A recent study by Vanderbilt University found that Americans generally love free speech, but their views change occasionally. One instance of this occurred during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war.

John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, said the study replicated a 1939 poll that asked about free speech's role in a democracy and people's commitment to free speech. That study involved 3,500 participants. However, in June, only 1,000 Americans were surveyed to compare their current views to those in the past.

"We were interested to see if, in fact, all those protests, for example, it led people lessen or increase their commitment to free speech. And you could imagine hypotheses in both directions," Geer said.

Polling found that most Americans believe in unrestricted free speech, allowing any topic or speaker. However, there's a significant partisan divide, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to oppose any restrictions.

Jacob Mchangama, executive director for The Future of Free Speech and research professor at Vanderbilt University said Americans generally support free speech in abstract terms, but their views become more nuanced when confronted with specific hot-button topics on issues of transgender, gay marriage and abortion. He added there are also different degrees of tolerance for leaders of Israel and Hamas speaking on college campuses.

"If you ask whether a white supremacist should be allowed to speak on college campuses, only 37% say yes. A supporter of critical race theory, you get a majority, a significant majority of 66%, but that's still quite a few Americans who believe that someone who supports critical race theory should not be allowed to speak on college campuses," he explained.

Mchangama added that tolerance for opposing ideas is crucial for free speech, and the survey provides valuable data on this civic commitment. While most people support free speech, a significant minority would not tolerate opposing views, even when they are nonviolent and protected by the First Amendment.


get more stories like this via email

As the Trump administration ramps up arrests of undocumented immigrants, some in Nevada are choosing to skip work or keep their children home from school.

On Wednesday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to ban birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. But as real fear plagues communities in Nevada and across the country, the Silver State's nine-member Latino Caucus has said they won't stay complacent.

Assemblywoman and caucus chair Cecilia González, D-Las Vegas, said Trump's attack on immigrant families is personal for her, which is why she's introducing The Family Unity Support Act.

"This bill is seeking to ensure the protections of children's whose parents may be facing deportation proceedings," she said, "so it ensures that their overall mental, scholarly and legal well-being are taken care of by the state."

The bill's final details are still being worked out.

The White House has said the roundups taking place nationwide are targeting immigrants with criminal records, but some with no record have also been detained. Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, has said any potential raids on schools would be assessed on a "case-by-case basis," and determined by national-security or public-safety threats.

Assemblywoman Selena Torres-Fossett, D-Las Vegas, who is also part of the Nevada Latino Caucus, said they will look at every policy to ensure Nevada children and their families stay safe, but warned that with immigration being such a hot-button issue, more directives and actions from the White House are likely to follow.

"I think we are going to continue to see the federal government and President Trump inciting fear and hate in our schools and our communities," she said, "and we will continue to fight back in every way that we can."

In response to the federal government's actions pertaining to immigrant communities, the ACLU of Nevada has created an online portal for Nevadans to report civil liberties and civil rights violations of immigrants in the Silver State.

Idaho lawmakers have introduced a slate of bills which would put up greater hurdles for passing voter-initiated ballot measures.

Legislation this session includes bills to increase the threshold for passage to 50%, allowing the governor to veto passed measures and proposes a constitutional amendment that would require signatures from six percent of voters in all 35 districts.

Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, assistant Senate minority leader, said the measures come after years of attacks from Republicans on voter initiatives.

"They constantly live in fear that the people will tire of the Legislature not listening to them and will use the initiative process to get done that which the Legislature should do," Ruchti asserted.

Ruchti noted one instance in which lawmakers did not listen to Idahoans was on Medicaid expansion. In 2018, 60% of voters approved a measure to expand the program. Lawmakers have introduced a bill this session to repeal Medicaid expansion. Sponsors of ballot measure legislation argued out-of-state money drives the initiatives.

Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, who sponsored some of the bills to increase initiative thresholds, said allowing the governor to veto measures would be similar to bills passed in the Legislature. He also contended it is "good protection for a misinformed electorate if they don't get the information like we get to have."

Ruchti countered lawmakers deal with people who have agendas.

"We are surrounded by special interest groups who are trying to get their particular bills passed and they use a variety of arguments, some of which are specious, some of which are accurate information," Ruchti observed. "It's just part of living in a democracy. So, the voters can figure this out and they do."

Senate Joint Resolution 101 would make the signature gathering process for voter initiatives harder, increasing the number of districts where six percent of voters have to sign from 18 to all 35. The resolution would need approval from voters to amend the constitution. Lawmakers proposed the amending resolution because in 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court blocked a similar bill, calling it unconstitutional.

Ruchti added attempts like this are disrupting grassroots efforts.

"The signature gatherers, for example, as a general rule and maybe even almost entirely are volunteers who are just taking their time to do something that they feel is really important," Ruchti pointed out. "That certainly was the way it was with Medicaid expansion."


get more stories like this via email

The Nevada Legislature has kicked off this week and progressive groups are sharing their top priorities.

Many are asking Gov. Joe Lombardo to work with Democrats to get important legislation over the finish line.

Mathilda Guerrero Miller, government relations director for the group Native Voters Alliance Nevada, said the climate crisis is only worsening in Nevada. Whether record-breaking temperatures in the summer or cold winters forcing family decisions about how to afford home heating, she argued more should be done.

"We're fighting for stronger outdoor worker protections and an end to utility shut-offs during extreme heat and cold," Guerrero Miller outlined. "This isn't about policy. It is about basic survival and the ability to thrive. This is also not about party lines. It's about doing what is right."

Nevada approved a regulation mandating businesses with more than 10 employees conduct a "job hazard analysis," and write up a safety program with solutions to potentially harmful working conditions. The Extreme Weather Working Conditions Bill in 2023 would have revised existing workplace safety and health law to require more worker protections but failed. Advocates said they will try again.

Ben Iness, coalition Coordinator for the Nevada Housing Justice Alliance, said housing security and affordability are also top of mind. One of the priorities he and others would like to see reformed is about summary evictions. In Nevada, when a renter receives an eviction notice, they have to file a response in court to prevent the eviction from escalating. If not, Iness noted, it could lead to them being kicked out.

"We're the only state in the country where the tenant has to file first against themselves," Iness pointed out. "They're effectively suing against themselves because their landlord has an issue. And so, folks struggle to navigate that process. They might self-evict, out of fear or hopelessness."

Landlords allege before an eviction is finalized, there are multiple attempts to communicate with a tenant about the resources and services available to help. Iness countered the tenant protections they are fighting for would address the power imbalance between landlords and renters.