So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast takes an uncensored look at the world of free expression through the law, philosophy, and stories that define your right to free speech. Hosted by FIRE’s Nico Perrino.
New episodes post every other Thursday.
php/* */ ?>
So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast takes an uncensored look at the world of free expression through the law, philosophy, and stories that define your right to free speech. Hosted by FIRE’s Nico Perrino.
New episodes post every other Thursday.
Copyright: © All rights reserved
What is the Federal Communications Commission, and why does its chairman think the agency can regulate Jimmy Kimmel’s jokes?
Note: Shortly after recording this episode, Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would return “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to their stations.
Joining us:
Anna Gomez, FCC Commissioner
Ronnie London, FIRE General Counsel
Bob Corn-Revere, FIRE Chief Counsel
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
04:46 What’s the FCC?
07:35 What’s the “public interest” standard?
14:20 What is the “fairness doctrine”?
25:21 What is the “broadcast hoax” rule?
28:55 What is “news distortion”?
35:31 Role of network affiliates
41:15 What happens now?
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
FIRE staff also take your questions on Charlie Kirk's assassination, President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times, cancel culture, and more.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments that "hate speech" is distinct from "free speech"
02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people for "hate speech"?
05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas?
07:19 President Trump's response to Pam Bondi's “hate speech” remarks
08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats” free speech?
11:22 What about doxxing?
15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the assassination of Charlie Kirk?
21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response to their commentary on Kirk's assassination
28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had towards Kirk ahead of the assassination?
30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech under the incitement standard
31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of citizens and non-citizens?
36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a wide range of behaviors and actions?
37:40 What is the Trump's administration's legal strategy with the New York Times lawsuit?
39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for their political commentary?
46:50 What is Charlie Kirk's legacy on free speech?
50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members?
52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free speech?
56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York Times?
59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on social media and promote civil discourse?
Joining us:
Ronnie London, general counsel
Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar, global expression
Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy
We’re joined by award-winning author, Charles (Charlie) Slack, to discuss his book, Liberty’s First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech.
Slack focuses on the infamous Sedition Act of 1798, which sparked the first major controversy over freedom of speech in America.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro (including note about Charlie Kirk)
03:59 Book origins
12:05 What were the Alien and Sedition Acts?
16:00 Prosecutions under the Act and their free speech implications
25:35 Free speech during the Revolutionary era
28:14 Adams’ perspective on the Sedition Act
46:02 Was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase a partisan hack?
53:57 Sedition Act fallout
01:01:02 Outro
Read the transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-americas-first-free-speech-crisis-sedition-act-1798
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
What are the limits of presidential power? How many days has it been since President Trump’s TikTok ban moratorium went into place? What is the state of the conservative legal movement? And where did former FIRE president David French go on his first date?
French and Sarah Isgur of the popular legal podcast “Advisory Opinions” join the show to answer these questions and discuss the few free speech issues where they disagree with FIRE.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:18 Origin story of “Advisory Opinions”
08:15 Disagreements between FIRE and AO
15:04 Why FIRE doesn’t editorialize on the content of speech
24:27 Limits of presidential power
43:30 Free speech, the dread of tyrants
51:01 The prosecution of political figures
58:01 Cracker Barrel
01:00:09 State of the conservative legal movement
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
We know the First Amendment protects hate speech. But has it always done so? And how have civil rights groups responded when their members are the target of hate speech?
University of Iowa Law Professor Samantha Barbas is the author of a new law review article, “How American Civil Rights Groups Defeated Hate Speech Laws.”
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
04:04 “The Birth of a Nation” movie controversy
12:44 Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic “Dearborn Independent”
22:41 American Jewish Committee’s “quarantining” solution
28:41 ACLU’s Eleanor Holmes Norton defending a racist in court
33:42 Racist Senate candidate J.B. Stoner
37:28 Neo-Nazis and Skokie
47:20 Why are college students afraid of saying “the wrong thing?”
52:31 Barbas’ favorite free speech literature
53:15 Barbas’ free speech hero
Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-civil-rights-hate-speech-and-first-amendment.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
Morris Ernst, free speech renegade (Barbas’ previous So to Speak appearance, July 29, 2021)
2025 has not been kind to Harvard.
To date, the Trump administration has revoked nearly $3 billion in research funding to the university, demanding violations of free speech, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy in return for restoring the funding. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit, raising First Amendment claims.
Helping us unpack all things Harvard are:
Larry Summers, President Emeritus, professor (Harvard) & advisory council member (FIRE)
Greg Lukianoff, President & CEO (FIRE)
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:32 Harvard’s disputes with the Trump administration
08:29 The need for internal reforms at Harvard
42:50 Institutional neutrality debate
46:16 IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
01:01:28 Latest update on potential Harvard-Trump administration settlement
Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-fire-reacts-where-does-harvard-go-here-larry-summers
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—and Why They Fail by Greg Lukianoff & Nadine Strossen (2025)
Imagine the government forcing you to label your all-natural milk product as “imitation.”
Florida tried to make one dairy farm do just that, sparking a First Amendment question: Where’s the line between a business’s right to speak and protecting consumers from deception?
In this episode, we explore how far free speech protections go for commercial speech with:
Justin Pearson, managing attorney (Institute for Justice)
Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel (FIRE)
Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel senior fellow (Hoover Institution, Stanford)
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
05:03 What exactly is commercial speech?
08:25 The evolution of commercial speech law
13:59 Early regulation of commercial speech
23:03 What is false or misleading commercial speech?
26:04 Controversial regulations of non-misleading commercial speech
37:35 Future of commercial speech regulations
Read the transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-state-commercial-speech
Coming up: Live episode of So To Speak
On Monday, August 11th at 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Nico will be speaking with former Treasury Secretary/Harvard University president, Larry Summers, and FIRE President/CEO, Greg Lukianoff. They will discuss the Trump administration's campaign against elite universities, including Harvard, what outcomes we can expect from that campaign, and what those outcomes might mean for free speech, academic freedom, and university independence.
Register for the livestream here: https://thefire-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/5817544039734/WN_AISudjopTvu2Yzk2pXkDYg.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
Commercial speech: Should it still receive unique constitutional treatment? FIRE (2025)
“In 1995, Pepsi offered a $33 million fighter jet for 7 million Pepsi Points. They thought it was a joke. But this 21-year-old took them seriously, found a loophole, and demanded the fighter jet for his 7 million Pepsi Points.” So to Speak repost via X
Throughout his career, former Congressman Justin Amash has been a strong advocate for freedom of speech, writing that “The value of free speech comes from encountering views that are unorthodox, uncommon, or unaccepted…Free speech is a barren concept if people are limited to expressing views already widely held.”
In this special live episode, filmed in front of 200+ high schoolers attending FIRE’s Free Speech Forum at American University in Washington, D.C., Amash takes questions from the audience and discusses his upbringing, his political career, the state of American politics, and how the Constitution guided his work in Congress.
Earlier this year, Congressman Amash joined FIRE’s Advisory Council.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:30 Upbringing
06:21 Law school
13:15 Time in Congress
15:59 Why Amash publicly explained each of his votes
26:30 On being the first libertarian in Congress
30:57 Connection between his principles and free speech
33:10 Trump’s first impeachment
42:48 Dealing with pushback from constituents
46:03 Term limits for members of Congress?
55:25 How high schoolers can pursue a career in politics
59:45 Has there been a regression in First Amendment protections?
01:07:32 What Amash is up to now
01:08:06 Outro
Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-justin-amash
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
We’re checking in on the latest news in tech and free speech.
We cover the state AI regulation moratorium that failed in Congress, the ongoing Character A.I. lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission’s consent decree with Omnicom and Interpublic Group, the European Union’s Digital Services Act, and what comes next after the Supreme Court’s Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision.
Guests:
Ari Cohn — lead counsel for tech policy, FIRE
Corbin Barthold — internet policy counsel, TechFreedom
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:38 State AI regulation moratorium fails in Congress
20:04 Character AI lawsuit
41:10 FTC, Omnicom x IPG merger, and Media Matters
56:09 Digital Services Act
01:02:43 FSC v. Paxton decision
01:10:49 Outro
Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-tech-check-ai-moratorium-character-ai-lawsuit-ftc
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
“The AI will see you now” Paul Sherman (2025)
Megan Garcia, plaintiff, v. Character Technologies, Inc. et. al., defendants, United States District Court (2025)
Proposed amicus brief in support of appeal - Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. FIRE (2025)
“Amplification and its discontents: Why regulating the reach of online content is hard” Daphne Kelly (2021)
“Omnicom Group/The Interpublic Group of Co.” FTC (2025)
FIRE staff responds to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing certain sexual material online.
Joining us:Will Creeley — Legal director
Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel
Ronnie London — General counsel
Timestamps:01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court
06:57 Bob’s experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts
09:32 Ronnie’s perspective on the ruling
10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs. online sites
12:07 Has the Court established a new category of partially protected speech?
13:36 What speech is still subject to strict scrutiny after the ruling?
15:55 What does it mean to address the “work as a whole” in the internet context?
17:24 What modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE?
18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet’s risks toward minors?
20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best normative argument against the ruling?
22:38 Why is this ruling a “canary in the coal mine?”
23:36 How is age verification really about identity verification?
24:42 Why did the Court assume the need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in its ruling?
26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based access barriers to lawful online speech?
28:04 Will Americans have to show ID to get into a public library?
29:30 Why does stare decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court?
32:08 Will there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based restrictions on speech?
34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of state laws that create digital borders?
36:26 Is there any other instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First Amendment case?
37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket?
38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene?
40:33 How does the ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms like Reddit and X?
43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age verification laws?
Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-reacts-supreme-courts-decision-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton
Show notes:- Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
- FIRE statement on FSC v. Paxton ruling: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-upholding-age-verification-adult-content
- FIRE’s brief for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.thefire.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-review-fifth-circuit-decision-upholding-texas-adult-content-age
- FIRE’s amicus brief in support of petitioners and reversal: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-petitioners-and-reversal-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton
We discuss the Supreme Court backing Maine lawmaker Laurel Libby, NPR filing suit against Trump, a years-long dispute over a student wearing a “there are only two genders” shirt, the Secret Service investigation into James Comey, the latest on Harvard vs. Trump, and more.
Guests:
Bob Corn-Revere — chief counsel, FIRE
Lee Levine — former senior counsel, Ballard Spahr
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:34 Censure of Rep. Libby
07:02 Supreme Court shadow docket
13:53 NPR lawsuit against Trump admin
19:07 Differences between NPR and Voice of America cases
30:50 Middle school student wearing “there are only two genders” shirt
48:54 Recent investigation into former FBI Director James Comey
55:46 Latest updates with Harvard and Trump
01:05:27 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
“Ep. 56 have you been defamed?” Lee Levine’s previous appearance on the show (2018)
“Supreme Court backs Republican lawmaker in Maine who was punished for transgender athlete remarks” NBC (2025)
“NPR and Colorado public radio stations lawsuit against Trump administration” NPR (2025)
“Ending taxpayer subsidization of biased media” The White House (2025)
L. M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts Justia (2024)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District FIRE (1969)
“Secret Service is asking Comey about a photo of seashells spelling ‘86 47’” The New York Times (2025)
“The promise of American higher education” Alan Garber (2025)
Heather Mac Donald discusses the Trump administration’s free speech record amidst its battles with higher ed, mainstream media, law firms, and more.
Mac Donald is Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her most recent book is “When race trumps merit: How the pursuit of equity sacrifices excellence, destroys beauty, and threatens lives.”
