Disaster Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories -

What should the prefix to this thread be?

  • World

    Votes: 102 17.2%
  • Science

    Votes: 22 3.7%
  • Culture

    Votes: 125 21.1%
  • Disaster

    Votes: 344 58.0%

  • Total voters


Diddy in space, even though he's not
True & Honest Fan
Why do they do this? If I want ketchup and mayonnaise mixed together because I have total shit taste, I'll just mix ketchup and mayonnaise.
Curry ketchup and mayonnaise mixed together is fucking awesome man. I always use it for burgers.
  • Informative
Reactions: millais

Dracula's Spirit Animal

One time, I accidentally ate a bunch of nails
  • Feels
Reactions: millais


Switzerland got a referendum on gun control tomorrow. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/05/17/gun-control-vote-switzerland-may-19-could-take-away-swiss-weapons/1186889001/ ( http://archive.fo/fPNYN ) If the Swiss vote yes for gun control, it's a real suicide.

GENEVA – As the push for gun reform continues to trigger heated debates in the United States and elsewhere, Switzerland’s popular civilian-owned weapons have also come under fire.

In the world’s first referendum of its kind, citizens of this heavily-armed Alpine nation will head to the polls on May 19 to decide whether to accept stricter gun control measures mandated by the European Union.

Europe has long banned automatic weapons, as well as some semi-automatic ones available in the U.S.

But after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, which claimed 130 lives, the EU has made it more difficult to legally buy certain weapons throughout its 27 member states. It also created tougher rules for licensing and registration of guns.

Start the day smarter: Get USA TODAY's Daily Briefing in your inbox

Many in Switzerland are up in arms about these measures, arguing that stricter rules would not stop terrorism.

“It’s a useless regulation because none of the terrorist attacks that the EU has used to legitimize the tightening of laws has been carried out with a legal weapon,” said Luca Filippini, president of the Swiss Shooting Sport Federation.

Shooting is a popular sport in Switzerland, where families often can be seen heading for the range, carrying their rifles. The Swiss will vote on May 19, 2019 to decide if it should adopt the EU's stricter gun control rules. (Photo: Swiss Shooting Sport Federation)

Restrictions were also adopted in New Zealand after the Christchurch terrorist attack in March, where 51 people died. The country banned semiautomatic assault rifles and military-style weapons.

And in Australia, a 1997 law banned certain semi-automatic and pump-action weapons, forcing owners to sell them back to the government. That measure was passed after a killer opened fire with a semi-automatic firearm, shooting dead 35 people.

But Switzerland has not had a mass shooting since 2001, although weapons are as ubiquitous here as cheese and chocolate.

According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, there are nearly 28 guns per 100 residents. But other official sources indicate the number is much higher, as firearms purchased before 2008 need not be registered and don’t show up in statistics.

By comparison, the US has the world’s highest number of weapons, with more than 120 firearms for each 100 residents.

While recent attacks on a synagogue in Poway, Calif., the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a slew of school shootings across the nation drive much of the gun-control debate in the United States, in Switzerland gun ownership has not been a contentious issue.

That’s because mass murders are rare and school shootings non-existent in this peaceful nation of 8.5 million people, where weapons are deeply rooted in a sense of patriotic duty and national identity.

Every male is required to serve in the military, and their weapons, but not ammunition, are kept at home. People who own private guns can purchase ammunition freely, provided their weapon is registered.

“Responsible gun culture” – as the Swiss commonly refer to their sensible attitude toward weapons – also means learning to shoot and handle firearms safely from an early age.

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
Switzerland got a referendum on gun control tomorrow. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/05/17/gun-control-vote-switzerland-may-19-could-take-away-swiss-weapons/1186889001/ ( http://archive.fo/fPNYN ) If the Swiss vote yes for gun control, it's a real suicide.
What the fuck is the justification or predication for such a thing? Doesn't Switzerland have fucking ROCK BOTTOM gun crime rates? If it's the EU leaning on them for some reason they're going to get a lot more than they bargained for.
New Heinz condiment Mayochup has an unfortunate translation in Cree

🎥 Mr. Show - Mayostard / Mustardayonnaise ... - YouTube

This is relevant.

MG 620

Almost any word can means something "offensive" in one of the thousands on languages (and numerous dialects) out there.

