This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 05 January 2015, At: 02:05

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Mass Communication and

Society
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcs20

Who Wants to Censor

Pornography and Hate Speech?
Jennifer L. Lambe
Published online: 17 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Jennifer L. Lambe (2004) Who Wants to Censor Pornography
and Hate Speech?, Mass Communication and Society, 7:3, 279-299, DOI: 10.1207/
s15327825mcs0703_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015
 MASS COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2004, 7(3), 279–299

Who Wants to Censor Pornography

and Hate Speech?
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Jennifer L. Lambe
Department of Communication
University of Delaware

Attitudes about censorship have been studied across a diverse range of disciplines,
including mass communication, political science, social psychology, education, and
library science. Despite varied origins, this research has two things in common: (a)
seeking to understand how and where the public draws lines in limiting free expres-
sion, and (b) a normative desire to be able to predict and modify such opinions when
needed.
To influence public attitudes about hate speech and pornography (in either direc-
tion), one must understand the characteristics of people who do and do not wish to
censor such expression. This article examines the relationship of attitudes about por-
nography and hate speech to a variety of demographic, psychological, and socio-
political variables (including age, gender, education, political affiliation, religiosity,
media use, need for cognition, authoritarianism, neuroticism, openness, extrover-
sion, and commitment to democratic principles). The similarities and differences of
the relationships with the two expressive contexts are explored.

Public opinion surveys have repeatedly shown that while Americans strongly sup-
port free expression in the abstract, many would impose restrictions in concrete sit-
uations (Anderson & Reinhardt, 1987; Demac, 1997; Erskine, 1970; McClosky &
Brill, 1983; Wyatt, 1991; Zellman, 1975). Pornographic expression and hate
speech are two contexts that present ongoing challenges in balancing freedom of
expression with other conflicting social and individual goals. The Internet has
raised these challenges to new heights, as the ease of distribution and access, espe-
cially by children, has grown.
Public attitudes about free expression are consequential, despite the fact that the
First Amendment acts in part to protect expression even in the face of opposing

Requests for reprints should be sent to Jennifer L. Lambe, Department of Communication, Univer-
sity of Delaware, 250 Pearson Hall, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: jlambe@udel.edu
 280 LAMBE

popular opinion. From a normative perspective, legal scholars have recognized

public commitment to protecting free expression is essential to maintaining those
freedoms (e.g., Blasi, 1985; Bollinger, 1986). Judge Learned Hand expressed this
sentiment in a public address in 1944, saying,

I often wonder if we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws
and upon courts.… Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there,
no constitution, no law, no court can save it … (reprinted in Dillard, 1953,
pp. 189–190)
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

The actions of legislators, elected to represent the public, are intended to be influ-
enced by prevailing public sentiment. And, in several areas of First Amendment
law in practice, the triers of fact are expected to base their decisions on an under-
standing of public attitudes. For example, the Miller test used in obscenity cases
requires a judgment about the “contemporary community standards” of an average
person (Miller v. California, 1973). Obscenity defendants have been allowed to
present results from public opinion polls as evidence that community standards
would not reject the material at issue in the case.1

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Attitudes about censorship have been studied across a diverse range of disciplines,
including mass communication, political science, social psychology, education, and
library science. Despite varied origins, this research has two things in common: (a)
each study seeks to understand how and where members of the public draw lines in
limiting freedom of expression and (b) this search for understanding reflects a nor-
mative desire to predict and to modify such opinions when needed. Despite this
breadth of interest, however, the precise nature of the relationship of procensorship
attitudes to other demographic, orientational, and attitudinal variables remains enig-
matic. An understanding of how censorship attitudes relate to these sorts of predictor
variables could be used to generate more persuasive campaigns when concerned citi-
zens want to influence public opinion about these issues.
Identifying relevant predictor variables for attitudes about censoring hate
speech and pornography may be particularly complex. Traditionally, two very dif-
ferent groups want to censor these forms of expression. Conservatives wish to cen-
sor hate speech, and especially pornography, because of the detrimental effect it

1See Commonwealth v. Trainor (1978); People v. Nelson (1980). It is important to note, however,

that public opinion survey results have been excluded where the survey items did not address the spe-
cific content at issue in the case. See, for example, Flynt v. State (1980). For further discussion of the
role of public opinion in obscenity cases, see Linz et al. (1991) and Linz et al. (1995).
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 281

may have on our collective morals and as a way to maintain order in society. On the
other hand, some liberals and feminists wish to censor this expression as a way to
protect the vulnerable populations harmed by them (Linz & Malamuth, 1993;
Perse, 2001).
Before examining past literature about predictor variables for pornography and
hate speech, it is important to define what is meant conceptually by these core con-
structs (the operationalization will be discussed in the methods section). For pur-
poses of this study, pornography is defined as any explicit sexual content not de-
clared to be obscene. This excludes more implicit sexual innuendos that are, for
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

example, found in situation comedies on prime-time television. It also excludes

materials declared to be obscene that do not receive any First Amendment protec-
tion (Pember, 2003, p. 436). Hate speech is conceived as any expression that “at-
tack(s) individuals of groups because of their race, ethnic background, religion,
gender or sexual orientation” (Pember, 2003, p. 113). Adjudication in this area of
law stems from the fighting words doctrine that permits only a very limited amount
of expression to be constitutionally regulated. But the measure employed here is
not designed to test respondents’ knowledge of what can be restricted under exist-
ing law; rather it is to measure their attitudes about what expression should be
restricted.
Who wants to censor pornography and hate speech? A review of the literature
shows previous research had inconsistent findings in terms of identifying predictor
variables for these censorship attitudes.

