68 percent of college students say free speech protections should extend to threats, inciting violence: Poll

[sarisataka]

68 percent of college students say free speech protections should extend to threats, inciting violence: Poll

More than two-thirds of college students say free speech protections on campuses should extend even to individuals who are inciting violence or threatening others, according to an Axios Vibes survey conducted by The Harris Poll and released Thursday.

The poll found 68 percent of students agreed with free speech protection extending to inciting violence. Free speech was a top-three concern for students, behind only tuition and safety.

While the support for even potentially inciting free speech protections appears bipartisan, the survey found it is somewhat split among gender lines, backed by 74 percent of men and only 61 percent of women.

The survey comes at a tumultuous time for universities as they have navigated how to handle the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Around 86 percent of college students say schools should make them feel safe when sharing opinions on tense political issues, and 77 percent argue free speech is needed even when it upsets others.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/68-percent-of-college-students-say-free-speech-protections-should-extend-to-threats-inciting-violence-poll/ar-BB1jTk04?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=f5937a9945a74b288c416ef366d3a54e&ei=49

Interesting to note this is a one-way opinion. Free speech should include making threats to others but the school should make the speaker feel safe. That seems to rule out making threats against the threatener.

[exboyfil]

1. 1st amendment doesn't extend to making credible threats - I don't think the poll is saying that about 68%

That is established law for some time. Such threats are assault at a minimum and potentially covered by new laws detailing terroristic threats.

PA Code:

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or

(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

One thing I can't find is the actual question that was asked. I think any article that doesn't include the actual poll question is pretty useless.


The actual response clarifier isn't the same as the statement about threats or incitement. It says free speech even if there is some risk of violence. There is always a risk of violence when controversial positions are taken. That is far different than 68% agreeing that it should extend to threats.

"A clear majority of students — 68% — argued for pushing the limits of speech on campus even if there's some risk of violence. That's much higher than the 43% of the 3,525 non-students polled who share that view."

[exboyfil]

4. Isn't that what I said

My issue is that the clarifier I read when going to the original website for the polling (they still didn't include the question though) was if speech should be suppressed if it could lead to violence. If that was the true question, then I would also have to say that such speech should be allowed. Any controversial position can lead to violence. In fact it would be sad if only 68% agreed that speech shouldn't be suppressed if it could lead to violence. That would pretty much end the whole Civil Rights era.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I'm so sorry, I posted that in the wrong spot.

[Chainfire]

3. Well, 68% of them are wrong about that issue.

There is no such thing as an absolute gurantee to speech any more than there is an absolute gurantee to life. While I can understand and sympathise with the the kids misconception of the rights of man, and the theory of unlimited speech, I have lived long enough to know better; some things are best, for everyone, if left unsaid.

Their position would only be valid if, once a threat of death or serious injury was proclaimed, then the potential victim would have the right to act preemtively to protect themselves. If you say you are going to kill me, I might just beleive you.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Sorry, but making threats and inciting violence are crimes. Not included in free speech

[Sympthsical]

7. It feels like the article and the poll aren't saying quite the same thing

This is a very confusing write up, to be honest.

The writer says: "More than two-thirds of college students believe universities should protect free speech — even if the speech extends to physical threats or inciting violence"

But the polling section says: "A clear majority of students — 68% — argued for pushing the limits of speech on campus even if there's some risk of violence. That's much higher than the 43% of the 3,525 non-students polled who share that view."

"Some risk of violence" is not the same thing as "physical threats or inciting violence". Even the Supreme Court parses the difference between the two, and there is a vast gulf - even in policy - between when speech could result in violence and when it is actively advocating for it.

So we're left asking an increasingly common question - Why not just publish the poll data? What question was asked and how was it worded? What options for answers were there? Why not link to the actual poll instead of an article littered with circle-jerking hyperlinks to their own unrelated content?

Online journalism is increasingly useless. All they have to do is report data - and they can't manage it.

[exboyfil]

8. And I tried to drill down to the question

And never got there. You are so right in your statement. The actual question asked should be included as minimum (or a link to the actual question).

[Sympthsical]

9. I looked and nada

I scoured Axios and all the links provided, I did a google search with a time parameter, and I looked at Harris Polls' website.

I can't find the data.

Without knowing what question was actually asked and what the actual answers were, we have to take the writer's word for it. But the writer contradicts themselves in their own article.

Sooo . . .

[Mariana]

11. it is not "confusing". it's dishonest. it's a lie.

[Mariana]

10. They're lyIng. Follow the lInks and the orIgInal story says thIs:

A clear majority of students — 68% — argued for pushing the limits of speech on campus even if there's some risk of violence.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/14/college-students-campus-free-speech-axios-vibes

[exboyfil]

13. Problem is the first line of the same article says

More than two-thirds of college students believe universities should protect free speech — even if the speech extends to physical threats or inciting violence, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll.

I wouldn't trust their work going forward. I put a comment on the first author's Twitter about it.

[exboyfil]

12. Here is the original source

It is contradictory in itself. The journalist who reported out (Lexi Lonas) should have drilled deeper than the headline.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/14/college-students-campus-free-speech-axios-vibes

First line of the article

More than two-thirds of college students believe universities should protect free speech — even if the speech extends to physical threats or inciting violence, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll.


Later in the text of the article

A clear majority of students — 68% — argued for pushing the limits of speech on campus even if there's some risk of violence. That's much higher than the 43% of the 3,525 non-students polled who share that view.

And no where is the actual question asked to be found.

[Incanus]

14. Lexi Lonas was a columnist for the Lone Conservative when she was in university

I have a feeling her misrepresentation was deliberate.

[exboyfil]

15. She is pretty much quoting from the authors themselves though

The error starts with them.

[Incanus]

16. Their headline is designed to generate clicks and outrage as well.

I guess that's all that matters for some of these outlets, they're nothing but tabloids now.