November 20, 2015

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.

U.S. Millennials More Likely to Support Censoring Offensive Statements About MinoritiesWe 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.

Compared with people we surveyed in dozens of nations, Americans as a whole are less likely to favor the government being able to prevent speech of any kind. The debate over what kind of speech should be tolerated in public has become a major story around the globe in recent weeks – from racial issues on many U.S. college campuses to questions about speech laws in Europe in the wake of concerns about refugees from the Middle East and the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Overall, our global survey found that a majority of Americans say that people should be able to say offensive things about minority groups publicly. Two-thirds of Americans say this, compared with a median of 35% among the 38 nations we polled.

In the U.S., our findings also show a racial divide on this question, with non-whites more likely (38%) to support government prevention of such speech than non-Hispanic whites (23%).

Nearly twice as many Democrats say the government should be able to stop speech against minorities (35%) compared with Republicans (18%). Independents, as is often the case, find themselves in the middle. One-third of all women say the government should be able to curtail speech that is offensive to minorities vs. 23% of men who say the same.

Furthermore, Americans who have a high school degree or less are more likely than those with at least a college degree to say that speech offensive to minority groups should be able to be restricted (a 9-percentage-point difference).

Europe More Supportive Than U.S. of Censoring Statements Offensive to MinoritiesIn Europe, where long-simmering racial tensions are of a different nature, compounded by the recent flow of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East, people are more willing than Americans to accept government controls on speech against minorities. A median of 49% across the six EU nations surveyed say this compared with 28% of Americans.

Among Europeans, there is a wide range of opinion on whether the government can prevent statements that are offensive to minorities. Seven-in-ten Germans say this should be the case (where there are clear laws against hate speech), as do 62% of Italians and half of Poles. The French are divided, with 48% saying that the government should have the ability to prevent speech that is offensive to minority groups, while 51% say people should be able to say these things publicly. In contrast, the balance of opinion in the UK and Spain is to allow people to say statements that might offend minorities.

In contrast with American Millennials, those ages 18 to 34 in Germany and Spain are more likely to say people should be able to say things offensive to minorities compared with those ages 35 and older. On the other hand, in the UK, the younger generation follows the lead of American Millennials by being less open to this form of freedom of speech and more willing to allow government restrictions. There are no significant age differences in France, Italy and Poland on this question.

Topics: Generations and Age, Free Speech

  1. Photo of Jacob Poushter

    is a senior researcher focusing on global attitudes at Pew Research Center.


  1. homo bob1 year ago

    Yea but how many people were asked altogether?

  2. Anonymous1 year ago

    Meaning 60% are against limiting speech? Depends upon contect and how used?

  3. Le Hunt1 year ago

    Those statistics are pretty depressing.

  4. Joe Vance1 year ago

    The problem arises when we discuss just WHO gets to determine what in fact is offensive and to whom it is offensive. According to out Constitution all speech is free except where it can cause PHYSICAL harm. This includes incitement to riot or falsly yelling “fire” in a movie theater.

    1. Anonymous1 year ago

      That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Freedom of speech essentially stops where the speech causes any kind of harm -that is clearly quantifiable- (physical harm, financial harm, harm to one’s reputation, etc). The fact that certain speech is merely considered offensive to someone is far too low a bar for the government to infringe on free speech; racial slurs are just a small subset of insulting or offensive speech.

      In addition, remember that the First Ammendment states “Congress shall make no law abridging…” freedom of speech. Private organizations have always been free to regulate offensive speech far more intrusively, and they often do. The difference is you can choose to work somewhere else if the rules get too overbearing; you can’t choose to not be an American citizen.

  5. Grape Soda1 year ago

    This was inevitable, humanity has the ability to self implode sooner or later. This has been expected by man y people and has also appeared in many novels where humanity becomes slave to themselves, not because of government but because of the masses.

    If you look at history all civilizations die once they reach a level of comfort living where they have more time to ponder about irrelevant things than the need to find food.

    Sooner or later it will happen in a global scale, either through government self destruction, economic chaos or war.

    Civilizations rise and fall some are silent and some have a roar that last a few centuries however it is INEVITABLE.

    As long as humanity pampers emotionally weak humans, our HUBRIS will destroy us.

    1. Rusty Shackleford1 year ago

      “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.”
      I wouldn’t call them “blessed” but if you take this literally, the meek are inheriting the “Earth.”
      History plays out time and time again in this manner:
      -A society becomes great because of strong leaders and strong workers.
      -They become affluent and lazy. Leaders pampers the downtrodden, the lazy, and the irresponsible.
      -That society falls into disrepair and fails.

      Look at the history of the Roman Empire. The West is on the same path they were on. Our “breads and circuses” is our welfare culture and we already see the erosion of our civic duties.

  6. Arch Stanton2 years ago

    I have noticed whether it is borderline criticism of minority groups or opposition to liberal views I have been censored and banned from the Huffington Post as well as News Vine and a few other news outlets.

    You are no longer allowed to make critical and backed up facts or judgements against the left in any kind.

    I was collectively banned by paid Indians on a blog when I mentioned the rape cases that have become an out of control sore thumb in parts of India where they still burn witches as well.

    You are no longer allowed to point out faults or facts because you will be censored.
    The Liberal Left has only one defense of their policies now and that’s pure and utter censorship of all opposition and hope it goes away despite the out cry of the people screaming we had enough already.

    1. Le Hunt1 year ago

      I’ve been banned from commenting on Mother Jones and Daily Kos, mainly for saying things against feminists.

  7. Melody Szabo2 years ago

    This is going to result in a tsunami of Rotherhams within the USA because folks will be to terrified of being labeled racist to report crimes.

  8. trad er2 years ago

    100% of their great grandparents rolled over in their graves!

  9. 6ix Xes2 years ago

    Anyone that agrees with limiting of speech , are not Americans . Millions died to protect this basic right . So these people have no right to identify themselves other than traitorous trash.

    1. Daniel Fontaine2 years ago

      Really? Millions?

  10. Le2 years ago

    I’m a Millennial. I don’t agree with limiting speech at all. Any limitation immediately negates the very adjective ‘free’. Unfortunately people take being for freedom of speech to be approval or standing in agreement with what is said by an individual using his/her right of freedom of speech. Those who promote limiting freedom of speech have in effect relinquished their very right. Who decides what is OK and not OK? If government is to enforce this totalitarian ideology, in what way is it to be enforced (fines, physical harm, jail time..? )

  11. DanO2 years ago

    The charts may or may not be scary. Without seeing the same cohorts’ respective views through time, we can only conclude that freedom of speech (anti-censorship) becomes more important as one ages. Perhaps one grows wiser as one experiences more of life’s challenges. Also, the further one gets from intense adolescent peer pressure, the less one fears expressing opinions that differ from others.

    1. Stewe2 years ago

      You can see that the more educated one is the less they wish for censorship

      1. James Crowe2 years ago

        The sad thing is, they’re pitching tantrums about this all over college campuses and even in the Ivy Leagues — but to suggest that they’re “educated” is a gross overestimation of what their aging hippie professors are actually doing there.

        I call these places Marxist Madrassas. They’re little more than indoctrination camps for the next generation of the Long March of the Institutions, and as such, breeding grounds for terrorists. I nearly vomited in my own mouth when a whole bunch of them voted down a planned 9/11 memorial in Minnesota because it might be offensive to the exponentially growing Muslim population there.

