[PEN-L:11135] Re: 1/3 in poll say there's too much free speech protection

[Len Wilson <lbw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06-Jul-97 Michael Eisenscher wrote:

> Bias can enter the polling process at many points:
> in selecting the sample, constructing the questions, ordering the questions,
> in the race/gender/ethnicity of the pollsters, whether polling is done in
> person, by mail, by phone, etc.  It is not witchcraft but one should be
> quite cautious in treating survey research as "science."

Polling is a valuable tool in the social and behavioral sciences and
polls should be considered as "experiments". As with all other kinds of
experiments, the validity of their results can only be adequately judged
when one examines their structure and conduct for adherence to scientific
methods.

> I've seen survey
> results some years back that showed a fairly large proportion of respondents
> who, when presented with the Bill of Rights, thought it was some sort of
> subversive tract.

There are many who know exactly what it is and still believe it's "subversive".

> Let me also share comments I received from a friend who is not on this list.
> He observes:
>
> "The meaning of this poll is tricky.  A lot of people who want to restrict the
> First Amendment want to do so because of their concerns about pornography,
> advertising alcohol and cigarettes, etc.

Designing a poll to measure our opinions about first amendment issues
would be a very "tricky" task. It would be difficult to construct questions
that wouldn't themselves establish a particular context for the subject's
response.

A psychology instructor I had likened this kind of general problem to
some of the difficulties encountered by physical scientists in, for
example, measuring the speed of sub-atomic particles where the very act
of measuring it might change it.

> "Question:  does the First Amendment protect those kinds of speech?  Alexander
> (Meiklejohn), in an unfortunately relatively obscure book, argues that it
> doesn't.  The absolute protection of the First Amendment, according to him,
> is for political speech having to do with self-government, not commercial
> speech."
>
> Comments?

It's not difficult to imagine situations where my material well-being, i.e.,
survival, might depend on my right to speak "commercially".


Len Wilson
IAM LL 1886