Age
A number of studies suggest older participants are more willing to censor than
younger participants. With regard to hate speech in particular, Bird (1997) found
younger participants were more supportive of government policies permitting
freedom for racist speech. More generally, Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus (1982)
found that younger respondents are, on the whole, more tolerant of extremist polit-
ical groups. Fisher, Cook, and Shirkey (1994) and Thompson (1995) found a desire
to censor sexually explicit media content is positively correlated with age.
Other studies, however, have shown no significant relationship between age and
censorship attitudes. Cowan (1992) and Gunther (1995) found no relationship be-
tween age and support for restrictions on pornography. Other studies reported no
significant relationship between age and more generalized censorship attitudes
(e.g., Andsanger & Miller, 1994; Schell & Bonin, 1989; Suedfeld, Steel, &
Schmidt 1994).
Finally, some studies found the relationship between age and censorship atti-
tudes varies according to the particular forms of expression. Hense and Wright
(1992) found older participants are less willing to censor generally, but more likely
to endorse restrictions on pornography than younger participants. Rojas, Shah, and
 282 LAMBE

Faber (1996) reported a positive correlation between age and willingness to censor
pornography and general media content, but no relationship with attitudes toward
television violence. Previous research, then, has not established a clear pattern of
relationship between age and willingness to censor.

RQ1a: What is the relationship between age and willingness to censor pornogra-
phy?
RQ1b: What is the relationship between age and willingness to censor hate
speech?
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Gender
The relationship between gender and censorship attitudes has been slightly clearer.
In previous research, women were found to be slightly more likely to censor than
men, when there are significant differences between the two. The political toler-
ance literature, for example, has consistently found small but robust differences
between men and women, with men being more open to extending protection of
civil liberties than are women (e.g., Marcus, Sullivan, Theiss-Morse, & Wood,
1995; McCloskey & Brill, 1983; Nunn, Crockett, & Williams, 1978; Stouffer,
1955). Studies of attitudes toward sexual content in the media also replicate this
finding. Cowan (1992) found men are less favorable toward legislative control of
pornography than are women. Fisher et al. (1994) found women endorse censor-
ship of sexually explicit and sexually violent media more frequently than do men.
Gunther (1995), Hense and Wright (1992), and Rojas et al. (1996) all found
women are more likely to endorse censorship of pornography. And men expressed
more favorable views toward sexual candor in mass media presentations than did
women (Herrman & Bordner, 1983).
Bird (1997), however, found no significant gender differences in willingness to
censor hate speech, while D. M. McLeod, Eveland, and Nathanson (1997) detected
no differences in endorsement of censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics.
And for more generalized expressive rights, Andsanger and Miller (1994) and J.
M. McLeod, Sotirovic, Voakes, Guo, and Huang (1998) reported no differences
between men and women in mean levels of support.

H1: Women are more likely to censor pornography than men.

RQ2: What is the relationship between gender and willingness to censor hate
speech?

Education Level
Level of education shares a similar pattern with gender. Among the studies that
have established a relationship with education, the finding has been that more edu-
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 283

cated participants are less willing to censor. Some past research supports this con-
tention as applied to restrictions on pornography. Gunther (1995) and Thompson,
Chaffee, and Oshagen (1990) found less-educated participants express more sup-
port for regulations on pornography. Herrman and Bordner (1983) also found
more-educated participants are more accepting of sexual candor in media content.
However, a number of studies reported no observed relationship between cen-
sorship attitudes and education levels. Among these studies are two that examined
censorship of pornography specifically (Hense & Wright, 1992; Rojas et al.,
1996). Some studies measuring more general support for free expression have also
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

found insignificant results in the relationship between education level and censor-
ship (Andsanger & Miller, 1994; Hense & Wright, 1992; Immerwahr & Doble,
1982; Suedfeld et al., 1994). No studies specifically examined the relationship be-
tween willingness to censor hate speech and education level.

RQ3a: What is the relationship between education level and willingness to censor
pornography?
RQ3b: What is the relationship between education level and willingness to censor
hate speech?

Liberal–Conservative Self-Ranking
Previous studies found liberal participants are generally less willing to censor than
are conservatives. For example, conservatives were more willing to censor violent
and misogynist rap lyrics (McLeod et al., 1997) and pornography (Rojas et al.,
1996). Conservatives have also expressed opinions less supportive of free expres-
sion generally (Andsanger, 1995; J. M. McLeod et al., 1998; Paulson, 1999; Rojas
et al., 1996; Wilson, 1975).
These findings are not without question, however. Some studies have detected
no statistically significant relationship between political ideology (conserva-
tism–liberalism) and censorship attitudes in a variety of expressive contexts, in-
cluding pornography (Thompson et al., 1990), hate speech (Bird, 1997), and gen-
eral tolerance for extremist political groups (Sullivan et al., 1982). In fact, some
researchers argued the studies suggesting conservatives are more likely to be in fa-
vor of censorship are themselves ideologically biased because they include pri-
marily types of content that conservatives would want to censor (Suedfeld et al.,
1994, p. 765).
To further complicate matters, studies that have looked at moderates as well as
conservatives and liberals have found mixed results. Cowan (1992), for example,
reported participants with a moderate political ideology were most likely to en-
dorse legislative control of pornography. Similarly, a 1987 compilation of results
from a variety of national public opinion polls showed that moderate participants
are usually more willing to censor than either conservatives or liberals (“The State
 284 LAMBE

of Intolerance in America,” 1987). However, Immerwahr and Doble (1982) found

moderates were most supportive of freedom of the press. The precise relationship
of conservative versus liberal ideology, then, will likely depend on the particular
forms of expression being considered.

