A recent study by Vanderbilt University found that Americans generally love free speech, but their views change occasionally. One instance of this occurred during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war.

John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, said the study replicated a 1939 poll that asked about free speech's role in a democracy and people's commitment to free speech. That study involved 3,500 participants. However, in June, only 1,000 Americans were surveyed to compare their current views to those in the past.

"We were interested to see if, in fact, all those protests, for example, it led people lessen or increase their commitment to free speech. And you could imagine hypotheses in both directions," Geer said.

Polling found that most Americans believe in unrestricted free speech, allowing any topic or speaker. However, there's a significant partisan divide, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to oppose any restrictions.

Jacob Mchangama, executive director for The Future of Free Speech and research professor at Vanderbilt University said Americans generally support free speech in abstract terms, but their views become more nuanced when confronted with specific hot-button topics on issues of transgender, gay marriage and abortion. He added there are also different degrees of tolerance for leaders of Israel and Hamas speaking on college campuses.

"If you ask whether a white supremacist should be allowed to speak on college campuses, only 37% say yes. A supporter of critical race theory, you get a majority, a significant majority of 66%, but that's still quite a few Americans who believe that someone who supports critical race theory should not be allowed to speak on college campuses," he explained.

Mchangama added that tolerance for opposing ideas is crucial for free speech, and the survey provides valuable data on this civic commitment. While most people support free speech, a significant minority would not tolerate opposing views, even when they are nonviolent and protected by the First Amendment.


get more stories like this via email

Groups working for human rights causes in Iowa warn proposed cuts being debated in Congress would trickle down to the people least able to sustain them.

The Trump administration has proposed $880 billion in cuts over the next decade to Medicaid and other services, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Progress Iowa Executive Director Mazie Stilwell said those cuts would fall most squarely on average Iowans, many of them kids, who don't have a voice in the process.

"There is so much fear right now, and it's fear from everyday working Iowans who know there's no one fighting for them," said Stilwell. "It's the Iowans who know that when push comes to shove, and when programs are put on the chopping block, they're the ones who are going to suffer."

The Trump administration has said it is working to downsize the federal government and cut expenses.

About 270,000 Iowans receive SNAP or federal food assistance, and more than 700,000 get their health coverage from Medicaid.

Stilwell contended that Iowans aren't the only ones afraid of potential social service cuts, but politicians are too.

She said she suspects that's one reason they aren't showing up at town hall meetings, that have long been the hallmark of grassroots democracy in the state.

"What we've seen is these members of Congress running away from their constituents," said Stilwell. "They are refusing to answer their questions. They are trying to make a mockery of their constituents and their efforts."

Stilwell said in light of the just-passed income tax filing deadline, Iowans want to know their money is being used to represent their interests - and not to fund tax cuts or corporate interests.

Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn, both Republicans, voted in favor of the measure that would social service programs.

Adrian Fontes, Arizona's Secretary of State, argued there is nothing wrong with American elections but some leaders in Washington, D.C., disagree.

The U.S. Senate will consider the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act this week. It would require people to show documents in person, like a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote. Republican proponents said it is needed to keep noncitizens from voting.

Fontes countered it is an exceedingly rare occurrence and he has yet to see proof of widespread voter fraud or abuse.

"This 'documented proof of citizenship' issue, where is the data that shows that we have a significant and severe problem with nonqualified voters, voting? Where is the data?" Fontes asked. "This is another example of the tail wagging the dog."

The measure faces a long shot in the Senate. At the same time, one of President Donald Trump's latest executive orders would overhaul major facets of the nation's election system, in part by restricting people's ability to register by mail or online. Voting rights advocates said the president does not have the legal authority to do it.

Liz Avore, senior policy adviser for the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said many states have taken Trump's executive order as a call to action, as 24 states so far this year have considered legislation to impose or expand proof of citizenship requirements. Since 2013, Arizona voters have had to provide documents proving their citizenship to vote in state and local elections. Avore suggested it was not the administration's intent to change federal law.

"The goal of the executive order was and is to send clear marching orders to the states, and also to Congress, to tell them exactly what President Trump wants them to be doing," Avore contended. "The states are listening."

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states, including Arizona, have a filed a lawsuit, arguing the Trump executive order "sows confusion and sets the stage for chaos" in state election systems.


get more stories like this via email

Despite voter approval in November, Missouri lawmakers are moving to undo part of Proposition A, specifically, the clause requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

The Missouri House passed the repeal legislation last month by a 96-51 vote. The provision was approved by nearly 60% of voters, who also supported raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Prop A proponents said repealing any part of the measure so soon after its approval undermines the will of the voters.

John Davis, partner at the bipartisan polling firm Red America, Blue America Research, said its latest survey showed 75% of respondents oppose efforts to repeal the legislation.

"Legislators who are thinking about what voters had approved just this past November should be concerned that there's such a strong response in opposition to that particular type of proposal," Davis noted.

Supporters of the repeal contended the sick-leave mandate is too rigid and burdensome, warning it could lead to reduced hiring or even business closures. The bill is now in the Senate, which has two weeks to act before the mandate takes effect May 1.

Business groups have filed lawsuits claiming Proposition A violates Missouri's single-subject rule by linking minimum wage hikes with paid sick leave. Supporters of the repeal also argued the Legislature can amend the law without a public vote since it changed state law, not the constitution.

Davis highlighted the importance of public opinion surveys.

"Some of the decisions made at statehouses are of extraordinary consequence," Davis pointed out. "What we have tried to do is just establish sort of baselines, to take a look over time how folks are feeling about a variety of topics, because state laws really do impact people very, very directly."

If the Missouri Senate approves the bill, it will move to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk, where he can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.


get more stories like this via email