Pew Research Poll: 40% of Millennials Want to Restrict Free Speech

| |

free speech tape mouth

Pew Research recently surveyed a broad selection of Americans on the subject of offensive speech, and their findings do not bode well for the future of America. The respondents were asked if the government should step in to prevent speech that is offensive toward minorities, to which 28% of Americans agreed. Mind you, this wasn’t about speech that called for violence against minorities. It’s anything that could be deemed “offensive,” an increasingly vague and inclusive term in this day and age.

What was more shocking however, was how different generations of Americans thought about the issue. 40% of millennials aged 18-34 thought that the government should prevent people from saying these things, which appears to be the latest in a long-term trend that favors free speech restrictions. Only 12% of those between the ages of 70-87, 24% of those aged 51-69, and 27% of Americans aged 35-50, supported government restrictions.

When the statistics were broken down by education level, those with college degrees had the lowest support, whereas those who had a high school degree or less were the most supportive. Depending on how you look at that, it either suggests that younger Americans are less enthusiastic about free speech rights than the generation that came before, or those who want to restrict speech aren’t as educated. Pew also found that woman and minorities were more likely to support government intervention, as were Democrats and Independents.

The only good news to come out of the survey, is that Americans still support free speech more than the citizens of other nations. “Compared with people we surveyed in dozens of nations, Americans as a whole are less likely to favor the government being able to prevent speech of any kind.” However, given the trends that we see in this poll, it doesn’t sound like Americans will be very tolerant of free speech in the future.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • whiteberry

    So ignorant people want tyranny and enslavement… is that supposed to shock me?

    • Nexusfast123

      Surprised me that the percentage is not higher.

    • They don’t understand it as tyranny and enslavement because they have been indoctrinated in the ways of popular tolerance of that which can’t earn any tolerance on its own.

    • They don’t know any different.

  • You have the choice over your own destiny , actions, speech, thoughts, property, labor, talents, gifts, ideas, stuff. UNLESS you are a US CITIZEN or a CITIZEN of any other ‘nation’ .

    How do you dump the slavery? :

    combine that with:

    plus look up The Executor Letter compiled by David Clarence:

    whew ! thought i lost that last one after resetting stupid computer !!


  • jim_robert

    No doubt, these leftists would support Lenin, Pol Pot and that National SOCIALIST Workers’ Party leader, Adolf Hitler, too. And too bad these ignoramuses are unaware that their leftist idiocy all to started under Mario Savio’s free speech movement on the Student Union steps at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. Not that they would be intellectually honest enough to even google that…

    • Nexusfast123

      I would not say it is ‘leftist’. That is a cop out as people cannot bring themselves to believe that the US is becoming a modern day version of NAZI Germany and a fascist totalitarian country run by corporations.

  • jim_robert

    Two quotes from the ignorant, fascist left for your reference on this topic (and what’s next? The vile leftists will move those exercising free speech to their leftist gulags????

    ““Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left. Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” – – Fascist/leftist hero Herbert Marcuse who popularized the “repressive tolerance” theory of modern progressives.

    ““Cultural warfare, while no less a transfer of power from one
    group to another, is for the most part seemingly painless. There are no
    tortured screams or bloody wounds, no limb-strewn nightmares to haunt a
    generation. In fact, cultural warlords seek to keep the battle from becoming
    bloody. Modern media fills the cultural airwaves with a mist of anesthesia, so
    that principles and values are slowly desensitized to the coming onslaught. The new culture arrives on the heels of this propaganda. It simply moves in and takes over, like slipping a fine new glove over a numbed hand. The outcome of the war is just as devastating, but without bombs bursting, twisted bodies to bury, or rubble to rebuild. A new class, a different culture, simply takes over.”

    – Charleton Heston

    • Nexusfast123

      Antonio Gramsci explains it a little better and more in the context of how the ruling elites maintain control

  • Mr Reynard

    Americans thought about the issue. 40% of millennials aged 18-34 thought that the government should prevent people from saying these things,
    Generation 18-34 ?? I’m over seventies & I just say to those 18-34… Screw you ! You will get what you deserve ! I don’t give a rat ass in what kind of a world you will be ageing ??

  • Smarty

    The answer to this is simple. It’s the brainwashing these lemmings absorb in high school, TV, and the bullshit media. The older people weren’t brainwashed and can therefore think for themselves. And the education part is interesting as well. Most of the 70+ people probably have only high school diplomas, and yet they are at 12%. The bastards are doing it with gun control as well, as we all know. Pop tarts….finger guns…etc. Resistance is the only option here….

