reason.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
75.2.24.81
Public Scan
URL:
https://reason.com/2023/02/14/studies-find-conservatives-more-committed-to-free-speech-online-federalism/
Submission: On February 13 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On February 13 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM
GET https://reason.com/
<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://reason.com/">
<label>
<span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
<input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
</label>
<input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>POST
<form method="post" id="gform_0" class="recaptcha-v3-initialized"><input type="hidden" name="login_redirect" value="/2023/02/14/studies-find-conservatives-more-committed-to-free-speech-online-federalism/">
<div class="gform_heading">
<h3 class="gform_title">Login Form</h3>
</div>
<div class="gform_body">
<div id="gform_fields_login" class="gform_fields top_label">
<div id="field_0_1" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_1"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
for="input_1">Username<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_1" id="input_1" type="text" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
</div>
<div id="field_0_2" class="gfield gfield--type-text gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_2"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label"
for="input_2">Password<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_text"><input name="input_2" id="input_2" type="password" value="" class="" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false"> </div>
</div>
<div id="field_0_3" class="gfield gfield--type-remember_me field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_0_3"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label screen-reader-text gfield_label_before_complex"></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_checkbox">
<div class="gfield_checkbox" id="input_3">
<div class="gchoice gchoice_3">
<input class="gfield-choice-input" name="input_3.1" type="checkbox" value="1" id="choice_3">
<label for="choice_3" id="label_3">Remember Me</label>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_0" class="gform_button button"
onclick="if(window["gf_submitting_0"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_0"]=true;} "
onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window["gf_submitting_0"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_0")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_0"]=true;} jQuery("#gform_0").trigger("submit",[true]); }">Login</button>
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_0" value="1">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="0">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_0" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_0" id="gform_target_page_number_0" value="0">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_0" id="gform_source_page_number_0" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
</div>
</form>POST /2023/02/14/studies-find-conservatives-more-committed-to-free-speech-online-federalism/#gf_17
<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" target="gform_ajax_frame_17" id="gform_17" class="puprf-signup-widget recaptcha-v3-initialized" action="/2023/02/14/studies-find-conservatives-more-committed-to-free-speech-online-federalism/#gf_17"
data-formid="17" novalidate="">
<div class="gf_invisible ginput_recaptchav3" data-sitekey="6LeMnkUaAAAAALL8T1-XAyB7vxpOeTExu6KwR48-" data-tabindex="0"><input id="input_9ae663dc72ef42b46f2cf3a53ec042e1" class="gfield_recaptcha_response" type="hidden"
name="input_9ae663dc72ef42b46f2cf3a53ec042e1" value=""></div>
<div class="gform-body gform_body">
<div id="gform_fields_17" class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_below description_below">
<div id="field_17_1" class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_17_1"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_17_1">Email<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
<div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email">
<input name="input_1" id="input_17_1" type="email" value="" class="large" placeholder="Email Address" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false">
</div>
</div>
<div id="field_17_2" class="gfield gfield--type-honeypot gform_validation_container field_sublabel_below gfield--has-description field_description_below gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_17_2"><label
class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_17_2">Phone</label>
<div class="ginput_container"><input name="input_2" id="input_17_2" type="text" value="" autocomplete="new-password"></div>
<div class="gfield_description" id="gfield_description_17_2">This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gform_footer top_label"> <button type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_17" class="gform_button button"
onclick="if(window["gf_submitting_17"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_17"]=true;} "
onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window["gf_submitting_17"]){return false;} if( !jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity || jQuery("#gform_17")[0].checkValidity()){window["gf_submitting_17"]=true;} jQuery("#gform_17").trigger("submit",[true]); }">Submit</button>