Mister Qwerty

‘They Were Conned’: How Reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers

Over the past year, a spate of suicides by taxi drivers in New York City has highlighted in brutal terms the overwhelming debt and financial plight of medallion owners. All along, officials have blamed the crisis on competition from ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft.

But a New York Times investigation found much of the devastation can be traced to a handful of powerful industry leaders who steadily and artificially drove up the price of taxi medallions, creating a bubble that eventually burst. Over more than a decade, they channeled thousands of drivers into reckless loans and extracted hundreds of millions of dollars before the market collapsed.

These business practices generated huge profits for bankers, brokers, lawyers, investors, fleet owners and debt collectors. The leaders of nonprofit credit unions became multimillionaires. Medallion brokers grew rich enough to buy yachts and waterfront properties. One of the most successful bankers hired the rap star Nicki Minaj to perform at a family party.

But the methods stripped immigrant families of their life savings, crushed drivers under debt they could not repay and engulfed an industry that has long defined New York. More than 950 medallion owners have filed for bankruptcy, according to a Times analysis of court records. Thousands more are barely hanging on.

Over 10 months, The Times interviewed 450 people, built a database of every medallion sale since 1995 and reviewed thousands of individual loans and other documents, including internal bank records and confidential profit-sharing agreements.

The investigation found example after example of drivers trapped in exploitative loans, including hundreds who signed interest-only loans that required them to pay exorbitant fees, forfeit their legal rights and give up almost all their monthly income, indefinitely.

A Pakistani immigrant who thought he was just buying a car ended up with a $780,000 medallion loan that left him unable to pay rent. A Bangladeshi immigrant said he was told to lie about his income on his loan application; he eventually lost his medallion. A Haitian immigrant who worked to exhaustion to make his monthly payments discovered he had been paying only interest and went bankrupt.

pwnest injun

An Honest Man is Always in Trouble
The Cree are the [bitch] niggers of the different Native American tribes, so who cares.
Modified for greater accuracy.

Meanwhile in Portland...

Police identify Parkrose High student who they say carried shotgun into school

Updated May 18, 2019; Posted May 18, 2019

Angel Granados Dias was arrested on accusations of bringing a loaded shotgun into Parkrose High School on May 17, 2019. He was booked into Multnomah County's jail system just after midnight on Saturday, May 18, 2019. (Multnomah County Sheriff's Office)

Angel Granados Dias was arrested on accusations of bringing a loaded shotgun into Parkrose High School on May 17, 2019. He was booked into Multnomah County's jail system just after midnight on Saturday, May 18, 2019. (Multnomah County Sheriff's Office)

Portland police Saturday identified the teenager they say carried a loaded shotgun into Parkrose High School -- and caused a massive scare Friday -- as Angel Granados Dias.
Dias, 18, was booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center at 12:03 a.m., some 12 hours after he reportedly was subdued and taken into custody.
Police also released a photo of the shotgun they say Dias brought into the school.

Portland police seized this shotgun as evidence, as the weapon they say Angel Granados Dias brought into Parkrose High School on Friday, May 17, 2019. (Portland police)
Portland police seized this shotgun as evidence, as the weapon they say Angel Granados Dias brought into Parkrose High School on Friday, May 17, 2019. (Portland police)

Dias was lodged on accusations of possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, reckless endangerment and two counts of possession of a firearm in a public building, according to jail records. Police indicated that Dias is accused of attempting to discharge the shotgun at the school, as an element in one of the charges.
Dias is being held in lieu of $500,000 bail. He is scheduled to appear in Multnomah County Circuit Court at 2 p.m. Monday.
No one answered the door at Dias’ house Saturday. A relative who lived next door said the family isn’t ready to talk publicly.
Police on Saturday declined to answer further questions.
Parkrose School District’s superintendent didn’t return a message seeking information Saturday.
Police have not said whether any rounds were fired.
It’s unclear what the gunman’s intentions might have been -- whether he intended to hurt himself or to hurt others, too. Classmates and friends of Dias’ said he had been very sad and lonely after a breakup with his girlfriend.
According to a letter sent out by Superintendent Michael Lopes Serrao on Friday, school officials appeared to have received a heads-up about a potential danger. The superintendent wrote that earlier in the day “two Parkrose students informed a staff member of concerning behavior from one of their peers” -- prompting security staff to respond.

