The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America

[dead0man]

big ass study by CATO

Just buckets of info, most of it what you'd expect....everybody loves free speech, unless it bothers them.  Then it should be banned damn it!  For example:
51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem.

One interesting bit, blacks and Hispanics don't find most microaggresions to be offensive

% deemed not offensive:
Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English.” Black: 67%; Latino: 77%
Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate.” Black: 56%; Latino: 63%
Saying “I don’t notice people’s race.” Black: 71%; Latino: 80%
Saying “America is a melting pot.” Black: 77%; Latino: 70%
Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77%; Latino: 89%
Saying “America is the land of opportunity.” Black: 93%; Latino: 89%
the exception being saying “you are a credit to your race.” Black 32%; Latino 50%

The ideology breakdown seems good to me, but what the hell do I know?

(16%) Libertarian: These respondents say they prefer a smaller government providing fewer services, that government is doing too many things, and government should not favor any particular set of values.
(23%) Conservative: These respondents say they prefer a smaller government providing fewer services, that government is doing too many things, and government should promote traditional values in society.
(25%) Liberal: These respondents say they prefer a larger government providing more services, that government needs to do more, and that government should not favor any particular set of values.
(16%) Populist: These respondents say they prefer a larger government providing more services, that government needs to do more, and that government should promote traditional values.
(21%) Middle: These respondents did not conform to any of the other four groups.

bunch more stuff

[Dr. MB]

None of the first six are good. Exceptions could be made to 5 and 6, since it deals with companies and not individuals (the NFL for example could make a rule that players who kneel are fired).

With the offensive stuff, I don't see a big problem with any except the last one. The second one it depends on the context, "you are so articulate" could be a compliment to anyone, but "you are so articulate for a black person" would be offensive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So...both sides half do it?

     Seriously though, it is no surprise that authoritarianism is popular on the ground. When someone says or does something you don't like, it's tempting to imagine the government or some other paternalist force stopping them from doing it. The problem is that indulging this sort of revenge fantasy is a terrible basis for policy.

[dw93]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

One interesting bit, blacks and Hispanics don't find most microaggresions to be offensive

% deemed not offensive:
Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English.” Black: 67%; Latino: 77%
Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate.” Black: 56%; Latino: 63%
Saying “I don’t notice people’s race.” Black: 71%; Latino: 80%
Saying “America is a melting pot.” Black: 77%; Latino: 70%
Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77%; Latino: 89%
Saying “America is the land of opportunity.” Black: 93%; Latino: 89%
the exception being saying “you are a credit to your race.” Black 32%; Latino 50%

About that:

1. As MB said, how offensive these phrases are heavily depends on the context. Telling a recent immigrant that they speak good English would be a compliment, but telling someone who's third-gen that they speak good English would be a microagression.

2. These are among the least offensive microagressions that can be levied. Many of them aren't really offensive so much as well-intentioned but naive and utopian. There are worse ones that can be asked, e.g. "Where are you really from?" or "I don't date [insert race] because..."

3. Microagressions have to be measured in aggregate, by definition. Hearing "You're a credit to your race" is bad enough once, but if that's what you hear all your life, then you really, REALLY get sick of it.

[vanguard96]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

Millennial views in the aggregate largely are in line with Europe's - as they consider that people should just be 'nice' and 'respectful' to others and not be hateful 'racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted' jerks and thus fall in line with speech codes and norms of 'polite' society. So what we see there is a precursor to what to expect here in districts where they have high voter participation.

[vanguard96]

One interesting bit, blacks and Hispanics don't find most microaggresions to be offensive

% deemed not offensive:
Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English.” Black: 67%; Latino: 77%
Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate.” Black: 56%; Latino: 63%
Saying “I don’t notice people’s race.” Black: 71%; Latino: 80%
Saying “America is a melting pot.” Black: 77%; Latino: 70%
Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77%; Latino: 89%
Saying “America is the land of opportunity.” Black: 93%; Latino: 89%
the exception being saying “you are a credit to your race.” Black 32%; Latino 50%

About that:

1. As MB said, how offensive these phrases are heavily depends on the context. Telling a recent immigrant that they speak good English would be a compliment, but telling someone who's third-gen that they speak good English would be a microagression.

2. These are among the least offensive microagressions that can be levied. Many of them aren't really offensive so much as well-intentioned but naive and utopian. There are worse ones that can be asked, e.g. "Where are you really from?" or "I don't date [insert race] because..."

