So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

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😂” 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.” 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: TranscriptSection 230 textThe Twenty-Six Words that Created the InternetCubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995)Section 230: A RetrospectiveSection 230: Legislative History

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: Episode transcript “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: Transcript 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