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:54 Mac Donald’s personal experience with being shouted down
05:34 Amy Wax, Carole Hooven, and other cancelled professors
11:04 Mac Donald’s support and concern on Trump’s free speech approach
23:41 Rümeysa Öztürk situation
32:08 The problems of campus bureaucracy
36:40 Trump’s executive orders on law firms
43:14 Trump’s attacks on AP News, CBS, ABC, Paramount, and other media companies
59:54 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
“The White House’s clumsy attack on Harvard” (2025) Heather Mac Donald
“Everyone knows that Harvard has “lost its way…” (2025) President Trump via Truth Social
“Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Mike Benz” (2025) U.S. Department of State
“Tufts student returns to Massachusetts after 6 weeks in immigration detention” (2025) The New York Times
The co-authors of “The Canceling of the American Mind” discuss its new paperback release and where cancel culture stands a year and a half after the book’s original publication.
- Greg Lukianoff —
President and CEO of FIRE
Co-author of "The Canceling of the American Mind"
- Rikki Schlott —
New York Post columnist
Co-author of "The Canceling of the American Mind"
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
04:35 Origin of book
07:56 Definition of cancel culture
17:55 Mike Adams, canceled professor
23:51 Alexi McCammond, former Teen Vogue editor-in-chief
31:57 Echo chambers on social media
35:09 Trump administration ‘canceling’ law firms and higher ed institutions
44:02 Rikki’s libertarian political identity
51:02 Is cancel culture dead?
54:26 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
“Canceling of the American Mind” (paperback, 2025) by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott
“We have never been woke: The cultural contradictions of a new elite” (2024) by Musa al-Gharbi
Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.
Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.
To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard’s recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are:
- David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
- Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:50 Govt’s approach with Harvard and Columbia
05:39 Title VI violations
11:30 Anti-Semitism on campuses
23:02 Viewpoint diversity in higher education
27:12 Affirmative action and the Supreme Court
35:52 Title IX under the Obama and Biden administrations
42:32 Bob Jones University and tax-exempt status
45:53 Future of federal funding in higher education
54:08 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
Academic freedom: from professional norm to first amendment right David Rabban (2024)
Worse than nothing: the dangerous fallacy of originalism Erwin Chemerinsky (2022)
“A statement from constitutional law scholars on Columbia” The New York Review (2025)
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957)
“The promise of American higher education” Alan Garber (2025)
“Columbia agrees to Trump’s demands after federal funds are stripped” The New York Times (2025)
“Sustaining Columbia’s vital mission” Claire Shipman (2025)
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023)
“What is Title IX? Its history & implications” FIRE (2025)
Bridges v. Wixon (1945)
We travel from America to Europe, Russia, China, and more places to answer the question: Is there a global free speech recession?
Guests:
- Sarah McLaughlin: FIRE senior scholar, global expression
- James Kirchick: FIRE senior fellow
- Jacob Mchangama: FIRE senior fellow
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:52 Free speech global surveys
07:49 Freedom of expression deteriorating
11:43 Misinformation and disinformation
18:05 Russian state-sponsored media
24:55 Europe’s Digital Services Act
29:26 Chinese censorship
34:33 Radio Free Europe
54:57 Mohammad cartoons
01:04:14 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
- Authoritarians in the academy: How the internationalization of higher education and borderless censorship threaten free speech Sarah McLaughlin (2025)
- “The First Amendment created gay America” So to Speak (2022)
- “Secret city: The hidden history of gay Washington” James Kirchick (2022)
- “Who in the world supports free speech?” The Future of Free Speech (2025)
- “V-DEM democracy report 2025: 25 years of autocratization — democracy trumped?” V-Dem Institute (2025)
- Global risks report 2024 World Economic Forum (2025)
- “Gay reporter kicked off Kremlin network after protesting anti-gay law” Washington Free Beacon (2013)
- Free speech: A history from Socrates to social media (paperback) Jacob Mchangama (2025)
- Europe's Digital Services Act (DSA) (2022)
- Careless people: A cautionary tale of power, greed, and lost idealism Sarah Wynn-Williams (2025)
- “The Voice of America falls silent” The New York Times (2025)
- Text of Havel’s speech to Congress The Washington Post (1990)
- Voice of America wins in court, for now, as judge blocks Trump administration from firing staff AP News (2025)
We explore how censorship is impacting institutions — from universities to law firms to the Maine House of Representatives.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:40 Federal government cuts Columbia’s funding
16:57 Updates on the Mahmoud Khalil case
27:01 Ed Martin’s Georgetown letter
34:59 Trump targeting law firms
55:01 Maine House censure of Rep. Laurel Libby
01:03:37 Outro
Guests:
- Will Creeley, FIRE’s legal director
- Conor Fitzpatrick, FIRE’s supervising senior attorney
- Lindsie Rank, FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
- “DOJ, HHS, ED, and GSA announce initial cancelation of grants and contracts to Columbia University worth $400 million” U.S. Department of Justice (2025)
- HHS, ED, and GSA follow up letter to Columbia. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025)
- “Columbia yields to Trump in battle over federal funding” The Wall Street Journal (2025)
- “Advancing our work to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism at Columbia” Columbia University (2025)
- “Columbia caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent” FIRE (2025)
- “ED, HHS, and GSA Respond to Columbia University’s Actions to Comply with Joint Task Force Pre-Conditions” U.S. Department of Education (2025)
- “FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil” FIRE (2025)
- “Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Khalil v. Joyce” FIRE (2025)
- “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio via X (2025)
- “‘ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come.’ President Donald J. Trump” The White House via X (2025)
- “WATCH: White House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’” PBS NewsHour (2025)
- “Secretary Rubio's remarks to the press” U.S. Department of State (2025)
- “Mahmoud Khalil. Notice to appear.” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)
- “Alien and Sedition Acts” National Archives (1798)
- Ed Martin’s letter to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor. (2025)
- Dean Treanor’s response to Ed Martin. (2025)
- “Trump, Perkins Coie and John Adams” The Wall Street Journal (2025)
- “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts” The White House (2025)
- “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” The White House (2025)
- “Addressing risks from Paul Weiss” The White House (2025)
- “Lawyers who anger the Feds face new penalties by decree” The CATO Institute (2025)
- “Today, President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025 Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP law firm (‘Paul, Weiss’), which has entered into the following agreement with the President…” President Trump via TruthSocial (2025)
- “Head of Paul, Weiss says firm would not have survived without deal with Trump” The New York Times (2025)
- “House resolution relating to the censure of Representative Laurel D. Libby of Auburn by the Maine House of Representatives” Maine House of Representatives (2025)
- “Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech” FIRE (2025)
- “Maine State Rep. Laurel Libby disagreed with biological males competing in women’s sports, and now, the Maine State House is censuring her.” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025)
- “The open society and its enemies” Karl Popper (1945)
- “Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995)
First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza and immigration lawyer Jeffrey Rubin join the show to discuss the arrest, detention, and possible deportation of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:53 Latest updates on Khalil
02:51 First Amendment implications
06:08 Legal perspectives on deportation
11:54 Chilling effects on free expression
21:06 Constitutional rights for non-citizens
24:03 The intersection of free speech and immigration law
27:02 Broader implication of immigration policies
37:51 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
- “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio via X (2025)
- “‘ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come.’ President Donald J. Trump” The White House via X (2025)
- “WATCH: White House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’” PBS NewsHour (2025)
- “Secretary Rubio's remarks to the press” U.S. Department of State (2025)
- “Mahmoud Khalil. Notice to appear.” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)
Does a cat stand on two legs or four?
The answer to that question may tell you all you need to know about the government involving itself in social media content moderation.
On today’s show, we cover the latest tech policy developments involving the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, AI regulation, and more.
Guests:
- Ari Cohn, FIRE’s lead counsel, tech policy.
- Adam Thierer, a resident technology and innovation senior fellow at the R Street Institute
- Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy senior fellow at the CATO Institute
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:30 Section 230
06:55 FCC and Section 230
14:32 Brendan Carr and “faith-based programming”
28:24 Media companies’ settlements with the Trump
30:24 Brendan Carr at Semafor event
38:37 FTC and social media companies
48:09 AI regulations
01:03:43 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
“Seeing reports that the FCC plans to take a vague and ineffective step on Section 230 to try to control speech online…” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez via X (2025)
“Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025)
“Federal Communications Commission” Brendan Carr via Project 2025 (2022)
“Bless Ron Wyden and his steady defense of Section 230. He is absolutely right: 230 is a pro-competition law.” Adam Kovacevich via X (2025)
“If Google is looking to block faith-based programming on YouTube, they are doing a really really bad job at it…” Adam Thierer via X (2025)
“I have received complaints that Google’s @YouTubeTV is discriminating against faith-based programming…” Brendan Carr via X (2025)
“FCC’s Carr defends broadcast probes, slams social media ‘threat’” Semafor (2025)
“Petition for rulemaking of the national telecommunications and information administration” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2020)
“FCC Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025)
“Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal…” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson via X (2025)
“Federal Trade Commission launches inquiry on tech censorship” FTC (2025)
“Moody v. NetChoice” (2024)
“The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online” FIRE (2025)
“Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems” FIRE (2025)
“AI regulatory activity is completely out of control in the U.S…” Adam Thierer via X (2025)
“Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995)
“Greg Lukianoff testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, February 6, 2024” FIRE (2024)
“Technologies of Freedom” Ithiel de Sola Pool (1984)
From JD Vance’s free speech critique of Europe to the Trump administration barring the Associated Press from the Oval Office, free speech news is buzzing. General Counsel Ronnie London and Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere unpack the latest developments.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:49 JD Vance’s speech in Europe
13:27 Margaret Brennan’s comment on the Holocaust
15:13 Weimar fallacy
17:36 Trump admin v. Associated Press
21:33 DEI executive order
27:39 Trump’s lawsuits targeting the media
28:54 FIRE defending Iowa pollster Ann Selzer
32:29 Concerns about the FCC under Brendan Carr
44:09 2004 Super Bowl and the FCC
46:25 FCC’s history of using the “Section 230 threat”
49:14 Newsguard and the FCC
54:48 Elon Musk and doxxing
59:44 Foreigners and the First Amendment
01:05:19 Outro
Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Show notes:
- “Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks at the Munich Security Conference” The White House (2025)
- “Utterly bizarre assertion from Margaret Brennan…” Michael Tracey via X (2025)
- “Rubio defends Vance's Munich speech as CBS host suggests 'free speech' caused the Holocaust” FOX News (2025)
- “Posting hateful speech online could lead to police raiding your home in this European country” 60 Minutes (2025)
- “AP reporter and photographer barred from Air Force One over ‘Gulf of Mexico’ terminology dispute” AP News (2025)
- “FIRE statement on White House denying AP Oval Office access” FIRE (2025)
- “Ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing” The White House (2025)
- “Meta to pay $25 million to settle 2021 Trump lawsuit” The Wall Street Journal (2025)
- “Trump settles suit against Elon Musk’s X over his post-Jan. 6 ban” AP News (2025)
- “Questions ABC News should answer following the $16 million Trump settlement” Columbia Journalism Review (2025)
- “Trump v. Selzer: Donald Trump sues pollster J. Ann Selzer for ‘consumer fraud’ over Iowa poll” FIRE (2025)
- “A plea for institutional modesty” Bob Corn-Revere (2025)
- “Telecommunications Act” FCC (1996)
- Section 230 (1993)
- “CBS News submits records of Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' spot to FCC amid distortion probe” USA Today (2025)
- “Complaints against various television licensees concerning their February 1, 2004 broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show” FCC (2004)
- “Brendan Carr’s letter to Big Tech CEOs” Brendan Carr via the FCC (2024)
- “NRA v. Vullo” (2023)
- “She should be fired immediately” Elon Musk via X (2025)
- “Restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” The White House (2025)
- “Protecting the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats” The White House (2025)
Over the years, elite institutions shifted from fostering open debate to enforcing ideological conformity. But as guest Ilya Shapiro puts it, “the pendulum is swinging back.” He shares his firsthand experience with cancel culture and how the American Bar Association’s policies influence legal education. Shapiro also opines on major free speech cases before the Supreme Court, including the TikTok ownership battle and Texas’ age verification law for adult content.
Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He previously (and briefly) served as executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and as a vice president at the Cato Institute. His latest book, “Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites,” is out now.
Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:58 Shapiro’s Georgetown controversy
15:07 Free speech on campus
26:51 Law schools’ decline
40:47 Legal profession challenges
42:33 The “vibe shift” away from cancel culture
56:02 TikTok and age verification at the Supreme Court
01:03:37 Anti-Semitism on campus
01:09:36 Outro
Show notes:
- “The illiberal takeover of law schools” City Journal (2022)
- “Poll finds sharp partisan divisions on the impact of a Black woman justice.” ABC News (2022)
- “Why I quit Georgetown.” Ilya Shapiro, The Wall Street Journal (2022)
- “Georgetown’s investigation of a single tweet taking longer than 12 round-trips to the moon.” FIRE (2022)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)
- Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965)
- TikTok Inc v. Garland (2025)
- Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2024)
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
- International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (last updated 2025)
The University of Chicago is known for its commitment to free speech and academic freedom. Why are these values important to the university? Where do they originate? And how do they help administrators navigate conflicts and controversies?
Tony Banout and Tom Ginsburg direct the University of Chicago’s Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, which received a $100 million gift last year. They are also editors of “The Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression,” a new book that collects foundational texts that inform the university’s free speech tradition.
Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:31 Origin of book
07:14 UChicago’s founding principles
12:41 Free speech in a university context
19:17 2015 UChicago committee report
32:03 1967 Kalven report
38:02 Institutional neutrality
57:41 Applying free speech principles beyond the university
01:04:21 Future steps for the Forum
01:06:35 Outro
Show notes:
- The University of Chicago’s Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression (2015)
- Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support (last updated 2024)
Is the free speech conversation too simplistic?
Peter Ives thinks so. He is the author of “Rethinking Free Speech,” a new book that seeks to provide a more nuanced analysis of the free speech debate within various domains, from government to campus to social media.
Ives is a professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg. He researches and writes on the politics of “global English," bridging the disciplines of language policy, political theory, and the influential ideas of Antonio Gramsci.
Enjoying our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:25 The Harper’s Letter
05:18 Neil Young vs. Joe Rogan
08:15 Free speech culture
09:53 John Stuart Mill
12:53 Alexander Meiklejohn
17:05 Ives’s critique of Jacob Mchangama’s “History of Free Speech” book
17:53 Ives’s definition of free speech
19:38 First Amendment vs. Canadian Charter of Rights
21:25 Hate speech
25:22 Canadian Charter and Canadian universities
34:19 White supremacy and hate speech
40:14 Speech-action distinction
46:04 Free speech absolutism
48:49 Marketplace of ideas
01:05:40 Solutions for better public discourse
01:13:02 Outro
Show notes:
“A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” Harper’s Magazine (2020)
“On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1859)
“Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” Jacob Mchangama (2022)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Canadian Criminal Code (1985)
“When is speech violence?” The New York Times (2017)
Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996)
FIRE staffers take your questions on the TikTok ban, mandatory DEI statements, the Kids Online Safety Act, Trump vs. the media, and more.
Joining us:Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy
Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy
Will Creeley, legal director
This webinar was open to the public. Future monthly FIRE Member Webinars will not be. Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars.
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.
Timestamps:00:00 Intro
00:52 Donate to FIRE!
02:49 TikTok ban
10:01 Ari’s work as tech policy lead counsel
12:03 Mandatory DEI statements at universities
15:19 How does FIRE address forced speech?
18:17 Texas’ age verification law
24:35 Would government social media bans for minors be a First Amendment violation?
33:48 Online age verification
35:17 First Amendment violations while making public comments during city council/school board public meetings
37:25: Edison, New Jersey city council case
39:48 FIRE’s role in educating Americans
41:55 If social media addiction cannot be dealt with like drugs, how can it be dealt with?
43:34 “Pessimists Archive” Substack and moral panics
45:27 Trump and the media
51:23 Gary Gadwa case
52:49 How to distinguish the freedom of speech versus freedom from social consequences?
55:53 Free speech culture is a “mushy concept”
57:58 ABC settlement with Trump
01:01:27 Nico’s upcoming book!
01:02:32 FIRE and K-12 education
01:04:40 Outro
Show notes:“TikTok Inc. and ByteDance LTD. v. Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as attorney general of the United States” (D.C. 2024)
“Opinion: The TikTok court case has staggering implications for free speech in America” L.A. Times (2024)
H.B. No. 1181 (Tex. 2023; Texas age-verification law)
“The Anxious Generation” Jonathan Haidt (2024)
S. 1409 - Kids Online Safety Act (2023-2024)
American Amusement MacH. Ass’n v. Kendrick (Ind. 2000)
“Edison Township, New Jersey: Town Council bans props, including the U.S. flag and Constitution, at council meetings” FIRE (2024)
“LAWSUIT: Arizona mom sues city after arrest for criticizing government lawyer’s pay” FIRE (2024)
“Trump v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.” (2024)
“New Jersey slaps down censorship with anti-SLAPP legislation” FIRE (2023)
“FIRE defends Idaho conservation officer sued for criticizing wealthy ranch owner’s airstrip permit” FIRE (2023)
“On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1859)
“Home Depot cashier fired over Facebook comment about Trump shooting” Newsweek (2024)
“Free speech culture, Elon Musk, and Twitter” FIRE (2022)
“Questions ABC News should answer following the $16 million Trump settlement” Columbia Journalism Review (2024)
“Appellants’ opening brief — B.A., et al. v. Tri County Area Schools, et al.” FIRE (2024)
Transcript is here“Who controls what is taught in American universities — professors or politicians?”
Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, “You Can’t Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a “weaponization” of intellectual diversity.
Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington’s teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:00 The genesis of Yale’s Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech
04:42 The inspiration behind “You Can’t Teach That!”
06:18 The First Amendment and academic freedom
09:29 Extramural speech and the public sphere
17:56 Intramural speech and its complexities
23:13 Florida’s Stop WOKE Act
26:34 Distinctive features of K-12 education
31:13 University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax
39:02 University of Kansas professor Phillip Lowcock
43:42 Muhlenberg College professor Maura Finkelstein
47:01 University of Wisconsin La-Crosse professor Joe Gow
54:47 Northwestern professor Arthur Butz
57:52 Inconsistent applications of university policies
01:02:23 Weaponization of “intellectual diversity”
01:05:53 Outro
Show notes:
“Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech” Keith Whittington (2019)
“You Can't Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms” Keith Whittington (2023)
AAUP Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1915)
AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940)
“Kinsey” (2004)
Stop WOKE Act, HB 7. (Fla. 2022)
Indiana intellectual diversity law, S.E.A. 354 (Ind. 2022)
“Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” (1969)
Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt: which president was worse for free speech?
In August, FIRE posted a viral X thread, arguing that Woodrow Wilson may be America’s worst-ever president for free speech. Despite the growing recognition of Wilson’s censorship, there was a professor who wrote a recent book on FDR’s free speech record, arguing that FDR was worse.
Representing the Wilson side in our discussion is Christopher Cox, author of the new book, “Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn.” Cox is a former member of the House of Representatives, where he served for 17 years, including as chair of the Homeland Security Committee. He is currently a senior scholar in residence at the University of California, Irvine.
Representing the FDR side is professor David T. Beito, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor Emeritus at the University of Alabama. He is the author of a number of books, his latest being “The New Deal’s War on the Bill of Rights: The Untold Story of FDR's Concentration Camps, Censorship, and Mass Surveillance.”
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:41 Wilson’s free speech record
15:13 Was FDR’s record worse than Wilson’s?
24:01 Japanese internment
29:35 Wilson at the end of his presidency
37:42 FDR and Hugo Black
42:31 The Smith Act
45:42 Did Wilson regret his actions?
50:31 The suffragists
56:19 Did FDR regret his actions?
01:02:04 Outro
Show notes:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a culture of conformity. She was beaten and mutilated. She was told who she must marry.
Eventually, she rebelled.
“You don’t speak up at first,” she told us. “First you leave and you find a place of safety. It’s only after that experience that it occurred to me to speak up about anything.”
Hirsi Ali is a human rights activist, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, the founder of the AHA Foundation, and the host of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Podcast. She is also the best-selling author of a number of books, including “Infidel,” “Nomad,” “Heretic,” and, “Prey.” Her latest initiative is Courage Media, which describes itself as a space for courageous conversations.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
04:36 Conformity and its consequences
09:03 Islam and free speech
16:38 Immigration and the clash of civilizations
26:03 Censorship and decline in higher education
34:14 Cost of criticism and finding one’s voice
37:20 Hope for the future
43:58 Outro
Show notes:
“Submission.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh (2004)
Brandeis Change.org petition. (2014)
“When you use AI to replace every mention of ‘our democracy’ with ‘our bureaucracy,’ everything starts making a lot more sense.” Bill D’Agnostico via X (2024)
In this live recording of “So to Speak” at the First Amendment Lawyers Association meeting, Samir Jain, Andy Phillips, and Benjamin Wittes discuss the legal questions surrounding free speech and artificial intelligence. Samir Jain is the vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Andy Phillips is the managing partner and co-founder at the law firm Meier Watkins Philips and Pusch. Benjamin Wittes is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and co-founder and editor-in-chief of Lawfare.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:54 The nature of AI models
07:43 Liability for AI-generated content
15:44 Copyright and AI training datasets
18:45 Deepfakes and misinformation
26:05 Mandatory disclosure and AI watermarking
29:43 AI as a revolutionary technology
36:55 Early regulation of AI
38:39 Audience Q&A
01:09:29 Outro
Show notes:
-Court cases:
Moody v. NetChoice (2023)
The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, et al (2023)
Millette v. OpenAI, Inc (2024)
Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C. (2024)
-Legislation:
Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996)
AB 2655 - Defending democracy from deepfake deception Act of 2024
-Articles:
“A machine with First Amendment rights,” Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare (2023)
“22 top AI statistics and trends in 2024,” Forbes (2024)
“Global risks 2024: Disinformation tops global risks 2024 as environmental threats intensify,” World Economic Forum (2024)
“Court lets first AI libel case go forward,” Reason (2024)
“CYBERPORN - EXCLUSIVE: A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids – and free speech?” TIME (1995)
“It was smart for an AI,” Lawfare (2023)
The FIRE team debates the proposition: Should there be any categories of unprotected speech? General Counsel Ronnie London and Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere go through each category of speech falling outside First Amendment protection to decide whether it should remain unprotected or if it’s time to “remove an arrow from the government’s quiver.”