RQ4a: What is the relationship between a subject’s liberal–conservative self-

ranking and willingness to censor pornography?
RQ4b: What is the relationship between a subject’s liberal–conservative self-
ranking and willingness to censor hate speech?
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Religiosity
Level of religiosity has had a fairly predictable relationship with censorship atti-
tudes. Where a significant correlation has been found, participants who consider
themselves to be more religious are more willing to censor than their less religious
counterparts. This has held true across a variety of expressive contexts, including
sexually explicit media content (Fisher et al., 1994; Herrman & Bordner, 1983;
Rojas et al., 1996; Thompson et al., 1990), and general attitudes about freedom of
expression (Anderson & Reinhardt, 1987; Paulson, 1999; Rojas et al., 1996;
Thompson, 1995).
A few studies, however, have found no significant relationship between religi-
osity and censorship attitudes. For example, Rojas et al. (1996) found religiosity
did not predict attitudes toward censorship of television violence. Similarly, Cow-
an (1992) found religiosity did not help to predict whether a participant would en-
dorse legislative control of pornography. I am unaware of any studies related spe-
cifically to hate speech that examine the role of religiosity as a predictor variable.

RQ5a: What is the relationship between level of religiosity and pornography?

RQ5b: What is the relationship between level of religiosity and hate speech?

Media Use
Studies of censorship attitudes from the field of communication have examined
media usage as a predictor for censorship attitudes. The findings have been mixed.
Some of these studies found increased newspaper reading correlates with lower
willingness to censor (J. M. McLeod et al., 1998; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997; Wil-
son, 1975). J. M. McLeod et al. (1998) suggested those who watch more TV may
be more willing to censor, but Salwen and Driscoll (1997) found television use to
be uncorrelated with support for censorship. Other studies found no significant re-
lationship between media usage and censorship attitudes (e.g., Rojas et al., 1996;
Rucinski & Salmon, 1990; Salwen, 1998). From these findings, it is difficult to
predict the precise nature of the relationship between media use and willingness to
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 285

censor pornography and hate speech. In addition, the relationship between censor-
ship attitudes and Internet use is largely unexplored.

RQ6a: What is the relationship between media use and willingness to censor por-
nography?
RQ6b: What is the relationship between media use and willingness to censor hate
speech?
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Authoritarianism
Studies that examined the relationship between censorship attitudes and individual
difference variables are fairly limited. Among these studies, however, the findings
have been fairly consistent. Of these sorts of variables, authoritarianism has been
the most frequently studied. With only one exception, authoritarianism was found
to be a positive predictor of procensorship attitudes (Bird, 1997; Byrne, Cherry,
Lamberth, & Mitchell, 1973; Fisher et al., 1994; Hense & Wright, 1992; Ritts &
Engbretson, 1991; Suedfeld et al., 1994; Sullivan et al., 1982). The only deviation
from this finding is the 1996 study by Rojas et al. that found authoritarianism was
not a predictor of willingness to censor the media generally, or of willingness to
censor pornography or TV violence. With only this one exception, it is fair to ex-
pect to find a relationship between authoritarianism and willingness to censor.

H2a: Authoritarianism is positively correlated with willingness to censor por-

nography.
H2b: Authoritarianism is positively correlated with willingness to censor hate
speech.

Need for Cognition

A person’s tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking, or their Need for Cognition
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), on the other hand, is negatively correlated with pro-
censorship attitudes. Participants high in need for cognition have been found to
have higher levels of political tolerance (Marcus et al., 1995; McClosky & Brill,
1983) and to express more support for freedom of speech (Thompson, 1995).

H3a: Need for cognition is negatively correlated with willingness to censor por-
nography.
H3b: Need for cognition is negatively correlated with willingness to censor hate
speech.
 286 LAMBE

Commitment to Democratic Principles

Participants who express a strong commitment to general democratic principles
have also been found to make more tolerant civil liberties judgments (Marcus et
al., 1995). They are also more tolerant of extremist political groups (Sullivan et al.,
1982) and more supportive of freedom of speech (Thompson, 1995).

H4a: A commitment to general democratic principles is negatively related with

willingness to censor pornography.
H4b: A commitment to general democratic principles is negatively related with
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

willingness to censor hate speech.

Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness

Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness are considered by personality psycholo-
gists to be three basic personality traits (McCrae & Costa, 1984, p. 10). Previous
research in political psychology examined the relationship of these traits to mea-
sures of political tolerance (a willingness to extend civil liberties protections to
others, especially to disliked groups). Marcus et al. (1995) found neuroticism is a
negative predictor of tolerance for civil liberties generally. As such, we would ex-
pect that neuroticism would positively predict a willingness to censor pornography
and hate speech. In their regression analysis, extraversion and openness were
found to be insignificant in predicting tolerance judgments (Marcus et al., 1995).
However, it is possible that at the level of a zero-order relationship, these personal-
ity traits may predict willingness to censor hate speech or pornography.

H5a: Neuroticism is positively related with a willingness to censor pornogra-

phy.
H5b: Neuroticism is positively related with a willingness to censor hate speech.
RQ7a: What is the relationship between extraversion and willingness to censor
pornography?
RQ7b: What is the relationship between extraversion and willingness to censor
hate speech?
RQ8a: What is the relationship between openness and willingness to censor por-
nography?
RQ8b: What is the relationship between openness and willingness to censor hate
speech?