        Mind you, these weren’t even Muslim students that threw a fit. They were coddled white brats raised by liberal “truther” parents to believe that the U.S. government concocted a planned demolition of the WTC as an excuse to persecute the Muslim population. Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with it and anyone who questions the narrative is a racist bigoted Islamphobe who wears a white hood, doesn’t think black lives matter and is probably voting for Trump.

        I’m a millennial and I fit all those categories except the white hood. It’s December and I know better than to wear white after Labor Day. /s

        1. David Lewis2 years ago

          You claim that college students and aging professors are against free speech, yet college students and the well aged are exactly the types against LIMITING free speech.

          When your preferred narrative doesn’t fit the data, it’s time to adjust your views, man.

        2. orphan ellie2 years ago

          Mr. Crowe is right and Mr. Lewis needs to pay attention to what is going on across US college campuses.
          College students are FOR their own right to blather any garbage against those they perceive as “wrong.” But they definitely have made their positions know AGAINST ideas, people, or speech that they don’t agree with!
          They whine for Safe Spaces, demonstrate demanding anyone they deem “offensive” leave, resign, or be banned from their “home away from home”(the university or college). Adjust your views, David Lewis!

        3. Grape Soda1 year ago

          education in the 21 century is a joke. The wisest men came from self thinking and self taught academic institutions where they developed their own opinions or were presented with the facts and allowed to understand and comprehend such ideas and subjects as they wished to view them without outside interference.

          Our modern teaching style gives us all the answers and constricts free thinking. They tell us that this is how it is and that any other way is wrong or will meet great resistance and in the long wrong those who free think will be outcast or will relent.

          That is why i left college and decided to learn on my own. Sadly even learning on ones own is hard due to the facts that many have changed facts to assimilate the humans who are emotionally weak and cannot stand emotional distress.

          I have to deliberate on all facts that i find and deduce on my own if it is real or fake or censored by someone or an organization with far reaching powers.

  12. Myretta Bell2 years ago

    These charts show the Christian nations statistics. It does not show statistics from Hindu or Muslim countries for public treatment or public speech against minorities.

    1. James Crowe2 years ago

      But just try drawing a picture of Muhammad and see how free speech gets you shot in the face. The fact that we support these toxic regimes, let alone give their barbaric perspectives equal weight to our own is sickening.

    2. trad er2 years ago

      They tried to ask, they were censored.

  13. leedsjon12 years ago

    This whole subject is potentially quite scary. First of all, my view is that any attempt to prevent somebody’s opinion, even if it might be deemed offensive by some, from being aired is ultimately counter-productive and impractical. For surely, isn’t the most appropriate way to deal with extreme views to allow people to express them? This way, if they are extreme and/or offensive, the consensus of moderate, more informed opinion will quickly overcome them and, by giving publicity to those views, quickly show people just how extreme they are – which will do far more to counter them. If, by contrast, such extreme views are simply banned, the people who share them will simply be driven underground to air them in secret where it will be much more difficult for the authorities to counter them. Just to give just 1 illustration of this – some years ago in the UK, in the run up to a national election, the BBC were forced (because of the election rules applicable at the time) to give air time to an extreme right wing neo-fascist group during a political debate. While this resulted in a flood of complaints, it was also positive in that it demonstrated to the wider public just how extreme the group’s views were – and their credibility was quickly undermined by the greater balance of the other participants’ debate. Had they been banned from appearing, this would not have happened and the right wing group may have even attracted more support if they were to argue (which was a likely consequence) that they had been singled out for criticism by the BBC. So, as far as this issue goes, I agree firmly with the UK and Spain regarding this policy.

    Secondly, this proposed policy introduces all sorts of very real practical difficulties. How, for instance, do you actually prevent undesirable views from being expressed? To my mind this is an impossible task – for while you may be able, if the appropriate laws permit, to punish ‘offenders’ for expressing such extreme views after the fact, you cannot prevent them from making such views known in the first place. Then there is the thorny issue of definitions – eg how, and by what criteria, do we identify a ‘minority’ group? Or, even more problematic, do we extend this rule to all ‘minorities’ or simply some of them and, if so, which ones? And if we go down that road, how do we justify which ‘minorities’ to protect? It seems to me that trying to deal with the issue of certain groups or individuals causing offence to others through the expression of their views in this way is likely to cause more problems than solve any and should be left well alone.

  14. Jamie2 years ago

    This is scary

  15. Getoffmylawn2 years ago

    Questions: What constitutes a “minority”? Caucasian Muslims? Old white guys? Let the government define?

    What is speech is offensive? I understand the n-word is out? Can we still use colored? Negro? Black? African American? Non-offensive today can easily become offensive tomorrow. What does it take to make this change? Public outcry? One offended “minority”? Chiefs and Indians are ok today and Redskins are not! Give me a break.

  16. Geary Smith2 years ago

    The Millennial population does not receive an adequate education concerning government or the constitution. They have been influenced by liberal teachers who do not agree with the first amendment. Norman Thomas’s predictions from the 1940’s concerning a socialist government unfortunately were accurate.

    1. Grape Soda1 year ago

      You are right as one who was thought in the millennial era, who happened to have a large IQ, not to toot my own horn, i realized this early on. However it cannot be changed we have given the government too much power and indoctrinated our… or my generation to accept authority and not question it. However the people like myself who question everything will be the first to become casted out of society.

  17. Gregory2 years ago

    In the long struggle for civil rights, free speech has always been our strongest weapon. To limit it now would be the play into the hand of people like Trump and his goons who beat up people at his rallies for shouting things he calls “disgusting” like “black lives matter.” We need to exercise our free speech to combat their bigotry.

    But shame on Jacob Poushter for writing that those of us who stand up for free speech think that offensive speech “is OK.” It’as not. Burt neigh is censorship.

    1. Alex2 years ago

      It’s actually more so the democrats limiting this free speech it seems…Oh, the politically correct bigotry train strikes again.

  18. John Foster2 years ago

    There is no such thing as a “right” not to be offended.

  19. Cleon2 years ago

    What I find very interesting – no, very telling – is that Boomers such as myself, who in the 1960s protested right along side our black brothers and sisters, came down on this issue as we have. Is this because we feel we’ve seen the inclusive “dreams” of Dr. King, which we shared and cherished, become something else altogether? Is that why one sees, rarely if ever, a “Coexist” bumper sticker on persons’ of color cars? Perhaps the question should have been, “should government be able to restrict anyone from saying anything derogatory to or about anyone else – regardless of either minority status or not?” Or “should government be able to restrict people from throwing the ‘F-bomb’ around.” When I myself demonstrated, even placing myself at significant personal risk, and demanded our government ensure the rights of oppressed minorities, I never imagined the oppressed would become the oppressors. I should have studied my history. It’s always been that way.

    1. Michele2 years ago

      Your comment is admirably wise…

      We have dreams till we are not mature enough to know history :)…

  20. Clare Danis2 years ago

    The right to freedom of speech carries with it a responsibility to NOT malign the character of anyone, or ridicule anyone, or slander another person or group. Freedom of speech means we have the right to express our opinions in a mature manner and to make an intelligent argument in favor of that argument if need be (i.e., in the case of an accusation). We can certainly disagree with the actions or opinions of others, but we need to do so in a respectable manner. However, if people continue to abuse this precious right, the government will eventually step and set restrictions on our speech.

    1. Shane2 years ago

      It’s clear that you don’t understand what freedom of speech actually means.