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
17:59 Obscenity
21:20 Child pornography
25:25 Fighting words
32:36 Defamation
41:22 Incitement to imminent lawless action
52:07 True threats
56:30 False advertising and hate speech
01:02:50 Outro
Show notes:
-Court cases:
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Roth v. United States (1957)
Miller v. California (1973)
Counterman v. Colorado (2023)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliot, and Jonathan O’Mara (2003)
-Legislation:
The Comstock Act (1873)
The Stolen Valor Act (2005)
The FIRE team discusses Tim Walz’s controversial comments on hate speech and “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” We also examine California’s AI deepfake laws, the punishment of tenured professors, and mask bans.
Joining us are:
Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of Public Advocacy;
Connor Murnane, FIRE’s Campus Advocacy chief of staff; and
Adam Goldstein, FIRE’s vice president of strategic initiatives.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:51 Tim Walz’s comments on hate speech and “shouting fire”
15:36 California’s AI deepfake laws
32:05 Tenured professors punished for expression
54:27 Nassau County’s mask ban
1:04:39 Outro
Show notes:
Court cases:
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Virginia v. Black (2003)
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
Kohls v. Bonta (this suit challenges the constitutionality of AB 2839 and AB 2655) (2024)
G.B. et al. v. Nassau County et al. (this class action lawsuit alleges Nassau County's Mask Transparency Act is unconstitutional and discriminates against people with disabilities) (2024)
Legislation:
Title VI (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996)
Articles/Tweets:
“This is amazing😂” Elon Musk via X (2024)
“BREAKING: The Babylon Bee has obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad.” The Babylon Bee via X (2024)
“The 1912 war on fake photos.” Pessimists Archive via Substack (2024)
“Professor fired for porn hobby vows to take university to court.” FIRE (2024)
“Amy Wax is academic freedom's canary in the coal mine.” FIRE (2024)
“In major hit to tenure, Muhlenberg fires pro-Palestinian professor.” FIRE (2024)
“U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announces resolution of antisemitism investigation of Muhlenberg College.” U.S. Department of Education (2024)
Can free speech and content moderation on social media coexist?
Jonathan Rauch and Renee DiResta discuss the complexities of content moderation on social media platforms. They explore how platforms balance free expression with the need to moderate harmful content and the consequences of censorship in a digital world.
Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth” and “Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought.” Renee DiResta was the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory and contributed to the Election Integrity Partnership report and the Virality Project. Her new book is “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.”
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:14 Content moderation and free speech
12:33 The Election Integrity Partnership
18:43 What activity does the First Amendment not protect?
21:44 Backfire effect of moderation
26:01 The Virality Project
30:54 Misinformation over the past decade
37:33 Did Trump’s Jan 6th speech meet the standard for incitement?
44:12 Double standards of content moderation
01:00:05 Jawboning
01:11:10 Outro
Show notes:
Election Integrity Partnership report (2021)
The Virality Project (2022)
Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton (2024)
“This Place Rules” (2022)
Murthy v. Missouri (2024)
“Why Scholars Should Stop Studying 'Misinformation',” by Jacob N. Shapiro and Sean Norton (2024)
What happens when philosopher Ayn Rand’s theories meet free speech?
Tara Smith and Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute explore Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, its emphasis on reason and individual rights, and how it applies to contemporary free speech issues.
Smith and Onkar are contributors to a new book, “The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom.” Listeners may be particularly interested in their argument that John Stuart Mill, widely regarded as a free speech hero, actually opposed individual rights.
Tara Smith is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas at Austin and holds the Anthem Foundation Fellowship in the study of Objectivism. Onkar Ghate is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on Objectivism.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:51 What is Objectivism?
06:19 Where do Objectivism and free speech intersect?
09:07 Did Rand censor her rivals?
13:54 Government investigations of communists and Nazis
18:12 Brazilian Supreme Court banning X
20:50 Rand’s USSR upbringing
24:39 Who was in Rand’s “Collective” group?
35:12 What is jawboning?
40:01 The freedom to criticize on social media
46:02 Critiques of John Stuart Mill
59:49 Addressing a critique of FIRE
01:09:01 Outro
Transcript is HERE
Show notes:
“Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings: Free Speech on Campus” (2016)
Letters of Ayn Rand (1995)
“Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right” (2009)
“Brandenburg v. Ohio” (1969)
“NRA v. Vullo” (2023)
“Murthy v. Missouri” (2024)
“Moody v. NetChoice” and “NetChoice v. Paxton” (2024)
Can a course on conservatism shake up the liberal status quo on campus?
Tufts University professor Eitan Hersh presents his unique class on American conservatism and its impact on campus free speech and open dialogue. He discusses the challenges and opportunities of teaching conservative thought in a predominantly liberal academic environment.
Eitan Hersh is a professor of political science. He earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2011 and was a faculty member at Yale University from 2011-2017.
In March, professor Hersh’s course on conservatism was profiled in Boston Magazine under the headline, “A Conservative Thought Experiment on a Liberal College Campus.”
Timestamps
00:00 Intro
02:02 Prof. Hersh’s personal political beliefs
03:47 Political diversity among faculty and students
05:14 Hersh’s journey to academia
06:07 What does a conservatism course look like?
09:30 His colleagues’ response to the course
10:29 The challenges of discussing controversial topics
13:28 FIRE’s data on difficult campus topics
17:50 How have campus dynamics changed
19:42 Institutional neutrality
39:14 What are faculty concerned about?
42:18 What is Hersh expecting as students return to campus?
46:41 Outro
Transcript is HERE.
How has 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill influenced America’s conception of free speech and the First Amendment?
In their new book, “The Supreme Court and the Philosopher: How John Stuart Mill Shaped U.S. Free Speech Protections,” co-authors Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma look at how the Supreme Court has increasingly aligned its interpretation of free expression with Mill’s philosophy, as articulated in “On Liberty.”
Eric Kasper is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he serves as the director of the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies.
Troy Kozma is a professor of philosophy and the academic chair at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire - Barron County.
Timestamps
00:00 Intro
02:26 Book’s origin
06:51 Who is John Stuart Mill?
10:09 What is the “harm principle”?
16:30 Early Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment
26:25 What was Justice Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v. U.S.?
30:28 Why did Justice Brandeis join Holmes’ dissents?
36:10 What are loyalty oaths?
40:36 Justice Black’s nuanced view of the First Amendment
43:33 What were Mill’s views on race and education?
50:42 Private beliefs vs. public service?
52:40 Commercial speech
55:51 Where do we stand today?
1:03:32 Outro
Transcript is HERE
Some argue that Section 230 allows the internet to flourish. Others argue it allows harmful content to flourish. Christopher Cox knows something about Section 230: He co-wrote it.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is an American law passed in 1996 that shields websites from liability for content posted on their sites by users. What does Rep. Cox make of the law today? Rep. Cox was a 17-year member of the House of Representatives and is a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:43 Did Section 230 create the modern internet?
7:48 America’s technological advancement
11:33 Section 230’s support for good faith content moderation
18:00 User privacy and age verification?
25:37 Rep. Cox’s early experiences with the internet
30:24 Did we need Section 230 in the first place?
37:51 Are there any changes Rep. Cox would make to Section 230 now?
42:40 How does AI impact content creation and moderation?
47:23 The future of Section 230
54:31 Closing thoughts
57:30 Outro
Show notes:
Did overheated political rhetoric lead to the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump?
On today’s show we explore political violence: its history, its causes, and its relationship with free speech. Flemming Rose is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He previously served as foreign affairs editor and culture editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In 2005, he was principally responsible for publishing the cartoons that initiated the Muhammad cartoons controversy.
Nadine Strossen is a professor emerita at New York Law School, former president of the ACLU, and a senior fellow at FIRE.
Jacob Mchangama is the founder and executive director of The Future of Free Speech. He is a research professor at Vanderbilt University and a senior fellow at FIRE.
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:45 Initial reactions to Trump assassination attempt
7:39 Can we blame political violence on rhetoric?
15:56 Weimar and Nazi Germany
26:05 Is the Constitution a “suicide pact”?
39:21 Is violence ever justified?
49:24 Censorship in the wake of tragedy and true threats
59:06 Closing thoughts
1:04:54 Outro
Show notes:
“Freedom of expression and social conflict” by Christian Bjørnskov and Jacob Mchangama
FIRE’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings (featuring data on college student support for violence)
Recent court ruling in DeRay McKesson protest case
“The Tyranny of Silence” by Flemming Rose
“Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” by Jacob Mchangama
The Supreme Court term is over. We review its First Amendment cases. Joining the show are FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London, and Institute for Justice Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara.
Become a FIRE Member today and gain access to live monthly webinars where you can ask questions of FIRE staff. The next webinar is July 8 at 1 p.m. ET. We will take your questions about the Supreme Court term.
Show Notes:
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:53 Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton
31:02 NRA v. Vullo
46:57 Murthy v. Missouri
1:06:04 Gonzales v. Trevino
1:17:58 Vidal v. Elster
1:26:04 O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
1:34:00 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (the Chevron deference case)
1:37:26 Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (forthcoming SCOTUS case)
1:38:30 Outro
There is a movement afoot to restrict young people’s access to social media and pornography.
Critics of social media and online porn argue that they can be harmful to minors, and states across the country are taking up the cause, considering laws that would impose age-verification, curfews, parental opt-ins, and other restrictions.
Meanwhile, critics of the critics argue that the evidence of harm isn’t so conclusive and that many of the proposed restrictions violate core civil liberties such as privacy and free speech.
So, who’s right?
Clare Morell is a senior policy analyst at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the author of the forthcoming book, “The Tech Exit: A Manifesto for Freeing Our Kids.” Ari Cohn is free speech counsel at TechFreedom, a technology think tank.
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:17 The alleged harms of social media
11:31 Just another technological moral panic?
25:49 How is internet access currently restricted for minors?
41:17 The age verification problem
1:00:27 Assessing the First Amendment problems
1:07:21 Voluntary measures parents can take
1:25:30 Outro
Shownotes
“The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness” by Jonathan Haidt
“Surgeon General: Why I’m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms” by Vivek H. Murthy
It is said that censorship is the strongest drive in human nature — with sex being a weak second.
But what happens when these two primordial drives clash? Does censorship or sex win out?
Nadine Strossen is a professor emerita at New York Law School, a former president of the ACLU, and a senior fellow at FIRE. She is also the author of “Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights.” First released in 1995, the book was reissued this year with a new preface.
Mary Anne Franks is a law professor at George Washington University and the president and legislative and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She is the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech” and the forthcoming “Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment.”
Show Notes:
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:17 Defining pornography
7:20 Is porn protected by the First Amendment?
11:10 Revenge porn
22:05 Origins of “Defending Pornography”
25:06 Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon
29:20 Can porn be consensual?
35:02 Dworkin/MacKinnon model legislation
52:20 Porn in Canada
56:07 Is it possible to ban porn?
1:03:26 College professor’s porn hobby
1:12:39 Outro
Did 26 words from an American law passed in 1996 create the internet?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that interactive websites and applications cannot be held legally liable for the content posted on their sites by their users. Without the law, it’s likely Facebook, Amazon, Reddit, Yelp, and X wouldn’t exist — at least not in their current form. But some say the law shields large tech companies from liability for enabling, or even amplifying, harmful content.
On today’s show, we discuss Section 230, recent efforts to reform it, and new proposals for content moderation on the internet.
Marshall Van Alstyne is a professor of information systems at Boston University.
Robert Corn-Revere is FIRE’s chief counsel.