<input type="hidden" name="gform_ajax" value="form_id=17&title=&description=1&tabindex=0&theme=data-form-theme='gravity-theme'">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_17" value="1">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="17">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_17" value="WyJbXSIsIjVmZDk0MDRiMTc0NTYwODJmYTIwNGZlZDYxN2ViYzJjIl0=">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_17" id="gform_target_page_number_17" value="0">
<input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_17" id="gform_source_page_number_17" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
</div>
<p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_1" name="ak_js"
value="1707851868121">
<script>
document.getElementById("ak_js_1").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
</script>
</p>
</form>Text Content
* Latest
* Magazine
* Current Issue
* Archives
* Subscribe
* Crossword
* Video
* Podcasts
* All Shows
* The Reason Roundtable
* The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
* The Soho Forum Debates
* Just Asking Questions
* The Best of Reason Magazine
* Why We Can't Have Nice Things
* Volokh
* Newsletters
* Donate
* Donate Online
* Donate Crypto
* Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
* Torchbearer Society
* Planned Giving
* Subscribe
* Print/Digital Subscriptions
* Gift Subscriptions
Search for:
LOGIN FORM
Username(Required)
Password(Required)
Remember Me
Login
Create new account
Forgot password
Reason Roundup
STUDIES FIND CONSERVATIVES MORE COMMITTED TO FREE SPEECH ONLINE, FEDERALISM
PLUS: GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF SPEECH IS ON TRIAL, BIOHACKERS FLOCK TO
EXPERIMENTAL CHARTER CITY IN HONDURAS, AND MORE…
Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 2.14.2023 9:45 AM
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
(Ingram Publishing/Newscom)
Conservatives are attached to the principles of federalism and free speech
online even when these principles make it harder to achieve their policy aims,
suggest two recent studies. Meanwhile, liberals are more open to giving power to
whichever arm of government—federal, state, or local—they think will best
achieve their aims. And while they're generally more open to the suppression of
online speech that is inaccurate, they are more likely to shift positions based
on whether this speech supports their side.
Conservative Attachment to Federalism Is "Genuine"
The federalism study—"Ideology and Support for Federalism in Theory—And in
Practice"—comes from Tufts University researchers and was published in Publius:
The Journal of Federalism on February 3.
The authors looked at a variety of survey data to gauge liberal and conservative
support for federalism—that is, the separation of power between federal, state,
and local governments. They found that "conservatives are more likely to prefer
a devolution of power to state and local jurisdictions, even if doing so might
make it harder to achieve conservative policy aims," while liberals are "more
likely to prioritize policy aims and to support whichever level of government
seems most likely to achieve them."
Powered By
00:00/01:40
10 Sec
Nvidia Briefly Tops Amazon in Market Value
Next
Stay
For example, "among conservatives, the more religious are more supportive of
state/local control over school prayer than the less religious"—which makes
sense, because that's a position more conducive to allowing prayer in schools.
> "But even among nonreligious conservatives, a significant majority—59
> percent—support devolution on the issue. It is liberals whose response to the
> issue swings much more by religiosity. For liberals, one's position on the
> question of which level of government should control school prayer is heavily
> determined by their religiosity."
The authors also looked at examples involving COVID-19 policy, abortion,
environmental regulations, and painkiller policy, reaching similar conclusions
for each. For instance, on the environmental policy question—whether states like
California should be set to adopt greenhouse gas standards and vehicle emission
controls that are stricter than those set by the federal government—a majority
of conservatives gave the pro-federalism response, despite the fact that
conservatives don't tend to support stricter standards.
The COVID-19 questions, asked in early 2020, first asked whether state
governments or the federal government should be responsible for handling
pandemic policies. Seventy-six percent of liberals said the federal government
should be, while only 43 percent of conservatives said likewise. The researchers
then asked which level of government respondents trusted to handle pandemic
policy. Even though President Donald Trump was still in power, only 49 percent
of conservatives said they trusted the federal government to lead the way.
Meanwhile, only 24 percent of liberals said they trusted the federal
government's lead, "despite the fact that they overwhelmingly think that the
federal government should do so," note the researchers.
Taken together, the various surveys suggest a significant values gap between
conservatives and liberals on issues of federalism.
"Conservatives are more attached to the principle of federalism than liberals
are" and this difference is "among the most dramatic in the whole panoply of
ideas that differentiate those on the right and those on the left," the authors
suggest. They argue that "conservative attachment to the devolution of power is
genuine, and that it often survives (albeit with some erosion) when policy
preferences are at stake," while liberals "tend to prefer more centralized
policymaking" but are more likely to favor state control "when their policy
preferences are best served by the states."
