Same-Old Same-Old
When Unqualified Offerins saw the first press reports this morning on Freedom Forum’s poll on American attitudes toward the first amendment, it wished, as happens occasionally, that it were not a confirmed non-drug-using non-drinker. (Link via Counterspin.) Now that it has seen the actual survey results (PDF here) it is far less worried. (Link via Instapundit.)
Bad stuff: On the “title question,” Do you think the First Amendment goes too far? the percentage of people choosing bad answers has indeed increased in the last five years. Also, the overall numbers suggest that a cliche of civil liberties alarmism is true: you could not get the First Amendment adopted as written in today’s polity. Good thing the DWEMs stuck it where it would be hard to get rid of!
On the other hand: After the title question, several follow-up questions ask people their opinions of the constituent parts of Amendment I - expressing opinions, restrictions on the press, exercise of religion etc. (Freedom of Assembly takes it in the shorts questionwise.) An interesting pattern emerges. On constituent parts questions, the longitudinal data shows almost no movement in attitudes over time. From the perspective of a libertarian (civil or uncivil), the data is not especially good. In most cases the “pro-liberty” responses come in between 50 and 60 percent. But they are not statistically worse than they were five years ago. (Some questions have only two years of responses. They tend to show little change either.)
Consider what we might call the “Skokie Question,” number 39:
Any group that wants to should be allowed to hold a rally for a cause or issue even if it may be offensive to others in the community.
(Yes, poll questions suck. 39 could conceivably cover Hydra or the Serial Killers Guild. Belay that rant.) The 1997 results
Strongly Agree 38%
Mildly Agree 34%
Mildy Disagree 10%
Strongly Disagree 15%
Don’t Know 3%
The 2002 results:
Strongly Agree 33%
Mildly Agree 34%
Mildy Disagree 13%
Strongly Disagree 18%
Don’t Know/Refused 2%
The “combined liberty index” (SA+MA) drops 5 percent over 5 years - about 8 basis points. And that’s one of the biggest swings. Would Unqualified Offerings prefer to live in a country where the results were
Strongly Agree 95%
Don’t Know/Refused 5%?
Sure. Though
Strongly Agree 5%
Refused to Answer (forget this “Don’t Know” crap) 95%
has its appeal too. The point is, this wasn’t that country in 1997 either.
The flag-burning numbers don’t budge (Q19). The “naughty music” numbers show a 10% increase in pro-liberty answers (Q16). On questions about current levels of restrictions on components of the first amendment (speech, press, religion etc.), the same supermajorities find the current level of restrictions “about right” in 2002 as did in 1997 (look ‘em up). (Of course, since restrictions have arguably increased over the last five years…) Two thirds of respondents specifically say that Muslims should be allowed to hold a rally for a cause or issue even if it may be offensive to others in the community.(No longitudinal data on this one, but that’s essentially the same percentage as supports the general case.)
Conclusion: It’s disquieting that half the respondents said the “the First Amendment goes too far.” It’s disquieting that that number has rocketed upward in the last four years. But when you break it apart, attitudes toward the actual freedoms are not appreciably worse than they have been. (Which makes it hard for Glenn Reynolds’ thesis, that the worsening attitudes are because people are peeved at big media coverage of the war, to be true.)
The good news appears to be that, while you couldn’t get the First Amendment passed today, you couldn’t get it repealed either. Huzzah for inertial, undemocratic Constitutions!
