Over 80% of Americans across party lines agree that exercising free speech involves dealing with disagreements — but that this should never lead to calls for violence.
That’s according to a new survey by YouGov, highlighting that the American people understand the realities of free expression and the importance of civil discourse.
But not all the data are encouraging.
Though eight in 10 respondents said we should discourage calls to violence, about one in 10 said they weren’t sure — and another one in 10 actually disagreed.
Also, roughly 78% of Americans believe freedom of speech doesn’t include freedom from consequences — including 76% of Republicans, up 16 points from 2022, and 86% of Democrats. That said, it’s difficult to know what to make of this without knowing whether respondents took “consequences” as referring to the court of public opinion or the iron fist of the state. After all, people have every right to judge each other for the things they say but the government cannot punish speech based on viewpoint.
Reflecting recent findings by FIRE’s National Speech Index, the survey also reveals that 54% of respondents agree that the government is the biggest threat to free speech, up from 45% in YouGov’s 2022 survey. While Republican sentiment on this question has fallen over that period from 69% to 60%, Democrats have gone from 28% to 48%.
Even with the nine-point drop among Republicans and 20-point increase among Democrats, the former remain far more likely to view the government as the main threat to free speech.
On the other hand, the NSI found that 67% of conservatives and 83% of very conservative Americans have “a lot” or total confidence in President Donald Trump to protect their First Amendment rights, compared to only 11% of liberals and 12% of very liberal Americans.
But here’s a spot of good news. That same 2022 survey found that just below one-third of Americans believed limiting speech for some can expand free speech for all, including 24% of Republicans and a whopping 40% of Democrats. This year, however, while the figure for Republicans only fell by 2 percentage points, the percentage for Democrats dropped by an encouraging 12 points.
Still, compared to Republicans and the general population, Democrats are significantly more censorial when it comes to this question.
In line with this, the NSI results showed that 52% of conservatives but only 45% of liberals agree that “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.” Though here again, more information would be helpful in order to understand what specific limitations to free speech Democrats and Republicans have in mind.
As the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Laurent Sourisseau has said, “When you have something to say, there is always someone somewhere with a very good reason to stop you from saying it.”
We’d like to recognize the significant contributions of three Black educators who helped shape the future of higher education, breaking down barriers and inspiring generations of learners and educational leaders.
Mary McLeod Bethune
Mary McLeod Bethune is regarded as one of the most significant Black educators and civil rights activists of the 20th century. The daughter of formerly enslaved parents, Bethune believed education was key to opening the doors of opportunity for Black Americans. She founded the Daytona Normal and Industrial Institute for Negro Girls in Daytona, Florida, in 1904, serving as president of the school. The school was eventually combined with the Cookman Institute for Men in 1923 (other sources cite 1929), merging to form the Bethune-Cookman College, Bethune becoming the first Black woman to serve as a college president. The college was one of the few institutions where Black students could seek a college degree. And as of fall 2023, Bethune-Cookman University enrolled 2,415 undergraduate students.
Mary McLeod Bethune, Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Photographs and Prints Division, The New York Public Library. (1940 – 1949).
Kelly Miller
Kelly Miller was a groundbreaking educator, mathematician and writer, becoming the first Black man to attend Johns Hopkins University for post-graduate study. He would go on to eventually join Howard University’s faculty as a mathematics professor, helping found the American Negro Academy in 1897, the first organization for Black scholars and artists.
Miller introduced sociology to Howard’s curriculum in 1895, becoming the first person to teach the subject at the university. Eventually becoming dean of Howard’s College of Arts and Sciences in 1907, he worked to add new natural and social science courses, transforming the curriculum. Due to his tireless recruitment efforts across the south, student enrollment tripled during his first four years in that position.
Kelly Miller, LL.D. Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, The New York Public Library. (1904).
