言论自由:再看公众会支持多少

D. Riffe, Kyla P. Garrett Wagner
{"title":"言论自由:再看公众会支持多少","authors":"D. Riffe, Kyla P. Garrett Wagner","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since World War II, U.S. citizens have reported overwhelming agreement that freedom of expression is a basic right. But, like the law on free expression, public opinion shows that citizen rights to free expression are not absolute or unidimensional, but conditional. To better understand the extent of citizen rights to free expression according to the U.S. public, this study examines data from an online national survey (N = 2,600) in which twenty-five types of expression were offered for respondent agreement that “U.S. citizens should have a right to….” According to the respondents, the free expression types to which citizens have the most rights were expressing political opinions, making a political speech, picketing as a union member, and wearing a black armband in protest. The least endorsed rights were lying in the news, lying generally, protesting outside a church funeral service for a veteran, using racist language in a speech, and burning the American flag. Demographic analyses showed agreement with rights to free expression was highest among younger respondents, non-whites and males. Further analysis confirmed that freedom of expression is not unidimensional, with four main dimensions underlying perceptions of the twenty-five types. These dimensions were identified as repugnant expression, historical political expression, un-patriotic expression, and avoiding compelled expression.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of Expression: Another Look at How Much the Public Will Endorse\",\"authors\":\"D. Riffe, Kyla P. Garrett Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since World War II, U.S. citizens have reported overwhelming agreement that freedom of expression is a basic right. But, like the law on free expression, public opinion shows that citizen rights to free expression are not absolute or unidimensional, but conditional. To better understand the extent of citizen rights to free expression according to the U.S. public, this study examines data from an online national survey (N = 2,600) in which twenty-five types of expression were offered for respondent agreement that “U.S. citizens should have a right to….” According to the respondents, the free expression types to which citizens have the most rights were expressing political opinions, making a political speech, picketing as a union member, and wearing a black armband in protest. The least endorsed rights were lying in the news, lying generally, protesting outside a church funeral service for a veteran, using racist language in a speech, and burning the American flag. Demographic analyses showed agreement with rights to free expression was highest among younger respondents, non-whites and males. Further analysis confirmed that freedom of expression is not unidimensional, with four main dimensions underlying perceptions of the twenty-five types. These dimensions were identified as repugnant expression, historical political expression, un-patriotic expression, and avoiding compelled expression.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1893096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自第二次世界大战以来,美国公民普遍认为言论自由是一项基本权利。但是,就像言论自由的法律一样,民意表明,公民的言论自由权利不是绝对的或单向度的,而是有条件的。为了更好地了解美国公众的公民言论自由权利的程度,本研究检查了一项在线全国调查(N = 2,600)的数据,其中提供了25种表达方式,供受访者同意“美国的言论自由”公民应该有权利....”据应答者的回答,市民最应享有的言论自由是发表政治意见、发表政治演说、以工会成员身份进行示威、佩戴黑色臂章等。最不被认可的权利是在新闻中撒谎,普遍撒谎,在教堂为一名退伍军人举行的葬礼上抗议,在演讲中使用种族主义语言,焚烧美国国旗。人口统计分析显示,年轻受访者、非白人和男性对言论自由权利的认同程度最高。进一步的分析证实,言论自由不是单向度的,对25种类型的看法有四个主要方面。这些维度被确定为反感表达、历史政治表达、不爱国表达和避免强迫表达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Freedom of Expression: Another Look at How Much the Public Will Endorse
Since World War II, U.S. citizens have reported overwhelming agreement that freedom of expression is a basic right. But, like the law on free expression, public opinion shows that citizen rights to free expression are not absolute or unidimensional, but conditional. To better understand the extent of citizen rights to free expression according to the U.S. public, this study examines data from an online national survey (N = 2,600) in which twenty-five types of expression were offered for respondent agreement that “U.S. citizens should have a right to….” According to the respondents, the free expression types to which citizens have the most rights were expressing political opinions, making a political speech, picketing as a union member, and wearing a black armband in protest. The least endorsed rights were lying in the news, lying generally, protesting outside a church funeral service for a veteran, using racist language in a speech, and burning the American flag. Demographic analyses showed agreement with rights to free expression was highest among younger respondents, non-whites and males. Further analysis confirmed that freedom of expression is not unidimensional, with four main dimensions underlying perceptions of the twenty-five types. These dimensions were identified as repugnant expression, historical political expression, un-patriotic expression, and avoiding compelled expression.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The societal, cultural, economic and political dimensions of communication, including the freedoms of speech and press, are undergoing dramatic global changes. The convergence of the mass media, telecommunications, and computers has raised important questions reflected in analyses of modern communication law, policy, and regulation. Serving as a forum for discussions of these continuing and emerging questions, Communication Law and Policy considers traditional and contemporary problems of freedom of expression and dissemination, including theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues inherent in the special conditions presented by new media and information technologies.
期刊最新文献
Channeled Beneath International Law: Mapping Infrastructure and Regulatory Capture as Israeli–American Hegemonic Reinforcers in Palestine Digital Rights in Europe After the Entry Into Force of Regulations for the Protection of Personal Data: Before and After the Right to Be Forgotten Regulatory Capture in a Transitional Democracy: Media Laws in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq Paranoid Androids: Free Speech Versus Privacy in America’s Resistance Against Intrusive Robocalls An Unreasonable Standard?: The Dilemma of Applying Actual Malice to Irrational Speakers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1