Free speech support that declines within us – young people are leading

If you have young people in your life, here is an interesting test. I ask them to finish the following rhyme: “The sticks and stones…”

The second question that you can pose for WhippersNapper is: Is “hate speech” protected by the First Amendment? (And hopefully they know what the initial fix is.)

As Rush Limbaugh said, “veteran citizens” almost certainly know among us that the rest of the rhymes “break my bones, but the name won't hurt me.” There is actually no such classification based on US law regarding “hate speech.” But there are Americans who believe that it isn't – and they believe that they have no legally protected right to utter it.

The problem has also gotten worse, with young people becoming most skeptical of the First Amendment. Furthermore, an astounding proportion of Americans believe that the revision should actually be rewritten.

Fetter's tongue

The essays were written by the current generation who wrote “How We Lose Free Speech.” And while we haven't lost it yet, we are still on a nasty trajectory. New research may also be responsible for this. As Reason Magazine reported on Thursday:

Based on a survey conducted in 33 countries, the 2025 Free Speech Index (FFSI) places the United States ninth in free speech support. What's more concerning is the trajectory. The US has experienced the third largest massive decline in freedom of speech since its previous survey in 2021, after only Japan and Israel.

This phenomenon is part of a globally widespread “free speech recession,” showing a significant decline in favor of free expression, which doubles many countries show an increase.

However, American retreats are particularly noteworthy given their unique constitutional protection and self-concept as the most important advocates of freedom of speech.

Free speech – or my free speech?

Interestingly, the five countries in which people express the most free are Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden and Venezuela. This is ironic because all these countries have a “hate speech” law. And this reflects two phenomena. First of all, there is Duke's first political rule.

“Under the representative government, people don't get what they want. They get what they want.”

(Note, however, that elections are stolen in Venezuela.)

And of course, people's notions of what they are voting don't always reflect what they are actually voting.

The second phenomenon is similar. People's concepts of freedom of speech do not always reflect actual freedom of speech.

After all, “The Devil is in the Details.” “Free Speech” appears to be great for many people regarding the beautiful packaging of products. But when people are facing what is on the material label, they even list the national reinforcement elements.

FFSI also pointed out this phenomenon. As the author writes:

Most countries have abstractly shown a high level of support for free speech, but there is less support and more divided when it comes to statements that are offensive to minority or their religion, supporting homosexual relations, or scorning the national flag.

And the children will lead them – to tyranny?

However, there has since been the issue of “generational disparities” that is recession-oriented in America's free things. As the reason also relates:

Young Americans (ages 18-34) show significantly less tolerance to controversial speech than elders in any category we measured. The magnitude of these shifts from 2021 onwards is noteworthy.

Support to allow statements that shamed the divational flag reduced 28 percentage points among young adults.

ryThe willingness to tolerate speeches supporting homosexual relationships has dropped by 20 percentage points.

The acceptance of spect speeches to offensive minority groups decreased by 12 points.

Tolerance towards speech attacks on the speech religion fell 14 points.

In contrast, the views on free speech of over 55 Americans have been relatively stable since 2021.

Dig deeper

There's a lot to unpack here. First, the decline in “tolerance” to the aforementioned perspective is likely to reflect, in part, anger from the culture war. However, there is also the issue of confusion regarding the meaning of tolerance and the role of government and social sectors.

As I have often emphasized, “tolerance” always involves the presence of perceived negativity. In other words, there is no need to tolerate beautiful cars and delicious food. You enjoy such a gift. But you have to endure foul weather, a stubborn cold, or health care that you have to follow and dislike, you hate. What does this mean for speech?

Well, people don't always want to hear the truth. So, when an unwelcome truth is being spoken, or when an unpopular speech is merely expressing taste, it is good that those who dislike it must tolerate it.

But when lies are spreading, that's another matter. But there is a rub:

People often have a hard time distinguishing between truth and lie. Our government is certainly not good either. This is why we should not be allowed to play the Ministry of Truth.

Other “government”

But sometimes social laws can come into play if government law is not. For example, we should all say “please” and “thank you” when necessary, but we don't want this to be enforced by law. But this does not mean that very rude and troublesome people should probably be avoided and not exiled.

More importantly, under certain conditions, activists can come to the same fate. That is, when their agenda is decisively determined to be objective, not merely negative. For example, we should do this with the embarrassing Nazis, and even devout Marxists, and supporters of the “trans” agenda. (This is the only way the destructive movement will return to the closet.)

Understand that stigma is the result of values ​​and that specific things in society are valued.

This means certain things are being criticized.

It's the question of what they are: lies or truth.

The wrong direction

And certainly, to some extent, the truth is being condemned with our initial revision. In fact, a 2019 poll found that the majority of Americans (51%) wanted the First Amendment to be rewritten to “reflect today's cultural norms.” Additionally, 54% of millennials wanted “hate speech” to commit a crime, and violators were jailed.

Is this surprising? Children today are rarely taught the rhyme of stick and stone. It is not true in every sense, but it respects freedom of speech. Instead, they are instructed that, as pertaining to John Stosell's video below, “fragile,” the words can cause “permanent damage.”

Incidentally, the reason rhymes are not true in every sense is because words can actually hurt us. For example, telling people that they are vulnerable and that words can cause damage undermines our initial correction and respect for our sense of good. It's probably a paradox. The proper course of action is not to encourage people's government censorship, nor to encourage people's virtues.