  • Starlifter

    Simple, Take back the schools stop the brainwashing!

  • stephen joseph

    This generation is completely lost and brainwashed. Perfect fodder for a global reset/solution. And they can take these blood thirsty maniac’s /nations(isreal,US, saudi cartel for example) and religions with them.

    • John Henry Bicycle Lucas

      That is because they do not remember the 1960s or 70s.

  • Let me tell that how to earn $18570/MONTH. If you are some intelligent you make many more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell a lie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!! ☻ ▼ ▼ ▼

    »»»»»»»»» Go to my Account For WEB ADDRESS where you can earn DOLLARS


  • jaguar

    Milinnials will help bring in the demise of all our rights…they’ve been brainwashed into thinking the abnormal is normal… Like homosexuality and transgender foolishness. And most of them think BLM takes precedence over other races and they have white guilt and that bringing Islam into schools is more important than the pledge of allegiance… Basically they stand for everything that is death to the American way of life….they are severely brainwashed and dumbed down !!!

  • The First Amendment only applies to Congress, and there are many other layers of government that aren’t constrained by the First Amendment, or any other law. More people are constrained by specious premises than by laws.

    • SacJP

      With the incorporation of the 14th amendment most of the bill of rights, including the first amendment, became enforceable against the states…

      It may also be legally relevant that the federal government and the states are no longer separate entities. Huge amounts of money flow both ways, and the states no longer have any real voice in the Senate, so they are unfortunately little more than mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

      • The Bill of Rights contains no enforcement clause.

        • SacJP

          The enforcement clause is the oath that the enforcers take to enforce it.

          • That oath is not in the Bill of Rights, and so, it contains no enforcement clause. The vast majority of people who have taken an oath to protect, defend, or enforce the Constitution are ignorant traitors, violating both the oath and the Constitution on a virtually continuous basis, with no apparent attempt to enforce any part of it.

          • SacJP

            It doesn’t *contain* an enforcement clause, but there IS *AN* enforcement clause (just not within it…)

            Most constitutions don’t contain an explicit enforcement clause, as they are binding by their very nature, just as most contracts do not contain an explicit enforcement clause (since, by its very nature, a contract is enforceable.) Ultimately words and concepts written in documents don’t apply themselves, we apply them.

            I agree though that far too many of those sworn to uphold and defend the constitution often ignore the content of that very document… Thankfully it’s not all of them, and even the ones who are failing now have it within their power to do the right thing.

          • Are you aware of the specific requirements for a proper enforcement clause under a republican government as is required of the states by the Constitution? The percentage of those who have ever been on a government payroll who have taken an oath to protect and defend said document who haven’t violated both is in the low single digits. Likewise those who have ever been investigated, indicted, charged, or prosecuted for their treason.

          • SacJP

            No, because there isn’t one, and even if there were many state governments pre-date the U.S. Constitution (not to mention the fact that states retain supremacy with regard to any power not delegated to the federal government, including, you know, making state constitutions.)

            Anyhow, we were talking about the U.S. Constitution, not the individual states’ constitutions.

          • There isn’t one what?

          • SacJP

            There isn’t a specific requirement for a proper enforcement clause under a republican government required of the states by the Constitution.

          • There isn’t a specific requirement for the majority of the American justice system because English common law was maintained as the basis for it. Things got interesting when the common law became superseded by statute, but that didn’t change much about the style of the documents or the requirements of legal proceedings. In the majority of the jurisdictions subordinate to the Constitution, the absence of a formal enforcement clause would make most laws unenforceable.

          • SacJP

            But the only place that’s really relevant is Louisiana, as all the other states still operate under common law for anything not explicitly overridden by statute.

          • Common law has been specifically overridden by federal statute.

          • SacJP

            Not generally, just those statutes that conflict with it.

          • Just a balloon isn’t disrupted in toto by a needle stuck in it?

          • SacJP

            That would imply a degree of instability to common law that’s just not there… Functionally speaking statutory law acts much the same as higher case precedent added to common law… Whereever statutory law doesn’t go common law is controlling, and whether or not statutory law disappeared tomorrow common law would remain in force.

