IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v708y2023i1p184-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Freedom of Speech in the Post-Floyd Era: Public Support for Political Tolerance

Author

Listed:
  • Diana C. Mutz

Abstract

Using a measure designed to capture intolerance on both sides of the political spectrum, I find that opinions favoring the abridgement of free speech rights are overwhelmingly targeted at right-leaning groups, and racist groups in particular. Consistent with recent studies, Democrats are found to be less tolerant than Republicans of speech they dislike. However, contrary to existing findings, the same patterns of intolerance are present for both racist and nonracist target groups. Treating racist groups as an exception to the principle of free expression may have resulted in a spillover to intolerance of other disliked groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana C. Mutz, 2023. "Freedom of Speech in the Post-Floyd Era: Public Support for Political Tolerance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 184-205, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:184-205
    DOI: 10.1177/00027162241231129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162241231129
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00027162241231129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    2. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    3. Sullivan, John L. & Piereson, James & Marcus, George E., 1979. "An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases 1950s–1970s," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 781-794, September.
    4. Sniderman, Paul M. & Fletcher, Joseph F. & Russell, Peter H. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Gaines, Brian J., 1991. "The Fallacy of Democratic Elitism: Elite Competition and Commitment to Civil Liberties," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 349-370, July.
    5. Matthew J. Lacombe & Adam J. Howat & Jacob E. Rothschild, 2019. "Gun Ownership as a Social Identity: Estimating Behavioral and Attitudinal Relationships," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(6), pages 2408-2424, October.
    6. Petersen, Michael & Slothuus, Rune & Stubager, Rune & Togeby, Lise, 2011. "Freedom for All? The Strength and Limits of Political Tolerance," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 581-597, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. T. Y. Wang & Lu‐huei Chen, 2008. "Political Tolerance in Taiwan: Democratic Elitism in a Polity Under Threat," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 780-801, September.
    2. Christian Weyand, 2013. "Why Political Elites Support Governmental Transparency. Self-Interest, Anticipation of Voters' Preferences or Socialization?," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 04-02, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    3. Wayne Eastman & Deirdre Collier, 2012. "The Optimal Bargain between the Elite and the Majority: Party and Managerial Ideologies as Devices to Control Politicians and Managers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 475-494, July.
    4. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    5. Byron Shafer & Richard Spady, 2002. "The issue context of modern American politics: semiparametric identification of latent factors from Discrete data," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Geoffrey Layman & Frances Lee & Christina Wolbrecht, 2023. "Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 164-183, July.
    7. Quinton Mayne & Brigitte Geißel, 2018. "Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-47.
    8. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2005. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom," Working Papers 05-8, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. C. Middendorp & G. Vries, 1981. "Attitudinal referents, statement items and response set: The effect of using differential item-formats on the structure of an ideological domain," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 249-277, June.
    10. Nam, Taewoo, 2019. "Understanding the gap between perceived threats to and preparedness for cybersecurity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    11. Michal Shamir & John L. Sullivan, 1985. "Jews and Arabs in Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 283-305, June.
    12. Ashley Jardina & Robert Mickey, 2022. "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 79-89, January.
    13. Riccardo Ladini & Nicola Maggini, 2023. "The role of party preferences in explaining acceptance of freedom restrictions in a pandemic context: the Italian case," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 99-123, April.
    14. Cees Van Der Eijk, 2001. "Measuring Agreement in Ordered Rating Scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 325-341, August.
    15. Schäfer, Armin, 2011. "Republican liberty and compulsory voting," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/17, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    16. Seth C. McKee & Antoine Yoshinaka, 2021. "Profiles in party switching: The case of Southern Party activists," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1615-1637, July.
    17. Raymond Tatalovich & Donald P. Haider‐Markel, 2022. "Voting on gun rights: Mapping the electoral scope of the pro‐gun constituency in America," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(6), pages 1359-1370, November.
    18. Alan Arwine & Lawrence Mayer, 2014. "Tolerance and the Politics of Identity in the European Union," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 669-681, September.
    19. Christopher G. Ellison & Margaret S. Kelley & David Leal & Pablo E. Gonzalez, 2022. "How do veterans view gun policies? Evidence from the Guns in American Life Survey," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 752-768, May.
    20. Allison Harell, 2010. "Political Tolerance, Racist Speech, and the Influence of Social Networks," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 724-740, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:184-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.