Gunman scare at Parkrose High School ends with no injuries, student in custody, coach applauded as hero
An 18-year-old senior — visibly distraught — had entered a classroom right before lunch wearing a black trench coat and carrying a shotgun but didn’t hurt anyone.

Senior Alexa Pope, 17, said a security guard had entered her government class in the Fine Arts Building looking for the student, whom police later identified as Dias, but didn’t find him.
Five or 10 minutes later, Pope said, the student walked into the classroom with the gun. He wasn’t pointing the gun at anyone in the room, although it did appear that he was aiming it toward himself, Pope said.
Witnesses said he wore a black trench coat and looked distraught.
“We saw that and we all couldn’t process this," Pope said. "All my classmates were just like sitting looking at him like ‘That’s our classmate. Like he wouldn’t do anything to us. He wouldn’t harm us.’”
But they were still in enormous fear. Pope said when her boyfriend yelled “Run!", she and others sprinted out through a back door of the classroom.
Witnesses say Dias was tackled and then held down by a school security guard, Keanon Lowe, until police arrived. Lowe also was a star wide receiver for the Oregon Ducks during his college years and is a track and field and football coach at Parkrose High.
No one was hurt.
Lowe has been praised as a hero. He sent out three Tweets filled with gratitude and reflecting on how he “didn’t see any other choice but to act.”

Parkrose High hero Keanon Lowe tweets ‘universe’ presented him with a test and he passed
Keanon Lowe, a Parkrose High security guard and former star Oregon Ducks football player, sent out a series of Tweets Saturday reflecting on Friday's events.

Friends and classmates say Dias had shown an interest in guns and seemed to be having a particularly tough time recently. They wonder whether his only intention Friday was to send out a cry for help.
Senior Ashton Caudle, 18, described his friend as someone who was having recent family, financial and relationship troubles, enjoyed taking long walks, once walking from the school to downtown Portland, and had an interest in guns. Caudle said the friend showed him at least twice a video he took of himself shooting an AK-47 at a chair.
Caudle said he believed it was one of several guns the friend owned and that he would routinely talk about buying gun equipment, like ammunition.
“He never struck me as someone who would harm others, but I wasn’t too sure about himself,” Caudle said. “He made some poor choices but he’s not an evil person.”
Caudle said his friend recently had said he planned to kill himself, and Caudle and others had planned to talk with a school counselor at lunch time.

It’s unclear where Dias might have acquired a gun. Some who knew him said he had remarked about being old enough to buy firearms now that his 18th birthday had passed.
Federal law bans firearms retailers from selling handguns, but not rifles or shotguns, to anyone under age 21. Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at 18.

The issue, however, is controversial.
After 17 students and staff died after a 19-year-old former student opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in February 2018, retailers large and small responded nationwide -- mostly by increasing the minimum age to buy within their stores to age 21.
Among stores announcing changes were Fred Meyer, Walmart, Dick’s Sporting Goods through its Field & Stream chain and Bi-Mart. Fred Meyer ultimately said it would stop selling guns or ammunition to people of all ages.
-- Aimee Green
Dias spoke innnn claaaaass todaaaaay! Not white = no Nazi hysteria = memory hole


Exhibits no Islamic behavior once given McNuggets
True & Honest Fan

Can “Indie” Social Media Save Us?
By Cal Newport May 18, 2019

Artisanal versions of Twitter and Facebook hope to keep the good while jettisoning the bad.
Illustration by Alvaro Dominguez; Source Illustrations by Hein Nouwens / Shutterstock

In the summer of 2016, I gave a talk at a small TEDx conference in northern Virginia. I began by admitting that I’ve never had a social-media account; I then outlined arguments for why other people should consider eliminating social media from their lives. The event organizers uploaded the video of my talk to YouTube, where it languished for a few months. Then, for unknowable reasons, it entered the viral slipstream. It was shared repeatedly on Facebook and Instagram and, eventually, viewed more than five million times. I was both pleased and chagrined by the irony of the fact that my anti-social-media talk had found such a large audience on social media.

I think of this episode as typical of the conflicted relationships many of us have with Facebook, Instagram, and other social-media platforms. On the one hand, we’ve grown wary of the so-called attention economy, which, in the name of corporate profits, exploits our psychological vulnerabilities in ways that corrode social life, diminish privacy, weaken civic cohesion, and make us vulnerable to manipulation. But we also benefit from social media and hesitate to disengage from it completely. Not long ago, I met a partner at a large law firm in Washington, D.C., who told me that she keeps Instagram on her phone because she misses her kids when she travels; browsing pictures of them makes her feel better. Meanwhile, because she also worries about her phone usage, she’s instituted a rule that requires her, before looking at Instagram, to read for at least thirty minutes. Last year, she read fifty-five books. Many of us have similar stories. Even as we dream of abandoning social media, we search for ways to redeem it.