To test the robustness of the zero-order relationships examined in H1–H5 and

RQ1–RQ8, two hierarchical regressions will be run, with willingness to censor
hate speech and pornography as the dependent variables. The independent vari-
ables could moderate relationships between other independent variables and the
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 287

dependent measures in many ways. Rather than sift piecemeal through those possi-
bilities with this purposive sample, regression analyses will indicate which vari-
ables retain a significant predictive relationship for willingness to censor hate
speech and pornography when all of the other variables are simultaneously con-
trolled. It will be informative to see whether the independent variables that serve as
the strongest predictors are different for the two categories of expression. Regres-
sion analyses will also permit an examination of the amount of variance that is ex-
plained by the independent variables included in the equations.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

RQ9a: How robust are the zero-order relationships with willingness to censor
pornography?
RQ9b: How robust are the zero-order relationships with willingness to censor
hate speech?

METHOD

Participants
Due to resource limitations, a purposive sample was used for this study. A general
random sample was not financially feasible, but it was important to use a more di-
verse group than just students to achieve variance on some of the key independent
measures, especially age, education, political ideology, and religiosity. These
groups included students in an introductory mass communication course at a large
Midwestern university, parents or other adult relatives of these students, members
of a church group in another Midwestern state, teachers at an elementary school
and their spouses, members of an army reserve unit, members of a nonprofit advo-
cacy group for senior citizens, people involved in a 50+ community group in a
western state, people associated with a citizen advocacy group in a southern state,
and employees at a medium-sized business in an upper-Midwestern state. The total
was N = 541. The sample was 57% female, and the mean age was 39.

Measures
The dependent measures, willingness to censor hate speech and willingness to cen-
sor pornography, were each 7-item scales. Cronbach’s alpha for the hate speech
scale was .81; the alpha of the pornography scale was .80. The measures were con-
ceptualized as indicators of a participant’s disposition toward censorship of these
categories of expression. Psychologists who study personality from a dispositional
perspective argue that dispositions are not merely habit but rather reflect “an inter-
nal consistency” (Liebert & Liebert, 1998, p. 185). This does not mean the disposi-
tion will be evident all the time—partly because each individual has many disposi-
 288 LAMBE

tions, and also because situational variables may constrain the expression of
particular traits. However, traits reflect “tendencies to act or react in certain ways
… ” (McCrae & Costa, 1984, p. 34).
The scales were operationalized based on the theory and case law of First
Amendment jurisprudence. In their text Social Research in Communication and
Law, Cohen and Gleason (1990) noted social scientific studies involving free ex-
pression issues must “appreciate the structure and process of law sufficiently to
avoid errors of validity” (p. 37). Many previous measures of censorship attitudes
have operationalized “censorship” as any desire or effort to restrain expression.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Legally, however, censorship occurs only when the government restrains expres-
sion in some way. Accordingly, participants in this study were asked to indicate
what they believed to be the most appropriate government response in different sit-
uations. Drawing on First Amendment law, this scale incorporated five possible
government reactions to expressive behavior:

1. Prior restraint—stopping the communication before it happens; this is the

classic form of censorship.
2. Subsequent punishment—imposing fines or other penalties after the com-
munication has taken place.
3. Time, place, manner restrictions—regulating some content-neutral aspect
of expression; examples would be regulations about the volume level on a
sound truck, or not allowing a parade to march on a busy street during rush
hour.
4. Allowing—not taking any action one way or the other, thus permitting the
expression to happen by default.
5. Protection—actively ensuring that the expression will take place; for ex-
ample, by issuing some kind of order or providing police escorts.

For each of the two categories, one item was developed that would combine that
expressive context with each of seven types of media: “pure” speech, demonstra-
tions (defined as including some conduct, like picketing, as well as speech), news-
paper, magazine, television, cable, and the Internet. Each item consisted of a sce-
nario, followed by a situation-specific description of the five possible government
responses. A sample item representing the hate speech/newspaper combination
reads:

The Aryan Nation, a White-supremacist group, is publishing and distributing a news-

paper in your state.
I think state officials should:
__ close down the newspaper
__ levy a tax on special interest newspapers like this one
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 289

__ not allow the publisher to send the newspaper through the mail
__ allow the newspaper to be distributed
__ protect the publisher’s right to print and distribute the newspaper

Each scenario is adapted from an actual court case, identified through the Media
Law Reporter or Westlaw.2
In constructing the scenarios and possible responses for each item, the facts of
the cases were necessarily simplified. However, using scenarios with situation-
specific responses addressed several measurement concerns for dispositional mea-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

sures such as this one (Kline, 1986). As compared with the more traditional use of
statements like, “I support legislation to prohibit the sale of pornographic materi-
als” (Gunther, 1995), to which respondents indicate their level of agreement, the
scenarios here provided more concrete information about the situation and more
specificity as to possible government reactions.
To deal with the potential for a social desirability response bias, an effort was
made to select scenarios where there was not an obvious social or legal norm the
average citizen would be aware of. The scenarios were adapted from court cases
where the expression itself is considered to be constitutionally protected; however,
the fact that there was a court case indicates that the expression was troublesome in
some way. There are competing interests at stake in each item. In addition, the di-
rections on the survey instruct participants that they are being asked for their opin-
ions—that there are no right or wrong answers. Finally, the scenario-specific re-
sponse format itself limits the possibility for social desirability judgments. As
Triandis, Chen, and Chan (1998) noted in their study using a similar scenario-spe-
cific multiple response format, “in selecting one of the … responses, participants
have to consider the social desirability of all (the) elements, which is more difficult
than judging the social desirability of a single element” (p. 277).
In addition, a number of different state actors were incorporated in the scenarios
because censorship occurs when there is any form of government action—includ-
ing, for example, city officials, the Federal Communications Commission, police
officers, and officials at a public University. Another consideration in designing
the items was the groups presented as exercising their expressive rights. The politi-
cal tolerance literature has clearly demonstrated the group involved can have a sub-
stantial impact on individual willingness to extend civil liberties protection.
Sullivan et al. (1982) suggested using a least-liked group method to handle this is-
sue. Using this method, participants select their least-liked group and then respond

