For Democracy’s Sake? Free Speech, Racial Civility and Inclusion

• In Event: Incivility: Understanding and Fixing Disordered Discourse

Abstract

Do U.S. adults exist in a society where we speak up against intolerance and social offense, or is incivility likely to thrive to fulfill the democratic promise of free speech? The question speaks directly to the enabling behaviors that create the slippery slope of intolerance and discrimination, eroding the essence of American democracy.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracies. Openness to debate and a willingness to hear the viewpoints of other people are vital in a pluralistic society. At the same time, components of civil respect that encourage “domestic tranquility” -- like civility and inclusion among citizens – can be at odds with free speech. Components of contemporary American politics, like political trends that position racial inclusion as hyper-partisan issues, challenge perspectives of free speech and civil respect. For example, present-day debates about protests, like racial injustice protests such as those aligned with the broadly defined Black Lives Matter movement, illustrate the tensions that free speech and civil respect can create. For some, a desire to protect and defend free speech for protests may always be paramount. For others, the disruption of protests might contradict expectations of civil respect. Still for others, both may be equally important. Ultimately, we seek to highlight the implications of how these components of democracy – free speech and civil respect – are prioritized and weighted by Americans and their close social circles.

We utilize data from the 2021 Knight Foundation’s Free Expression Survey. Ipsos collected the data using their KnowledgePanel® from July 30 to August 16, 2021. The data contain a representative sample of 4,366 U.S. adults, age 18 or older, with oversamples among non-Hispanic, Black/African Americans, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific, Islanders, non-Hispanic Other/2 plus races, and Hispanics. The Knight data has been embargoed through December 2022, so this provides a first look at the nationally representative sample data.

We analyze several elements of the data. First, we explore how respondents believe their social circles react to racialized incivility (i.e., sharing offensive political views and racist/bigoted ideas, using insults and slurs, threatening others) to identify those who are socially connected with networks that encourage, push against and are complicit with intolerance. Second, we will examine the relative importance individuals place on free unencumbered speech compared to constrained speech that supports racial inclusion. Finally, we examine how respondents evaluate the legitimacy of certain forms of speech (e.g., kneeling during the national anthem, protesting against certifying the 2020 election). The research will seek to identify the myriad of ways that American democracy remains perpetually polarized by the presence of liberties that can also sustain racial injustice and inequality.

Authors

• Danielle K Brown, Michigan State University

• David C. Wilson, University of California, Berkeley