publiccensorshipattitudes

Particularly in the post-9/11 climate of a war on terror, understanding how members of the public strike a balance between the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and press and other social goals is crucial. Most previous research examining public opinion in this domain has been discipline-specific, with no comprehensive attempt to draw from the findings in other fields. Developed out of my dissertation research, my article in Communication Law & Policy offers a synthesis of the research across disciplines, and a summary of the varied ways in which the conceptual and operational challenges of measuring attitudes about censorship have been met. I propose an alternative conceptualization – the Willingness to Censor (WTC) scale – for measuring attitudes about censorship that is conceptualized as an individual difference measure, and operationalized using existing theory and case law from First Amendment jurisprudence. The 49-item measure permits examination of variable relationships with the global construct, and with 7-item content-based and medium-based subscales.

This article is drawing attention from communication scholars and others interested in free expression issues. The WTC scale will be featured in the forthcoming edition of Communication Research Measures, Vol. II. It is one of nine academic journal articles included on the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center’s list of “Cases & Resources.” My critique of previous measures of censorship attitudes is cited extensively in a recent white paper “Public Opinion and Freedom of Speech,” produced for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation by the Yale Law School Information Society Project. According to a report by the company that publishes Communication Law & Policy, this manuscript is the second most downloaded from the journal.

Because of the varied conceptual and operational definitions used to explicate censorship attitudes, our nomological network about how these attitudes relate to other variables is surprisingly limited. In a Mass Communication & Society article, I examine relationships between demographic and psychological characteristics and attitudes about censorship of hate speech and pornography. This piece demonstrates that some independent variables relate differently to a willingness to censor these two controversial forms of expression. These findings highlight the need to understand why certain people want to censor particular expressive contexts. In a similar vein the manuscript “A balancing act: Predicting support for requiring Internet filters in public libraries and schools,” addresses how people balance First Amendment rights with a desire to protect children from potentially harmful content on the Internet.

Ultimately this research program, like other studies of censorship attitudes, reflects a normative desire to predict and modify attitudes deemed as problematic. As such, I am pursuing projects aimed at uncovering the structure of such attitudes. Drawing from social psychological attitude research, an article recently submitted to Communication Law & Policy examines the structural properties of censorship attitudes as a means of assessing susceptibility to persuasive attempts. Another manuscript, “Refining the Willingness to Censor Scale,” uses existing WTC scale data from my research and my co-author’s projects. We use cluster analysis to discern response-pattern types. The types are then described in terms of demographic, individual difference and sociopolitical measures.

In future research, I will situate studies of censorship attitudes within a broader context of challenges to freedom of expression. I am developing a theoretical framework highlighting similarities and differences between types of restrictions on individual and media expression. I suggest every effort to control expression is founded on a conception of the effect that expression will have. The effect of the restriction will differ depending on the mechanism of enforcement – self restriction, restriction by a private organization or company, influence through public opinion, or governmental regulations (which is where the WTC scale focuses). This framework can broaden discussion about freedom of expression to incorporate issues not traditionally part of First Amendment discussion. And because it is not limited to First Amendment jurisprudence, it could provide a unifying mechanism for discussion of these issues cross-culturally.