In recent months, some of the biggest social-media companies have begun searching for this redemption, too. Facebook and Twitter, in particular, have promised various reforms. In March, Mark Zuckerberg announced a plan to move his platform toward private communication protected by end-to-end encryption; later that month, he proposed the establishment of a third-party group to set standards for acceptable content. Around the same time, Jack Dorsey brought one of Twitter’s head lawyers onto Joe Rogan’s podcast to better explain the platform’s evolving standards for banning users. Legislators are also getting involved. Elizabeth Warren shared a plan for breaking up tech giants like Facebook; others admire the European Union’s sweeping and byzantine General Data Protection Regulation, which deploys aggressive fines to coerce companies into better protecting user privacy.
All of these approaches assume that the reformation of social media will be an intricate, lengthy, and incremental process involving lawyers, Ph.D.s, and government experts. But not everyone sees it that way. Alongside these official responses, a loose collective of developers and techno-utopians that calls itself the IndieWeb has been creating another alternative. The movement’s affiliates are developing their own social-media platforms, which they say will preserve what’s good about social media while jettisoning what’s bad. They hope to rebuild social media according to principles that are less corporate and more humane.

Proponents of the IndieWeb offer a fairly straightforward analysis of our current social-media crisis. They frame it in terms of a single question: Who owns the servers? The bulk of our online activity takes places on servers owned by a small number of massive companies. Servers cost money to run. If you’re using a company’s servers without paying for the privilege, then that company must be finding other ways to “extract value” from you—and it’s that quest for large-scale value extraction, they argue, that leads directly to the crises of compromised privacy and engineered addictiveness with which we’re currently grappling.

In their view, freedom of expression is also affected by server ownership. When you confine your online activities to so-called walled-garden networks, you end up using interfaces that benefit the owners of those networks; on social media, this means that you are forced to choose among what the techno-philosopher Jaron Lanier has called “multiple-choice identities.” According to this way of thinking, sites like Facebook and Instagram encourage conformism because it makes your data easier to process and monetize. This creates the exhausting sense that you’re a worker in a data factory rather than a three-dimensional individual trying to express yourself and connect with other real people in an organic way online.
When the problem is framed this way, the solution promoted by the IndieWeb movement becomes obvious: own your own servers. On a smaller scale, this is an old idea. For the past twelve years, I’ve hosted my personal blog using a server that I lease in a Michigan data center; I’ve enjoyed knowing that I own what I post there and that no one is trying to monetize my data or exploit my attention. And yet, running a personal blog that you write yourself is quite different from running a social network. To create social platforms that work on servers owned by users rather than big corporations, the IndieWeb developers have had to solve a tricky technical problem: decentralization.

In 2017, Manton Reece, an IndieWeb developer based in Austin, Texas, launched a Kickstarter for a service called Micro.blog. On its surface, Micro.blog looks a lot like Twitter or Instagram; you can follow users and see their posts sorted into a time line, and, if you like a post, you can send a reply that everyone can see. When I checked Micro.blog’s public time line recently, the top post was a picture of a blooming dogwood tree, with the caption “Spring is coming!”

Even as it offers a familiar interface, though, everyone posting to Micro.blog does so on his or her own domain hosted on Micro.blog’s server or on their own personal server. Reece’s software acts as an aggregator, facilitating a sense of community and gathering users’ content so that it can be seen on a single screen. Users own what they write and can do whatever they want with it—including post it, simultaneously, to other competing aggregators. IndieWeb developers argue that this system—which they call POSSE, for “publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere”—encourages competition and innovation while allowing users to vote with their feet. If Reece were to begin aggressively harvesting user data, or if another service were to start offering richer features, users could shift their attention from one aggregator to another with little effort. They wouldn’t be trapped on a platform that owns everything they’ve written and is doing everything it can to exploit their data and attention.