3. Microagressions have to be measured in aggregate, by definition. Hearing "You're a credit to your race" is bad enough once, but if that's what you hear all your life, then you really, REALLY get sick of it.

Of course what people experience can be very tough if they constantly face these kind of slights and insults all the time.

But to have it enforced by law where the person is fined or jailed for 'hate speech' is another thing entirely. Will there be required social police squads at companies & schools to monitor offline conversations like moderators monitor social media and online forums? I hear some universities have these already with groups set up to investigate microaggressions and incidents against various so-called 'oppressed' groups. Even if something is heard or witnessed out of context by a third party and both parties directly involved say it is nothing and that they won't be making a complaint sometimes these agencies are still obligated to report it. If liberal millennials are used to these tribunals for speech and like them will they try to legislate for them in the general public first at town and city levels. And then at state and national levels. Examples would be using monitors at sporting events to not just ban but fine & arrest people like the Red Sox fan who made racially insensitive remarks or actions to another team's player.

Perhaps public meetings & officials would have to follow this language code and any violators would be subject to removal and fines. The bar for what is hate speech could be lowered to include people speaking up against common liberal intersectional views - like if someone said 'there are only 2 genders', that they want a women's group (example for pregnancy/OBGYN) without transgender women in it, or they are against gay marriage then that person could be deemed as being a perpetrator of hate speech and fined by the government on top of whatever penalties they got from their school or business and the general doxx happy liberal millennials who will attack them mercilessly and sometimes without proof that they have done anything wrong.

It's already bad enough as it is without the added force of government.

[BoAtlantis]

One interesting bit, blacks and Hispanics don't find most microaggresions to be offensive

% deemed not offensive:
Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English.” Black: 67%; Latino: 77%
Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate.” Black: 56%; Latino: 63%
Saying “I don’t notice people’s race.” Black: 71%; Latino: 80%
Saying “America is a melting pot.” Black: 77%; Latino: 70%
Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77%; Latino: 89%
Saying “America is the land of opportunity.” Black: 93%; Latino: 89%
the exception being saying “you are a credit to your race.” Black 32%; Latino 50%

About that:

1. As MB said, how offensive these phrases are heavily depends on the context. Telling a recent immigrant that they speak good English would be a compliment, but telling someone who's third-gen that they speak good English would be a microagression.

2. These are among the least offensive microagressions that can be levied. Many of them aren't really offensive so much as well-intentioned but naive and utopian. There are worse ones that can be asked, e.g. "Where are you really from?" or "I don't date [insert race] because..."

3. Microagressions have to be measured in aggregate, by definition. Hearing "You're a credit to your race" is bad enough once, but if that's what you hear all your life, then you really, REALLY get sick of it.

Of course what people experience can be very tough if they constantly face these kind of slights and insults all the time.

But to have it enforced by law where the person is fined or jailed for 'hate speech' is another thing entirely. Will there be required social police squads at companies & schools to monitor offline conversations like moderators monitor social media and online forums? I hear some universities have these already with groups set up to investigate microaggressions and incidents against various so-called 'oppressed' groups. Even if something is heard or witnessed out of context by a third party and both parties directly involved say it is nothing and that they won't be making a complaint sometimes these agencies are still obligated to report it. If liberal millennials are used to these tribunals for speech and like them will they try to legislate for them in the general public first at town and city levels. And then at state and national levels. Examples would be using monitors at sporting events to not just ban but fine & arrest people like the Red Sox fan who made racially insensitive remarks or actions to another team's player.

Perhaps public meetings & officials would have to follow this language code and any violators would be subject to removal and fines. The bar for what is hate speech could be lowered to include people speaking up against common liberal intersectional views - like if someone said 'there are only 2 genders', that they want a women's group (example for pregnancy/OBGYN) without transgender women in it, or they are against gay marriage then that person could be deemed as being a perpetrator of hate speech and fined by the government on top of whatever penalties they got from their school or business and the general doxx happy liberal millennials who will attack them mercilessly and sometimes without proof that they have done anything wrong.

It's already bad enough as it is without the added force of government.

One must respect a private corporation's right to take necessary remedy to defend their business even if it comes down to censoring expressions. But even if it's not private, it may not always be enough. It's the same reason why World Cup disciplines athletes for making political statements.

A private university is trickier, because while it has long been a haven where free speech and diversity of thoughts are supposed to flourish, one can't ignore its right to discipline, even expel students, because they're a private entity that can exercise the freedom to protect their university's conduct at their discretion. If they restricted a student's freedom to pray in his dorm however, that is likely unconstitutional, even if that was within their school policy. If students signed up for the university by knowing the rules, then one has the duty to uphold that conduct.