          • The Magna Carta came about because the courts’ application of the common law was producing decisions favoring the monarch, turning him into a dictator, and involved his mistreatment of the lords, not the peasants. The Constitution came about because those who had come together to amend the Articles of Confederation found themselves outvoted by those who wanted to accomplish in Congress what the Redcoats had failed to do on the battlefield. Considering what they were up against, the colonists did a miraculous job in securing the rights of the common people against the privileges of the agents of the King. The original common law (which has been reconstructed by those who routinely redefine legal terminology to their own advantage) was based on the decisions of courts and juries who decided when an injustice had been committed by the defendant, and sought to make the plaintiff whole. Then legislators decided that they wanted to mandate their own outcomes and started constraining the common law courts with statutory law, which didn’t always consider the precedents of the courts, preferring to punish the defendants rather than making the plaintiffs whole, insuring that the rule of law would hold sway over justice.
            All of this can be found by reading Blackstone and Spooner, which are becoming less considered by those in law schools, for the same reasons why common law has consistently lost out to statutory authority. The ignorance of the majority of the sheeple is finishing off common law, which is becoming replaced by officially proffered myths.

          • SacJP

            Oh I’m not disagreeing… I’d love to see our maritime law-based monstrosity scrapped and for the common law to once more take center stage, but I think that part of that is to recognize the importance and continued relevance of our common law traditions, not only in areas not overridden by statutory law, but even with regard to the general contours of the stautory law the lawmakers felt they could get away with and how even they are applied in courts.

          • I totally agree, but the public fool system is turning all of our traditions into mythologies, with the active cooperation of the sheeple.

          • SacJP

            Fair enough…

            This is why I support voucher based schooling for K-12 and letting the free market (constrained with some broad stroke regulations) provide the best education possible. It’s a happy medium between letting every family fend for itself and the current centralized disaster that our publicly administered schools have become.

          • Vouchers are still government funded, and he who pays the piper…
            The only way to get the best education is to serve the curiosity of the learner, and most public education is little more than propaganda, indoctrination, and institutionalization. If the information is freely available, the learners will find it.
            Anything under the control of any bureaucracy is anything but part of the free market.

          • SacJP

            Yeah, I was going for palatable to those who insist that it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure kids get educated… If you made interference with educational content constitutionally off limits it would still be a vast improvement to what we have now. Perhaps since the rise of Internet making sure every kid gets access to a broadband connection and a computer is sufficient, but vouchers at least starts moving it in that direction (then the voucher amount can continue to drop until it’s phased out.)

          • None of the men who wrote the Constitution had a public school to attend, but most of them were better educated than someone with multiple doctorates. The creation of the public school concept was a deliberate plan to deprive sheeple of the education that the founders expected all who wanted it to pursue on their own.
            Vouchers can only be used in schools approved by the issuer of the voucher, and they will never allow them to be used in any school that provides a “liberal education”.

          • SacJP

            Yeah, but most of them were also upper-class economically and/or exceptionally gifted cognitively…

            I disagree that the creation of public schools was that nefarious in its original intent, since they were created from the bottom up, with individual local communities pooling their resources voluntarily to educate their own kids. It’s only later that districts came along and started to sweep them all into centrally administered bureaucracies.

            In today’s centralized top-down authoritarian global hegemon having centralized education is indeed exceedingly dangerous… However you must surely recognize that vouchers are preferable to the state actually running the schools directly (as they do now) right? Vouchers are also much more politically achievable than simply leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

          • Which takes me back to the complete version of what I said in the first post: he who pays the piper calls the tune. It doesn’t matter who teaches a corrupt curriculum if that is the only one which is allowed to be taught by the issuer of the vouchers.
            If a school can’t get approval from the state department of education for its curriculum, it won’t receive vouchers. No education bureaucrat is going to allow the teaching of a curriculum that exposes what we want our children to learn.
            What the heck is the problem you teaching your own children? Abraham Lincoln was taught to read and he taught himself everything else he needed to begin to practise law as a teeenager, with his entire law library under his arm. Unfortunately, he learned enough to recognize that british bankers would outbid those in his government when the time came to sell his soul.

          • SacJP

            Nothing is wrong with it, teaching your own children is great, that’s why I homeschool my own kid, but I’m still advocating for changes that move us in the right direction as a society, and that includes allowing private school vouchers as an alternative to public schools…

            … Sure, it’d still come with SOME strings attached, but that’s better than what we have now…

            … If however the country writes a constitutional amendment guaranteeing educational freedom and forbidding interference with the curriculum, while still putting a voucher system in place, it’d be immensely better than what we have now…

            (Heck, just a plain voucher system would be better than what we have now, since at least there would have to be a codified set of standards in place that could be fought over politically and appealed to the judiciary. )

          • Where does the Constitution allow for the interference with any educational process, given that none of them were governmentally provided in the time when it was written?
            You should check out the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum, which allows a child to become their own educational director and provides a path to a college degree for a fraction of the cost of the traditional attendance requirement. And it is completely legal.

          • SacJP

            It doesn’t, but the statist f-cks in power have taken the fraudulently implemented power to tax income without limit and turned it into the power to take all of our money and then offer it back to us with strings attached (which leads to them of course saying “we’re not interfering, you’re still free to educate any way you want, but if we don’t like the way you’re doing it we just won’t give you your money back”…)

            American parents have gotten too used to a government paid babysitter to go cold turkey, we’re going to have to ease them back into something resembling freedom and independence.

          • Why give them any money that you can avoid? t isn’t as hard as we make it, requiring just a bit of the courage of the people who told the king of England he didn’t govern them anymore. When the first government employee intentionally violated the Constitution the first time, it made any subsequent obedience irrelevant. If we are sovereigns, we need to start acting like them. Birth a child out of the system, and it is relatively easy to educate them likewise. Educate a child as if s/he is a free person, and it will be difficult for anyone to convince them that they aren’t.

          • SacJP

            Unless you find some way to work under the table your employer will sheepishly report to the man that they gave you money, and then if you don’t pay your taxes on it the government simply takes it by force. Have you ever tried to avoid paying taxes? I have, and it’s not simply a matter of opting out: they can, and do, send men with guns to take it. I’ve got my tax liability low enough that I’m not about to go down as a martyr for the cause while everyone else nods their head and says ‘well he should’ve paid his fair share!’

          • I not only have tried, but succeeded, without ever hearing from any government agent, let alone seeing one. The IRS is so overloaded with enforcement demands that all one really has to do is be unworthy of their attention and not kick the sleeping dog by filing tax returns. Public education is not something that we have to apply for, it is something that we must submit our children to. Those who think of it as an entitlement have never tried to refuse it. Those who have refused it know better than to think of it as a benefit in any sense of the word. One of the most important parts of my divorce was the fact that my ex-wife had never carried a fertilized egg to differentiation, let alone birth. Child support would have produced a very short and brutish life on both of our parts.

          • SacJP

            I’ve tried too, and I got attention… I guess just not filing a return works if you deal with a paying party that will play along, but having worked for major corporation they most definitely do play along, and the IRS actually does this thing now where they file the equivalent of a return on your behalf, assess a ‘past due’ tax with penalties, and then automatically garnish it from the paycheck with the explorer… There is really no ‘cost’ of enforcement since it’s all automated at this point (and the only way you can make them stop is to file a return yourself or take them to court arguing that the taxes never applied, which, no matter how true it might be, has been done, and the judges and juries just don’t care…)

            You may be right that public education isn’t worth it, but it is very much considered an entitlement, and getting the equivalent daycare with teaching from a private school would cost hundreds of dollars a month. Right or wrong many parents consider it a ‘place to send the kids’ ‘so they can work’ and until this is fixed the voters will never give it up.

          • It is impossible to automate the due process that is required before a court order can be issued to require your employer to become an agent for the government in the taking of your property. In the absence of that due process, your employer becomes a thief if they take your money and give it to another not having lawful authority to receive it. Judges and juries usually aren’t presented with the appropriate law that they’d need to judge garnishment without due process as a violation of 42USC1983. Getting enforcement is pretty easy if you just follow court’s rules and the 4th amendment, or your state’s equivalent statute. You file in small claims court for every payday that money is removed from your pay without due process, because each unlawful seizure is a separate crime. If you know the court’s rules, you’ll be more of a threat to the court than your employer’s attorney, being able to argue effectively that your employer failed in their fiduciary duty to protect your money from an unlawful taking. If they find as they should, your employer will be ordered to reimburse your pay, and they’ll have to determine for themselves whether they are going to sue the IRS to get it back.
            The one time I was unlawfully garnished, the IRS agent presented my employer with a fraudulent document that cited a section in the IRS code without subsection a, which specifically said that the section only applied to federal employees, which I have never been. The agent had to get my name and other personal information from my employer, bypassing lawful discovery. The only reason why I had to go through all of this was because one of my fellow employees prepared taxes on the side, and offered his services. Instead of just saying no, I explained why I didn’t need his services, and he ratted me out to the senior criminal investigator at the local IRS office, which he just happened to know. If the senior guy can’t follow the law, why should anyone else?

          • SacJP

            Yeah, but the way that’ll work is that it’ll go to an “administrative law judge” who will simply rubber stamp it…

            I suppose I could roll the dice, and the courts *should* find in my favor, but people with a lot more to lose than me have tried, and lost, with juries of their peers nailing them to the wall and stripping them of everything they own over tax laws that shouldn’t have even applied to them in the first place.

            With as lawless as the government has been operating I don’t want to put my freedom (and quite possibly my life and the life of my family members) on the line during a time when most of my “peers” couldn’t care less.

          • Small claims court is neither federal nor administrative, and the suit wouldn’t involve the IRS or any federal agency, just you and your employer, who has carefully documented their theft of your money and their failure to act lawfully as a fiduciary, which could cause them to become unincorporated and lose their business licenses. All of those who try to get the federal government or any of its pseudo-governmental entities to comply with the law will fail.
            I last filed in the early 90’s. I have used the space provided on the withholding certificate (can never remember if it is W-2 or W-4) to write in exempt, which must be obeyed by the employer. They sometimes say that they are required to report such to the IRS, and I have always told them that they should comply with the law, as they understand it. None of them ever generated a contact with the IRS or withheld anything beyond FICA, etc. Federal jurisdiction is a felonious scam. Until we tell them no, we can’t benefit from doing so. Going along to get along won’t fix anything. Acquiescence is futile.

          • SacJP

            One must also weigh in the potential consequence of not being able to get a passport (which the government is now arbitrarily withholding from people based on only the word of the IRS…) I don’t know about you, but I want to be able to GET OUT if necessary. Then again I’m probably living in fantasy land thinking that will even be an option when the time comes to actually need to do so…

          • The World Service Authority issues passports and other documents that are reliant on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than the US State Department. Their passport is officially recognied by all but 5 of the countries on the planet, one of them being the US. It is issued on affirmation rather than policy, and cost about $100. It doesn’t list citizenship but nationality.

          • SacJP

            Cool, I didn’t know that (then again what is a “national” whose not a citizen, especially w/ regard to the U.S.?)

  • Dan Black

    I’ve noticed most liberal websites are shutting down their comment sections. Now supposedly “conservative” sites like Breitbart are deleting comments. Don’t say anything about Israel on any site or it will be deleted, especially Breitbart.

  • Stew E

    Great, let’s send send them China. This is by far the worst generation in American history. We could use to wipe out 40% of them. Maybe even more!

  • Kevin G.

    The way it’s going the Elite “Masters” would love to charge us for speaking, and for the air we breathe! For the time being that is, then “They” want to eliminate over half of us! As far as speech goes, NO, we shouldn’t be speaking offensively about any minority group or individual,there should be some refraining from really revealing our anger and pissing anyone off, BUT, just WHO is going to judge and decide what’s “Offensive” or not?
    Just as Hitler , Silencing the dissenters, and more control….

  • Let me tell that how to earn $18570/MONTH. If you are some intelligent you make many more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell a lie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!! ☻ ▼ ▼ ▼

    »»»»»»»»» Go to my Account For WEB ADDRESS where you can earn DOLLARS


  • Alpin Thueson

    Another ‘BS’ poll?

  • Aholl Urang

    They were dropped on the floor at delivery by their doctors, head trauma.

  • Hardly surprising, in this country! Americans’ love of liberty is a myth!

  • didntwanna

    Death to America. This will be our gift to you, using the skills of apathy imparted upon us. We will literally do nothing for the future and witness as it all collapses.

    • SacJP

      Yeah you don’t have to do anything… The chosen ones have done all of the (economic) legwork, which pulled the culture and the politics along for the ride. The Nazis saw it coming 100 years in advance.

  • SacJP

    Unfortunately most youngsters are brainwashed to favor “democracy” above all else and are brought up in an era where we bomb to death millions of innocents in order to “bring democracy” to them… They wouldn’t think twice about participating in a civil war to enforce mob rule.

  • Guillotine_ready

    We are looking at a lost generation, too dumb to do much and too easily fooled to survive



  • Meltonmark

    I wonder if everyone except White males were taken out of the stats what the results would be?