Timestamps
0:00 Intro 3:52 The origins of Section 230? 6:40 Section 230’s “forgotten provision” 13:29 User vs. platform control over moderation 23:24 Harms allegedly enabled by Section 230 40:17 Solutions 46:03 Private market for moderation 1:02:42 Case study: Hunter Biden laptop story 1:09:19 “Duty of care” standard 1:17:49 The future of Section 230 1:20:35 Outro
Show Notes
- Hearing on a Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (May 22. 2024)
- “Platform Revolution” by Marshall Van Alstyne
- “The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder” by Robert Corn-Revere
- “Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech” by Mike Masnick
- “Sunset of Section 230 Would Force Big Tech’s Hand” By Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr.
- “Buy This Legislation or We’ll Kill the Internet” By Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden
- “Free Speech, Platforms & The Fake News Problem” (2021) by Marshall Van Alstyne
- “Free Speech and the Fake News Problem” (2023) by Marshall Van Alstyne
- “It’s Time to Update Section 230” by Michael D. Smith and Marshall Van Alstyne
“Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong” by Mike Masnick
The First Amendment forbids government censorship. Private institutions, on the other hand, are generally free to restrict speech.
How should we think about private censorship and its role within a liberal society?
On today’s episode, we’re joined by J.P. Messina, an assistant professor in the philosophy department at Purdue University and the author of the new book, “Private Censorship.”
Also on the show is Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of public advocacy.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
3:10 The origin story of “Private Censorship”
8:29 How does FIRE figure out what to weigh in on?
12:04 Examples of private censorship
18:24 Regulating speech at work
22:21 Regulating speech on social media platforms
30:09 Is social media essentially a public utility?
35:50 Are internet service providers essentially public utilities?
44:43 Social media vs. ISPs
51:02 Censorship on search engines
59:47 Defining illiberalism outside of government censorship
1:16:06 Outro
Show Notes
On May 1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by a vote of 320 to 91. Proponents of the law say it is necessary to address anti-Semitic discrimination on college campuses. Opponents argue it threatens free speech.
Who’s right?
Kenneth Stern was the lead drafter of the definition of anti-Semitism used in the act. But he said the definition was never meant to punish speech. Rather, it was drafted to help data collectors write reports.
Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. His most recent book is titled, “The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate.”
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
04:06 Introducing Ken Stern
7:59 Can hate speech codes work?
11:13 Off-campus hate speech codes
13:33 Drafting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition
21:53 How should administrators judge anti-Semitism without the IHRA definition?
27:29 Is there a rise in unlawful discrimination on campuses today?
40:20 Opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act
43:10 Defenses of the Antisemitism Awareness Act
51:34 Enshrinement of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in state laws
53:57 Is the IHRA definition internally consistent?
59:21 How will the Senate vote?
1:01:16 Outro
Show Notes
IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
Host Nico Perrino joins his FIRE colleagues Will Creeley and Alex Morey to answer questions about the recent campus unrest and its First Amendment implications.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
0:41 What is FIRE?/campus unrest
5:44 What are the basic First Amendment principles for campus protest?
11:30 Student encampments
18:09 Exceptions to the First Amendment
29:01 Can administrators limit access to non-students/faculty?
34:13 Denying recognition to Students for Justice in Palestine
36:26 Were protesters at UT Austin doing anything illegal?
40:54 The USC valedictorian
45:09 What does “objectively offensive” mean? / Does Davis apply to colleges?
46:55 Is it illegal to protest too loudly?
50:03 What options do colleges have to moderate/address hate speech?
54:20 Does calling for genocide constitute bullying/harassment?
59:09 Wrapping up on the situation
Show Notes
“USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship,” Alex Morey
“Emerson College: Conservative Student Group Investigated for Distributing ‘China Kinda Sus’ Stickers,” FIRE’s case files
“HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship,” Nadine Strossen
“Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom,” Aryeh Neier (pdf)
“David Goldberger, lead attorney in ‘the Skokie case,’” “So to Speak” Ep. 118
In America, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.
But should it be?
Today’s guest is out with a new book, “Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against First Amendment Protection.”
W. Wat Hopkins is emeritus professor of communication at Virginia Tech, where he taught communication law and cyberspace law.
Transcript of Interview: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-should-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction 5:34 Why write about hate speech?8:50 Has the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech? 13:56 What speech falls outside First Amendment protection? 16:44 The history of the First Amendment 20:00 Fighting words and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 24:00 How does the Supreme Court determine what speech is protected? 35:24 Defining hate speech 38:54 Debating the value of hate speech 44:02 Defining hate speech (again) 50:30 Abuses of hate speech codes 1:00:10 Skokie 1:02:39 Current Supreme Court and hate speech 1:06:00 Outro
Show Notes Scotland’s “Hate Crime and Public Order Act” Matal v. Tam (2017) Snyder v. Phelps (2011) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) United States v. Stevens (2010) Virginia v. Black (2003) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) “HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship” by Nadine Strossen
In late 2013, some of us at FIRE started noticing a change on college campuses. Students, who were previously the strongest constituency for free speech on campus, were turning against free speech. They began appealing to administrators more frequently for protection from different speakers and using the language of trauma and safety to justify censorship.
What changed? Neil Howe may have an answer. He is a historian, economist, and demographer who speaks frequently on generational change. His most recent book, “The Fourth Turning is Here,” was published last year. Howe argues that history has seasonal rhythms of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth and that different generations take on different attributes reflecting their place in the cycle.
Joining Howe and host Nico Perrino for the conversation is FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff, co-author of “The Canceling of the American Mind."
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
6:10 Neil’s intent with his book, “Generations”
13:12 Pattern in American history
17:08 The nomad archetype
25:00 Covid and the younger generation
27:28 Do people shape events?
35:35 Gen-Xers and Millennials
41:45 The Fourth Turning
50:24 William James’ “The Moral Equivalent of War”
57:08 Are Gen-Z actually Millennials?
58:10 Dominant generations
01:06:40 How do generational cycles impact civil liberties?
01:10:57 Summary of Millennials
01:18:15 Peaceful periods lead to greater inequality
1:19:16 Outro
Show Notes
Neil Howe’s Substack, “Demography Unplugged”
Greg Lukianoff’s Substack, “The Eternally Radical Idea”
“I have never seen a Supreme Court term that is as consequential as this one is going to be,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, previewing this term’s First Amendment cases.
On today’s show, we analyze the oral arguments in four of those cases: NRA v. Vullo, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice, LLC, v. Paxton.
We also discuss the court’s decision in two cases involving government officials blocking their critics on social media.
Joining the show are Corn-Revere, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London, and FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
3:29 NRA v. Vullo
26:05 Murthy v. Missouri
50:41 Netchoice cases
1:11:26 Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier
1:21:24 Outro
Show Notes
NRA v. Vullo oral argument transcript
Bantam Books, Inc. et. al v Sullivan et al. (1963)
Murthy v. Missouri oral argument transcript
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC oral argument transcript
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton oral argument transcript
There is a recurring debate in the free speech community regarding whether money is speech.
Bitcoin-focused entrepreneur, writer, and philosopher Robert Breedlove joins us today to help resolve the debate. Describing money as “the language of human action,” Robert makes the case that money, like the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, is information and should be free from government regulation and manipulation. During this longer-than-usual episode, Robert and Nico discuss everything from Keynesian economics and 3D-printed firearms to the Chinese Communist Party.
Robert is the host of the popular podcast, “The ‘What is Money?’ Show,” which dives into the nature of money by asking guests one simple question: What is money? In 2020, he co-authored the book, “Thank God for Bitcoin: The Creation, Corruption and Redemption of Money.”
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
3:56 Robert’s background
19:21 What is Austrian economics?
24:23 Is money speech?
44:48 Can money express irrational things?
51:59 Is access to perfect information always a good thing?
1:05:17 Bitcoin and anonymity
1:18:14 Prediction markets
1:31:49 Is code speech?
1:39:59 Is economic freedom more fundamental than freedom of speech?
1:49:13 Regulating bitcoin
1:55:16 Bitcoin ETFs
1:57:03 Rapid-fire Bitcoin questions
2:03:15 Does more access to information make the world a better place?
2:06:53 Outro
Show Notes
“The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G Edward Griffin
“The Bitcoin Standard” by Saifedean Ammous
“The Use of Knowledge in Society” by Friedrich Hayek
“The Logic of Scientific Discovery” by Karl Popper
“Areopagitica” by John Milton
On today’s episode, we discuss Alexei Navalny’s death, Vladimir Putin, censorship in Russia, and Samizdat Online, an anti-censorship platform that grants users living under authoritarian regimes access to news and other censored content. Yevgeny “Genia” Simkin is the co-founder of Samizdat Online and Stanislav “Stas” Kucher is its chief content officer.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
2:25 Alexei Navalny
8:53 The state of Russian opposition
20:48 The origins of Samizdat Online
28:17 How does Samizdat Online circumvent censorship?
35:16 Could Yevgeny Prigozhin have overthrown Putin?
41:03 The progression of Putin’s regime
58:08 How can people help?
59:56 Outro
Show notes
Statement by Russian prison service on Alexei Navalny’s death
The Anti-Corruption Foundation (nonprofit established by Alexei Navalny)
“Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible” by Peter Pomerantsev
Past related episodes
Ep. 108: A history of (dis)information wars in the Soviet Union and beyond
Ep. 156: What Russians don’t know about the war in Ukraine
Ep. 157: Former BBC bureau chief Konstantin Eggert and what you need to know about censorship in Russia
On today’s free speech news roundup, we discuss the recent NetChoice oral argument, Taylor Swift, doxxing, October 7 fallout on campus, and Satan in Iowa.
Joining us on the show are Alex Morey, FIRE director of Campus Rights Advocacy; Aaron Terr, director of Public Advocacy; and Ronnie London, our general counsel.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
0:44 NetChoice oral arguments
19:39 Taylor Swift cease and desist letter
29:20 Publishing unlawfully obtained information
39:28 Harvard and doxxing
47:44 Princeton no contact orders
55:52 Columbia law denies recognition to Law Students Against Antisemitism
1:02:38 Columbia adopts Kalven Report
1:06:06 Indiana University art exhibit canceled, professor suspended
1:14:55 Satan in Iowa
1:21:59 Outro
Show Notes
“So to Speak” 2023-24 Supreme Court Preview (contains discussion of NetChoice cases)
Correspondence between Taylor Swift and Jack Sweeney’s attorneys
Columbia university grants recognition to Law Students Against Antisemitism
IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
List of universities that have adopted the Kalven Report
Indiana University art exhibit story
Indiana University professor suspended for improper reservation
J Hopkins is an American playwright, novelist, and political satirist. He moved to Germany in 2004. He publishes a self-titled blog on Substack and is the editor of Consent Factory Publishing.
CJ’s most recent book, “The Rise of the New Normal Reich,” draws a parallel between Nazi Germany and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2022, it was banned on Amazon in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. In the months that followed, CJ was charged by German authorities with violating a section of the German penal code that prohibits “disseminating information, the intention of which is to further the aims of a former National-Socialist organization [the Nazis].” He was recently acquitted, but the prosecutor chose to appeal the decision.
In the coming months, CJ will stand trial — again — for a crime he claims he didn’t commit and for which he has already been acquitted.
**We are launching on Substack this week! Nothing will change for our listeners. It’s just another way to support the podcast and FIRE. Premium subscribers will receive a FIRE membership and access to our new monthly “Members Only” Zoom chats, where we will discuss free speech news and happenings at FIRE. Members will also be able to ask Nico and other FIRE staffers questions.**
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
2:58 Who is CJ Hopkins?
9:35 CJ moves to Germany
15:02 CJ’s work since 2004
18:23 Berlin in 2020
27:18 “The Rise of the New Normal Reich”
34:01 CJ’s book banned in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands
37:05 German investigation
47:26 German sensitivities to Nazism
50:17 Why didn’t CJ just pay the fine?
