So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

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) Harvard's lawsuit (complaint) (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 Read the transcript. 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 “Headlines compared: Kamala Harris' multiple answers to ‘60 Minutes' question” (2024) Straight Arrow News

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) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1967) Federal government letter to Harvard (2025) “The promise of American higher education” Alan Garber (2025) Harvard's lawsuit (complaint) (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 Read the transcript here. 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) Section 230 text “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. Read the transcript. 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. Read the transcript. 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) - The University of Chicago Kalven Report (1967)

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. Read the transcript. 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: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) “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) Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Canadian Criminal Code (1985) Bill C-63 - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act (2024) McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990) “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) "President Donald J. Trump v. J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Company, Des Moines Register and Tribune company, and Gannett Co., Inc.” (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: *Unedited transcript and edited transcript for Substack will be available later in the week!

“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. Read the transcript. 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) Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) 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.” Read the transcript. 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: Espionage Act of 1917 Sedition Act of 1918 Executive Order (creating the Committee on Public Information) Schenk v. United States (1919) Abrams v. United States (1919) Smith Act of 1940 President Franklin D. Roosevelt's “Four Freedoms” speech (1941) The Lend-Lease Program (1941-1945)

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.  Read the transcript. 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. Read the transcript. 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 2839 - Elections: deceptive media in advertisements AB 2655 - Defending democracy from deepfake deception Act of 2024 California AI transparency Act  Colorado AI Act NO FAKES 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.” Read the transcript. 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) Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. Olson, County Attorney (1931) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Roth v. United States (1957) Miller v. California (1973) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota (1992) Counterman v. Colorado (2023) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliot, and Jonathan O'Mara (2003) United States v. Xavier Alvarez (2012) -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.   Read the transcript.   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: AB 2839  AB 2655 AB 1831 Title VI (Civil Rights Act of 1964) Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996) Articles/Tweets: “This is amazing

Can free speech and content moderation on social media coexist? Jonathan Rauch and Renée 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.” Renée 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.” READ THE TRANSCRIPT. 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) “FIRE Statement on Free Speech and Social Media” 

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: Section 230 text “The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet” by Jeff Kosseff Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1991) Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) “Section 230: A Retrospective” by Chris Cox Section 230: Legislative History (Electronic Frontier Foundation)  

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.   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 Transcript “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.” 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  

Ep. 214: ‘Private Censorship' with J.P. Messina   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 Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) Cloudflare's announcement regarding the Daily Stormer  

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 The Antisemitism Awareness Act   

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.  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. During the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement, students demanded more free speech. Now, they were demanding more censorship. What changed? Neil Howe may have an answer. He is a historian, economist, and demographer who speaks frequently on generational change. He has co-authored several books with William Strauss, including “Generations” and “The Fourth Turning.” 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” and “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Note: Nico's lavalier microphone was too close to his mouth during this recording, producing what we in the biz call “clipping.” Hence, Nico sounds a bit crunchier than normal. We apologize if it's distracting, but we hope it's not! 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 Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier decisions  ‘So to Speak' on Substack

Ep. 209: ‘Is money speech?' with Robert Breedlove   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 1:14:58 Prediction markets  1:18:14 Theories of information/the marketplace of ideas 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 ‘What is Money?' Show” “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) Samizdat Online “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  Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) Princeton no contact order  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  Iowa Satanism bill Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) “So to Speak”: Substack

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 Consent Factory  “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) FIRE's guide to Section 230 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  Backpage.com url 2018 Backpage indictment Elizabeth Nolan Brown's 2018 Backpage profile Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act NRA v. Vullo The Travel Act

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 Congressional hearing FIRE's College Free Speech Rankings Kalven Report “Mighty Ira” 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) Penn “water buffalo” case

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  EU Digital Services Act Proposed Irish hate speech bill PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)   

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.)  Bill Ackman letter to Harvard The Kalven Report Daryl Davis  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)   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.    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) 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2022)  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017)  Uzuebgunam v. Preczewski (2021)  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)  Wooley v. Maynard (1997)  Plessy v. Ferguson (1986)  L.M. v. Town of Middleborough (2023)   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  

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. Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 1:35 - Origins of “the identity trap” 8:48 - What is “identity synthesis?” 12:26 - Is “cultural Marxism” a thing? / The intellectual history of identity synthesis 27:47 - Critical race theory 32:30 - Free speech culture 40:22 - Speech and violence 47:58 - The Law of Group Polarization  52:27 - How to escape the identity trap Discussed intellectuals:  Derrick Bell  Kimberlé Crenshaw  Jacques Derrida  Michel Foucault Christopher Rufo (Rufo's book, “America's Cultural Revolution,” and Nico's review, “Christopher Rufo Became the Thing He Claims to Hate”) Edward Said Jean-Paul Sartre Gayatri Spivak  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)   Colorado public school to allow student to display Gadsden flag patch — as long as nobody complains   California library violates First Amendment, boots speakers for referring to transgender women as ‘biological men'   Police stage ‘chilling' raid on Marion County newspaper, seizing computers, records and cellphones   Federal judge: Texas Law Mandating Age Verification for Sexually Themed Sites Violates First Amendment (Court Also Strikes Down "Public Health Warning" for Porn Sites)   Judge blocks Arkansas law requiring parental OK for minors to create social media accounts   Federal judge bars Texas from enforcing book rating law   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. 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