2The Media Law Reporter is a periodical published by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. It pro-

vides the text of court decisions relating to communications law, organized by speech category. Westlaw
is an online database of legal documents maintained by West Publishing Company. The items used here
were part of a larger 49-item scale. The 49-item instrument is published in full in Lambe (2002).
 290 LAMBE

to questions involving that group. This procedure was not adopted here, however,
because most groups do not naturally “fit” into different categories of expression.
For example, although the Ku Klux Klan clearly fits in the hate speech items, they
would just as clearly be out of place in pornography scenarios. In the scenarios
used here, a variety of groups were incorporated.
Both age and gender were self-reported simple measures. Participants were also
asked to indicate the highest level of education from these choices: a high school
education or less, some college or vocational school, graduate of a 4-year college,
or graduate or professional school.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Liberal–conservative self-ranking was assessed on a scale from 1 (extremely

liberal) to 7 (extremely conservative). Similarly, level of religiosity was measured
by a self-report item ranging from 1 (not religious at all) to 4 (deeply religious).
To gauge newspaper use and television news use, participants were asked to re-
port how often they read the newspaper and how often they watch television news
programs on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 4 (every day). Internet usage was
measured by participants indicating their level of agreement on a 6-point Likert-
type scale to the following statement: “I use the Internet a lot.” A high score on this
item indicated the highest level of Internet usage.
The Right-Wing Authoritarianism measure was a 6-item scale adapted from
Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996). Altemeyer (1996, p. 6) defined Right-Wing Au-
thoritarianism as the covariation of three attitudinal clusters in a person:

1. Authoritarian submission—a high degree of submission to the authorities who

are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression—a general aggressiveness, directed against various
persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities
3. Conventionalism—a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are
perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

Items included “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues
children should learn” and “Some of the best people in our country are those who
challenge our government, criticize religion, and ignore the‘normal way’ things
are supposed to be done” (this item was reverse-coded). The reliability of this scale
was .79.
The Need for Cognition scale used here was a 7-item measure adapted from
Cacioppo and Petty (1982). They define Need for Cognition as an individual dif-
ference variable that taps people’s tendency “to engage in and enjoy thinking” (p.
116). Items included “I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that
requires a lot of thinking” and “I only think as hard as I have to” (this item is re-
verse-coded). The alpha for this scale was .74.
The democratic principles scale was adapted from Marcus et al. (1995); it has
been shortened from seven to five items. In their book With Malice Toward Some:
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 291

How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments, Marcus et al. (1995) demonstrated a
person’s standing decision regarding democratic principles has both a direct and an
indirect influence on political tolerance judgments in a specific situation. They de-
fined a standing decision as a “default decision rule” (p. 59). In other words, in par-
ticular situations individuals have a “default” level of commitment to democratic
principles, and this level of commitment is an important element of their deci-
sion-making when faced with concrete civil liberties issues. Some of the items on
this scale were “No matter what a person’s political beliefs are, he is entitled to the
same legal rights and protections as anyone else” and “Society shouldn’t have to
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

put up with those who have political ideas that are extremely different from the
views of the majority” (this item was reverse-coded). The alpha for this scale was
.55.
The measures for Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness were each 10-item
scales adapted from McCrae and Costa (1984). In adults, these traits have been
considered to be stable and enduring dispositional characteristics (McCrae &
Costa, 1984, p. 40).
Neuroticism was essentially a measure of emotional (mal)adjustment (McCrae
& Costa, 1984, p. 38). McCrae and Costa described someone high in neuroticism
as apt to “anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness and vulnerability … ”
(p. 38). Items included “When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel
like I’m going to pieces” and “I rarely feel fearful or anxious” (this item was re-
verse-coded). The alpha for this scale was .86.
The trait of extraversion was a measure of an individual’s interest in people.
Those who are extraverted are more energetic, cheerful, and need excitement (Mc-
Crae & Costa, 1984, p. 38). Items from this scale included “I laugh easily” and “I
usually prefer to do things alone” (this item was reverse-coded). The alpha for this
scale was .72.
McCrae and Costa’s conception of openness can be described as a disposition
toward originality, creativity, independence, and daring (Liebert & Liebert, 1998,
p. 210). Items from this scale included “I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art
and nature” and “I don’t like to waste my time daydreaming” (this item was re-
verse-coded). The alpha for this scale was .71.