Free speech cannot, for the most part, outweigh the importance of prior consent between two private parties. While it would be ideal to see a society in which all ideological viewpoints are respected, it would be difficult to achieve in today's political climate because most universities do not allow loose expressions.

[vanguard96]

One interesting bit, blacks and Hispanics don't find most microaggresions to be offensive

% deemed not offensive:
Telling a recent immigrant: “You speak good English.” Black: 67%; Latino: 77%
Telling a racial minority: “You are so articulate.” Black: 56%; Latino: 63%
Saying “I don’t notice people’s race.” Black: 71%; Latino: 80%
Saying “America is a melting pot.” Black: 77%; Latino: 70%
Saying “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Black: 77%; Latino: 89%
Saying “America is the land of opportunity.” Black: 93%; Latino: 89%
the exception being saying “you are a credit to your race.” Black 32%; Latino 50%

About that:

1. As MB said, how offensive these phrases are heavily depends on the context. Telling a recent immigrant that they speak good English would be a compliment, but telling someone who's third-gen that they speak good English would be a microagression.

2. These are among the least offensive microagressions that can be levied. Many of them aren't really offensive so much as well-intentioned but naive and utopian. There are worse ones that can be asked, e.g. "Where are you really from?" or "I don't date [insert race] because..."

3. Microagressions have to be measured in aggregate, by definition. Hearing "You're a credit to your race" is bad enough once, but if that's what you hear all your life, then you really, REALLY get sick of it.

Of course what people experience can be very tough if they constantly face these kind of slights and insults all the time.

But to have it enforced by law where the person is fined or jailed for 'hate speech' is another thing entirely. Will there be required social police squads at companies & schools to monitor offline conversations like moderators monitor social media and online forums? I hear some universities have these already with groups set up to investigate microaggressions and incidents against various so-called 'oppressed' groups. Even if something is heard or witnessed out of context by a third party and both parties directly involved say it is nothing and that they won't be making a complaint sometimes these agencies are still obligated to report it. If liberal millennials are used to these tribunals for speech and like them will they try to legislate for them in the general public first at town and city levels. And then at state and national levels. Examples would be using monitors at sporting events to not just ban but fine & arrest people like the Red Sox fan who made racially insensitive remarks or actions to another team's player.

Perhaps public meetings & officials would have to follow this language code and any violators would be subject to removal and fines. The bar for what is hate speech could be lowered to include people speaking up against common liberal intersectional views - like if someone said 'there are only 2 genders', that they want a women's group (example for pregnancy/OBGYN) without transgender women in it, or they are against gay marriage then that person could be deemed as being a perpetrator of hate speech and fined by the government on top of whatever penalties they got from their school or business and the general doxx happy liberal millennials who will attack them mercilessly and sometimes without proof that they have done anything wrong.

It's already bad enough as it is without the added force of government.

One must respect a private corporation's right to take necessary remedy to defend their business even if it comes down to censoring expressions. But even if it's not private, it may not always be enough. It's the same reason why World Cup disciplines athletes for making political statements.

A private university is trickier, because while it has long been a haven where free speech and diversity of thoughts are supposed to flourish, one can't ignore its right to discipline, even expel students, because they're a private entity that can exercise the freedom to protect their university's conduct at their discretion. If they restricted a student's freedom to pray in his dorm however, that is likely unconstitutional, even if that was within their school policy. If students signed up for the university by knowing the rules, then one has the duty to uphold that conduct.

Free speech cannot, for the most part, outweigh the importance of prior consent between two private parties. While it would be ideal to see a society in which all ideological viewpoints are respected, it would be difficult to achieve in today's political climate because most universities do not allow loose expressions.

Could you clarify what you mean by prior consent between two parties with regard to it overriding free speech?

[RINO Tom]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

Millennial views in the aggregate largely are in line with Europe's - as they consider that people should just be 'nice' and 'respectful' to others and not be hateful 'racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted' jerks and thus fall in line with speech codes and norms of 'polite' society. So what we see there is a precursor to what to expect here in districts where they have high voter participation.

I mean, most normal people think this ... the dangerous part is thinking that people should face legal punishment for being an asshole.

[vanguard96]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

Millennial views in the aggregate largely are in line with Europe's - as they consider that people should just be 'nice' and 'respectful' to others and not be hateful 'racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted' jerks and thus fall in line with speech codes and norms of 'polite' society. So what we see there is a precursor to what to expect here in districts where they have high voter participation.

