, Sport as Expression

This response essay was prepared for a micro-symposium on Stanley Fish's The First: How to Think About Hate Speech, Religious Speech, Fake News, Post-Truth, and Donald. This piece considers how Fish's approach to the First Amendment would treat athlete speech and how free-speech principles should treat athlete speech, focusing on the International Olympic Committee's prohibition on athlete demonstrations.