FINDINGS

Who wants to censor pornography and hate speech? The results suggest the answer
to this question is complex. In some instances, the predictor variables are quite
similar for both categories of expression. Other relationships, however, vary
widely in magnitude and valence depending on the category of expression.
The relationship between age and willingness to censor seems to be con-
text-specific. For hate speech, the relationship is negative (r = –.10, p < .05)—that
 292 LAMBE

is, the older you are, the less willing you are to endorse censorship of hate speech.
But the relationship with pornography is strongly positive (r = .27, p < .01) indicat-
ing that for this expressive context, people who are older are more willing to im-
pose government restriction of this content.
Previous research suggests women will be more likely to censor pornography
than men. The existing literature is unclear about gender differences in terms of at-
titudes about hate speech. The results here show women are more likely to censor
both pornography and hate speech than are their male counterparts (see Table 1).
The findings regarding education level and willingness to censor are somewhat
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

complex. For hate speech, the mean scores for the different educational groups fol-
low a linear pattern, where people with the highest level of education are the least
willing to censor hate speech and those with less education are increasingly more
willing to censor hate speech. With pornography, however, the pattern is somewhat
different. The least educated group, with a high school diploma or less, is still the
most willing to censor, but the next group (with some college or vocational school)
is actually the least willing to censor. Follow-up tests show these two groups are
significantly different from one another, with the two most educated groups not
differing significantly from either one (see Table 2).

TABLE 1
Gender Differences Independent Samples t-test

Men (n = 228) Women (n = 307)

Type of Expression M SD M SD t-test Statistic

Hate 1.71 .89 2.02 .89 –4.00**

Pornography 1.83 .67 2.00 .70 –2.90**

*p < .05, **p < .01

TABLE 2
Education Level One-Way Analysis of Variance

High School Some College/ Graduated Graduate or

or Less Vocational 4-Year College Professional School
Type of (n = 90) (n = 208) (n = 129) (n = 107) F-Test
Expression Group 1 M Group 2 M Group 3 M Group 4 M Statistic

Hate 2.25a 1.89b 1.81b 1.66b 7.86**

Pornography 2.11a 1.83b 1.95a,b 1.93a,b 3.48**

Note. Within each expressive context, groups with different subscripts are statistically different
from one another at the .01 level.
*p < .05, **p < .01
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 293

RQ4 asks about the relationship between a person’s self-ranking of his or her
own political views on a scale from 1 (extremely liberal) to 7 (extremely conserva-
tive). Liberal–conservative self-ranking is a positive predictor for both hate speech
(r = .20, p < .01) and pornography (r = .36, p < .01), indicating those who consider
themselves to be more conservative are more willing to censor both of these types
of speech. Although both relationships are significant at the .01 level, the magni-
tude of the relationship with pornography is distinctly larger than that of hate
speech.
The relationships with religiosity are somewhat similar to the relationship with
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

self-reported liberalism versus conservatism. Both categories of speech are posi-

tively related to religiosity, indicating the more religious participants consider
themselves to be, the more willing they are to censor both of these forms of expres-
sion. Again, the magnitude of the relationship with pornography (r = .32, p < .01)
is greater than the relationship with hate speech (r = .14, p < .01).
RQ6 asked about the relationship of media use to censorship attitudes. In previ-
ous research, different forms of media have been observed to relate differently to
attitudes about free expression. This study is no exception. Newspaper use is a neg-
ative predictor, although a statistically significant one only as it relates to hate
speech. On the other hand, increased use of television news is a positive predictor
of a willingness to censor pornography. Internet use is a negative predictor of will-
ingness to censor pornography, but not a significant predictor with regard to hate
speech (see Table 3).
H2 predicts authoritarianism will be a positive predictor of willingness to cen-
sor expression, and these results support that contention. For both hate speech (r =
.36, p < .01) and pornography (r = .53, p < .01), participants high on authoritarian-
ism are more likely to be willing to censor than participants who ranked lower on
this measure. The magnitude of the relationship is especially strong in the case of
attitudes about pornography.
H3 predicts a negative relationship between participants’ need for cognition and
their willingness to censor pornography and hate speech. This hypothesis is sup-
ported, as both hate speech (r = –.23, p < .01) and pornography (r = –.24, p < .01)

TABLE 3
Pearson Correlations With Media Use

Type of Expression Newspaper Usea Television News Usea Internet Useb

Hate speech –.17** –.01 .03

Pornography –.05 .15** –.22**
aCoded for how often medium is used; 1=almost never, 4=every day
bCoded for agreement with statement “I use the Internet a lot”; 1=disagree strongly, 6=agree
strongly
*p < .05, **p < .01
 294 LAMBE

were negatively related to need for cognition. The magnitude of the relationship is
quite similar for the two types of expression.
The democratic principles scale is a strong negative predictor of willingness to
censor hate speech and pornography, indicating those who have a strong standing
commitment to democratic principles are less likely to be willing to censor. The
magnitude of the relationship is stronger for hate speech (r = –.54, p < .01) than for
pornography (r = –.36, p < .01).
For the neuroticism scale there is a positive relationship with willingness to
censor hate speech, but a statistically insignificant relationship with willingness to
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

censor pornography (see Table 4).

The extraversion scale is not a significant predictor for either the willingness to
censor hate speech or pornography. There appears to be very little relationship be-
tween this personality trait and an individual’s willingness to censor.
Of these three personality traits—neuroticism, extraversion, and openness—
openness shows the strongest relationship with willingness to censor hate speech
and pornography. Openness is a negative predictor for both expressive contexts, in-
dicating those who are more open are less willing to censor.
RQ9 asks about the robustness of the zero-order relationships examined in the
prior research questions and hypotheses. Regression analysis provides an indica-
tion of what variables remain significant predictors of willingness to censor hate
speech and pornography when the other independent variables are also taken into
account (see Table 5).
In regards to variance in the willingness to censor pornography, 39% is ac-
counted for by the variables included in the regression equation. Right-wing au-
thoritarianism has the largest beta weight in the equation. Standing commitment to
democratic principles (negatively related) and age (positively related) are the next
largest contributors. Gender and level of religiosity are the only other independent
variables that remain statistically significant in the regression equation.
The regression equation for hate speech accounts for 34% of the variance in
these attitudes. Standing commitment to democratic principles has by far the larg-
est beta weight, much larger than its beta weight for pornography. Other significant
predictors of attitudes about hate speech are right-wing authoritarianism (a posi-
tive predictor), gender, and level of religiosity. Unlike attitudes about pornography,
age is not a significant predictor in the hate speech equation.

