Do liberals or do conservatives in the US want to take away free speech
Executive summary
There is no single answer in current reporting: commentators, think tanks, and polls show both liberals and conservatives have at times supported policies or practices critics say restrict speech, and major institutions warn of threats coming from both government action and private moderation [1] [2] [3]. Polling shows a partisan split in who Americans trust to protect free speech and growing public concern that freedom of speech in the U.S. is eroding [4] [5].
1. Two distinct arguments about “who wants to take away free speech”
One line of argument accuses liberals of seeking censorship through calls to limit hate speech, regulate misinformation, or impose campus speech rules; advocates of this view point to campaigns to moderate content or to pressure institutions and say those actions amount to curbs on speech [6] [1]. A separate and competing argument accuses conservatives of using state power or legal change to restrict protest, classroom content, or to weaponize speech doctrines in ways that consolidate influence [1] [3]. Both narratives are present in contemporary coverage, and different sources emphasize different threats [1].
2. What the polling and indexes show about public perceptions
Surveys and indexes reveal partisans see the problem differently: conservative respondents are more likely to believe certain leaders will protect free speech, while liberals are more skeptical; and recent polling finds a growing share of Americans say free speech is doing badly compared with previous years [4] [5]. Separate public-opinion work cited in reporting suggests a large majority value free speech in the abstract but also support limits for some kinds of harmful speech, creating tension in how the public weighs trade-offs [7].
3. Private platforms vs. government action — where the split matters
A recurring theme in the sources is that liberals and conservatives focus on different arenas: conservatives increasingly warn about private-platform moderation, corporate gatekeeping and campaign finance rules that they say limit conservative voices [8] [3], while many on the left emphasize government or societal harms from disinformation and hate, arguing for regulation or community standards to protect vulnerable groups [2] [1]. Legal scholarship notes this is not a tidy left/right split — positions vary by context and over time [8].
4. Courts, regulations, and the political realignment of free-speech defenders
Legal and academic analyses document shifting alliances: conservative majorities on the Supreme Court have expanded certain free-speech doctrines that favor deregulation, while some liberal scholars and groups press for targeted limits on speech they view as dangerous; commentators trace an evolution in which defenders of unfettered free expression can appear on either side depending on the issue [9] [3]. This institutional tug-of-war complicates the charge that one side uniformly “wants to take away free speech” [9].
5. Campus controversies and culture-war flashpoints
Higher-education reporting and organization statements show campuses remain a central battleground: some critics argue universities have moved from havens of free speech to zones of speech restriction via speech codes and complaint systems; others contend pressure from organized groups and social-media dynamics is forcing limits on harassment and hate speech [10]" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[10] [1]. Both positions are supported in the literature, and the debate over whether measures are protection or suppression is ongoing [10]" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[10].
**6. Practical implications — where Americans see risk and what gets proposed**
Policy-focused outlets warn of two practical risks: overbroad government rules to police online speech and regulatory overreach that could curb expression [2] [11], and private-sector moderation or social pressure that can de-platform voices and narrow public debate [8]. Proposals range from executive orders and laws to protect speech from government interference to calls for stronger platform accountability and clearer legal rules — each proposal carries trade-offs highlighted by different sources [12] [2] [11].
7. Bottom line for the original question
Available reporting does not support a simple claim that either “liberals” or “conservatives” uniformly want to take away free speech; instead, mainstream sources show both sides have, in various contexts, supported measures critics call restrictive and defended speech when it suits their aims [1] [3]. Public anxiety, partisan trust gaps, and institutional shifts mean debates about limits, platforms, and government power will continue to shape who is perceived as threatening free expression [4] [5].
Limitations: this analysis synthesizes the provided reporting and scholarly commentary; available sources do not mention every example or all recent legal rulings, so specific local incidents or later developments are not covered here (not found in current reporting).