Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Interview of Professor William Stuntz (DJS)

Professor Eric Goldman on the proposed federal Anti-SLAPP Bill (DJS)

Important advice for new profs: DO NOT make jokes (online or otherwise) about killing your students. (kw)

FTC Report: ID theft is down but overall fraud is up (DJS)

Balkin on reconciliation vs. filibuster (DJS)

Schneier: Security cameras don't reduce crime (DJS)

Most trusted companies for privacy 2010 (by the Ponemon Institute) (DJS)

The internet pile-on over a woman dean's paycheck (kw)

Plagiarism, or "Mixing"? (kw)

Google Buzz launch raises privacy concerns (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • ppnow.com on Law Review Article Submissions Resources (Fall 2007)

    • Anonymous on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Old Timer on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • done on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Another Aspirant on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • A.J. Sutter on Wedding Repo

    • Robert Ahdieh on Rising From the Ashes, Again

    • Alan on Standards for Assessing Judicial Nominees

    • PublishingProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Yet Another Anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • PublishingProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Aspirant on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Aspirant on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

  •  

    Site Meter

The State of the First Amendment

posted by Timothy Zick

The First Amendment Center has released the results of its annual nationwide survey regarding First Amendment liberties. As usual, respondents expressed general support for free speech and other First Amendment liberties. But when asked about specific situations, the answers suggest a willingness to accept a substantial measure of governmental control.

As usual, a number of survey questions related to broadcast and other media. There was substantial support for content restrictions and even some government directives with regard to media. For example, 66% of respondents said the government should require television broadcasters to allot equal time to liberal and conservative broadcasts (62% would extend that requirement to newspapers); 39% of respondents would extend the indecency regulations applied to broadcast television to cable and satellite media; and 38% would permit government to require broadcasters to report a specified amount of “positive news” in return for licenses to operate. These numbers are relatively consistent over the past several years. One number that did creep up a bit–the number of respondents who agree with the statement “the falsifying or making up of stories in the American news media is a widespread problem” (66%).

Various other content regulations also garnered substantial support. For example, nearly a third of respondents disagreed that musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics that others might find offensive; 42% responded that speakers should not be allowed to say things in public that might offend religious groups; 54% said the same thing with respect to racial groups. And 50% thought schools ought to be able to discipline students for posting (while off campus) entries on social networking sites that may be “disruptive” to school classes. These numbers, too, seem relatively consistent across time.

These, however, were not the most interesting (or disturbing) results of the survey.


What really caught my attention was the number of adult Americans surveyed who could not name a single First Amendment liberty. Four in ten respondents could not name even one of the freedoms mentioned in the text of the First Amendment — the lowest percentage in the 11-year history of this survey. I recall one particular experience that is consistent with these results. Years ago, I was listening to a radio program during which callers were challenged (with prizes at stake) first to name a freedom in the First Amendment and then to state the last name of a Simpsons character. Most of the callers in this (admittedly unscientific) sample readily identified Apu’s last name (Nahasapeemapetilon), for example, yet could not list even one First Amendment freedom.

At the risk of sounding “elitist,” that’s just appalling. I used to think that events like “Constitution Day” were somewhat gimmicky. But this and more would seem to be necessary — not to celebrate the Constitution, but to simply learn something about its basic principles. Among other fundamental problems, results like these expose high-minded principles like “consent of the governed” as somewhat farcical notions. How can you consent when you don’t know the basic rules under which you are actually being governed? Perhaps I’m making too much of the inability of 40% of respondents to simply list First Amendment freedoms. There are, after all, 27 amendments — can we really expect Americans to know what they all say? Perhaps these respondents understand their First Amendment freedoms on some other terms, or by some alternative name. I have serious doubts about the latter proposition. As to the former, which I admit was offered somewhat sarcastically, I don’t think it asks too much of the citizenry upon which so much First Amendment theory and doctrine rests to at least have the power of recall with regard to these essential liberties. So I wonder, to get back to the survey results, how many of the 40% who cannot list a single First Amendment freedom are among those who would accept, for example, outright content restrictions in public places. After all, you can hardly be expected to defend liberties you don’t even know exist.


 September 29, 2008 at 3:58 pm   Posted in: First Amendment   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (2)

  1. anonymous - September 29, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    It seems people don’t want the government to tell them what to do. They just want the government to tell other people what to do. As for the 4/10 not being able to name a 1st Amendment liberty, that’s just proof that we need to bring back civics in high school (and earlier).

  2. Nick Maceus - September 30, 2008 at 12:01 am

    Nick Maceus

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Lisa Fairfax
Michelle Harner
Sherrilyn Ifill
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Tuan Samahon
Alfred Yen










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Adam Benforado
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress