Measuring First Amendment Ignorance

New report by FIRE indicates that many Americans who are celebrating the Fourth of July with BBQ and fireworks don't appreciate the meaning of the holiday.

In a recent AmeriSpeak panel conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, FIRE asked 1,140 Americans if they could name any of the specific rights protected by the First Amendment. The results were dismal.

Almost a third of Americans could not name a single enumerated right protected by the First Amendment and another 40% could name only one — usually freedom of speech. Among Americans who named one or more enumerated rights, roughly two-thirds (65%) named freedom of speech, about a quarter (26%) named freedom of religion, 20% named the right to assemble, 15% named freedom of the press, and 8% named the right to petition. Only 3% of Americans could name all five and, on average, could name 1.33 First Amendment rights. In other words, Americans’ knowledge of the First Amendment remains poor.

he AmeriSpeak panel is funded and operated by NORC, and is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Although knowledge of the First Amendment was low across the board, some notable differences did emerge. Generally, males were able to name significantly more rights than females, although they still averaged less than two (1.47 and 1.23, respectively). Males were also significantly more likely to name four-of-five First Amendment rights than females were:

69% of males named freedom of speech compared to 61% of females. 24% of males named the right to assemble compared to 16% of females. 18% of males named freedom of the press compared to 12% of females. 11% of males named a right to petition compared to 5% of females.

These findings may reflect greater interest in the First Amendment among males. Other surveys have found that, compared to females, males are more likely to adopt an absolutist stance on the First Amendment and are more willing to allow the expression of statements that are offensive or hateful. Scholarship has long documented that males are also more opposed to censorship in a number of different content domains.

Liberals were significantly more likely to name at least one right and significantly more likely to name at least two rights compared to moderates and conservatives. One-third of conservatives and 27% of moderates could not name a single right, compared to 15% of liberals. Liberals also named significantly more rights on average than moderates did, although, as with males above, liberals still named less than two rights on average (1.56 and 1.28, respectively).

Generational differences are also evident. Americans aged 18-29 were significantly less likely to name free speech (55%) than other Americans, particularly those aged 45-59 (67%) and those aged 60 and older (70%). Those aged 18-29 (19%) and those aged 45-59 (21%) were also significantly less likely to name freedom of religion as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, compared to Americans aged 30-44 (30%) and those aged 60 and older (29%). Thus, older Americans appear to be the most knowledgeable about the First Amendment, suggesting that knowledge may decline further as they age and represent a smaller overall portion of the American population.

Continue ReadingMeasuring First Amendment Ignorance

Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against California Regarding Law that Punishes Doctors who Stray from the COVID “Consensus.”

A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction against the state of California regarding California's new law that attempts to require doctors to adhere to COVID orthodoxy when they discuss treatment with their patients. Here is an excerpt from an article by FOX News:

A California judge issued a preliminary injunction against a state law that empowers the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who support opinions about COVID-19 that are not in line with the "consensus," according to reports.

The law, known as Assembly Bill 2098, was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Under the law, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California could discipline physicians who "disseminate" information about COVID that is not in line with the "contemporary scientific consensus.""

Doctors said the law violates their First Amendment rights because it impedes their ability to communicate with their patients during treatment. . . .

Doctors also argue that "contemporary scientific consensus" is "undefined in the law and undefinable as a matter of logic."

I checked each of the following websites and you won't read a word about this important court ruling in the NYT, MSNBC, CNN, NPR or the Washington Post.

Continue ReadingFederal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against California Regarding Law that Punishes Doctors who Stray from the COVID “Consensus.”

Jonathan Haidt’s Recently Expressed Doom and Gloom

Excerpt from The Australian --

"'I am now very pessimistic,' Haidt said. 'I think there is a very good chance American democracy will fail, that in the next 30 years we will have a catastrophic failure of our democracy.'"

Why would Jonathan Haidt be so full of doom and Gloom. Maybe because of the dozens of cases of Woke malfeasance in the science departments of universities, as described by Lawrence Krauss:

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt’s Recently Expressed Doom and Gloom

NYT Finally Covers a Story that Many School Districts Hide “Gender Transitions” from Parents

Many school districts are assisting students to "transition to a different gender" and hiding it from the student's parents. I've been telling people this for more than a year, and many people I talk to are refusing to believe that this happens, even though I have drafted letters of concern to districts on this topic. People refuse to believe this because the legacy media has consciously refused to cover these stories . . . until now. The NYT has finally decided that it's OK to write about this outrageous practice. From the NYT today:

Jessica Bradshaw found out that her 15-year-old identified as transgender at school after she glimpsed a homework assignment with an unfamiliar name scrawled at the top.

When she asked about the name, the teenager acknowledged that, at his request, teachers and administrators at his high school in Southern California had for six months been letting him use the boy’s bathroom and calling him by male pronouns.

Mrs. Bradshaw was confused: Didn’t the school need her permission, or at least need to tell her?

It did not, a counselor later explained, because the student did not want his parents to know. District and state policies instructed the school to respect his wishes.

Note: In this article, the NYT claims that "conservative" parents who are upset by this practice, but this is intentionally misleading. If you doubt this, just go ask your Democrat-voting neighbors what they would think if their child's school district hid this information, secretly conducting what amounts to unlicensed therapy conducted by classroom teachers, which often leads to dangerous lifetime drugs and permanent surgery.

Continue ReadingNYT Finally Covers a Story that Many School Districts Hide “Gender Transitions” from Parents

More on Dividing People into Colors

Many universities and their affiliates are now dividing people by color with regard to scholarships and grants. They see no problem with this, even though it is the opposite of what we figured out during the Civil Rights Movement.

"It's as if they think the law no longer applies to them," said Heriot, who also sits on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "What worries me is that with the present administration, they may be right."

Continue ReadingMore on Dividing People into Colors