Mary Jane Patterson
Becoming the first Black woman to receive a bachelor’s degree when she graduated from Oberlin College in 1862, Mary Jane Patterson quickly established herself as trailblazer. She devoted her career to education, teaching at the Institute of Colored Youth, now known as Cheyney University, eventually becoming the school principal at the Preparatory High School for Colored Youth, the first U.S. public high school for Black Americans. The Mary Jane Patterson Scholarship was established in 2019, which aims to support post-baccalaureate students who are interested in teaching in urban classrooms.
Mary Jane Patterson, first Black woman to be granted a bachelor’s degree in the U.S. (Oberlin College, 1862). Photo retrieved from Oberlin College Archives.
During this Black History Month 2025, we celebrate the contributions of these three Black educators whose accomplishments continue to ring out throughout higher education today.
If you’re interested in history content for your course, we encourage you to browse our history catalog.
A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that conservative and very conservative Americans have more confidence that President Trump will protect their First Amendment rights than Gov. Gavin Newsom or the Supreme Court. Liberal and very liberal Americans are skeptical that any of them will protect their first amendment rights, though they are most confident in Newsom.
The fifth installment of FIRE’s National Free Speech Index further reveals that there is a partisan disagreement about the security of free speech in America and whether or not it is headed in the right direction. When it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, conservatives are more likely to think that things in America are heading in the right direction and are likely to think that the right to freedom of speech is secure in America today, compared to liberals.
This was not the case three months ago.
Overall, when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, 41% of Americans think things in America are heading in the right direction, up 5% from October when 36% of Americans felt this way. Yet, compared to last year, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the direction freedom of speech is headed in America in this month’s survey. In July of last year, 31% of very liberal and 45% of liberal Americans reported that freedom of speech in America is headed in the right direction while just 16% of conservative and 20% of very conservative Americans reported the same. Then, in October, 46% of very liberal and 49% of liberal Americans reported the same while just 18% of conservative and 30% of conservative Americans did.
This month however, more conservative (52%) and very conservative (49%) Americans reported thinking things in America are heading in the right direction when it comes to freedom of speech compared to moderate (42%), liberal (34%) or very liberal (31%) Americans. After October last year, a drastic shift in ideological perspective on the state of free speech occurred between liberals and conservatives. While liberal and very liberal Americans were more likely to think that things in America were heading in the right direction in October, in January, conservative and very conservative Americans are now the ones most likely to report the same.
In addition, last year, very liberal and liberal Americans reported much more confidence than conservative and very conservative Americans in the security of free speech in America. In July, 41% of very liberal and 30% of liberal Americans reported that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very” secure while 49% of conservative and 61% of very conservative Americans reported the same.
In October, the partisan divide grew larger, with 32% of very liberal and 27% of liberal Americans reporting that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure” while 55% of conservative and 60% of very conservative Americans reported the same.
The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election.
Yet, this month, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the security of free speech in America, with 46% of very liberal and 36% of liberal Americans reporting “not at all” or “not very secure” and 29% of conservative and 41% of very conservative Americans reporting the same, showcasing conservatives’ growing trust that their free speech rights are secure.
Moderates, on the other hand, have remained consistent in their views over the last six months, with approximately 40% of moderates reporting that the freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure”.
This quarter’s survey makes evident the ideological trends among Americans and their perspectives on the security and condition of their free speech rights. The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election.
J. Ann Selzer planned to step back from election polling at the end of 2024. She had spent three decades working with The Des Moines Register and other media outlets, earning a reputation as “the best pollster in politics” for her consistent and reliable work. Selzer’s polls had correctly predicted the winner of every presidential race in Iowa since 2008, and she was hoping to end her election-related work with one last accurate survey of public opinion.
“Polling is a science of estimation, and science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist,” she said in a November 17 farewell column for The Register. “So, I’m humbled, yet always willing to learn from unexpected findings.”
Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer
President Donald Trump, however, doesn’t seem to think “humbled” is enough. That same day, Trump took to Truth Social to accuse Selzer of intentionally fabricating her poll and committing possible election fraud. A month later, he sued Selzer and The Register for alleged election interference and violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.
It’s difficult to imagine a more thorough and obvious violation of basic First Amendment principles than this lawsuit. Polling the electorate is election participation, not interference—and reporting your findings is protected speech whether your findings turn out to be right or wrong. Iowa’s laws on election “interference” are about conduct such as using a counterfeit ballot or changing someone else’s ballot. This does not and cannot include asking voters questions about their votes.
Any attempt to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news or opinion is an affront to the First Amendment. Our rights as Americans, and participants in our democracy, depend on it.
Trump’s claims of consumer fraud have even less merit. Consumer fraud laws target sellers who make false statements or engage in deception to get you to buy something, like a sleazy car salesman rolling back the odometer on an old sedan. This cannot logically—or legally—apply to a newspaper pollster who makes a wrong prediction.
Consumer fraud statutes have no place in American politics or in regulating the news. But it has become an increasingly popular tactic to use such laws in misguided efforts to police political speech. For example, a progressive nonprofit tried to use a Washington state consumer protection law in an unsuccessful lawsuit against Fox News over its COVID-19 commentary. And attorneys general on the right used the same, “We’re just punishing falsehoods” theory to target progressive outlets. Both Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened investigations into the nonprofit Media Matters for America for allegedly manipulating X’s algorithm with “inauthentic behavior.” In the Texas suit, Paxton argues that he can use the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act to punish speech even if it is “literally true,” so long as officials think it’s misleading.
Efforts to prohibit purportedly false statements in politics are as old as the republic. Indeed, our First Amendment tradition originated from colonial officials’ early attempts to use libel laws against the press.
America rejected this censorship after officials used the Sedition Act of 1798 to jail newspaper editors for publishing “false” and “malicious” criticisms of President John Adams. After Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams in the election of 1800, he pardoned and remitted the fines of those convicted, writing that he considered the act “to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.”
Trump’s allegations against Selzer are so baseless that you’d be forgiven for wondering why he even bothered. That is, until you realize that these claims are filed not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success, but in order to impose punishing litigation costs on his perceived opponents. The lawsuit is the punishment.
Lawsuits are costly, time-consuming, and often disastrous to people’s personal lives and reputations. If you have the threat of legal action hanging over you for what you’re about to say, you will think twice before saying it—and that’s the point.
In fact, Trump has a habit of doing this. He once sued an architecture columnist for calling a proposed Trump building “one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city.” The suit was dismissed. He also sued author Timothy L. O’Brien, business reporter at The New York Times and author of “TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald,” for writing that Trump’s net worth was much lower than he had publicly claimed. The suit was also dismissed.
But winning those lawsuits wasn’t the point, and Trump himself said so. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” he said. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” Back in 2015, he even threatened to sue John Kasich, then-governor of Ohio and a fellow Republican candidate for president, “just for fun” because of his attack ads.
This tactic is called a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP for short, and it’s a tried-and-true way for wealthy and powerful people to punish their perceived enemies for their protected speech. It’s also a serious threat to open discourse and a violation of our First Amendment freedoms.
FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101
News
A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.
Lawsuits are costly, time-consuming, and often disastrous to people’s personal lives and reputations. If you have the threat of legal action hanging over you for what you’re about to say, you will think twice before saying it—and that’s the point. Trump’s dubious legal theory is a blatant abuse of the legal process, one that we cannot let stand. If we sued people every time we thought someone else was wrong about politics, nobody would speak about politics. A lawsuit requires a credible basis to believe your rights have been violated. You have to bring facts to court, not baseless allegations.
That is why my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), is defending Selzer pro bono against Trump’s SLAPP suit. By providing legal support free of charge, we’re helping to remove the financial incentive of SLAPP suits—just as we did when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Reddit moderator was sued for criticizing a self-proclaimed scientist, and when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering.”