TABLE 4
Pearson Correlations with “Big 3” Personality Traits

Type of Expression Neuroticism Extraversion Openness

Hate speech .15** –.01 –.23**

Pornography .01 –.06 –.36**

*p < .05, **p < .01

 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 295

TABLE 5
Regression Analysis for Predictors of Hate Speech
and Pornography

Hate Porn.

Age –.06 .16**

Gender .13*** .12**
Education –.03 .03
Liberal–Conservative .00 .03
Level of religiosity .08* .15***
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Newspaper use –.04 –.04

TV News use –.05 –.07
Internet use .04 –.07
Right-Wing authoritarianism .18** .33***
Need for cognition –.05 –.02
Democratic principles –.42*** –.16***
Neuroticism –.01 –.01
Extraversion –.04 –.00
Openness .03 –.06
Total R2 .34*** .39***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

DISCUSSION

The goal of this project is to increase understanding of the contours of public opin-
ion about censorship of hate speech and pornography, so as to improve our ability
to modify these attitudes when desired. To influence these attitudes, it is important
to identify the characteristics of people who hold them.
The first set of analyses examined the zero-order relationships between willing-
ness to censor hate speech and pornography and a series of independent variables
important in previous studies of free expression issues. These analyses show that
many different variables are related to attitudes about censoring hate speech and
pornography, and those relationships are complex. For example, older people are
less willing to censor hate speech than younger people. However, this direction is
reversed in the case of pornographic content. And neuroticism is a predictor of atti-
tudes about censoring hate speech, but not pornography. Identifying these sorts of
distinctions is the aim of this study. But it is only a first step; additional research is
needed to explain why the observed differences occur.
The regression analyses showed that participants’ general commitment to dem-
ocratic principles, as well as their level of authoritarianism, are important predic-
tors of attitudes about hate speech and pornography—although the magnitude of
the relationships varied depending on the category of expression. Level of religios-
ity and gender are the other two independent variables that retain predictive power
in both equations. Age remained a significant predictor only in the pornography
equation. These findings remind us that, in designing efforts to increase public tol-
 296 LAMBE

erance for expression in particular situations, it is important to remember those

calling for censorship are likely to differ depending on the particular category of
expression at issue. Therefore, efforts should be made to examine attitudes among
different segments of the population, so as to identify and address their specific
concerns. Although the public agrees in principle with the concept of freedom of
expression, in specific situations First Amendment advocates must be prepared to
explain why the potential detrimental effects of censorship should outweigh the
possible consequences of allowing the expression to occur. Conversely, if con-
cerned citizens believe the harms of allowing free expression are too great in par-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

ticular situations, they need to be prepared to address the concerns of those who
support free expression.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The purposive nature of this sample limits the generalizability of the results. The
sample was chosen to provide variance on several key independent variables—es-
pecially age, education, political ideology, and religiosity—and so the relation-
ships observed between these variables and willingness to censor hate speech and
pornography should not be discounted. However, further testing should be con-
ducted with a random sample more representative of the U.S. population to im-
prove confidence in their generalizability. In addition, a national sample would
provide variance on other independent variables that may be related to censorship
attitudes, such as race and geographic or regional differences.
In addition to sampling issues, it is important to keep in mind the dependent
measures used here yield correlational data, and it is therefore impractical to make
claims about the causal relationship of the independent variables to attitudes about
censoring hate speech and pornography. However, establishing that a relationship
exists is a valuable starting point for identifying those who might be responsive to
persuasive attempts to increase (or decrease) their support for freedom of expres-
sion in particular circumstances. The causality and contours of these relationships
can then be explored further using experimental methodologies. Also, an examina-
tion of the antecedents of censorship attitudes using the techniques of social cogni-
tive research may help to explore the mechanism for observed differences between
particular groups. For example, exploration of how different people think about
these issues may help to explain why women are generally more willing to censor
than are men.
On a related point, it would be helpful to do some qualitative work regarding
censorship attitudes about hate speech and pornography. Interviews, for example,
could reveal the schemas people use to organize their thoughts about free expres-
sion issues and whether or not those schemas are compatible with existing law. For
example, do people make a distinction between government censorship and private
efforts to curtail expression? Do people consider prior restraint to be a more severe
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 297

governmental action than subsequent punishment? Answers to questions such as

these could further clarify how the public thinks about First Amendment issues
like the censorship of hate speech and pornography.
Continued efforts to develop a more thorough understanding of the contours of
public attitudes about censoring pornography and hate speech will enable us to
more effectively safeguard our expressive freedoms. If the competing interests that
motivate people to endorse censorship can be discerned in all their complexity, it
will be possible to design more effective persuasive and educational strategies for
strengthening our collective commitment to freedom of expression.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier version of this article was presented to the Freedom & Responsibilities
of Speech Interest Group, Central States Communication Association Conference,
April 2003, Omaha, NE.