54:03 CJ goes to trial
1:03:29 Double-jeopardy / prosecutorial appeal
1:08:49 Does CJ have regrets?
1:12:50 Conclusion
Show Notes
Atlantic profile by Jamie Kirchick
“Berlin Diary” by William L. Shirer
“The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William L. Shirer
“The Rise of the New Normal Reich” by CJ Hopkins
“The Verdict” by CJ Hopkins, a Substack article about the conclusion of his first trial
“The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III, banned in Germany, Austria, and The Netherlands!” by CJ Hopkins, a Substack article about his book being banned on Amazon
Michael Malice is a self-described “anarchist without adjectives” and is the author of several books, including most recently “The White Pill: A Tale of Good and Evil.” He is also the host of the podcast, “YOUR WELCOME,” and the subject of the biographical comic book, “Ego & Hubris: The Michael Malice Story.”
Michael joins us today to explain why he hates the term “free speech,” and gives his thoughts on McCarthyism, anarchism, Twitter, and more.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
0:46 Who is Michael Malice?
6:45 What is an anarchist without adjectives?
7:26 The definition of anarchism/prominent anarchists
8:01 How do we have free speech in an anarchist society?
16:54 The McCarthy Era
20:38 Students for Justice in Palestine
24:57 Should we advocate for a culture of free speech?
30:44 “Hitman”
34:01 What is the core right under an anarchist system?
36:26 Elon, Twitter, and free speech
44:38 Emma Goldman and McCarthyism
55:27 Cancel culture
1:01:37 From Emma Goldman to Solzhenitsyn
1:05:31 What is it like to live under an authoritarian regime?
1:12:23 The war in Ukraine
1:15:24 Outro
Show Notes
“Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il” by Michael Malice
“Hitman: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors” by Rex Feral (pseud.)
“Khrushchev's Secret Speech” (Encyclopedia Britannica entry)
“My Disillusionment in Russia” by Emma Goldman
“Schenck v United States” (1919)
“The Anarchist Handbook” by Michael Malice
“The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
“The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics” by Michael Malice
Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy’s Cyber Science Department. He is the author of four books including his most recent, “Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation.” He has also written books about anonymous speech and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
2:30 Jeff’s focus on the First Amendment
4:27 What is Section 230?
9:30 “Liar in a Crowded Theater”
16:27 What does the First Amendment say about lies?
19:35 What speech isn’t protected?
21:27 The Eminem case
27:33 The Dominion lawsuit
38:44 “The United States of Anonymous”
46:39 The impact of age verification laws
49:43 “The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet”
58:40 What’s next for Jeff?
1:01:35 Outro
Show Notes
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
Nikki Haley on social media anonymity
Schenck v. United States (1917)
“The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet” by Jeff Kosseff
NBC News: “Judge allows lawsuit against Snap from relatives of dead children to move forward”
“The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech” by Jeff Kosseff
United States v. Alvarez (2012)
Bill Courtney is an American football coach, entrepreneur, author, and the subject of the academy award winning 2011 documentary “Undefeated,” which tells the story of Courtney leading a high school football team in an economically depressed area of Memphis, Tenn. to the playoffs.
Courtney is the host of the An Army of Normal Folks podcast, in which he shares stories of “ordinary people doing extraordinary things in and around their communities.” His book “Against the Grain: A Coach's Wisdom on Character, Faith, Family, and Love” was released in 2014.
In this episode, we discuss coaching, the surprise success of “Undefeated,” and how talking across lines of difference can heal a polarized America.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
2:25 Courtney’s background
5:41 The influence of coaches
16:50 How Courtney ended up at Manassas High School
18:50 Coaching in difficult environments
24:30 Bridging divides
30:12 Forgiveness and grace
35:57 Daryl Davis
42:45 The “death spiral” of division and polarization
53:15 What happened to Manassas after Courtney left?
54:00 How did the filmmakers find Manassas?
59:21 Was the documentary good for the school and the kids?
We’re joined today by Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Robert Corn-Revere, and Ronnie London to discuss the history and verdict of the Backpage trial.
Backpage.com was an online classified advertising service founded in 2004. As a chief competitor to Craigslist, Backpage allowed users to post ads to categories such as personals, automotive, rentals, jobs and — most notably — adult services. In 2018, the website domain was seized by the FBI and its executives were prosecuted under federal prostitution and money laundering statutes. The trial concluded this year, resulting in the acquittal and convictions of several key executives.
Some First Amendment advocates are concerned that the Backpage case represents a “slippery slope” for the prosecution of protected speech and the rights of websites that host user-generated content.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason Magazine, where she has written about the Backpage case in detail.
Robert Corn-Revere is FIRE’s chief counsel and a frequent guest of the show. Prior to joining FIRE, he represented Backpage in private practice.
Ronnie London is FIRE’s general counsel and another frequent guest of the show. He also represented Backpage when he was in private practice prior to joining FIRE.
Timestamps
00:00 Introduction
06:55 The origins of Backpage
10:40 The significance of classified ads
14:52 Are escort ads protected?
19:07 Federal memos indicating Backpage fought child sex trafficking
23:19 Backpage content moderation
34:44 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
42:59 “De-banking” and NRA v. Vullo
52:24 The verdict
1:00:34 Could these convictions be overturned?
1:02:49 Outro
Show notes
Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s 2018 Backpage profile
Nico and FIRE President & CEO Greg Lukianoff appeared on an X Space to discuss the fallout from the recent congressional hearing on anti-Semitism involving Harvard President Claudine Gay, MIT President Sally Kornbluth, and former Penn President Liz Magill, who resigned last week following backlash over her testimony.
Timestamps
0:00- Introduction
1:53 - History of FIRE
5:40 - MIT/Harvard/Penn presidents’ testimony
11:35 - How speech codes are abused and conflict over the definition of genocide
14:05 - Penn “water buffalo” incident
16:20 - Will universities take the wrong lesson from these hearings?
21:25 - Double standards on campus
23:41 - Standards for hostile environment harassment, Title VI
26:43 - Is there a university that is currently handling the situation well?
31:19 - Institutional neutrality
38:29 - Guidance for donors
41:51 - The mission of the university
47:35 - College admissions and political litmus tests
51:20 - Faculty viewpoint diversity
57:17 - The path forward
Show notes
The Canceling of the American Mind
FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings
Richard Berthold (“anyone who can blow up the pentagon has my vote”)
Student arrested for true threats at Cornell
Skokie case (neo Nazi protest in Illinois)
The Eternally Radical Idea (Greg’s Substack)
We’re joined by First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza and British journalist Brendan O’Neill to discuss the state of free speech in the United States and Europe.
Randazza is a First Amendment attorney and the managing partner at Randazza Legal Group. He has represented controversial figures throughout his career, including Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, Chuck Johnson, and founder of the neo-nazi website the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin.
O’Neill is a British author and journalist who served as editor of Spiked from 2007 to September 2021 and is currently its chief political writer. His book, “Heretic’s Manifesto,” was released in June. He last appeared on the podcast on October 20, 2016.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
6:35 Do lawyers want to defend their enemies any more?
13:00 The oldest form of intolerance
17:19 Israel/Hamas and double standards
32:28 Hate speech laws in Ireland
51:35 Censorship from internet intermediaries
52:33 Debanking and corporate censorship
55:36 PruneYard case
1:01:44 Social media and the internet
1:05:18 The Digital Services Act
Show Notes
Brendan O’Neill at Oxford Union
The FIRE team gets together to discuss the October 7 attacks in Israel and the resulting censorship on college campuses in the United States.
FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff, Director of Campus Rights Advocacy Alex Morey, and General Counsel Ronnie London join host Nico Perrino for the conversation.
** We will conduct a listener survey starting Monday, Nov. 13. “So to Speak” listeners who subscribe to the show’s email list will receive an email with a link to the survey. If you are not an email subscriber, you can subscribe at the bottom of sotospeakpodcast.com or by subscribing to the general FIRE email list at thefire.org and noting that you would also like to subscribe to the “So to Speak” list. We appreciate your feedback: It will help us improve the show!
Timestamps
5:13 - October 7 attacks on Israel
6:04 - Greg’s initial thoughts
14:58 - Alex’s initial thoughts
20:29 - Protected vs. unprotected expression
28:11 - Statements from donors, students and faculty; double standards
40:49 - Institutional neutrality and the Kalven Report
51:01 - Combating Anti-Semitism, the Daryl Davis example
54:46 - Students for Justice in Palestine
1:01:48 - Tearing down posters
Show Notes
Harvard student group letter (The public-facing Google Doc that originally hosted the letter was deleted.)
FIRE Letter to University of Florida President Ben Sasse re: Students for Justice in Palestine (after recording this episode, Brandeis University derecognized its campus chapter of SJP. Here is FIRE’s letter to Brandeis).
Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, and Marco Rubio call to revoke student visas
Trump Truth Social post calls for the expulsion of students who support Hamas
The Supreme Court handed down some big First Amendment victories last term. What lies ahead for the Court in the upcoming term? FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere and FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London join the show to discuss important First Amendment cases that will be heard during the Court’s 2023-24 session.
Timestamps:
0:00 - Introduction
1:47 - Murthy v. Missouri (government jawboning)
14:40 - NRA v. Vullo (government jawboning)
25:49 - NetChoice cases (social media regulation)
46:39 - Social media blocking cases
56:15 - Vidal v. Elster (trademark registration)
1:05:17 - Gonzalez v. Trevino (First Amendment retaliation)
Show Transcript:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-2023-24-supreme-court-preview
Cases Discussed:
Murthy v. Missouri (government jawboning)
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (social media regulation)
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (social media regulation)
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (social media blocking)
Lindke v. Freed (social media blocking)
Vidal v. Elster (trademark registration)
Gonzalez v. Trevino (First Amendment retaliation)
Nat’l. Rifle Ass’n. of Am. v. Vullo (government jawboning)
President, CEO, and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner, joins us for a discussion on freedom of speech and religious liberty. ADF has played various roles in 74 U.S. Supreme Court victories and since 2011, has won cases before the Court 15 times.
According to its website, “ADF is the world's largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.”
ADF has litigated many high profile and controversial free speech cases, including the recent Supreme Court case involving a web designer who didn’t want to be compelled to design websites for same-sex weddings. Before that, ADF litigated the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which involved a cake designer who similarly didn’t want to provide his services for same-sex weddings on religious grounds.
After the initial conversation was recorded, The Washington Post and The New Yorker released articles critical of ADF. Nico and Kristen recorded an additional, brief conversation to address these articles. That is included at the end of the podcast.
Transcript:
Timestamps:
0:43 - Introduction
6:16 - Kristen’s path to ADF
12:54 - ADF’s international team
14:20 - Pavi Rasanen controversy
19:24 - What does it mean to be a ministry?/blasphemy laws
22:56 - ADF’s Supreme Court cases
26:58 - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
28:56 - Public accommodation laws/Masterpiece Cakeshop
40:40 - Pre-enforcement challenges
42:50 - Facial challenges
47:32 - Test cases or fake cases?
