Few Americans will publicly admit that they don’t believe in free speech, yet attacks on it are commonplace. How can this be? While some are simply lying, others entertain a notion of free speech that allows them to be censorious while professing allegiance to it. This is true of Republicans, conservatives, Democrats and liberals, though recent evidence shows that the latter two categories are the most guilty.
Two years ago, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released a survey of 45,000 college students from 201 colleges. It found that liberals were the most intolerant of free speech.
That same year Real Clear Opinion released a survey on this topic and found that Democrats were the least supportive of free speech and the most supportive of censoring speech they found disagreeable. In fact, a third said Americans have “too much freedom.” The figure for Republicans was 14.6 percent.
Two events occurred this month that shed light on this issue.
On April 8, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett spoke at Princeton University. At least he tried to.
About 150 people showed up outside the building where he was to speak, chanting anti-Semitic slogans. After he spoke for about 15 minutes, some 20 people, most of whom were students, shouted him down, accusing him of genocide. Shortly after they were escorted out, a pro-Hamas activist started screaming at him, stopping his address. Ten minutes later the fire alarm went off, shutting down all the microphones.
Princeton is an elite school, but it has little respect for free speech. In the 2025 survey by FIRE of 251 colleges, Princeton ranked 223, meriting a rating of “below average” on the free speech scale. The situation is so bad on campus, especially with regard to stifling the speech of Jewish students, that the Trump administration has halted dozens of research grants to the Ivy League school.
The other event was held on April 3 at Hamilton College.
Former President Barack Obama sat down for an interview, answering lots of questions. No one interrupted him. He questioned the nation’s allegiance to free speech, asking, “Do we stand up for freedom of speech when the other person talking is saying stuff that infuriates us and is wrong and hurtful?”
The right answer is, “No, we don’t.” And that is because it is almost always left-wing students, faculty, administrators and activists who censor speech on campus, and elsewhere. It is the elites who allow the muzzling of free speech, not rednecks.
Obama knows this to be true, yet in his discussion he never mentioned who the offenders are. Had they been the Proud Boys, it’s a sure bet he would have noted it. But he did complain about the denial of funding to colleges that show contempt for free speech, as if somehow they are entitled to it.
The former president should be very careful pointing the finger at anyone. When he was in office, he was known for disrespecting the conscience rights of Catholic healthcare workers and grant recipients who disagreed with his policies on abortion, marriage and the family. If they voiced their objections, they were candidates for sanctions.
Obama is hardly the only Democrat with a free speech problem.
Last fall, when former Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to the globalists at the World Economic Forum, he decried what he called “disinformation” efforts [the intentional distortion of information], saying, “our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [it] out of existence.” In other words, the First Amendment is a problem because it stymies attempts to stop speech that John Kerry claims is disinformation.
Hillary Clinton, champ of Russian dossier propaganda, said last year that Americans should be “criminally charged” if they engage in speech that she deems “propaganda,” or what she calls “Russian talking points.” Also last year, Minnesota Governor (and failed vice president candidate) Tim Walz said, “There’s no guarantee of free speech on misinformation [mistaken information] or hate speech.” Got that? So if someone errs in reporting the news, his speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
The Biden administration went further and invoked a new category of unworthy speech, namely “malinformation.” This is information that is “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
To cite one example, when this linguistic weapon was invented in 2023, it was used against Jacob Sullum, a noted libertarian, after he said that the CDC had repeatedly exaggerated the scientific evidence upon which the mask mandate was formulated. Facebook attached a warning to his article, saying it was “missing context” and “could mislead people.”
In a poll of voters taken in November, it was found that a majority of those who voted for Donald Trump rated “the future of free speech in this country” as “the single most important factor” affecting their vote. Only a minority of those who voted for Kamala Harris felt this way.
In short, liberals have a big problem with free speech.
