First Amendment Survey

Conclusions

The Sample

Comparisons of the State of the First Amendment in Wisconsin sample of 629 respondents to the U.S. Census data for Wisconsin (2000) suggests that the research sample is accurately representative of the population, within +/- 4% margin of error. Sample data for sex and political affiliation were extremely representative of the population. Sample data for age were accurate for groups over the age of 29. Income groups were less representative than desired. Those making less than $30,000 annually and those making more than $75,000 annually were not as well represented as those in middle-income groups. Explanations for these results may be that higher income groups were more likely to have privacy protection services making telephone contact more difficult. Lower income groups may not have had a high percentage of telephones in service. These results are common for telephone surveys.

Additionally, the similarity between survey results for Wisconsin residents and those in national surveys on most issues addressed in this study suggests the sample was representative.

Even with a 17% rate of response, the researchers conclude that the findings of this investigation should be accurately representative of the residents of Wisconsin in 2004. Although the data presented in this report are considered accurate, the interpretations of those results are subject to debate. That is the American standard, as protected though the First Amendment.

Knowledge of the First Amendment

Wisconsin residents’ knowledge of the rights protected by the First Amendment was comparable to results obtained in national surveys. The Wisconsin sample was somewhat more knowledgeable than those in national studies, particularly for knowing freedom of speech. This finding may be due to the prompt of, “The First Amendment protects freedom of….” That prompt was used to encourage respondent participation, but may not have been used in national surveys.

Wisconsin residents who were able to name more of the rights protected by the First Amendment were significantly more likely to support removing the phrase, “under God,” from the pledge, more likely to support journalists publishing without government censorship, and less likely to support punishment for burning or desecrating the flag, and criticizing the government during wartime. It could be argued that knowledge of the rights protected by the First Amendment, as measured by how many rights could be named, was associated with a more clear understanding of those rights. Those who knew more of the protected rights were more likely to vote in 2004.

The most important conclusion from this portion of the research is that too few Wisconsin residents know and understand the freedoms of expression protected by the First Amendment. This finding directly supports the importance of improving education and understanding of constitutional rights that are integral to American democracy.

General Opinions on Amount of First Amendment Protections

 Wisconsin residents were comparable to those in national surveys regarding perceptions of whether Americans have “too much,” “just right,” or “too little” freedoms of speech, press and religion. The majority responded that we have “just right” amounts of protections in each of those rights. However, it is noteworthy that 37% of the respondents felt that there is “too much” freedom of the press. Given the media coverage at the time of this research related to presidential campaigning and the war in Iraq, this finding should be investigated again during less turbulent times.

Respondents who indicated that Americans have too little freedom of speech, too little freedom of the press, or too little freedom of religion were more likely to have had their individual rights in those areas violated at some time in the past. Furthermore, Democrats were more likely to believe Americans have too little freedom of speech, while Republicans and Independents were more likely to believe Americans have too little freedom of religion.

Personal Experiences with Violations of First Amendment Rights

Nine out of ten respondents believed their rights to free speech, free press, and religion have not been violated. This is a testament to living in a free country.

It was also noteworthy that those who felt their individual rights to free speech, free press, and freedom of religion had been violated were more likely to believe Americans have too little freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Furthermore, those who felt their individual rights to free speech, free press, and freedom of religion had been violated were less likely to believe in punishment for racist or sexist speech in schools, or punishment for burning or desecrating the American flag. Those with individual experiences related to violations of freedom of religion were less likely to support a designated time for prayer in public schools. In other words, their personal experiences related to violations of their freedom of expression were associated with understanding of First Amendment protections for those issues. Their understanding appears to have been based on “the school of hard knocks.” Knowledge attainted through education on constitutional rights might result in similar opinions without the unfortunate personal experiences they reported. Unfortunately, they also reported they were less likely to vote in 2004 than those not reporting individual violations of free speech.

Lastly, comparisons of personal experiences with violations of First Amendment rights were examined across racial groups. The data suggest that racial minorities have experienced more personal violations of rights. However, there were too few minority representatives in the sample to place confidence in the reliability of those findings. This needs future study.

Opinions on Currently Debated First Amendment Issues

Required instruction on the First Amendment. Ninety-one percent of respondents believed that public schools should have required instruction on First Amendment rights. This finding is very supportive of the primary intention of this research, to enhance instruction on constitutional rights. Misunderstanding of the protections afforded by the First Amendment in relation to expressed attitudes on many issues suggests the need for improved education on constitutional rights.

Designated time for prayer. Thirty-eight percent of respondents believed that public schools should have a designated time for prayer. Even though specific descriptions of what might constitute a designated time for prayer were not defined in this research, school prayer has been ruled unconstitutional in many court cases.

Those who supported designated times for prayer in public schools were significantly less likely to have had personal violations of their freedom of religion, to have been Democrats or Independents, to have been female, or to have been under age 40.

Racist and sexist speech. Eighty percent of respondents believed that public schools should have rules to punish students who use racist or sexist speech. Even though racist and sexist speech may be offensive, such speech is not subject to punishment unless it creates a clear and present danger or incites people to engage in illegal behavior. Attempts to make “hate speech” illegal have failed. People have the constitutional right to voice their opinion publicly. Offensive speech should be countered with speech appealing to higher standards.

Those less likely to support punishment for racist or sexist speech in schools were more likely to know the protection of right to assemble, have had a personal experience with violation of free speech, press, or religion, or to be male.