Mastodon, another popular IndieWeb service, exists in the middle ground between centralized and decentralized social media. Founded, in 2016, by a young programmer named Eugen Rochko, Mastodon offers an experience similar to the one available on existing social-media platforms: after setting up an account on a Mastodon server—called an “instance”—one can post and browse text and images presented in a chronological time line. What distinguishes Mastodon is that anyone can download the software and begin running their own instance. When you set up an account with Mastodon, you do so on a specific instance that becomes your home; you see the posts of others users on your home instance, and they see yours. Together, the independent instances make up a “federation.” A “federation protocol” allows independent instances to talk with each other, so that a user with an account on infosec.exchange, say—“a Mastodon instance for info/cyber-security-minded people”—can follow updates from a user on queer.party. Most Mastodon users, however, tend to focus their online interactions on a small number of instances representing communities to which they feel a strong connection.

Each Mastodon instance can set its own rules about formats, acceptable speech, privacy, and other issues. The rules of the infosec.exchange instance, for example, emphasize civility (“don’t be a jerk”), while the queer.party instance allows not-safe-for-work content. As Rochko explains on his Patreon page, this model aims to return “control of the content distribution channels to the people.”

Because most Mastodon instances are small—typically, each numbers a couple of thousand users—and crowdfunded by their members, they feel different from mass social media, with an enticing free-form energy reminiscent of the Internet’s early days. The contrast between this atmosphere and the one found on existing social networks is striking. Thanks to its cavernous scale and the dynamics of retweet-driven virality, Twitter has devolved into a place where users seem desperate for attention, shouting at influencers and competing to see whose snark is most cutting. Mastodon, at least for now, is a human-scale environment in which users are happy to chat about quirky things with other quirky people. Recently, when I logged into the Mastodon instance sunbeam.city—a “Libertarian Socialist solarpunk instance”—I found a photo of someone’s blooming spider plant next to a conversation about the consequences of ethical transparency in hierarchical systems. It struck me as the quintessential early-Internet experience.
Could the IndieWeb movement—or a streamlined, user-friendly version of it to come—succeed in redeeming the promise of social media? If we itemize the woes currently afflicting the major platforms, there’s a strong case to be made that the IndieWeb avoids them. When social-media servers aren’t controlled by a small number of massive public companies, the incentive to exploit users diminishes. The homegrown, community-oriented feel of the IndieWeb is superior to the vibe of anxious narcissism that’s degrading existing services. And, in a sense, decentralization also helps solve the problem of content moderation. One reason Mark Zuckerberg has called for the establishment of a third-party moderation organization is, presumably, that he’s realized how difficult it is to come up with a single set of guidelines capable of satisfying over a billion users; the IndieWeb would allow many different standards to emerge, trusting users to gravitate toward the ones that work for them. Decentralization still provides corners in which dark ideas can fester, but knowing that there’s a neo-Nazi Mastodon instance out there somewhere may be preferable to encountering neo-Nazis in your Twitter mentions. The Internet may work better when it’s spread out, as originally designed.

Despite its advantages, however, I suspect that the IndieWeb will not succeed in replacing existing social-media platforms at their current scale. For one thing, the IndieWeb lacks the carefully engineered addictiveness that helped fuel the rise of services like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. This addictiveness has kept people returning to their devices even when they know there are better uses for their time; remove the addiction, and you might lose the users.

It may be, too, that people who are uneasy about social media aren’t looking for a better version of it but are instead ready to permanently reduce the role that smartphone screens play in their lives. Many of those who flocked to social media out of a sense of exuberance or experimentation are now losing interest. Some are people my age, who signed up for services like Facebook in college but now have families and responsibilities in their real-world communities and find the obligation to like posts or comment on photos increasingly superfluous. Others are older people who tried social media later in life, when it seemed like the thing to do, but now doubt that it’s worth the effort. Increasing numbers of teen-agers are rejecting the ceaseless pressure for digital performance; in March, Edison Research released a report claiming that young people made up the largest share of the fifteen million users Facebook has lost since 2017. To be sixteen and offline has become countercultural.

At the end of my TEDx talk, I note that people often ask me what life is like without social media. By way of an answer, I project a photograph of a bench overlooking a quiet pastoral landscape. As a technology enthusiast, I’m a believer in the IndieWeb movement and think it will play an important role in the future of the Internet. For the exhausted majority of social-media users, however, the appeal of the proverbial quiet bench might outweigh the lure of a better Facebook. In this vision of the future, there will be many more social-media platforms but far fewer people spending significant time on any of them. Social media has reshaped our culture, and this has convinced us that it is fundamentally appealing. Strip away its most manipulative elements, though, and we may find that it’s less rewarding than it seems.
Last edited:


'Went for chicken and ended up with beef!' Shocking moment brawl erupts over a KFC disabled parking space as one woman brandishes a HAMMER and another her UGG boot

This is the shocking moment a woman tried to hit a young girl with a hammer during a fight that appears to be over a disabled parking space.