This argument stands in contrast with the (popular liberal) claim that
conservative embrace of "state's rights" is limited to situations where this
will benefit their preferred policies. It does, however, lend credence to a
conservative claim that liberals will seize whatever means necessary to
accomplish their goals—an argument that people on the national conservatism side
often make, unfortunately, to bolster their case for using any means necessary
to get what they want.
Republicans and Democrats Come Down Differently on Online Content Removal
The free speech study—"Partisan Conflict Over Content Moderation Is More Than
Disagreement about Facts"—comes from Stanford University's Ruth E. Appel and
Jennifer Pan and Margaret E. Roberts of the University of California, San Diego.
For this study, the researchers theorized that differences in conservative and
liberal preferences regarding online content moderation may stem from a "fact
gap" (that is, "differences in what is perceived as misinformation"), a "value
gap" (different preferences "about how much misinformation should be removed"),
or party promotion incentives ("a desire to leave misinformation online that
promotes one's own party by flattering it or denigrating the other party").
To test the latter two hypotheses, they showed study participants headlines that
either flatter or denigrate their side—then explicitly told participants that
these headlines were false. Participants were then asked whether a hypothetical
social media company should remove the content, whether it would be "censorship"
if so, and whether they would personally report the misleading content as
"harmful."
The results offer substantial support for the value gap hypotheses. "When
Republicans and Democrats agree that the content is false, Republicans and
Democrats still hold vastly different preferences for whether that information
should be removed," note the study authors in their paper. "Regardless of the
partisan slant of the content, Democrats are more likely to support the removal
of content, while Republicans are more likely to oppose removing content."
The authors also found "support for party promotion among Democrats who are
slightly less likely to support removing misinformation that promotes their own
side than misinformation that promotes Republicans, but no evidence of party
promotion among Republicans." However, "the effect of party promotion on content
moderation preferences of Democrats is overall quite small."
The study authors conclude that "partisan animosity does not seem to be the main
driver of partisan disagreement over content moderation." Rather, these
disagreements are driven primarily by "differences in values."
Open to Interpretation?
Taken together, these two studies "suggest that American conservatives are more
committed than liberals to two important procedural norms — federalism and free
speech — independent of whose partisan interests they serve," suggests Jason
Willick at The Washington Post.
But Willick also notes that "both papers are open to multiple interpretations,
of course, and it's possible these findings are better explained by subtle power
dynamics than principles and values. For much of the 20th century, the process
of open debate was seen as a means of persuading more people of liberal
positions; today, it is more often seen as a threat to dominant liberal
institutions."
So, on the social media "censorship" question, both factions could be acting in
self-serving ways. It's just that progressives see online misinformation—or
unfettered free speech generally—as more of a threat to their side, while
conservatives see it by and large as more of a benefit. Both would have
incentives to promote less or more free speech online even if the particular
circumstances in any given case are not helpful to their side.
That the speech study specifically looked at social media content moderation is
notable, since conservatives perceive (though evidence supporting it is mixed)
social media "censorship" to be biased against them. For this reason,
conservatives have rallied around calls for less social media moderation, even
as many embrace speech restrictions in other realms (like schools, libraries,
etc.).
But in any event, the speech study cuts against the idea—popular among
Democrats—that conservatives only want free speech on social media so that they
can spread misinformation that benefits their side.
The federalism study seems like a more clear-cut case of genuine attachment to a
principal on the part of conservatives, though the same dynamic noted above
(support even in cases where federalism doesn't benefit them bolstered by a
general belief that it will) could be at play.
In general, these studies offer a flattering view of conservatives'
principles—and one that makes recent attempts to steer the movement away from
free speech, federalism, and other tenets of limited government all the more
sad. The new right—call them national conservatives or populists or
integralists or whatever—explicitly rejects the idea that it shouldn't use state
power to crush enemies and institute a conservative vision of the common good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE MINDS
The Supreme Court's big Section 230 case is coming up next week. And it brings
up an important question: Do people still overwhelmingly believe "that
governmental regulation of content of speech is more likely to interfere with
the free range of ideas than encourage it"? Law professor Jeff Kosseff, author
of The 26 Words That Created the Internet, worries that Americans do not. A
thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE MARKETS
"FDA-approved gene therapy treatments remain rare, but those breaking through
come with eye-watering price tags, in part because of the cost and complexity
involved in their creation," notes the MIT Technology Review. Part of this cost
and complexity, of course, comes from all the hoop-jumping required by the Food
and Drug Administration:
> Over the past few years, a parade of newly released gene therapies have
> consecutively claimed the title of most expensive drug in the world; the
> current honor goes to the $3.5 million hemophilia B treatment Hemgenix,
> launched in November 2022. These therapies are produced by the likes of
> Novartis and CSL Behring, pharma giants that have amassed years' worth of
> clinical trial data and followed rigorous testing procedures under the
> exacting gaze of the US Food and Drug Administration.