I mean, most normal people think this ... the dangerous part is thinking that people should face legal punishment for being an asshole.

Yes, most people think it is not good to do that and if you do that too often or too brutally you face serious repercussions from society - break ups, getting fired, losing friendships, losing customers, etc.

But to add on government sanctioned punishment is the extreme. Yet it is desired by more and more people

[All Along The Watchtower]

So...both sides half do it?

Seriously though, it is no surprise that authoritarianism is popular on the ground. When someone says or does something you don't like, it's tempting to imagine the government or some other paternalist force stopping them from doing it. The problem is that indulging this sort of revenge fantasy is a terrible basis for policy.

I think the more important reason for why authoritarian thoughts and views are indulged by so many people is that the natural human tendency is to be cooperative and feel a sense of solidarity and closeness - among our particular in-group/tribe/close family, friends, most immediate social network, etc., whatever that may look like. When we feel that that community is under some sort of existential threat, the natural human tendency is to appoint a strongman (and it's almost always a man) whom we feel will protect "us" against "them."

Problem is, this has a tendency to backfire spectacularly when you get beyond that small community level (no more than a few hundred people with closely-knit family and social ties). Whether it be Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Castro, Mao, the Kim dynasty in North Korea, the House of Saud, the Iranian theocracy, or Vladimir Putin, the Strong Leader almost inevitably becomes a dictatorial wannabe Caesar who oppresses his own people in the name of "protecting" them from their enemies (real or imagined). And when the always-imperfect and fragile institutional and cultural barriers to these tendencies in a representative democracy fail (which has increasingly been the case in the US), you start to see the likes of Donald Trump - who is very plausibly sowing the seeds for worse to come. Needless to say, that should scare us all.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Free speech is already basically dead for those with controversial opinions (at least on the far right) because of how companies quickly fire them over any politically incorrect statement, even when made outside of work and not relating to the company at all. The mobs shutting down speakers on college campuses have a much larger impact than just stopping them from giving a speech. They tell students that they cannot speak their mind if they go against the groupthink. I am careful to discern how open minded a professor is before I'd mention supporting Trump in class discussions. I've had profs openly say "if you voted for Trump, don't tell me because I'd be hard pressed not to fail you."

After Charlottesville, there has been an increase in venues using the security cost argument to stop events, which is of course a first amendment violation known as  granting a heckler's veto. The situation continues to get worse and worse.

Republicans don't have the same practical power to get people silenced and fired as the left wing lynch mob, but their fanaticism regarding the flag is a big cause for concern, as is the increasing disregard for separation of church and state exemplified by guys like Roy Moore. It's increasingly looking like I have to choose between people who want the Bible to be federal law and people who think that you should be charged with a crime for putting up posters that say "It's okay to be white"

[wxtransit]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

[Person Man]

51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis. Oppose. Its Simple Battery. Still hilarious, though.
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag. Opposed. Where would you send someone if you strip them of their citizenship? Have them go live at the nearest airport until they find a sponsor state to adopt them? We could have a stateless persons' shelter. Like a pound!
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.Opposed. It's not illegal to be an asshole. However, it should be the case on official documentation to have its intended effect.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques. Opposed. Maybe we should ban making places of worship out of abandoned buildings, too. Right?
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts. Oppose. I would try to talk to them about it first and wouldn't automatically go to firing unless it was something that would legitimately threaten the safety of other people at work or scare away or harm the customers.
65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem. Oppose. Again, it is really their choice if they want to fire these people but they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they keep them, they will send the message that it is OK to criticize the country and politicize everything. They fire them, they will send the message that they don't give a flipping fuck about their people or fans.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis. Oppose. Its Simple Battery. Still hilarious, though.
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag. Opposed. Where would you send someone if you strip them of their citizenship? Have them go live at the nearest airport until they find a sponsor state to adopt them? We could have a stateless persons' shelter. Like a pound!
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.Opposed. It's not illegal to be an asshole. However, it should be the case on official documentation to have its intended effect.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques. Opposed. Maybe we should ban making places of worship out of abandoned buildings, too. Right?
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts. Oppose. I would try to talk to them about it first and wouldn't automatically go to firing unless it was something that would legitimately threaten the safety of other people at work or scare away or harm the customers.
65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem. Oppose. Again, it is really their choice if they want to fire these people but they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they keep them, they will send the message that it is OK to criticize the country and politicize everything. They fire them, they will send the message that they don't give a flipping fuck about their people or fans.

Completely agree with you.