Shocking video shows the red-haired woman grab a hammer from her car boot before holding the young woman, who claimed she was 16, in a headlock.

The fight between four motorists reportedly happened at a KFC in Liverpool.

A woman tried to hit a young girl with a hammer, before it was taken from her by a friend, during a fight that appeared to be over a disabled parking space

The woman in beige then accused the young girl of taking her hairband and attempted to get into her car shouting 'Give me that hairband!'

Disturbing footage shows two woman, one wearing beige and the other orange, fighting with a young man and girl.

They are standing between their cars, which are parked sideways over two disabled spaces.

The woman in orange can be seen punching the man in the face while the other, in beige, tries to hit him on the head with her phone.

Next, the woman in beige opens her car boot and grabs a hammer. She marches back over and puts the young girl in a headlock who screams 'Get off me now!'

She hits the woman in beige in the face with her UGG boots as the woman brandishes the hammer.

The fight reportedly broke out at a Liverpool KFC car park when the two cars stopped across two disabled spaces

After the young girl gets in the car to avoid her attacker, the woman in beige marches over and opens the door before attacking the young girl

The man tells her to get off the young girl and stands between them as she shouts 'Get her f****** off me now!'

As the woman in beige gives the hammer to the woman in orange, the young girl gets back into her car to avoid the fight.

But the other woman hasn't finished yet. She marches over and demands her hairband back.

'Give me that hairband!', she shouts. 'Give her her hairband now!,' shouts her friend wearing orange, 'where's her hairband?!'

The woman in beige then flings open the car door and tries to hit the young girl who screams 'help!' from inside the car and tries to kick her.

In the video the woman can be seen trying to punch the young girl inside the car.

A man then arrives and breaks up the fight, telling the woman in beige 'Hey, f*** off! What do you know?!'

The video was uploaded to social media yesterday following the fight at a KFC car park.


break these cuffs

purple city byrdgang
'Went for chicken and ended up with beef!' Shocking moment brawl erupts over a KFC disabled parking space as one woman brandishes a HAMMER and another her UGG boot

MPs are furiously writing up common sense hammer regulations as we speak.
  • Feels
Reactions: FierceBrosnan

break these cuffs

purple city byrdgang
Questions and responses screenshotted in spoiler
Full report attached
As college students across the United States continue to test the limits and protections of the First Amendment, a new report by College Pulse reveals that students show support for these rights, but are divided on whether it’s more important to promote an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups or to protect the extremes of free speech. Opinions sharply diverge by gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation and religion.

Supported by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the report used a mobile app and web portal to survey 4,407 full-time college students enrolled in four-year degree programs in December 2018. It builds on previous surveys of college students and their views on the First Amendment supported by Knight in 2016 and 2018.

The report showed that more than half (53 percent) of students favor protecting free speech rights, while nearly as many (46 percent) say it’s important to promote an inclusive and welcoming society. At the same time, 58 percent of students said that hate speech should continue to be protected under the First Amendment while 41 percent disagree. The report’s exploration of perceptions by race, gender, sexual orientation and religion further highlight stark differences in student views on these issues.

“There is a new class of students on college campuses, increasingly varied in background and ideology, who are grappling with the reach and limits of free speech and what it means in the 21st century. Studying their views is key to understanding the impact that they may have on rights that are fundamental to our democracy,” said Sam Gill, Knight Foundation vice president for learning and communities.