      1. Louise Calderone1 year ago

        I agree. I almost think Claire Danis is kidding, or at least I hope she is. The changing opinions of the milennial group are alarming. As someone else said, it’s not that we strong free speech advocates think it’s OK to call people names — but calling people names must not be illegal. I also think it’s a slippery slope when people lose their jobs because of things they say in their personal social media accounts. (BTW, on markers of liberalism, I’m left of left.)

    2. CapitalistRoader2 years ago

      @Clare Danis:

      “The right to freedom of speech carries with it a responsibility to NOT malign the character of anyone, or ridicule anyone, or slander another person or group.”

      No it doesn’t. What you describe is something a kindergarten teacher would dream up for little kids. It’s a childish fantasy that has nothing to do with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    3. Stephen2 years ago

      Clare, actually freedom of speech is the exact opposite of what you describe. We don’t need it to protect us when we say “we should protect children” or ” we don’t want this plane we are on to crash”, because everyone agrees with those comments. We need it to protect the offensive comments, the provocative comments, etc. Those are the comments we need to make to change and those are the ones that need protection.

    4. DanO2 years ago

      Clare, the freedom of speech means exactly that – freedom to speak without concern for how it makes others feel. The Constitution enshrined this right in the first amendment to prevent the “government” from doing what you insist we all must do – be respectful of others, to NOT malign, etc., etc. You might want to study the U.S. Constitution to understand your rights and the rights of others. Your right to free speech is a gift that relatively few nations have bestowed on their citizens. Don’t give it up so quickly for something so shallow as how others will feel about what you say. Worry more about protecting the right of others to say things that may hurt your feelings.

  21. Connie2 years ago

    FREE SPEECH (even the bad guys!) FREE!

  22. Marshall Belenchia2 years ago

    ‘I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.’
    I think someone has beaten me to this statement but it does bear repeating.

  23. Don Brandon2 years ago

    “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.”
    False dichotomy.

    1. Mr. Raven2 years ago

      Not really you either believe in a right to “offend” or not, it is literally a black and white zero sum game. The U.S. was founded by rabble rouses who printed very “offensive” broadsides, thank lack of god!

    2. Jeanne Gregory2 years ago

      @Don Brandon — Exactly. I came to the comments to say the same thing.
      And Mr. Raven — Saying something should not be illegal is NOT the same thing as saying it’s “okay.” The Bill of Rights assumes a basically moral and self-disciplined populous. If we get to the point where we say everything that’s legal is acceptable, we’ve gotten to the point where laws must be written to define increasingly minute matters of public behavior.

  24. Ps2 years ago

    The students in Germany were the first Nazi sympathizers.

    1. James Crowe2 years ago

      The students in Iran were the ones who fomented the Islamic revolution in 1979. It usually isn’t “backwoods hicks from flyover country” who pose the greatest threat in radical revolutions. It’s the ones who are educated enough to understand and promote the concepts their cult leaders are preaching, but not so educated that they question those tenets and poke a hole in the narrative.

      At the risk of sounding like Marx himself, it’s the bourgeoisie who comes up with the ideas. The peasants are the ones doing the shooting. The same with ISIS, the Russian revolution in 1917, and of course the flag-burning communist trash at Kent State et. al. in the 1960s.

      Now it’s Brat Lies Matter having forced seizures about Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, and literally flipping their itshay about “microaggressions” from the toxic white cisgender patriarchy. I’m fed up with these punks and think we’re overdue to break out the fire hoses and start another purge.

  25. Notaddictedtoritalin2 years ago

    Progressive totalitarianism.

    1. James Crowe2 years ago

      Look up author Maajid Nawaz, a former Muslim jihadist and anti-terrorism activist who has co-written a book about the toxic ideas of Islam with prominent atheist Sam Harris. He calls these so-called liberals the Regressive Left. Nawaz and Harris have both coined the phrase on Bill Maher’s program, and so has Richard Dawkins.

      Maher is a goofy comedian, but he just might take ol’ Hitch’s place as the fourth horseman in that league of New Atheists. These rigid headcases are like the pod people in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in that they don’t have a sense of humor either. Witness the sheer glut of Maher-bashing articles on regressive leftist online hubs like Salon, Huffington Post, BuzzFeed and the Gawkerverse. They take themselves WAY too seriously and their war on comedy shows it.

  26. CalvinCoolidge isGOAT2 years ago

    I’ll leave America if they ever kill free speech.

    1. bo snagley2 years ago

      and go where ?

      1. John Foster2 years ago

        I will stay here and oppose any such ideas.

  27. Robert2 years ago

    Wow… sad and disturbing.

    Uneducated, millennial, Non-white, female Democrats are substantially in favor of allowing the government to censor/suspend the first amendment rights of US citizens if they believe the message being made qualify as offensive to minorities?!

    I did not realize that those who are of the younger generation were so likely to be in favor of the government restricting freedom of speech?!

    I suppose if they rephrased the question to “are you in favor of government censorship and the curtailing of free speech?” Then the answers would be substantively different. Don’t people think through the ramifications of government control of speech…. We have a first amendment for a reason… shameful that individuals would be in Favor of restricting it if they happen to disagree with the message.

    Also, please do note that there is a 15 point spread between white/non-white’s in favor of restricting free speech. If you control for race, the difference between millennials and boomers virtually goes away, and the entire point of the article goes out the window, as the driving force behind these numbers is predominantly race, not age or even education. 43% of millennials are non-white, while only 18% of baby boomers are minorities. So, the individual who put this report together isn’t being intellectually honest. The name of the article should be that minorities favor restricting the first amendment if they believe the speech happens to be offensive to them, and oh’ btw they also happen to be younger, less educated, and vote democrat, but that is not newsworthy I suppose?

    1. Michele2 years ago

      🙂 You are on the spot, here

  28. Henri Hausig2 years ago

    I live in Germany and this news is shocking to me. I dont trust the state or anyone in that matter to decide for me what could be classified as offensive, as long as it does not call to violence

    1. DanO2 years ago

      And who determines the definition of “a call to violence”? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech – without limitations or qualifications.

    2. James Crowe2 years ago

      Yeah, but you live in a country where you can’t even post “Hitler is Angry” memes lest you get hauled off to a gas chamber yourself. Europe is one of the worst offenders when it comes to restricting speech that might hurt some protected group’s feelings, and Germany needs therapy to get over its collective PTSD over something that happened 75 years ago. A Wikipedia article about the Swastika isn’t going to lead to a Fourth Reich. The fact that you guys can’t even say anything less than positive about the Muslim invaders that traitor Merkel is letting in by the millions will be the death of Germany and the death of Europe.

  29. Seba M.2 years ago

    Anyone should be able to say anything. But they have to be ready to back up their claims with facts and evidence.

    1. Allison2 years ago

      Except not really. The only speech that’s limited by the law are obscenities. You don’t get to add qualifiers to the constitution.

      1. DanO2 years ago

        Yes and thankfully so or nobody would be saying anything to anyone!

    2. Skeet Fletcher1 year ago

      Nobody can argue against that.

  30. thanksgiving food2 years ago

    evidence is key.

  31. dej loaf2 years ago

    interesting. I do not support the racist and offensive speech.

    1. george2 years ago

      Supporting someone’s offensive speech is not the same as supporting their right to express their offensive speech. And sorry, hate speech laws are still censorship.

      1. Jason2 years ago

        “Supporting someone’s offensive speech is not the same as supporting their right to express their offensive speech.”

        How is it that so many people apparently cannot understand this critical point? Twenty-five years ago I was arguing this with my conservative parents, and now I am arguing it with my liberal friends.

        1. DanO2 years ago

          One cannot understand what one does not want to understand. Sometimes it is impossible for individuals to separate emotional responses to perceived offensive speech with the right of another to express the offending ideas. Hence, we have a Constitution that is very difficult to amend. The pendulum swings a great deal in 25 years and it will continue to do so; but it is always drawn back to the moderating middle as it approaches the extremes.

  32. kaleb2 years ago

    This is true. Does this even surprise anyone? this is true it even shows the evidence.

  33. Barbara2 years ago

    The Kim Davises of the liberal side.

  34. Alex2 years ago

    People should be entitled to their own opinions…

  35. Logic Bomb2 years ago

    38% of non-whites across all generations favored limiting free speech (it’s right there in the chart!). Millennials are around 10% more non-white than the generations that preceded them. So, isn’t it entirely possible (likely, in fact) that most, if not the entire difference among generations is attributable to increased diversity? And, if race were adjusted in this poll, doesn’t it seem likely that we’d all be about the same on this issue? In order for this not to be a correct conclusion would seem to require non-white Millennials to actually be MORE in favor of free speech than previous generations of non-whites, white is unlikely. This was either a horribly constructed research poll (because it didn’t isolate the obvious variable of race within generations), or a ploy by Mr. Poushter to grab hits (which he has clearly done). Additionally, for all the idiots talking about this being an example of “college indoctrination,” please go to college and learn how to read a chart because college grads were the most in favor of free speech!

  36. Taylor2 years ago

    I’m a liberal, somewhat socialist, and a millennial. I don’t support censoring racist and offensive speech.

  37. Andrew Cohen2 years ago

    Majority of us support free speech can y’all shut up and do something productive? Or at least stop buzz-feeding the title to get more clicks from old geezers who want to hate us?

    1. Marshall Belenchia2 years ago

      If you live long enough you will get to be an old geezer and be insulted.

  38. Mat2 years ago

    Well it was nice hacking rights while it lasted but I guess we’re regressing

  39. Bill Mitchell2 years ago

    I think PEW RESEARCH is now a political arm of the democratic party and no longer a truth teller. I will no longer believe anything they print or say.

    1. blazingfuryoffire12 years ago

      look at all the colleges pushing political correctness… it seems recent generations are too sheltered

      1. Gregory2 years ago

        It seems that “political correctness” has become just a right-wing term for ideas they don’t like, sometimes even for simply civility.

        Trump justifies violence against people who shout things like “black lives matter” that violate his narrow ideas of what’s correct. Those who criticize the rare cases of anyone actually being silenced for being “politically incorrect” would have more credibility if they at least equally criticized Trump and his goons.

  40. Burt Fisher2 years ago

    It’s OK. It appears that the founders saw this one coming – otherwise the 1st Amendment wouldn’t have been written. I can almost hear it: “But what if someone comes along and says the government should make it illegal to say bad things!” “OK Tom, we’ll make sure the government never gets that stupid.” “But what if they do it anyway?” “OK, here comes the Second, to back up the first.”

  41. Eric Fransen2 years ago

    This is what Ravi Zacharias meant when opined “How do you reach a generation which thinks with their hearts and feels with their eyes?”.

    But imagine if you will that a Democrat went to jail for every time they called Dubya an iddy ot. Regardless if you feel it’s true, no, know it’s true, it is hateful and hurtful to say it especially in the usual tone in which it is said.

  42. Asian2 years ago

    How sad…and disturbing, and worrisome, at the same time.

  43. Myke Smith2 years ago

    Does this really suprise anyone? These teen bobbers are raised in what amounts to a bubble.. Coddled.. Made to think the world revolves around them..Are not made

    1. Paul2 years ago

      This shows the evidence to back it up. As long it is backed up with evidence, the argument is vaild.

  44. Matthew Newgarden2 years ago

    The poor little liberal college student’s need a safe place to protect themselves from would be rhetorical bombfire.

    1. Phil2 years ago

      While I might agree with your sentiment (trigger warnings and “safe places” seem to be common place on college campuses) it appears that the more educated demographic is less likely to favor government censorship of speech (bottom of first graph). I would like to know if younger college graduates were more likely than older grads to support censorship.

    2. Vevrain2 years ago

      Did you read the part where the college educated people were less likely to support censorship?

  45. Lumen Dex2 years ago

    To all of the commenters who keep bashing “uber liberals and their Marxist professors” or other similar statements, please note that college grads were the MOST likely to say that govt should NOT interfere with free speech by a significant margin.

    Maybe an education isn’t quite as bad as you think it is. Even a “liberal” one.

    1. Phil2 years ago

      As a grad student who does feel that there is a liberal bias on campuses (at least all the ones that I’ve spent time on) It would be interesting to know if the trend of millennials supporting govt censorship was still apparent within the college graduate group or if it was consistent between age groups. I’m an older grad student and the atmosphere when I was in college compared to later schooling has anecdotally appeared to trend towards more outrage that would appear to favor censorship. Regardless though, I mostly agree with you, people are fired or receive death threats after poorly wording “Tweets” and that’s not a purely college phenomenon.

    2. Taylor2 years ago


    3. C.S. Jones2 years ago

      Someone pin this comment to the top.

  46. CC2 years ago

    Good – first lets ban all talk of doing away with the Constitution or any provision or amendment thereto – which means we ban PEW from conducting polls like this. I find it extremely offensive – and obviously I must be in the minority. Oh – I’m sorry – circular logic?

    1. avocats2 years ago

      It is odd that they asked about “speech offensive to minorities” without any notion of whether it’s a purely subjective standard and how on earth it would be enforced.

      1. CC2 years ago

        It’s completely circular – talk of equality among the races would probably be offensive to the minority of people that believe the races should not be treated equally – how on earth could you ever talk of anything without offending some minority of the population that strongly disagrees?

  47. Mike Kevitt2 years ago

    OK! White males are a minority, too. So nobody should offend them, either, in their speech.

    Actually, though, the notion of government censorship of any speech by anybody offensive to anybody is a pure evil and insane notion that all normal people should ignore like they didn’t hear it while they continue with their normal activities, including speech that might be offensive to some person or persons.

  48. Andrew2 years ago

    They have never experienced any threat to their liberties. Generation X, the Boomers had the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact to contend with. We could look at the USSR and East Germany and see what it was like to live in a Nation where freedoms were taken away from the people.
    The kids today have had it all on a plate and they feel fully entitled to it. This has made the soft, spineless and incredibly sanctimonious.
    It’s a scary prospect that these people could one day run these Nations.
    Thankfully, I’ll be checking out around about the time they do.

    1. BrianR2 years ago

      Really now? Patriot Act doesn’t count?