The protection of unfettered freedom of expression is critical to our political process. Any attempt to punish and chill reporting of unfavorable news or opinion is an affront to the First Amendment. Our rights as Americans, and participants in our democracy, depend on it.
There’s no way to sugarcoat it: Americans have been getting dumber.
Across a wide range of national and international tests, grade levels and subject areas, American achievement scores peaked about a decade ago and have been falling ever since.
Will the new NAEP scores coming out this week show a halt to those trends? We shall see. But even if those scores indicate a slight rebound off the COVID-era lows, policymakers should seek to understand what caused the previous decade’s decline.
There’s a lot of blame to go around, from cellphones and social media to federal accountability policies. But before getting into theories and potential solutions, let’s start with the data.
Until about a decade ago, student achievement scores were rising. Researchers at Education Next found those gains were broadly shared across racial and economic lines, and achievement gaps were closing. But then something happened, and scores started to fall. Worse, they fell faster for lower-performing students, and achievement gaps started to grow.
This pattern shows up on test after test. Last year, we looked at eighth grade math scores and found growing achievement gaps in 49 of 50 states, the District of Columbia and 17 out of 20 large cities with sufficient data.
But it’s not just math, and it’s not just NAEP. The American Enterprise Institute’s Nat Malkus has documented the same trend in reading, history and civics. Tests like NWEA’s MAP Growth and Curriculum Associates’ i-Ready are showing it too. And, as Malkus found in a piece released late last year, this is a uniquely American problem. The U.S. now leads the world in achievement gap growth.
What’s going on? How can students here get back on track? Malkus addresses these questions in a new report out last week and makes the point that any honest reckoning with the causes and consequences of these trends must account for the timing, scope and magnitude of the changes.
Theory #1: It’s accountability
As I argued last year, my top explanation has been the erosion of federal accountability policies. In 2011 and 2012, the Obama administration began issuing waivers to release states from the most onerous requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Congress made those policies permanent in the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act. That timing fits, and it makes sense that easing up on accountability, especially for low-performing students, led to achievement declines among those same kids.
However, there’s one problem with this explanation: American adults appear to be suffering from similar achievement declines. In results that came out late last year, the average scores of Americans ages 16 to 65 fell in both literacy and numeracy on the globally administered Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.
And even among American adults, achievement gaps are growing. The exam’s results are broken down into six performance levels. On the numeracy portion, for example, the share of Americans scoring at the two highest levels rose two points, from 10% to 12%, while the percentage of those at the bottom two levels rose from 29% to 34%. In literacy, the percentage of Americans scoring at the top two levels fell from 14% to 13%, while the lowest two levels rose from 19% to 28%.
These results caused Peggy Carr, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, to comment, “There’s a dwindling middle in the United States in terms of skills.” Carr could have made the same comment about K-12 education — except that these results can’t be explained by school-related causes.
Theory #2: It’s the phones
The rise of smartphones and social media, and the decline in reading for pleasure, could be contributing to these achievement declines. Psychologist Jean Twenge pinpointed 2012 as the first year when more than half of Americans owned a smartphone, which is about when achievement scores started to decline. This theory also does a better job of explaining why Americans of all ages are scoring lower on achievement tests.
But there are some holes in this explanation. For one, why are some of the biggest declines seen in the youngest kids? Are that many 9-year-olds on Facebook or Instagram? Second, why are the lowest performers suffering the largest declines in achievement? Attention deficits induced by phones and screens should affect all students in similar ways, and yet the pattern shows the lowest performers are suffering disproportionately large drops.
But most fundamentally, why is this mostly a U.S. trend? Smartphones and social media are global phenomena, and yet scores in Australia, England, Italy, Japan and Sweden have all risen over the last decade. A couple of other countries have seen some small declines (like Finland and Denmark), but no one has else seen declines like we’ve had here in the States.