49:44 - Yale incident
57:50 - Other campus shoutdowns
1:00:08 - L.M. v. Town of Middleborough
1:14:27 - Kristen addresses WaPo article
1:15:38 - Kristen addresses New Yorker article
Related Articles/Podcasts:
“Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings,” Jon Swaine and Beth Reinhard (The Washington Post)
“Are ADF’s Cases ‘Made Up’?” Lathan Watts (ADF, response to The Washington Post)
“The next targets for the group that overturned Roe,” David D. Kirkpatrick (The New Yorker)
FIRE’s response to Kristen Waggoner Yale incident
FIRE’s response to Anne Coulter Cornell incident
FIRE’s response to Ilya Shapiro Georgetown incident
FIRE’s response to Ian Haworth UAlbany incident
“The Imperfect Plaintiffs” (“More Perfect” podcast with Julia Longoria)
Cases Discussed:
Dubash v. City of Houston (Animal rights activists lawsuit, 2023)
Paivi Rasanen (Finnish lawmaker charged with incitement against gay people)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Writer and academic Yascha Mounk argues that a new set of ideas about race, gender, and sexual orientation have overtaken society, giving rise to a rigid focus on identity in our national debate. In his new book, “The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time,” Yascha seeks to take these ideas seriously, understand their origin, dissect their merits and failings, and offer a path forward to avoid what he calls “the identity trap.” On today’s show, Mounk previews his book and explains how the identity trap harms freedom of speech.
Mounk is known for his work on the rise of populism and the crisis of liberal democracy. He is a professor of the practice of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University and the author of five books. He is also the founder of the digital magazine Persuasion, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Transcript:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-identity-trap-yascha-mounk
Timestamps:
Discussed intellectuals:
Christopher Rufo (Rufo’s book, “America’s Cultural Revolution,” and Nico’s review, “Christopher Rufo Became the Thing He Claims to Hate”)
Cass Sunstein (article: “The Law of Group Polarization”)
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff and FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London join the show to preview Greg’s new co-authored book on cancel culture and to discuss recent free speech cases and headlines:
“The Canceling of the American Mind,” by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott (out Oct. 17)
Federal judge: Texas Law Mandating Age Verification for Sexually Themed Sites Violates First Amendment (Court Also Strikes Down "Public Health Warning" for Porn Sites)
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Harvey Silverglate is a criminal defense and civil liberties attorney. He is also the co-founder of FIRE.
On today’s show, Harvey defends the work of criminal defense attorneys, explaining why even guilty people must have the right to a robust legal defense. He also shares stories from his life, from growing up in Brooklyn to defending Vietnam War protesters to co-founding FIRE.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
High school debate is considered an ideal extracurricular activity for aspiring lawyers, politicians, or anyone seeking to learn the tools of effective communication and persuasion. But a slew of recent reports argue that high school debate is being captured by political ideology, rendering certain arguments off-limits, some debate topics undebatable, and ad hominem attacks fair game.
Debate judges disclose their judging paradigms by saying things like, “I will listen to conservative-leaning arguments, but be careful,” or, “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging.” Some debates even devolve into personal attacks, spurred on by judges who say they “will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done [or] said something racist, gendered, [or] -phobic in their personal behavior.”
On today’s show, we’re joined by two former high school debaters who are dismayed by these trends. James Fishback is the founder of Incubate Debate, which hosts free debate tournaments for students in Florida. Matthew Adelstein is a rising sophomore studying philosophy at the University of Michigan and publishes Bentham's Newsletter, a newsletter about utilitarianism.
Show notes:
“Part I: At high school debates, debate is no longer allowed” by James Fishback
“Part II: At high school debates, watch what you say” by James Fishback
“How critical theory is radicalizing high school debate” by Maya Bodnick
Nico’s current reading list on critical theory: “Grand Hotel Abyss” by Stuart Jeffries and “America’s Cultural Revolution” by Christopher F. Rufo
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
We review the Supreme Court’s free speech cases during the 2022-23 term and speculate on what’s in store for the next term. FIRE Vice President of Litigation Darpana Sheth guest hosts and is joined by FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere and FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London.
This episode was recorded before a virtual live audience on July 20. Watch a video of the conversation.
Cases discussed:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
In the last episode of the “So to Speak” podcast, we traced the dramatic story of free speech in the United States from colonial America to the abolitionists' campaign to abolish slavery. In this week’s episode, we pick up where we left off and explore the complicated history and legacy of civil liberties during the American Civil War.
Professor and author Joseph R. Fornieri and FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere join the show this week to unpack Abraham Lincoln’s justifications for suspending civil liberties and the important lesson that, in war, civil liberties can be hard to uphold, and our rights can be difficult to defend.
Show notes:
“Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction” by Allen Guelzo
“Lincoln’s First Amendment Record” by Eve Errickson (The Lincoln Cottage)
“The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties” by Mark E. Neeley, Jr.
“All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime” by William H. Rehnquist
“Did Abraham Lincoln Exceed His Presidential Powers during the Civil War?” (The Bill of Rights Institute)
“Lincoln and Civil Liberties” (The Gilder-Lehrman Institute)
Join FIRE on July 20th at 3:00 PM EST for a special live-streamed episode of the "So to Speak" podcast about the Supreme Court's free speech decisions from this past term.
Hear from FIRE’s Darpana Sheth, Bob Corn-Revere, and Ronnie London on what these decisions mean for free expression, (and maybe even for you), and ask the panel anywhatever burning questions you may have. You can register here.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Last Constitution Day, we traced the origins of free speech in the United States from colonial America to the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. In this episode, we jump forward to the antebellum period, where abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, John Quincy Adams, William Lloyd Garrison, and Angelina Grimké clashed with pro-slavery advocates over the monumental issue of slavery.
Journalist and author Damon Root, FIRE Senior Fellow Jacob Mchangama, and Washington and Lee University professor Lucas Morel join the show this week to explore how free speech and the free press became the essential tools in the abolitionists’ campaign for freedom.
Show notes:
“Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” by Jacob Mchangama
“Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Anti-Slavery Constitution” by Damon Root
“Speaking the Truth” by Lucas Morel (Persuasion)
“A Plea for Free Speech in Boston” by Federick Douglass (National Constitution Center)
“Frederick Douglass” (The First Amendment Encyclopedia)
“What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” by Frederick Douglass (Teaching American History)
“With the Freedom of Speech, the Responsibility to Listen” (Ford Foundation)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Nico knows very little about punk rock. On today’s show, Reason magazine’s Nick Gillespie and FIRE Vice President of Communications Matt Harwood do their best to explain to Nico why he and other free speech advocates should care about punk rock.
Transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-why-should-we-care-about-punk-rock
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Winning in the court of public opinion is hard. On today’s show, Ewing School founder Bob Ewing shares communications strategies that anyone — including free speech advocates — can use to win in the marketplace of ideas.
Prior to founding the Ewing School, Bob was director of communications for the Institute for Justice and pioneered a communications training program for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Bob is also the author of the Talking Big Ideas Substack, which Nico highly recommends.
Bob first shared his ideas on effective communication with host Nico Perrino over lunch in May 2013. Some of those ideas went on to shape FIRE’s communications strategy for the next decade.
Transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-how-make-winning-free-speech-argument
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
On April 18, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit stemming from allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The historic settlement came just before the trial was set to begin in a case many saw as having significant First Amendment implications. In this exclusive conversation, attorneys for Fox and Dominion join First Amendment attorney Lee Levine to reflect on what led to the case, its outcome, and the arguments they would have made had the case gone to trial.
Tom Clare is a founding partner of Clare Locke LLP and was counsel to Dominion. Dan Webb is co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn and was counsel for Fox News.
The conversation was organized and presented by The First Amendment Salon on Tuesday, May 9.
Show notes:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Rocking their tuxedos in preparation for the 2023 FIRE gala in New York City, Host Nico Perrino speaks with rapper and free speech advocate Killer Mike about his journey toward learning the value of free expression.
They also discuss the importance of free speech in American history, the value of engaging and arguing with those who disagree with us, why free speech was critical to gaining racial equality, defending rappers and artists being prosecuted for their lyrics, and why polarization is more dangerous than anything anybody can say.
The interview is followed by Killer Mike’s keynote speech.
Watch Killer Mike's keynote speech at the 2023 FIRE Gala in New York City:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Does music censorship still happen in America? Is “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll” dead? Is transgression in art and culture celebrated anymore (or was it ever)? From Beyonce and Taylor Swift to Ozzy Osbourne and Robin Thicke, SPIN magazine founder Bob Guccione Jr. and Reason magazine Editor at Large Nick Gillespie join a lively discussion of our current moment in pop culture. Bob also shares some war stories from his fight against the Parents Music Resource Center in the 1980s.
Transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-sex-drugs-and-free-speech
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
What’s going on in Florida? Host Nico Perrino and his FIRE colleagues break down the latest efforts to censor speech in the Sunshine State.
Show notes:
“Thought the ‘Stop WOKE Act’ was bad? A new Florida bill is worse”
“Florida bill attacking NYT v. Sullivan would ‘spell disaster’ for free speech”
Miami Herald: “Florida undercover agents reported no ‘lewd acts’ at drag show targeted by DeSantis” by Nicholas Nehamas and Ana Ceballos
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
UPDATE: Just as this podcast was to be published, Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez sent a 10-page memorandum to the law school community outlining a path forward for the school, including updating school policies to prevent future speaker disruptions and mandatory student free speech training. She also announced that Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach is on leave.
–
The heckling began almost as soon as Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan started his invited lecture at Stanford Law School on March 9. Signs in the audience read “RESPECT TRANS RIGHTS,” “FEDSUCK,” “BE PRONOUN NOT PRO-BIGOT.” What transpired over the next 40 minutes captured national headlines and raised questions about the state of free speech at America’s law schools.
David Lat writes commentary about law and the legal profession for Original Jurisdiction. Until 2019, he was an editor at the legal news website Above the Law, which he founded. Prior to his journalism career, David was a practicing lawyer.
Show notes:
“Yale Law is no longer #1 for free speech debacles” by David Lat
“7 updates on Judge Kyle Duncan and Stanford Law” by David Lat
“The full audio recording of Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law” by David Lat
“Shouting down speakers is mob censorship” by Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff
Kalven Committee: Report on the university’s role in political and social action (University of Chicago report)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Ilya Shapiro joins the show to discuss the fireworks in the Fox/Dominion defamation lawsuit, his recent speaking appearance at the University of Denver, and his “cancel culture nightmare” at Georgetown University.
Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He previously (and briefly) served as executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and as a vice president at the Cato Institute.
Shapiro will speak at FIRE’s gala celebration in NYC on April 18. Reserve your tickets now at this link.
Show notes:
“My cancel culture nightmare is over” by Ilya Shapiro
“Ilya Shapiro resigns from Georgetown following reinstatement after 122-day investigation of tweets” (featuring Ilya’s resignation letter)
“Why the mental health of liberal girls sank first and fastest” by Jonathan Haidt
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
The seminal 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan limited the ability of public officials to silence their critics by successfully suing them for defamation. Sullivan made “American public officials more accountable, the American media more watchful, and the American people better informed,” said William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But Sullivan is increasingly under attack from politicians, activists, and even sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. They believe the decision went too far, enabling the news media and others to defame others with little-to-no consequence. On today’s show, we are joined by lawyers Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel), JT Morris (FIRE), and Matthew Schafer (Fordham Law) to discuss New York Times v. Sullivan and its future. Show notes:
“Two Justices Say Supreme Court Should Reconsider Landmark Libel Decision” by Adam Liptak
“How to Restore Balance to Libel Law” by Glenn Reynolds
“New York Times v. Sullivan and the Forgotten Session of the US Supreme Court” by Matthew Schafer
“The Most Important Supreme Court Precedent for Freedom of the Press Is in Jeopardy” by Matthew Schafer and Jeff Kosseff
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/
Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
FIRE’s Will Creeley and Aaron Terr join the show to discuss Phoenix, Arizona’s unconstitutional “clean zone” for Super Bowl LVII, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s effort to get public school students to volunteer for her re-election campaign, recent polling on how much people really know about the First Amendment (sadly, not much), and Indiegogo, Kickstarter, and Crowdfundr canceling fundraisers for comic books they deemed politically unacceptable.
We also provide an update on the Hamline University Muhammad art censorship case.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
What does the rise of artificial intelligence mean for the future of free speech and the First Amendment? Who is liable for what AI produces? Can you own a copyright for works produced by AI? Does AI itself violate intellectual property rights when it uses others’ information to generate content? What about that Morgan Freeman “deep fake”? And is ChatGPT going to make all of our jobs irrelevant?
Show notes:
Guests:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
A faculty member at Hamline University lost her job. Twelve staffers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were murdered. And Salman Rushdie was repeatedly stabbed. All of them offended certain people’s religious sensitivities.
On today’s show, we are joined by Amna Khalid and Michael Moynihan to discuss the risks and costs of teaching, talking, writing, and creating art about religion, particularly Islam. We also discuss the recent #TwitterFiles reporting.
Amna Khalid is an associate professor of history at Carleton College and host of the podcast “Banished.” Michael Moynihan is a writer, reporter, and co-host of “The Fifth Column” podcast.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Do Ann Coulter’s words equal “violence”? Does Emerson College care more about not offending the Chinese Communist Party than protecting student free speech rights? And are faculty political litmus tests back in vogue? FIRE’s Alex Morey and Zach Greenberg join the show to discuss the latest in campus censorship.
Please support this show by donating to FIRE before the end of the year: thefire.org/support
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Hot on the heels of oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, FIRE’s Ronnie London and David Hudson join the show to discuss the case, as well as other high profile free speech cases at the Supreme Court this year.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thefireorg Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
FIRE’s new Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr and the Cato Institute’s Will Duffield join the show to discuss a slew of recent free speech news. California gets it right on rap lyrics but wrong on coronavirus misinformation. One Texas school district repeatedly ventures into book banning. LeBron James spreads “hate speech” misinformation. Is government “jawboning” censorship? And, yes, Elon Musk . . . again.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thefireorg Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
FIRE’s Will Creeley and Aaron Terr join the show to discuss a slew of recent free speech news: What do we make of Elon Musk buying Twitter? Is PayPal fining its users $2,500 for promoting “misinformation”? Is New York trying to destroy Twitch? And do public employees in Charlottesville, Va., need to shut their mouths to keep their jobs? Also, how’s FIRE’s off-campus expansion going?
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Do books need a special editor who reads for offensive content? And who gets to decide what’s offensive anyway? This week we are joined by authors Kat Rosenfield and Vesper Stamper to discuss censorial trends in book publishing, including the rise of so-called “sensitivity readers” and the sometimes successful campaigns to get books canceled before they are even published. We also explore adjacent debates: Is it appropriate to write outside of one’s identity or lived experience? And can authors write about people who do bad things without endorsing the bad things they do?
Show notes:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protect a private social media company’s right to moderate content on its platform?A new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit says it does not, and that a Texas law preventing viewpoint discrimination on social media platforms is constitutional.The issue is likely bound for the Supreme Court, setting up what is arguably the most consequential First Amendment legal case in a half-century. Institute for Free Speech Chairman and Founder Brad Smith and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin join us to debate the ruling and the future of free speech on the internet.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
“Should academic journals appoint themselves social justice gatekeepers?”That is the question journalist and author Jonathan Rauch asks in responding to new ethics guidance from the academic journal Nature Human Behaviour. The journal introduces the guidance by ominously noting that “although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded.” It then goes on to discuss ways it will restrict publishing research that allegedly harms, stigmatizes, or otherwise “undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups” — even inadvertently.Rauch joins the show, along with University of Southern California professor Anna Krylov.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
This Saturday, Sept. 17, is Constitution Day. It was on this day in 1787 that delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed America’s Constitution. And while the First Amendment was not ratified until 1791, discussions over the role of free speech and expression in a democratic society were alive long before then.
Pepperdine University professor and author Gordon Lloyd joins the show this week to explore how the American conception of free speech came to be, from the colonial era to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Drawing from over 40 years of research, Lloyd discusses examples of free speech and expression during the founding, ranging from 1641, when the Massachusetts Body of Liberties — the earliest known protection of free speech in the colonies — was published; to 1776, when free speech aided the decision to declare independence from Great Britain; to the late 1780s, when federalist and anti-federalist publications sparked, in Lloyd’s words, “the greatest pamphlet war the world has ever seen.”
Show notes:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
What can Charles Darwin teach us about dissent? What do the professional basketball careers of Wilt Chamberlain and Rick Barry tell us about conventional wisdom?On today’s show, George Mason University Professor Todd Kashdan helps us understand the value of principled dissent: what it is, how to do it, and the pitfalls to avoid. He is the author of “The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively.”
Show notes:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Last week, a would-be assassin attacked Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses,” in an apparent attempt to carry out the infamous fatwa placed on Rushdie’s life. Fortunately, Rushdie survived the attack. Vice News Tonight correspondent and “The Fifth Column” podcast co-host Michael Moynihan joins the show to discuss what happened, what it means for free speech, and the history of “The Satanic Verses” controversy.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion in the United States, many people expected states to pass laws restricting access to abortion services. Perhaps less expected was that some lawmakers now seek to pass laws restricting — and criminalizing — speech about abortion services.
FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley and FIRE Senior Fellow and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen join the show to discuss their recent essay, “That Facebook post about abortion could land you in jail — if South Carolina legislators have their way.”
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Substack — the popular newsletter and publishing service — has made a name for itself by swimming against the current: As many technology companies devise new ways to censor or moderate content on their platforms, Substack made free speech one of its core values and, in doing so, has attracted bloggers and journalists from across the political spectrum.
“While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society,” proclaimed Substack’s founders.
Lulu Cheng Meservey is Vice President of Communications for Substack. She went viral earlier this year when she tweeted about why free expression is an important principle for Substack. She joins us this week to discuss Substack, free speech, and the new media ecosystem.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Last month, the U.S. Department of Education proposed new Title IX regulations that, if implemented, would gut essential free speech and due process rights for college students facing sexual misconduct allegations on campus.
Joining us to analyze the regulations and their impact are FIRE’s executive director and author of the book “Twisting Title IX,” Robert Shibley, Allen Harris Law Partner Samantha Harris, and Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
“Every advance gay people have made in this country has been the result of the exercise of free expression,” argues writer James Kirchick, author of the New York Times bestseller, “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington.”
Transcript:
https://www.thefire.org/so-to-speak-podcast-transcript-the-first-amendment-created-gay-america/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights *in Education* becomes the Foundation for Individual Rights *and Expression*.
America’s leading defender of free speech, due process, and academic freedom in higher education announced it is taking its free speech mission beyond college campuses with a $75 million expansion initiative.
FIRE President & CEO Greg Lukianoff and FIRE COO Alisha Glennon join the show to discuss how the organization is changing and why.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
In this week’s episode of So to Speak, we focus on some of the notable cases of music censorship in America, the formation of the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), and the lasting effects of the PMRC’s efforts on the music industry.
Author Eric Nuzum joins us to discuss his 2001 book, “Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America.” Nuzum illustrates examples of music censorship ranging from the Reconstruction era, when Southerners were prevented from publicly singing pro-Confederate ballads, to 1967, when the network that aired televised live performances by The Doors and The Rolling Stones asked the bands to alter their lyrics. Nuzum also discusses the PMRC’s “Filthy Fifteen”; Senate hearings featuring John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snider; post-9/11 radio censorship; and more recent controversies involving the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials.
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Twitter is going to become 8chan. At least, that’s what a recent episode of the popular radio program “On the Media” suggests will happen if Elon Musk successfully buys Twitter.
Musk promised to bring greater free speech protections to the social media platform. But where Musk sees an opportunity for more freedom, some see the potential for too much freedom. On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, Matt Taibbi, Nadine Strossen, and Amna Khalid discuss what “On the Media” got wrong and what they got really wrong in their episode “Ghost in the Machine.” (No, “On the Media,” Twitter will not become a platform for child pornography.)
This is the second time we have addressed bad free speech arguments from “On the Media.” The first time was last September, when this same group responded to the episode, “Constitutionally Speaking.”
Matt Taibbi is the author of four New York Times bestselling books. He writes a popular Substack newsletter, TK News.
Nadine Strossen is a professor of law, emerita at New York Law School and served for 17 years as the president of the ACLU.
Amna Khalid is an associate professor of history at Carleton College and the host of a new podcast called “Banished.”
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Did you know Hugh Hefner holds the Guinness World Record for owning the largest personal scrapbook collection in the world?When he was not building the global Playboy empire, he spent his Saturdays compiling more than 3,000 scrapbooks, chronicling free speech and press issues during his lifetime.
Stuart N. Brotman, professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, was granted exclusive access to Hefner’s scrapbooks. On today’s episode, he talks about what he found and about his new book, “The First Amendment Lives On: Conversations Commemorating Hugh M. Hefner's Legacy of Enduring Free Speech and Free Press Values.”
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Does Disney have free speech rights? And did Florida violate the First Amendment when it punished the company for its political activism? Elon Musk is buying Twitter. What should free speech advocates make of that?
Recurring guest and famed First Amendment scholar Robert Corn-Revere is here to break it all down for us. He’s a partner at the law firm Davis Wright-Tremaine, a member of FIRE’s Advisory Council, and the author of “The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder: The First Amendment and the Censor’s Dilemma.”
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
What is academic freedom? And who polices its boundaries?
Our guests on today’s show argue that the popular conception of academic freedom has become too closely connected with the concept of free speech.
Penn State Professor Michael Bérubé and Portland State Professor Jennifer Ruth are the authors of “It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom.”
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
Konstantin Eggert, a native Muscovite, has reported on Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. He started his reporting career in Moscow in 1990. From 1998-2009, he was senior correspondent, then editor-in-chief, of the BBC Russian Service Moscow bureau. Later he worked for ExxonMobil Russia and Russian media outlets, Kommersant and TV Rain.
Now, living in Lithuania, Eggert is a vocal critic of the Putin regime and has more than a few thoughts on censorship in Russia: specifically, how it compares to Soviet censorship, the decline of independent media in the country, Russian history, and the war in Ukraine.
Eggert currently works for a German broadcaster, Deutsche Welle.
Show notes:
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
The Russian government has purged independent media, banned protests, and shut down social media access. So, do Russians know the truth about the war in Ukraine?
Ksenia Turkova is a journalist from Russia who currently works for Voice of America. Before coming to the United States she worked for a number of Russian news outlets, including some that were shut down by the Russian government. She also spent time as a radio host in Ukraine.
On today’s episode of “So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast,” Turkova shares her reporting on Russian censorship and the war in Ukraine, as well as some of her firsthand experiences as a reporter in the country.
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org
“No chief justice in our history has had as much influence on the law of freedom of expression as John Roberts,” according to Ronald K.L. Collins and David L. Hudson Jr.
They are the authors of a new Brooklyn Law Review article, “The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021.”
On today’s episode of “So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast,” Collins and Hudson review 58 First Amendment rulings that have been issued since John Roberts became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Collins is a First Amendment scholar, author, and editor of First Amendment News. Hudson is the Justice Robert H. Jackson legal fellow at FIRE and a professor at Belmont University College of Law.
www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org