2026/05/11 by Kevin Jay Wallsten · 1 voice
Computer Science · Social Sciences · #Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection #Social Media and Politics #Swearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s1049096526102157
openalex publication_date 2026/05/11 · openalex created_date 2026/05/12 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
ABSTRACT Despite the centrality of tolerance and free expression to liberal democracy, little is known about the American public’s attitudes toward disruptive protest actions that suppress constitutionally protected speech. Drawing on a nationally representative survey, this article examines the acceptance of shouting down speakers, blocking audiences from attending events, and using violence to stop public speeches across two different question formats: (1) an abstract, “non-group” question; and (2) a “most-offensive-idea” question in which respondents evaluate tactics aimed at speech that they find personally offensive. Across both formats, Gen Z is significantly more accepting of shoutdowns, blockades, and violence than older cohorts. Ideological differences, however, depend heavily on the measurement approach, with liberals and conservatives diverging on the non-group questions but converging on the most-offensive-idea questions. Together, these results reveal a robust generational divide in permissiveness toward speech-suppressing protest and more conditional, context-dependent ideological differences.