  49. Naruto Uzumaki2 years ago

    No free speech is free regardless

  50. Naruto Uzumaki2 years ago

    This is outrageous! Free speech is free. Heading something you don’t like, is a part of life get over it. I’m sorry for my generation I apologize. I honour those who gave it all in ww2 and 1 so we can have the freedom to have open discussion and free speech. Freedom is sacred. Believe it

    1. blazingfuryoffire12 years ago

      nice role play touch at the end

  51. David Hosea2 years ago

    The problem with this subject is deciding what is offensive speech. Some comments probably enjoy a broad common agreement as to what is offensive, but some comments may not find such acceptance as offensive. Some comments may seem offensive, but really are not depending on the attitude of the listener. Perhaps training in the art of speech would be better; that is, applying courtesy, discretion, politeness while speaking; and learning to be factual, knowledgeable about what is said. Leadership would be better then laws in curbing speech obviously intended to be offensive, inflammatory; the university president, the teacher, the mother, father, individuals and the public media especially. I think you all get the idea. Live well and be nice.

    1. Drew2 years ago

      Unless you are willing to defend the rights of others to express ideas that are offensive to you, you are not in favour of the freedom of expression.

  52. William2 years ago

    If what millennials are saying is offensive to me, being a minority, does that mean that they have to shut up?

  53. Packard Day2 years ago

    These survey results about Millennials make one urn for a return to the days of voter literacy tests. It was also a display of breathtaking ignorance of our country and our constitution from young citizens over the age of 14. Who exactly are these 40% who would willingly abrogate our collective rights to free speech?

  54. Daniel Kaufman2 years ago

    I wonder to what extent some of this is due to the fact that of all the generations thus far, Millennials are the most ignorant of basic history. That is, to what extent might this be due to their simply not understanding what kind of country the US is and what it means to be a liberal democracy, based on essentially Lockean principles.

    1. mike2 years ago

      You already lost them. They’re not smart enough to grasp such an idea!

  55. Chris James2 years ago

    There’s no doubt young people are “softer” nowadays, with thinner skin. Or (and) maybe they are more moral and insightful about the need to be kind and decent to one another. But they’re at a loss as to how to accomplish this, in their own lives or on a broader scale. Among other reasons, Millenials more than any other generation has grown up with controlling societal institutions (such as schools with zero-tolerance policies, absurdly restrictive dress codes/speech codes, etc.) and hyper-involved helicopter or snow-plow parents far too eager to jump in to solve their kids’ problems and plow any bumps out of their paths. In trying to protect their kids, over-involved parents have ironically made them more vulnerable and sensitive. (We’ve met the enemy, parents, and it’s us.) All of this makes it more natural for Millenials to look for authority figures to handle social difficulties such as offensive speech. It’s sad, really–they want to see themselves as adults, yet they contribute to their own infantilization by demanding that actual adult authority figures (college presidents, parents, government), not themselves, cope with offensive speech.

    1. Anna2 years ago

      Thank you for pointing this out! Many people forget that the entitled Millenials get that sense of entitlement from their upbringing–it doesn’t just happen by itself! I myself am 21 and I’m appalled at the amount of PCness that is expected to be the norm nowadays. Granted, I am also a white middle-class female; I don’t experience near the amount of discrimination as minorities do. However, that isn’t to say I think calling someone the “N” word is okay–it’s not. But it isn’t the government, or the school’s, job to stop people from being idiots and saying whatever they want to say. If you are offended by something someone says, correct them and move on. They’re not worth your time anyways.

    2. RM2 years ago

      Are you kidding? My grandparents are the most easily offended people I’ve ever seen. My one grandmother gets riled up and upset and yells at the television when she sees a person singing Christmas songs in Spanish because, ‘This is America!’ My grandfather is so upset by gay couples that he physically can’t look at them. If anyone speaks anything other than English or German, they’re offended. If anyone celebrates anything other than Christian holidays, they are offended. If my other grandmother even SEES a black person at a public event, she’s upset, frightened, and offended, staring at them as if the person is a wild animal that could attack her at any moment. I’ve had my thoughts, opinions, and life style challenged many times throughout my life and had to learn to take those opinions of others. ESPECIALLY from my grandparents who thought that being straight, white, and Catholic was the only correct way to live in America. The same grandparents always said that my generation had a thin skin and was easily offended. Well, I’m not going to apologize that I’m embarrassed to be out with you in public when you’re loudly ‘whispering’ to yourself that people shouldn’t be speaking Spanish to their own families.

      1. Dan2 years ago

        Brilliant point!!! Millenials have inherited thin skin from their parents. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The point is that Americans all suffer from the same neuroses. Age ain’t nothing but a number.

  56. boogerbently2 years ago

    This is a test to show the bans already in place on “free speech”.

  57. boogerbently2 years ago

    Nowhere to run.

  58. Eyes Frontmen2 years ago

    Inside the general disgust at the toll taken on the minds of our young by feminism, the SJW movement, and Marxist professors, is my revulsion at the ability of these children to apply logic or moral reason to even the simplest of questions. Leading them to easily discard bedrock liberties to stroke their shallow pieties.
    Besides the obvious free speech arguments, do these spoiled brats even think one step beyond their moralistic preening?
    What is it we should consider offensive, and who should decide? Does the speaker decide if his statements are offensive, or the listener, or some third party, appointed by whom to do what and with what authority?
    If I say that illegal Mexicans contain a high number of criminals, and a shocking proportion who join gangs, sell drugs, assault, molest, rape and murder. I am simply stating statistical evidence.
    Are people entitled to censor me because the truth offends them? Do they even have a right to be offended by the truth?

    1. Allrightythen2 years ago

      Apply some logic and simple reason to some of your arguments, and you may find that they’re somewhat flawed – which is not to say that you’re wholly wrong. But your take is naive in its simplicity and over-generalizations. Much of what you say is rhetoric. If you want to be listened to, consider your argumentative style and your audience.

      > “my revulsion at the ability of these children to apply logic or moral reason to even the simplest of questions. Leading them to easily discard bedrock liberties to stroke their shallow pieties.”

      Firstly, they’re adults, 18-35. You want them to act like adults, then treat them like adults. Not everyone in life will see the world as you do. You’re going to have to argue for your points, and engage in debate with other adults.

      Second, who says they’re stroking shallow pieties, and not merely confused, or have a different worldview which they feel they can defend. Its not a worldview I agree with by far. Looks like our view would be a huge underdog in Germany – a powerhouse nation with superior educational performance. Still, I think Germany and the EU have it wrong on the limits of free speech.

      >”If I say that illegal Mexicans contain a high number of criminals, and a shocking proportion who join gangs, sell drugs, assault, molest, rape and murder. I am simply stating statistical evidence.”

      You’re “simply stating” statistical evidence in much the same way your facts are “shocking”. Your statements are unqualified. Use definite language, and numbers when possible. Hispanics commit homicide at twice the rate of white people. Is that “shocking” considering the’re the most recent immigrant class? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. You come off as having a racist agenda – which is far from saying that you do have a racist agenda. When you’re going to be “controversial” and/or challenging, you have to ENGAGE the other side. Exchange of ideas can be a chess match. You have to keep the other sides mind open while stating your ideas in a digestible manner. Even if you think emotional reasoning is the bane of humanity, it is only logical to account for it in discussion. To do otherwise would simply be an emotional reaction.

      > “What is it we should consider offensive, and who should decide? Does the speaker decide if his statements are offensive, or the listener, or some third party, appointed by whom to do what and with what authority? Are people entitled to censor me because the truth offends them? Do they even have a right to be offended by the truth?


    2. Rich Port2 years ago

      I am wondering about the media on this article. Should it be the headline be that “Two Thirds, or 58% (as we have two different numbers), of American agree that the First Amendment is supportive enough to allow the “offensive” language.

