Freedom Of Speech? Not Important To 40% Of This Group

Free Speech 2

At this point, climate change won’t bring about the demise of our civilization, but Millennials and their feelings might.

The majority of the M Generation bases everything on the emotions of the moment, not facts. But you already know this because you’ve observed what is happening at Mizzou, Amherst, and other institutions of “higher learning” across the nation. College kids, who stomp their feet at so-called “oppression,” can’t bear an environment of differing viewpoints. Do they actually believe the “Coexist” bumper stickers on their Priuses?


A new study from the Pew Research Center confirms that an alarming fraction of millennials want to limit free speech:

We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups…

…the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.

Pew Research Ctr

What a bright future ahead of us!

We should neither condone harassment nor threats of any kind, but we’ve come to a different place in 2015. Nowadays, mere opposing viewpoints are often considered to be “offensive,” and sometimes even egregious. But freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, and, whether you like it or not, someone else’s freedom to offend you is protected just as much as your freedom to offend. I wonder what the 40% in the M Generation who are against free speech believe about their own language? Nonetheless, as much as their words may annoy me, I support their right to free speech as much as I do my own, and don’t believe it is the government’s job to regulate either.


The expansion of #BlackLivesMatter is an example of taking a movement much too far. The idea that black lives should be protected and defended as much as white lives, or any other lives, in our country is a good, logical thing. It is possible to promote the worth and fair treatment of those in every community, while simultaneously supporting law enforcement and holding accountable those who don’t properly enforce our laws. However, the extension of the BLM movement, especially onto college campuses nationwide, has turned out to be mandate-abusing and hyper-emotional. For example, The Washington Times reported a recent incident in which BLM student protesters taunted white students studying at a library on the Dartmouth campus. The latter students were yelled at, shoved, and berated for their “racial privilege,” apparently because they attend an Ivy league school. These tactics are progress?

The modern-day feminist movement in the M Generation is similarly thin-skinned. They easily see compliments and/or traditional, gentlemanly behavior as offensive. A study done at Northeastern University earlier this year concluded that such a thing as “benevolent sexism” exists. Politeness and chivalry are sexist and offensive, according to these researchers. The only thing this proves is that, if positive behavior is labeled as offensive, then the definition of “offense” is whatever the “victim” would like it to be.


A whopping 40% of Millennials feel that the government should regulate offensiveness out of speech. However, there is no concrete definition of what constitutes “offensiveness,” apart from their youthful discomfort. I really don’t care if they’re uncomfortable. That is not a good enough reason to deny anyone’s freedom of speech. And I hope that’s offensive.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos