Antidemocratic or Other Controversial Statements: What Do Citizens Tolerate Less?

Abstract

What free speech restrictions would citizens like to impose? We provide answers to this question by combining global, descriptive evidence on support for free speech with conjoint experiments fielded in the United States, Germany, and Hungary. In support of our theoretical arguments, we find that willingness to restrict free speech is widespread. Citizens are more willing to restrict statements on the sensitive issues of economic stability, epidemics, and national security or offensive statements toward minorities and national symbols than they are to restrict standard government criticism. We also find that willingness to restrict outright antidemocratic statements is relatively modest in comparison with offensive statements and statements on sensitive issues, and that principled support for free speech is a poor predictor of actual willingness to restrict. Our findings imply that citizens’ (lack of) demand for fundamental democratic rights such as free speech may play a key role in democratic backsliding.

Minorities’ Views on Freedom of Expression: Unrestricted or Protective?

“…Political theorists have long debated the potential limits and boundaries of free speech, especially when it comes to the protection of individuals and groups that are targeted by degrading, humiliating, threatening and hateful speech (Howard, 2019). Sparked by an intense societal debate about this topic, recent empirical studies have increasingly focused on the limits and boundaries citizens are willing to set regarding free speech (Frederiksen and Skaaning, 2022). However, these studies have generally focused on "the average citizen", who may not be often targeted by degrading and hateful speech.…”