The study, "Perspectives on Free Speech: A Study of Jurors' Attitudes Toward the First Amendment," was conducted by the DOAR Research Center and is the first comprehensive report examining key attitudinal differences of potential jurors on free speech issues in these venues.
"The interpretation of the First Amendment has undergone a remarkable transformation since its ratification over 200 years ago. What began as a safeguard against government overreach has, for some, evolved into a perceived right to speak without consequences," said Dr. Natalie Gordon, a Consultant at DOAR and author of the study. "We've witnessed a notable shift in First Amendment advocacy from traditionally progressive causes to more conservative viewpoints, particularly with the rise of the MAGA movement. However, our research shows that support for free speech transcends political boundaries, reflecting its enduring importance in American society."
A few of the key findings from the study include:
- Overwhelming Support for Free Speech, but Mixed Views on Hate Speech: Nearly all respondents (98%) consider free speech essential to being American, but only 55% believe preserving free speech is more important than preventing hate speech.
- Perceived Deprivation of Free Speech Rights: Most respondents feel they are to some extent deprived of their right to free speech, with 13% reporting feeling deprived "all the time."
- Fear of Repercussions from Expressing Opinions: 71% of participants report holding back unpopular opinions due to fear of punishment, yet over half (55%) say they have never actually been penalized.
- Support for Free Speech Varies by Identity and Experience: Conservative and Republican respondents and those who distrust institutions are more likely to support free speech arguments in court. Notably, the profile of respondents siding with free speech arguments closely aligns with supporters of the MAGA movement, who feel their rights are under threat.
- Personal Connections Influence Free Speech Support: In hypothetical legal scenarios, respondents were significantly more likely to support free speech arguments when asked to imagine the party involved was a loved one rather than a stranger.
"The findings from our report reveal a growing polarization around free speech issues, with jurors' political leanings, use of social media, and personal backgrounds playing a pivotal role in their views of the First Amendment and when it should be protected," said Paul Neale, CEO of DOAR and co-author of the study. "With this report, we hope to provide valuable and practical insights to trial attorneys that have significant implications for jury selection and trial strategy in cases involving First Amendment issues."
The full report, which includes a detailed breakdown of responses to hypothetical legal scenarios involving copyright infringement, social media regulation, and defamation, can be downloaded at DOAR.com.
About DOAR
DOAR is the nation's leading trial consulting company, advising lawyers at top-tier law firms and major corporations. We leverage our more than 30 years of experience to provide the insight, expertise, and support required to handle the most complex, high-stakes legal disputes. We stay at the forefront of the most impactful trends and technologies affecting the legal community and deliver valuable insight that informs and advances our clients' litigation strategies.
For more information about DOAR, visit DOAR.com and follow us at @DOARlitigation.
Media Inquiries:
Cindy Siegel
Vice President of Marketing
[email protected]
SOURCE DOAR, Inc.
Share this article