Other theories: Immigration, school spending or the Common Core
Other theories floating around have at least some kernels of truth. Immigration trends could explain some portion of the declines, although it’s not clear why those would be affecting scores only now. The Fordham Institute’s Mike Petrilli has partly blamed America’s “lost decade” on economic factors, but school spending has rebounded sharply in recent years without similar gains in achievement. Others, including historian Diane Ravitch and the Pioneer Institute’s Theodor Rebarber, blame the shift to the Common Core state standards, which was happening about the same time. But non-Common Core states suffered similar declines, and scores have also dropped in non-Common Core subjects.
Note that COVID is not part of my list. It certainly exacerbated achievement declines and reset norms within schools, but achievement scores were already falling well before it hit America’s shores.
Instead of looking for one culprit, it could be a combination of these factors. It could be that the rise in technology is diminishing Americans’ attention spans and stealing their focus from books and other long-form written content. Meanwhile, schools have been de-emphasizing basic skills, easing up on behavioral expectations and making it easier to pass courses. At the same time, policymakers in too many parts of the country have stopped holding schools accountable for the performance of all students.
That’s a potent mix of factors that could explain these particular problems. It would be helpful to have more research to pinpoint problems and solutions, but if this diagnosis is correct, it means students, teachers, parents and policymakers all have a role to play in getting achievement scores back on track.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the law to ban TikTok in the United States did not violate Americans’ First Amendment rights. Never before has Congress taken the extraordinary step of effectively banning a platform for communication, let alone one used by half the country.
The First Amendment requires an explanation of why such a dramatic restriction of the right to speak and receive information is necessary, and compelling evidence to support it. The government failed to provide either.
What little Congress did place on the public record includes statements from lawmakers raising diffuse concerns about national security and, more disturbingly, their desire to control the American public’s information diet in a way that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.
Today, FIRE and a coalition of organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
FIRE is proud to be joined by the following organizations and individuals for today’s brief:
The Institute for Justice
Reason Foundation
The Future of Free Speech
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation
The First Amendment Lawyers Association
Stop Child Predators
The Pelican Institute for Public Policy
CJ Pearson
Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE: “The government doesn’t have the power to pull the plug on TikTok without demonstrating exactly why such a dramatic step is absolutely necessary. It has failed to publicly lay out the case for cutting off an avenue of expression that 170 million of us use. The First Amendment requires a lot more than just the government’s say-so. Fifty years after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Americans understand that invoking ‘national security’ doesn’t grant the government free rein to censor. By failing to properly hold the government to its constitutionally required burden of proof, the court’s decision erodes First Amendment rights now and in the future.”
Jacob Mchangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech and senior fellow at FIRE: “For decades, the United States has been the global gold standard for free speech protections. The unprecedented bipartisan push to effectively shut down TikTok — an online platform where millions exercise their right to free expression and access information — represents a troubling shift from this proud legacy. If enacted, this ban would make the U.S. the first free and open democracy to impose such sweeping restrictions, drawing uncomfortable parallels with authoritarian regimes like Somalia, Iran, and Afghanistan, which use similar measures to suppress dissent and control their populations. This is not just about a single app; it is a litmus test for the resilience of First Amendment principles in the digital age. The Supreme Court must ensure that Congress is held to the highest standard before permitting actions of such profound consequence. A TikTok ban risks setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the very freedoms distinguishing democracies from autocracies.”
The D.C. Circuit’s decision justifies the Act’s sweeping censorship by invoking “free speech fundamentals.” In so doing, it confuses the First Amendment values at stake, and sacrifices our constitutional tradition of debate and dialogue for enforced silence. The D.C. Circuit’s misguided reasoning is sharply at odds with longstanding First Amendment precedent, violating the constitutional protections it claims to preserve. Instead of following the instructive example set by Taiwan, which has eschewed a blanket TikTok ban in favor of robust counterspeech, the D.C. Circuit’s logic echoes the authoritarianism of North Korea and Iran.