Other key findings include:

Opinions on whether it’s more important to promote an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups or to protect free speech are sharply divided by gender, race and religion.
  • Nearly six in 10 college women say that promoting an inclusive society is the more important value, versus 28 percent of college men. Seventy-one percent of college men favor protecting free speech over inclusivity, while only 41 percent of college women express this view.
  • Black college students are more likely than students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds to say that inclusivity is a more important value than free speech. More than six in 10 black college students agree that promoting an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups is more important than protecting free speech. Forty-nine percent of Hispanic students and 42 percent of white students hold the same view.
  • A majority of white (58 percent) students and half (50 percent) of Hispanic students say that protecting free speech rights should be the higher priority.
  • A majority of Mormon (81 percent), white evangelical Protestant (71 percent), white mainline Protestant (64 percent), and Catholic students (62 percent) say that protecting free speech is more important than promoting inclusivity. In contrast, a majority of Jewish students (65 percent), students who are members of East Asian religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism (60 percent), and religiously unaffiliated students (54 percent) say that promoting a welcoming, inclusive society is more important.
Most college students agree that hate speech, defined as “attacks [on] people based on their race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation,” ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Opinions diverge by gender, race and sexual orientation.

  • Nearly six in 10 college students believe hate speech should be protected, while 41 percent disagree.
  • A majority (53 percent) of college women say that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment, while 46 percent say it should. In contrast, 74 percent of college men say hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
  • A majority of white (62 percent) students agree that hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment. In contrast, less than half (48 percent) of black college students believe that hate speech should be protected, while 51 percent say it should not. Similarly, about half (52 percent) of Hispanic students say hate speech should be protected, while 47 percent disagree.
  • Sixty-four percent of heterosexual students say that hate speech should be protected, while only 35 percent of gay and lesbian college students agree.
College students largely agree that the political and social climate on college campuses prevents some students from saying what they really believe because they’re afraid of offending their classmates.
  • Sixty-eight percent of college students say their campus climate precludes students from expressing their true opinions because their classmates might find them offensive; 31 percent disagree.
Students largely don’t trust the news media to cover current events accurately, and political affiliation is a big determinant of views on media trust.
  • Nearly half of students (45 percent) report not having much confidence in the media to report the news accurately, while 14 percent say they do not trust the media at all. This reflects a decline in trust from 2017, when half (50 percent) of college students said that they trusted the media to report the news accurately and fairly.
  • Only 37 percent of white college students express at least a fair amount of confidence in the media’s ability to report the news accurately, versus 42 percent of black students and 45 percent of Hispanic students.
  • A majority (58 percent) of college students who identify as Democrat say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in the media to be accurate. In contrast, only one-third of college students who identify as politically independent report having at least a fair amount of confidence in the media, while only 24 percent of college students who identify as Republican say the same. Nearly half of Republican college students say they do not have much confidence in the media’s accuracy, while 26 percent report having no confidence at all.
Young people are generally supportive of free speech protections and skeptical about actions taken to disrupt speakers from engaging the campus community, but there are significant divisions by gender and race.
  • Thirty-two percent of students say that it is always acceptable to engage in protests against speakers who are invited to campus, while 60 percent say this type of activity is sometimes acceptable. Only 8 percent say it is never acceptable.
  • More than half (53 percent) of white students say it is never acceptable to try and prevent speakers on campus from expressing their views while fewer Hispanic (41 percent), black (38 percent) and Asian Pacific Islander students (37 percent) agree.
  • Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of white male students say shouting down speakers is never acceptable a view shared by fewer than half (45 percent) of white female students.
“This study allowed us to meet students where they are, engaging them on a digital survey and analytics platform, that allowed them to answer questions freely, without the pressure of an interviewer," said College Pulse CEO Terren Klein. "Our unique approach can help our nation’s political, academic, and business leaders gain access to reliable, real-time insights into the shifting attitudes of today’s young people.”

The study sought to better understand how U.S. college students interpret their First Amendment rights balanced against promoting a more diverse and inclusive learning environment. Importantly, its exploration of differing opinions by race, political affiliation, gender and sexual orientation provide a deeper look into the competing views and habits that can have an effect on the freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees.

This report is part of Knight Foundation’s efforts to promote press freedom and information access and ensure that the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are preserved. Knight Foundation has made many investments in this area, and supported the launch of the Knight First Amendment Institute in collaboration with Columbia University.

To read the full report visit: kf.org/freespeech19
1a survey 1.png
1a survey 2.png
1a survey 3.png



Angry Conservative Faggot
True & Honest Fan
The constitution deserves far more study in public education and college. Kids would benefit from learning Constitutional and standard Criminal law. There's no ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
The constitution deserves far more study in public education and college. Kids would benefit from learning Constitutional and standard Criminal law. There's no ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Is civics considered an elective course in HS these days? Been a while since I've been through that crap.

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino