Yes though, equivocating even a little bit about whether or not people should be able to criticize our leadership means you don't really support a free press.
Not supporting the right of a free press to exist and not finding it "very important" that news organizations are allowed to criticize the government to maintain a strong democracy are a bit different. Undoubtedly there are some Reps that are against the existence of a free press, but last I checked Dems are also much more in support of censoring the free speech of individuals, so it's not like either cares too much about personal liberties except when politically convenient.
You might take a closer look at the survey and see if the bolded assertion stands up. Not only are conservatives less likely to consider a free press "very important," so too are they less likely to consider "the right to protest non-violently" and "protecting the rights of people with unpopular views" as "very important." Both of those go to the heart of free speech.
You may have "heard" that dems tend to support censorship of individuals, but any evidence I've ever seen to prove that assertion is anecdotal: this liberal or that liberals said such and such. See if you can find a poll with a reasonable sample size that says liberals like to censor people and I'll take notice.
Many Democrats are delusional when they say they support the right to protest non-violently; they support violent protest against speech they dislike, as many have admitted on this forum. It's easy for someone to say that they support all free speech, protest, etc when asked a very general question about it rather than uncomfortable more specific examples, see:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
That isn't "liberals" but an age demographic. Yes, I realize a majority of mellinials are liberal, but there's a reason for the split along age lines. It will be interesting to see how millennials feel about this particular issue as they age. In fact, I'm curious if there is a difference between the college aged ones and the older ones now out in the real world. Kids can be extraordinarily thin skinned because they've been raised in a safe bubble. When out in the real world, you either have to grow a thicker skin or you come apart emotionally. These kids haven't learned that lesson yet.
Yup, a good analogy would be if you look at the question about the importance of "free and fair elections." Saying that free and fair elections are "somewhat important" to a democracy isn't exactly standing firm on the basic democratic principle. These aren't really issues where anyone who values democracy ought to be equivocating.
That isn't "liberals" but an age demographic. Yes, I realize a majority of mellinials are liberal, but there's a reason for the split along age lines. It will be interesting to see how millennials feel about this particular issue as they age. In fact, I'm curious if there is a difference between the college aged ones and the older ones now out in the real world. Kids can be extraordinarily thin skinned because they've been raised in a safe bubble. When out in the real world, you either have to grow a thicker skin or you come apart emotionally. These kids haven't learned that lesson yet.
Below the part on age, it shows that 18% of Republicans, 27% of independents, and 35% of Democrats polled support anti-hate speech laws.
Granted, someone could easily point out conservative/Republican opposition to free speech in the form of obscenity laws, that Florida bill preventing doctors asking patients about gun ownership, etc, so maybe with a different question Republicans would come out a lot worse. Both sides have their fair share of half-admirers of the 1st Amendment.
Consider the possibility that better educated and generally smarter younger people are correct about banning something which has serious downside and little upside, and why older typically more bigoted people might not like that.
Yes, and the connection between these two poll results is obvious. Trump repeatedly bashes the press, and suddenly a free press isn't important. Trump repeatedly praises Putin, and suddenly Putin is a great guy. This is why the right has become so scary. Is there anything Trump could ever say that they won't instantly except as Divine Truth? What's next? Suppose Trump decides to say that Hitler was a great leader, or that we should use nuclear weapons in the middle east.
Consider the possibility that better educated and generally smarter younger people are correct about banning something which has serious downside and little upside, and why older typically more bigoted people might not like that.
Yes, the knife cuts two ways. But if one concocts the most outrageous lies and accusations purely to deceive an unwitting public or an unwitting cohort, with a sole objective of gaining Power, the costs of arriving at an approximation of the Truth are higher, the outcomes more uncertain.Not sure where you are going with this. Are you supportive of free speech or not? If you support the suppression of another's free speech, realize that that knife can cut two ways and it will come down to the side with the most guns winning.
Violent governmental suppression of bad ideas is perhaps the worst idea of all. Bad ideas should be allowed free and complete expression so that they can be evaluated and discarded by the society at large.
Not sure where you are going with this. Are you supportive of free speech or not? If you support the suppression of another's free speech, realize that that knife can cut two ways and it will come down to the side with the most guns winning.
Violent governmental suppression of bad ideas is perhaps the worst idea of all. Bad ideas should be allowed free and complete expression so that they can be evaluated and discarded by the society at large.
Here is the problem.
There is no longer a real way to have a free press that is not seen in some way as a political proxy or mouthpiece.
Because the population of America, on both sides, particularly one side, but for fun lets say, both sides considers anything negative said about their side to be false and shall then declare anything said by that news outlet to be false. So even if a news media outlet were totally objective and fair, one side or the other, whoever is getting criticized will declare it to be fake news propaganda for the other side.
If a fact checker organization agrees with the news outlet that says what they dont like, then that organization is also allied with the opposition.
America is over, because Americans aren't smart anymore. Or at least enough of them aren't to be an extreme problem.
So we fkd.
Or maybe people that are older and have more experiences may know more than the "better educated and generally smarter younger people"?
That's why the smart people back in the day create an independent judicial system to judge these matters. - agent00f (couldn't quote for some reason)
But the people who appoint the judges appoint ones that lean left or right depending or who they are. The judiciary is no longer impartial. If it ever was.
This is the reason Merrick Garland is not on the supreme court right now. Is he the same as the guy Trump selected? No he isnt. Neither of them would have been considered impartial.
Consider the possibility that better educated and generally smarter younger people are correct about banning something which has serious downside and little upside, and why older typically more bigoted people might not like that.
Per the poll I provided, there's an inverse correlation between education and willingness to ban hate speech. Consider the possibility that poking exceptions into firm tenets of our nation to satisfy the temporary feels of the highly-opinionated and lowly-educated masses is not a good thing in the long run for the precedent it creates.
The way american demographics worked is that it used to be the college crowd was white and republican (ie presumably very low support), whereas now it's mixed and liberal. So the moderate correlation doesn't necessarily show what you think it does. In any case the rest of first world further along the development curve expectedly matches up the worst with american conservatives.
lol, so you trot out the 'educated citizens' meme when they support something you support, and accuse them of being significantly racist when not.
Are you arguing the facts here about demographics, when the substantial racial divide is literally from your study?
The study doesn't look at education levels among each ethnic group in response to beliefs on hate speech. Are you implying that the tiny proportion of the country college-educated in the 60s and earlier, when the country was significantly more white and who are now of retirement age, is enough to outweigh the multitude more that hold college degrees today?
Don't you fetishize Asia btw? Japan doesn't have any significant kind of hate speech laws, and Googling apparently neither does South Korea, but I guess those lowly yellow people aren't first-world by your standards.
Integrated over time there's probably significantly more college white republican than college non-white democrats now, given any reasonable year as threshold. Recall the willie horton ad was 1988.
Foreigners tend to hold higher social status in asia.