    3. Barbara2 years ago

      Don’t blame feminism! In case you haven’t heard, one of the groups under attack by this group is feminists of the previous generation. Those feminists, too, don’t meet the PC standards anymore.

  59. Common Survey Problem2 years ago

    While the results are intriguing, the author (or the researchers, if this was a failure on their part) fails to mention what ‘offensive’ means in the question asked. To one person, ‘offensive’ can mean statements that make a minority group feel unsafe (e.g. All Wisconsinites should be forcibly rounded up and put in an internment camp (weird example, but I don’t want to say anything about an actual minority group)). To another person, ‘offensive’ can mean anything rude (e.g. Wisconsinites are lazy and stupid). If all people surveyed don’t have an equal understanding of what the term ‘offensive’ means, then it can’t be an accurate measure of what the poll was looking for.
    From decidedly anecdotal experience, younger people are more likely to assume the offensive language makes someone feel unsafe while older people are more likely to assume offensive language is language that hurts someone’s feelings. In the latter group, offensive speech is not something to aim for, but many feel there is a less pressing need to avoid it than to avoid language that threatens someone with physical harm. One other commenter noted laws specific to hate speech, and I’ve noticed that many older people I’ve talked to seem to follow this logic. For some, hate speech and offensive/rude language are two distinct categories, while for the younger generation, there is a more liberal attitude on what power language can have (i.e. what language will make people feel unsafe). I’ve found that for the vast majority of people, everyone agrees that threats of violence aren’t okay. The divide comes when calculating how much power you believe words should be able to have over someone else in regards to personal characteristics such as work ethic, intelligence, etc.

    1. gmmay2 years ago

      No one is responsible for other people “feeling safe”. Absent a direct threat or incitement to violence, areas well-covered and developed in US constitutional jurisprudence, then how someone “feels” is their own responsibility. Good luck quantifying and defining “feelings” from a legal perspective.

    2. Fork2 years ago

      I think your question of the different definitions of the term “offensive” is exactly why we have free speech in the first place. It would become so subjective that authorities would have to pander to every single instance of when someone is made mildly uncomfortable by words, which would then take into account a person’s ability to handle these words in the first place – something that would be unbeknownst to the aggressor. And not to sound like the never-oppressed white person that I am, but limiting this question to only apply to minorities is utterly ridiculous.

  60. Chris funnell2 years ago

    First Amendment guarantees right to voice your views, ideas, or expressions, without infringement. I’m a baby boomer, myself (Born 1958)and I’ve heard my share of offensive speech from all sides, but yet I don’t protest unless someone tries to restrict my right to disagree. The PC police, usually uber liberals, like free speech as long as it doesn’t offend anyone. You can’t have it both ways.

  61. Thom2 years ago

    Do you people at Pew or anyone who proposes such lunacy as limiting free speech think for one moment the majority do not see thru this slanted so-called fact tank?

  62. Gail Arneman2 years ago

    Leave our government out of it – it runs the country, not our behavior.

    1. Gail Arneman2 years ago

      On such a minor issue, I should add.
      This is where social standards fit in.

  63. Ramon V2 years ago

    It’s one thing to ratchet up the punishment on crime motivated by hate, but another thing altogether to criminalize hate or even hate speech. Which is worse, a country where people have to tolerate oafs who say insensitive things, or a country where people go to jail or get fined for insensitivity? And who are the speech police? Are all offensive words off limits, or only those that offend favored groups? We can appreciate the utopian goal of ridding the world of bigotry, but like the goal of eradicating the world of sin, be careful want you wish for because in some sense we are all sinners.

    1. Chris James2 years ago

      Love your comment. Very wise.

    2. Eric Fransen2 years ago

      Never quite got the enhancement for hate cuz if you are hitting someone in a criminal fashion you have not exactly shown love for them. Pretty much it should be if you instigate violence upon another human and all humans are equal in matters of the law it should be a stiff penalty regardless of race, creed, color or sex motive.

      The hate crime designation, while it aims to make right, only cements the divide of us against them. Does not present as an equal treatment under the law as it usually goes as white on black or white on Asian etc. Well I suppose if a black man was beating another black man while shouting ‘phrases of hate’ and he got the hate crime enhancement then it would be equal treatment under the law..I somehow think that would not even be considered.

      Yes I am aware of a few black on white crimes where the hate crime enhancement was talked about but I am not sure if it has been carried out. I am willing to learn about those but it is all moot if our laws against violence were strong enough to begin with bu then again, if we all lived by “Love your neighbor as yourself” we would have no need for the laws in the first place.

  64. Charles Snipes2 years ago

    Free speech is free speech. Thats a constitutional freedon and should be left alone.

    1. Andrew2 years ago

      Exactly. Simple as that.

    2. bigkampe2 years ago

      Absolute freedom does not, and cannot, exist. There must be some socially agreed upon limit to speech, where it is understood where boundaries exist. For example, no one would protect an adult’s “right” to speak to a child in a sexually explicit manner. It would be completely inappropriate, and this is an example of a commonsense application of censorship. What is offensive to you may not be to me, but there are plenty of applications when speech cannot be protected (harassment, hate, inappropriate, etc.)

      1. Eric Fransen2 years ago

        “For example, no one would protect an adult’s “right” to speak to a child in a sexually explicit manner.”
        Look up NAMBLA for examples of such people…

  65. Accurate.2 years ago

    How many people where asked? 10 of each…

  66. Scott S2 years ago

    I’m curious to know the wording of the poll question. Was the same question asked to all ages? Was the question designed to carry a certain result?

    I’m in fear that our youngest generation does not understand how unique and gifted we are to have “freedom of speech”! Have they been taught about true repression of speech thru history and how many have been slaughtered because of it?

    1. Bruce Drake2 years ago

      Q30b. Do you think people should be able to say these types of
      things publicly OR the government should be able to prevent people
      from saying these things in some circumstances. b. statements that
      are offensive to minority groups

  67. Ken2 years ago

    PC Speech is destroying our 1st Amendment. The old saying we learned as kids still apply.”Sticks and stones will break my bone but names will never hurt me.” To these protesters, grow up, your acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.Many young people have never had it so good. It seems like what they are teaching you in college you could find in any uneducated area.

  68. Hapax1422 years ago

    Millennials are the first generation to grow up with zero tolerance policies in schools and many more specific rules than other generations, combined with less personalized attention to learning consideration for others.

    Upon reaching adulthood it can be a difficult adjustment to dealing with each other in the absence of authority figures to enforce rules or settle disputes. That’s the last stage of growing up.

    Offensive statements can largely be managed with socialization in manners. Aggressive behavior can be reduced with engagement and persistence from adults. The recipients of offensive statements can be taught to ignore or diffuse them.

    True hate speech with serious consequences is already embedded in hate crimes laws.

    As a practical matter I just don’t know how anti- offensive speech laws would be enforced by any government agency without compromising free speech. Individuals are the best defense against offensive speech by engaging others who spout microaggressions and by defeating and marginalizing those who put forth true hate speech.

  69. Paul Richards2 years ago

    No one has the right to not be offended. This censorship phenomenon is an old one and free speech will always win out. Only shortsighted control freaks feel the need to dominate and cower speech that they find objectionable. Most people hate to hear the truth because it strikes right at their core and they find themselves objectionable, so rather than fix the problem, themselves, they point the finger at others. This constant circular pattern is very exhausting. Evolve already and move past this primitive world view.