REFERENCES

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, T. R., & Reinhardt, H. (1987). The current status of freedom of expression in Minnesota.
Minneapolis: Minnesota Newspaper Foundation.
Andsanger, J. L. (1995, August). Tolerance and support for expression: The same construct? Presented
at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Communication Theory & Methodology Division, Washington, DC.
Andsanger, J. L., & Miller, M. M. (1994). Willingness of journalists and public to support freedom of
expression. Newspaper Research Journal, 15(1), 102–114.
Bird, K. L. (1997). Free speech or racist speech? Democracy, racism, and the law in France and the
United States. Unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Blasi, V. (1985). The pathological perspective and the first amendment. Columbia Law Review, 85(4),
449–514.
Bollinger, L. C. (1986). The tolerant society: Freedom of speech and extremist speech in America. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D., Cherry, F., Lamberth, J., & Mitchell, H. E. (1973). Husband–wife similarity in response to
erotic stimuli. Journal of Personality, 41, 385–394.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 42(1), 116–131.
Cohen, J., & Gleason, T. (1990). Social research in communication and law. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Commonwealth v. Trainor, 374 N.E.2d 1216 (Mass. 1978)
Cowan, G. (1992). Feminist attitudes toward pornography control. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
16, 165–177.
Demac, D. (1997). State of the first amendment. Arlington, VA: The Freedom Forum.
 298 LAMBE

Dillard, I. (Ed.). (1953). The spirit of liberty: Papers and addresses of Learned Hand. New York:
Knopf.
Erskine, H. (1970). The polls: Freedom of speech. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 483–496.
Fisher, R. D., Cook, I. J., & Shirkey, E. C. (1994). Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexu-
ally violent, and violent media. Journal of Sex Research, 31(3), 229–240.
Flynt v. State, 264 S.E.2d 669 (Ga. 1980).
Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for the censor-
ship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27–38.
Hense, R., & Wright, C. (1992). The development of the attitudes toward censorship questionnaire.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1666–1675.
Herrman, M. S., & Bordner, D. C. (1983). Attitudes toward pornography in a southern community.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Criminology, 21(3), 349–374.

Immerwahr, J., & Doble, J. (1982). Public attitudes toward freedom of the press. Public Opinion Quar-
terly, 46, 177–194.
Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. London:
Methuen.
Lambe, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of censorship: Reconceptualizing public willingness to censor. Com-
munication Law & Policy, 7(2), 187–235.
Liebert, R. M., & Liebert, L. L. (1998). Liebert & Spiegler’s personality strategies and issues (8th ed.).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., Scott, J., Shafer, B. J., et al. (1991). Estimating
community standards: The use of social science evidence in an obscenity prosecution. Public Opin-
ion Quarterly, 55, 80–112.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., Shafer, B. J., Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Discrep-
ancies between the legal code and community standards for sex and violence: An empirical chal-
lenge to traditional assumptions in obscenity law. Law & Society Review, 29(1), 127–168.
Linz, D., & Malamuth, N. (1993). Pornography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How
people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McClosky, H., & Brill, A. (1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liber-
ties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (1984). Emerging lives, enduring dispositions: Personality in adult-
hood. Boston: Little, Brown.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and
misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2),
153–174.
McLeod, J. M., Sotirovic, M., Voakes, P. S., Guo, Z., & Huang, K.-Y. (1998). A model of support for
first amendment rights. Communication Law & Policy, 3(4), 479–514.
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
Nunn, C. Z., Crockett, H. J., & Williams, J. A. (1978). Tolerance for nonconformity: A national survey
of Americans’ changing commitment to civil liberties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paulson, K. A. (1999). State of the first amendment 1999. Nashville, TN: Freedom Forum First Amend-
ment Center.
Pember, D. (2003). Mass media law. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
People v. Nelson, 410 N.E.2d 476 (Ill. 1980).
Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ritts, V., & Engbretson, R. O. (1991). College student attitudes toward adult materials and the legal
rental of adult videos. College Student Journal, 25, 440–450.
Rojas, H., Shah, D. V., & Faber, R. J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person ef-
fect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 163–186.
 WHO WANTS TO CENSOR PORNOGRAPHY AND HATE SPEECH? 299

Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The ‘other’ as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person
effect in the ‘88 campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(4), 345–368.
Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person ef-
fect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259–285.
Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of press
restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47(2), 60–78.
Schell, B., & Bonin, L. (1989). Factors affecting censorship by Canadian librarians. The Journal of Psy-
chology, 123(4), 357–367.
The state of intolerance in America. (1987, July/August). Public Opinion, 21–39.
Stouffer, S. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its
mind. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 02:05 05 January 2015

Suedfeld, P., Steel, G. D., & Schmidt, P. W. (1994). Political ideology and attitudes toward censorship.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 765–781.
Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Thompson, M. E. (1995). The impact of need for cognition on thinking about free speech issues. Jour-
nalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 934–947.
Thompson, M. E., Chaffee, S. H., & Oshagan, H. H. (1990). Regulating pornography: A public di-
lemma. Journal of Communication, 40(3), 73–83.
Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. S. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism
and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2), 275–289.
Wilson, W. C. (1975). Belief in freedom of speech and press. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 69–76.
Wyatt, R. O. (1991). Free expression and the American public: A survey commemorating the 200th an-
niversary of the first amendment. Murfreesboro: Middle Tennessee State University, for The Ameri-
can Society of Newspaper Editors.
Zellman, G. L. (1975). Antidemocratic beliefs: A survey and some explanations. Journal of Social Is-
sues, 31, 31–53.