[Medal506]

51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis. Oppose. Its Simple Battery. Still hilarious, though.
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag. Opposed. Where would you send someone if you strip them of their citizenship? Have them go live at the nearest airport until they find a sponsor state to adopt them? We could have a stateless persons' shelter. Like a pound!
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.Opposed. It's not illegal to be an asshole. However, it should be the case on official documentation to have its intended effect.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques. Opposed. Maybe we should ban making places of worship out of abandoned buildings, too. Right?
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts. Oppose. I would try to talk to them about it first and wouldn't automatically go to firing unless it was something that would legitimately threaten the safety of other people at work or scare away or harm the customers.
65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem. Oppose. Again, it is really their choice if they want to fire these people but they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they keep them, they will send the message that it is OK to criticize the country and politicize everything. They fire them, they will send the message that they don't give a flipping fuck about their people or fans.

Please leave the country and moved to Canada if you want to ban free speech and the recognition of reality when using peoples real pronouns over preferred pronouns. Move to Canada bud and tell me how much you like it there

[Medal506]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

I know how you feel. Don't worry though the generation under us generation z will be the most conservative generation since World War Two and if one could call not being rapt up in identity politics and SJW BS socially conservative then I guess that's what they'll be

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I'm scared for the future of my country. Free Speech is an issue I find myself at odds with my generation (millennials) over, as they seem to not believe in it.

I know how you feel. Don't worry though the generation under us generation z will be the most conservative generation since World War Two and if one could call not being rapt up in identity politics and SJW BS socially conservative then I guess that's what they'll be

Muh evil s jay dubyas 

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Well, now that the CDC is banned from using those 7 words, it's clear that free speech and tolerance are under threat - by the right.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well, now that the CDC is banned from using those 7 words, it's clear that free speech and tolerance are under threat - by the right.

TBF the government is allowed to speak too and there is nothing inherently wrong with the government wanting a consistent message. Obama passed a law forbidding use of the word "retarded" in the US Code. Is that an attack on free speech and tolerance as well?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Well, now that the CDC is banned from using those 7 words, it's clear that free speech and tolerance are under threat - by the right.

TBF the government is allowed to speak too and there is nothing inherently wrong with the government wanting a consistent message. Obama passed a law forbidding use of the word "retarded" in the US Code. Is that an attack on free speech and tolerance as well?

1. Even if it's legally permissible, it utterly and completely destroys whatever grounds right-wingers and alt-rightists have in saying that free speech is under threat. (Of course, there are people who argue that free speech is under threat for reasons other than ideological hackery, but they are in the minority.)

2. Just because the government can do this doesn't mean it's right, or that one sort of ban is the same as another sort of ban. The recent CDC ban is of far greater severity than whatever ban Obama enacted. For starters, the "r-word" is already seen as a slur by a large segment of the population. Are you really saying that phrases like "science-based" are just as bad?

[Kingpoleon]

51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis. Oppose. Its Simple Battery. Still hilarious, though.
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag. Opposed. Where would you send someone if you strip them of their citizenship? Have them go live at the nearest airport until they find a sponsor state to adopt them? We could have a stateless persons' shelter. Like a pound!
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.Opposed. It's not illegal to be an asshole. However, it should be the case on official documentation to have its intended effect.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques. Opposed. Maybe we should ban making places of worship out of abandoned buildings, too. Right?
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts. Oppose. I would try to talk to them about it first and wouldn't automatically go to firing unless it was something that would legitimately threaten the safety of other people at work or scare away or harm the customers.
65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem. Oppose. Again, it is really their choice if they want to fire these people but they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they keep them, they will send the message that it is OK to criticize the country and politicize everything. They fire them, they will send the message that they don't give a flipping fuck about their people or fans.

Please leave the country and moved to Canada if you want to ban free speech and the recognition of reality when using peoples real pronouns over preferred pronouns. Move to Canada bud and tell me how much you like it there

He didn’t say that.

[mvd10]

51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
Most people liberals call Nazis aren't Nazis, so oppose. Then again, I might be inclined to agree if they mean actual Nazis. There is a difference between something being the law or something being morally acceptable
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
Oppose. Freedom of speech people. It's disrespectful though.
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
Oppose. It shouldn't be illegal to be an asshole.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
Oppose. I hate banning things.
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
This is the employer's business. If he want to fire the employee, fine. If he doesn't want to fire the employee that's also fine.
65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem.
This is the NFL's business. If they want to fire them, fine. If they don't want to fire them that's also fine.