    1. Rich Port2 years ago

      I am just wondering as I read this is – does this allow minority groups/individual to say things that may offend the non-minority? Better watch what is asked for because in several the group structure may change – i.e. Hispanics/African American/Middle East etc.

  70. Rivahmitch2 years ago

    Obviously, a significant portion of millennials have bought into the idea diminishing individual rights and freedoms in order to promote social control. In their view of the world, it’s more important to avoid the unpleasant than to confront it. I fear for our posterity when unpopular speech is banned from “the marketplace of idea” the government will control all speech and thereby thought and the rights purportedly secured by the 1st Amendment are a forgotten memory. “Consider “1984” in which words have even been defined and history changed on a daily basis to make thoughts of freedom impossible.) What they’re not prepared to realize is that PC control will apply to every aspect of their lives as well.

    The world they seek is the world Ayn Rand predicted when she wrote “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.”

  71. AntiLieGuy2 years ago

    This is probably lies like most polls. They are part of the brainwashing and help the sheeple keep the other sheeple in line. All humans are slaves! We were made to be slaves to mine gold for the gods. They have wiped out humanity twice before in history and theyre going to do it again. The day of the next false flag using a nuke and blamed on Iran is the day amerikka-the-stupid will be nuked and annihilated by Russia, China and the SCO. The chemtrails sprayed every day globally to hide Planet X is how you know the war is very soon.

  72. CCblogging2 years ago

    Political Correctness is the art of lying to yourself. This 40% are dumbed down morons.

  73. jonnie thomas2 years ago

    Who is a minority? Caucasians? Whites are out numbered in most states. Whites do have “all white colleges “. So tell me who is minority

    1. bigkampe2 years ago

      You are totally incorrect. Check of the Census website. (BTW, I conduct demographic research, and there is just simply no truth to your claim.)

  74. robert2 years ago

    Claiming you are offended should be a crime.

  75. Iván el Terrible2 years ago

    Million of people died so we could have freedom of speech. Are their sons, daughters and grandchildren actually willing to destroy it just because of minorities who aren’t even an important percentage of the population of their countries?

  76. Chad Woodburn2 years ago

    Are the pro-censorship people aware of the fact that what they say is offensive to some people? For every statement there is some group that is offended by it.

  77. M E2 years ago

    Of course they want it limited to only speech offensive to monorities. It’s likely the majority of them are monorities or whiny apologetic liberals who support them.
    Naturally they want that kind of dominance. They are engineering a social problem that doesn’t exist in nearly as bad a way as they make it to and use social media to inflame the issue and garner blind support.
    They want to be dominant over those they perceive to be the majority and be allowed themselves the free speech in order to offend without conscience.
    Naturally it won’t happen as it is a blatant Leeshan of the First Amendment, and civil rights, let alone common sense.
    Science, those that they would designate as minorities, when taken collectively, are the majority, perhaps those who they perceive as being the majority, are really in the minority and perhaps they should be the ones who should have this type of protection.

    1. rocquedog2 years ago

      This proves that shows like Leno, John Stewart, Watter’s World, etc., etc. when they interview millennials and ask questions pertinent to world affairs, History, the constitution, etc., that they can’t even answer the most basic questions. We can thank the liberal element that dominates the teaching ranks in our colleges and high schools. Thank God for our Baby Boomers but unfortunately, they won’t be around in another 15-20 yrs. But no worry there. Our country will long be toast by then….

  78. Ted West2 years ago

    And to think we’ve been concerned about them missing their shot at the American Dream. Well, no more. To deserve the American Dream, first you have to dream like Americans. These people clearly want government to make decisions for them, and government is only too happy to accept that responsibility.

  79. DJ2 years ago

    I’d like to see the religious breakup. Research has shown Agnostics, Atheists, and Humanists actually have higher morals than fundamental religious people. I’d love to see that here.

    1. tom britt2 years ago

      Really. Please cite the relevant studies. I’d love to see them.

    2. Scott S2 years ago

      That research was bogus, the motives for children keeping the “stickers” was not addressed. Did they have siblings they were keeping them for? What were the children’s social and economic situation. The study was not scientific.

    3. Barbara2 years ago

      You obviously are a member of one of the groups you mentioned. The communists tried to get rid of religion and they were not successful. Won’t be successful here either. We all have the freedom to believe what we choose (not just you). Having morals is not confined to religious people. Most religions encourage the following of civil laws and good citizenship. Religion in it’s best form is not immoral, nor does it encourage war. It is the mentally ill who us religion as a reason to wage war against those who do not have the same beliefs.

  80. 1bluebugg2 years ago

    Had they asked me, this millennial would have brought the number down to 39%..or at least 39.9…geez, they’re retarded these days…sorry rest of u.s….my generation is still on the ‘not awake’ spectrum…I hope they wake up soon, and realize Bernie and Hillary are NOT the answer.

    1. DJ2 years ago

      And, I guess you really like the very rich and corporations making all the money while the middle and low class are having it rough. Don’t come back with liberal insults. If you don’t agree show me some stats. It’s not easy to find.

  81. A Reader2 years ago

    Based on the first chart, it appears that the group in the US that mostly supports suppression of free speech is comprised of non-white young people (18 – 34 yrs. old) with high school education or less.

    Is it the mass migration through our Southern border that inundates America with population that by and large does not value individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

    The presented data strongly suggest so.

    1. Trax2 years ago

      Regarding your comment about the religious. As time progresses the religious will be a thing of the past. And if not gone it may be in a position that based on its history has failed across the board. They are dumbed down and refuse to take a stand. Rather they banter behind closed doors but fail to take it to the streets. At one time in history even presidents, commander and chiefs held to their strong religious stance.

  82. Chas2 years ago

    And what will they do when another group wants to limit their speech?

  83. Ken Howes2 years ago

    What I notice is that those nations where the Nazis never came are the ones most tolerant of all speech, and the Germans, where the Nazis ruled, are the least tolerant. Basically their principal concern is preventing another Third Reich. But the fact is that repression always begins with speech that offends you. Once the government has the right to prohibit speech, it has the right to prohibit speech, and it, not you, will decide what that speech is.

    1. Dan2 years ago

      Well said!

  84. Roman2 years ago

    Looks like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are not the only terrorists we have to worry about in our country. Now it is also the Fascist trained students efforts to destroy the First Amendment based largely on Fabricated Scandals and the millennials pre-pubescent immaturity fostered by over indulgent and incompetent parenting and socialist school administrators and professors.

  85. ketsa2 years ago

    Those millenials are the 1st generation raised by their TVs. And it shows.

    1. Dan2 years ago

      Right, cuz TV was invented in the 90s…

  86. Greg Lewis2 years ago


  87. xnavygunner2 years ago

    Sorry, but I did not serve 10 years for the Freedom of Speech to be done away with.

  88. Rusty Shackleford2 years ago

    Disturbing doesn’t begin to describe this.
    Free speech is the fundamental basis of a free society. Millennials and Europe are throwing everything away their grandparents fought for in exchange for “not being offended.”

  89. Anthony Steele2 years ago

    this millennial is not okay with government oversight of free speech. Please excuse my generation entitled tendency. They cling on to their fantasies for public policies.

  90. Rae debord2 years ago

    Problem is everything is offensive to millennial especially working.

  91. qwerty2 years ago

    How large was the sample?

