Yikes. Some of these results are open to interpretation because the question doesn't really drill down too far. If kids think that "bullying" is synonymous with "specific threats of physical violence," they'd be right that free speech protections wouldn't apply. But if they think that "you're fugly" taunts or "gay people are degenerate sinners" assertions rise to the level of speech that can be banned or criminalized, we're in more serious trouble.
Students are less disposed than ever to believe that the First Amendment's safeguards of fundamental rights are too excessive. That's reassuring, but only to a point. AP mines another nugget from the results: "Worse yet, when the Knight Foundation asked students whether free speech is more important than protecting someone from being offended, just 64 percent said yes — a majority, sure, but not even a two-thirds majority."
Do conservatives want these terms and standards set by hysterical triggered snowflakes who value "protection" from ideas over free speech? And do liberals want those definitions determined and enforced by, say, a thin-skinned populist/conservative president with little tolerance for criticism of any sort?