Some are seeking a different route. For instance, biotech startup Minicircle is
conducting a clinical trial in Próspera, Honduras—a charter city with a private
government—and paying subjects in cryptocurrency. "The startup, which is
registered in Delaware, aims to fuse elements of the traditional drug testing
path with the ethos of 'biohackers'—medical mavericks who proudly dabble in
self-experimentation and have long hailed the promise of DIY gene therapies,"
notes the Review:
> The eccentricities don't end there. Minicircle's trials are going ahead in
> Próspera, an aspiring libertarian paradise born from controversial legislation
> that has allowed international businesses to carve off bits of Honduras and
> establish their own micronations. It's a radical experiment that is allowing a
> private company to take on the role of the state. While much attention has
> been paid to the charter city's use of Bitcoin as legal tender, the
> partnership with Minicircle is an important milestone toward another
> goal—becoming a hotbed of medical innovation and a future hub of medical
> tourism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK HITS
• "The mother of Anthony 'Tony' Mitchell, a Walker County man who died in police
custody in January, has filed a federal lawsuit against multiple jail officials,
including Sheriff Nick Smith, alleging that authorities deprived the man of his
constitutional rights by leaving him in the jail's walk-in freezer 'or similar
frigid environment' for hours," reports Alabama's CBS 42.
• Are tiny homes a solution to the housing crisis? The New York Times' Julie
Lasky goes to the International Builders' Show to explore this question.
• "Across almost every demographic group, American adults old and young, single
and coupled, rich and poor are having less sex than they have had at any point
in at least the past three decades," writes Magdalene J. Taylor in an op-ed
urging Americans to have more sex.
• The Lincoln Network asks how interest groups might use artificial intelligence
to try and influence Congress:
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and
trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Email(Required)
Phone
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Submit
Δ
NEXT: We Need New Laws To Protect People in Pain
Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.
Reason RoundupFree SpeechFederalismSocial MediaCensorshipState
GovernmentsInternetHate SpeechConservatismLiberalismProgressivesAmerican Values
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Show Comments (415)
LATEST
THIS 70-YEAR-OLD WOMAN MIGHT LOSE HER $377,000 HOME OVER A SMALL TAX DEBT
Grady J. Block | 2.13.2024 1:20 PM
BUFFALO COPS DENIED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR ARRESTING MAN WHO CALLED OFFICER AN
'ASSHOLE'
Emma Camp | 2.13.2024 12:13 PM
JON STEWART'S RETURN TO THE DAILY SHOW WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY GREAT
Eric Boehm | 2.13.2024 11:45 AM
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Christian Britschgi | 2.13.2024 10:15 AM
TUCKER DREAMS OF MOSCOW
Liz Wolfe | 2.13.2024 9:30 AM
RECOMMENDED
MORE ON LIBERALS AND FEDERALISM
TRUMP, FEDERAL POWER, AND THE LEFT - WHY LIBERALS SHOULD HELP MAKE FEDERALISM
GREAT AGAIN
MY NEW WASHINGTON POST OP ED ON HOW FEDERALISM BECAME GREAT AGAIN ON THE LEFT
SOCIAL ISSUES, NOT ECONOMICS, LARGELY DEFINE POLITICAL LABELS FOR MILLENNIALS
SOCIAL ISSUES, NOT ECONOMICS, LARGELY DEFINE POLITICAL LABELS FOR MILLENNIALS
* About
* Browse Topics
* Events
* Staff
* Jobs
* Donate
* Advertise
* Subscribe
* Contact
* Media
* Shop
* Amazon
Reason FacebookReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeReason ItunesReason on
FlipboardReason RSS
© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service apply.
Notifications