    1. size2 years ago

      “… 40,786 face-to-face and telephone interviews in 38 countries with adults 18 and older conducted from April 5 to May 21, 2015”

      I know they’re experts, but the sample size and time frame feels small to me given the scale. It seems that this data was pulled from an over 150 question survey too, according to the survey from the data link provided.

  92. Orly2 years ago

    Congratuations, a biased question gets biased results.

  93. BETAOPTICS2 years ago

    40% millenials are dumb and I am a millenial myself. No but seriously, censorship is futile because language only matters as much as we are giving power to the words themselves. You’ll ban a word, and another word is invented to replace the banned word and you haven’t solved anything.

    If you want to solve the issue of hate speech, then you have to convince the people not to hate in the first place. That is how it worked for us as our mentors taught us to know better than that, and that is the only way you can actually realistically solve the issue to begin with.

    1. Frank2 years ago

      You CAN’T convince people “not to hate”. Why would someone care if I “hate” someone else. As long as I don’t act on it then it’s no one else’s business. If you try to kepp my from “hating”, then you are bordering on persecuting someone for “thoughtcrime.”

  94. rayra2 years ago

    Just as they were schooled to believe. The corruption of our education system is bearing its poisonous fruit. Their nuclear family has been destroyed, their faith negated, their pride replaced with guilt for which they must atone, their backbone replaced with ritalin, their sexuality undermined and muddled, and they’ve been taught their nation is nothing special. And all at the same time taught that The State is the fountain of everything, and their father. Every strong male influence is attacked or removed. In divorce court, in popular culture, in K thru BS education, mocked in damned near every TV commercial and show. If ANY penis is touted, it’s connected to a tranny or homosexual.

    With all that happening in our schools, it’s no wonder there’s no time to teach the three Rs. They are not taught history, civics, basic economics, any trades and few technical skills. They are taught the Marxist dialectic masked as ‘social justice’ in EVERY curriculum category. And that too dovetails with the progressive communist plan to destroy this nation from within. A century in the (un)making. Now it is upon us. The election of Obama in 2008 was the opening of the final Act.

    Will they fall short? Will we survive it? survey results like this certainly put the issue in some doubt. If it isn’t reversed in a hurry with new national education standards and an almighty purge of the Marxists from our academies, we WILL be so ‘fundamentally transformed’ it might be unrecoverable. For we will surely then be swamped from outside out borders by nations and peoples who were not so weakened.

    1. Dan2 years ago

      Why are you blaming teachers? What about parents??? Aren’t parents the first line of defense against ignorance and apathy? If your kids don’t know what america is all about, maybe you ought to shoulder some of the blame. The problem is that most parents take absolutely no interest in their kids’ education.

  95. Lauren2 years ago

    People should be allowed to say whatever they want. Then we know which people to avoid.

  96. Joy m2 years ago

    What is the N? Any survey that doesn’t tell you how large a sample size (N) and how large the samples of each sub population were is not worth much. Although Pew research has a good rep, there have been some recent releases that didn’t give the important details. That makes drawing any conclusion at all from the apparent results iffy at best.

    1. Jim2 years ago

      All of that info is included or linked to in the full report (PDF):…

    2. Nick Brown2 years ago

      Did you read the actual paper (which they helpfully link to) or just this summary?

    3. Jacob Poushter2 years ago

      Hi Joy m,

      In this post, we only discuss subgroups where there are statistically significant differences between them. In other words, the differences between Millennials and other generations are all significant, as are the gender, partisan, racial and education differences between the most and least educated Americans in the first graphic. All subgroups sample sizes exceed 100 people. Hope that answers your question, but we are happy to send you these subgroup N sizes directly if you would like them.


  97. Jem2 years ago

    Maybe it should also be illegal to say anything that offends the government.

    1. Trax2 years ago

      Jem, that is a statement not to many would be willing to acknowledge. I’ve always believed ´´Love it or leave it´´.
      And that is not an isolationist attitude.

  98. Margarito Ramirez2 years ago

    That’s not good

  99. Bob2 years ago

    with this being a pew research study I can’t really question the methodology, the research group has a proven track record, however what isn’t made clear in these published findings is what the questions asked were.

    I personally would think it a good think for governments to limit speech, but only in very narrow cases where the speech incites violence, or a public forum is used to threaten someone, i.e. a public declaration that so and so should be killed, or so and so should watch their back. And even in those instances I think speech should be limited when it’s on a large scale, so someone making an idle threat to someone else wouldn’t count, but inciting at a large rally or on television would.

    so then where would I be counted in this study? are my views tallied for or against censorship? while the methodology is certainly top notch with you guys, I question whether such a simple for/against poll can appropriately cover the nuance inherent in the question.

    I also wonder if the pew research center responds to comments in the comment section, guess I’ll find out 🙂

    1. Robert2 years ago

      If you simply click on the link (i.e. “survey data”) in the first sentence, it will take you the main report for the survey, which includes complete report, topline questionnaire, and methodology.

      And no, I don’t work for Pew.

    2. JBT2 years ago

      It is already illegal to incite a riot or threaten someone with violence or death…but the excersise of free speech is there as described in the 1st Ammendment to protect unpopular speech; not speech which everyone agrees with.

  100. Gman2 years ago

    This is what Hitler was dreaming about. A populace that would let government control speech.

    1. James Crowe2 years ago

      Sometimes Godwin’s law isn’t a fallacy after all.

  101. Chelsea2 years ago

    Millennials just need a refresher on why free speech is so important and what consequences could result if you start to suppress it.. We’re farther removed from the Espionage Act etc

  102. Jason Harris2 years ago

    It’s an age thing, not a generation thing. Younger = naive. 24 is when adulthood really starts and as you see the older, the wiser one becomes…

    Nothing new.

    1. BigdogTex2 years ago

      Well more than half the Millennial generation is older than 24. So what you’re saying isn’t really true.

  103. DerpaDerpa2 years ago

    It is more offensive to clouds. Millennials are invading their personal space. It’s practically cloud rape

  104. TKList2 years ago

    Millennials are lost in the clouds.

    1. QriQet2 years ago

      That’s offensive to millennials.

      1. Joe2 years ago


      2. millenial2 years ago

        I’m offended by your offense.

      3. Alex M2 years ago

        Except it’s true, atleast when it comes to this. And I’m a millennial!

      4. boomboom2 years ago

        Off to prison now

      5. Robert Michael2 years ago

        Are millennials a minority? Should the government prevent offensive speech toward millennials?

      6. Michael Abracham2 years ago

        I’m not even a Millennial, and I’m offended by that.

      7. Barack Obama2 years ago

        That’s offensive to clouds.

      8. Col. Slanders2 years ago

        ^^^Too bad, Its the truth

    2. BigdogTex2 years ago

      You need to check your hard won free speech privilege sir. These kids need their safe spaces.

    3. Robert Michael2 years ago

      If these hypersensitive airheads are our future then the constitution as we know it will be lost.

    4. Tritone2 years ago

      Europe looks even worse off.

    5. Jim2 years ago

      I’m a millennial who is all for free speach, but look in the mirror. We learned what we did from the generations raising us. Perhaps older generations should take responsibility for their poor parenting skills if there is a problem with the product they produced?

      1. HAL2 years ago

        Blaming the older generation huh? Typical. I’m a millennial too and the older generation was just like that, they were out there protesting everything believing they could change the world but in the end they became the very thing they protested against. God help us, these people will be in power someday.

    6. Zippy2 years ago

      That’s a micro-aggression.