Pledge of Allegiance. Like some recent national surveys, this survey in Wisconsin found that 88% of the respondents believed that the phrase “under God” should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. A recent court ruling concluded that the phrase is an endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court was debating this issue at the time of this research. While data to document frequency was not tracked in this study, many respondents mistakenly stated that “under God” has always been a part of the pledge and, consequently, should remain in the pledge. Other respondents commented how our currency includes the phrase, “In God we trust,” and, consequently, the argument to change the pledge is shallow unless plans are also being made to change our currency. It appears that part of people’s objection to removing the phrase, “under God,” is associated with their perception of traditions that should be difficult to change.

Those more likely to support removing the phrase, “under God,” from the pledge were more knowledgeable of First Amendment rights, and more likely to have been Democrats or Independents, and males.

Flag Desecration. The majority (58%) of Americans mistakenly believe it is illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag. In Wisconsin, 60% believe people should be punished for burning or defacing the flag as a political statement. This issue will continue to be emotional and controversial, particularly during times of international conflict. Many believe that the tangible symbol of our democracy, the flag, is as important to protect as the principle of free expression that flag desecration may represent.

Those less likely to support punishment for burning or desecration of the flag knew more of the rights protected by the First Amendment, were more likely to have reported individual violations of free speech, press, and religion, were more likely to be Democrats or Independents, and have household incomes over $75,000.

Public protest. Punishment for protesting or demonstrating on public property was not an issue associated with misunderstanding of constitutional protections, as 80% of respondents did not believe in punishment for protestors or demonstrators.

 Government criticism during wartime. Eighty-four percent of Wisconsin residents did not believe in punishment for publicly criticizing our government during wartime. War and other times of national crisis have historically been challenging for freedoms of expression. It seems that media coverage of political events is so widespread that criticism is accepted as a fact of life. With the nation politically polarized as it is at this time, criticisms of opposite perspectives are inevitable.

Those less likely to support punishment for criticizing our government during wartime knew more First Amendment rights, were Democrats or Independents, had household incomes above $30,000, and were between the ages of 30 and 60.

Censorship of journalists. Only 62% believed that journalists should be able to publish freely without government approval or censorship of their reports. This finding is probably associated with current safety and security concerns during wartime, and should be investigated in the future during less turbulent times.

Those who knew more First Amendment rights were more likely to support journalists publishing without government censorship.

Government monitoring of religious groups. Forty-six percent of the Wisconsin sample, and 50% of a national sample, believed the government, as part of the war on terrorism, should be able to monitor certain religious groups even if it means infringing on their religious freedom. This country was founded on principles of religious freedom. The war on terrorism is affecting our sense of liberty for all.

Those who support government monitoring of religious groups as part of the war on terrorism were more likely to have been Republican, male, with household incomes above $30,000, and between the ages of 30 and 60.

Government monitoring of library materials. Most Americans (67%) and Wisconsin residents (69%) do not support the government, as part of the war on terrorism, being able to monitor which books or other materials people check out of public libraries.

Those who support government monitoring of library withdrawals were more likely to have been Republican, male, and with household incomes above $75,000.

Political Demographics

Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated they planned to vote in the 2004 presidential election. Those over age 50, and those who knew more First Amendment rights, were more likely to vote. Those who felt their free speech had been violated at some time were less likely to vote.

 Wisconsin is clearly a “battleground” state in political elections. Respondents were equally divided between those who considered themselves to be Democrats (29%) or Republicans (26%). Twenty-two percent claimed an Independent affiliation, and 15% indicated no political party preference.

Respondents from Wisconsin with different political affiliations were significantly different from each other on most opinions related to currently debated First Amendment issues. Democrats and Independents were more likely than Republicans to support removing the phrase, “under God,” from the pledge, and less likely to support a designated time for prayer in public schools, punishment for burning the flag, criticizing the government during wartime, monitoring religious groups as part of the war on terrorism, and monitoring library withdrawals.

Republican and Independent respondents were more likely than Democrats to know that freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, and to believe that we have “too little” freedom of religion. Whether this set of opinions was associated with religious freedoms for both Christian and non-Christian affiliations is unknown.

Recommendations for Future Research

As is the case with all research, additional investigations are recommended. In particular, members of racial minorities were not adequately represented in this sample to achieve reliable conclusions about how their experiences and opinions differ from the majority. Future research could consider stratified samples to guarantee minority representation, and translations of questionnaires to enhance involvement by Hispanic residents.

It is recommended that replications of this study be conducted during what we all hope will be less turbulent times without war and presidential campaigning.

Final Word

The U.S. Constitution is a framework for our democracy that has stood the test of time. It is as relevant today as when written. It is a beacon for liberty, freedom and justice for Americans and the world. Of course, within that framework challenges should be expected. The courts debate constitutional issues continuously. Appropriately, changes to the constitution should be difficult to achieve. We Americans may disagree on issues, but we should honor our rights to do so.

This investigation is similar to others conducted periodically across the nation. The people of Wisconsin really do represent the “heartland.” Our views, awareness, and experiences resemble those of our fellow citizens in other states.

This investigation was undertaken to create evidence supporting sound educational experiences related to constitutional rights. This purpose has been met, as the research documents need and support for improving American’s knowledge and understanding of constitutional rights. Educational institutions are encouraged to consider the findings of this research and respond, as they deem appropriate. Outside of educational institutions we are all encouraged to engage in discourse on our commonalities and differences. We must live by the freedoms of expression so elegantly framed by American founders to continue to realize our dreams of democracy.