So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast
So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast takes an uncensored look at the world of free expression through the law, philosophy, and stories that define your right to free speech. Hosted by FIRE's Nico Perrino. New episodes post every other Thursday.
info_outline
Ep. 241: The government’s money, the government’s rules?
04/23/2025
Ep. 241: The government’s money, the government’s rules?
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: - — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law - — 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? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: David Rabban (2024) Erwin Chemerinsky (2022) “” The New York Review (2025) (1957) (1967) (2025) “” Alan Garber (2025) (2025) “” The New York Times (2025) “” Claire Shipman (2025) (2023) “” FIRE (2025) (1945)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/36281350
info_outline
Ep. 240: Is there a global free speech recession?
04/09/2025
Ep. 240: Is there a global free speech recession?
We travel from America to Europe, Russia, China, and more places to answer the question: Is there a global free speech recession? Guests: - : FIRE senior scholar, global expression - : FIRE senior fellow - : FIRE senior fellow Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:52 Free speech global surveys 07:49 Freedom of expression deteriorating 11:43 Misinformation and disinformation 18:05 Russian state-sponsored media 24:55 Europe’s Digital Services Act 29:26 Chinese censorship 34:33 Radio Free Europe 54:57 Mohammad cartoons 01:04:14 Outro Enjoy listening to the podcast? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: - Sarah McLaughlin (2025) - “” So to Speak (2022) - “” James Kirchick (2022) - “” The Future of Free Speech (2025) - “” V-Dem Institute (2025) - World Economic Forum (2025) - “” Washington Free Beacon (2013) - Jacob Mchangama (2025) - (2022) - Sarah Wynn-Williams (2025) - “” The New York Times (2025) - The Washington Post (1990) - AP News (2025)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/36065700
info_outline
Ep. 239: Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more
03/27/2025
Ep. 239: Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more
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: - , FIRE’s legal director - , FIRE’s supervising senior attorney - , FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy Enjoy listening to the podcast? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: - “” U.S. Department of Justice (2025) - . U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025) - “” The Wall Street Journal (2025) - “” Columbia University (2025) - “” FIRE (2025) - “” U.S. Department of Education (2025) - “” FIRE (2025) - “” FIRE (2025) - “” Secretary of State Marco Rubio via X (2025) - “’ President Donald J. Trump” The White House via X (2025) - “” PBS NewsHour (2025) - “” U.S. Department of State (2025) - “” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025) - “” National Archives (1798) - . (2025) - (2025) - “” The Wall Street Journal (2025) - “” The White House (2025) - “” The White House (2025) - “” The White House (2025) - “” The CATO Institute (2025) - “” President Trump via TruthSocial (2025) - “” The New York Times (2025) - “” Maine House of Representatives (2025) - “” FIRE (2025) - “” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025) - “” Karl Popper (1945) - “” Mike Godwin (1995)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/35885815
info_outline
Ep. 238: On Mahmoud Khalil
03/18/2025
Ep. 238: On Mahmoud Khalil
First Amendment lawyer and immigration lawyer 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? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: - “” Secretary of State Marco Rubio via X (2025) - “’ President Donald J. Trump” The White House via X (2025) - “” PBS NewsHour (2025) - “” U.S. Department of State (2025) - “” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/35748345
info_outline
Ep. 237: A tech policy bonanza! The FCC, FTC, AI regulations, and more
03/12/2025
Ep. 237: A tech policy bonanza! The FCC, FTC, AI regulations, and more
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: , FIRE’s lead counsel, tech policy. , a resident technology and innovation senior fellow at the R Street Institute - , 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? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: “” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez via X (2025) “” New York Post (2025) “” Brendan Carr via Project 2025 (2022) “” Adam Kovacevich via X (2025) “” Adam Thierer via X (2025) “” Brendan Carr via X (2025) “” Semafor (2025) “” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2020) “” New York Post (2025) “” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson via X (2025) “” FTC (2025) “” (2024) “” FIRE (2025) “” FIRE (2025) “” Adam Thierer via X (2025) “” Mike Godwin (1995) “” FIRE (2024) “” Ithiel de Sola Pool (1984)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/35654335
info_outline
Ep. 236: JD Vance, 60 Minutes, the Associated Press, the FCC, and more
02/19/2025
Ep. 236: JD Vance, 60 Minutes, the Associated Press, the FCC, and more
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? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: - “” The White House (2025) - “” Michael Tracey via X (2025) - “” FOX News (2025) - “” 60 Minutes (2025) - “” AP News (2025) - “” FIRE (2025) - “” The White House (2025) - “” The Wall Street Journal (2025) - “” AP News (2025) - “” Columbia Journalism Review (2025) - “” FIRE (2025) - “” Bob Corn-Revere (2025) - “” FCC (1996) - (1993) - “” USA Today (2025) - “” FCC (2004) - “” Brendan Carr via the FCC (2024) - “” (2023) - “” Elon Musk via X (2025) - “” The White House (2025) - “” The White House (2025)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/35353270
info_outline
Ep. 235: Cancel culture, legal education, and the Supreme Court with Ilya Shapiro
02/06/2025
Ep. 235: Cancel culture, legal education, and the Supreme Court with Ilya Shapiro
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, “,” is out now. Enjoy listening to our podcast? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. 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: - “” City Journal (2022) - “” ABC News (2022) - “” Ilya Shapiro, The Wall Street Journal (2022) - “” FIRE (2022) - (2023) - (1965) - (2025) - (2024) - (1968) (last updated 2025)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/35175330
info_outline
Ep. 234: The Chicago Canon
01/23/2025
Ep. 234: The Chicago Canon
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 , which last year. They are also editors of “,” a new book that collects foundational texts that inform the university’s free speech tradition. Enjoy listening to our podcast? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. . 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: - (2015) - (last updated 2024) - (1967)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/34971360
info_outline
Ep. 233: Rethinking free speech with Peter Ives
01/09/2025
Ep. 233: Rethinking free speech with Peter Ives
Is the free speech conversation too simplistic? Peter Ives thinks so. He is the author of “,” 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? and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. . 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: (1982) “” Harper’s Magazine (2020) “” John Stuart Mill (1859) “” Jacob Mchangama (2022) (1969) (2021) (1985) (2024) (1990) “” The New York Times (2017) (Communications Decency Act of 1996)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/34786300
info_outline
Ep. 232: We answer your free speech questions
12/18/2024
Ep. 232: We answer your free speech questions
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 to receive invitations to future live webinars. If you became a through a donation to FIRE at and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email . Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:52 ! 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 “” 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: “” (D.C. 2024) “” L.A. Times (2024) (Tex. 2023; Texas age-verification law) “” Jonathan Haidt (2024) (2023-2024) (Ind. 2000) “” FIRE (2024) “” FIRE (2024) "” (2024) “” (2024) “” FIRE (2023) “” FIRE (2023) “” John Stuart Mill (1859) “” Newsweek (2024) “” FIRE (2022) “” Columbia Journalism Review (2024) “” FIRE (2024)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/34501555
info_outline
Ep. 231: What is academic freedom? With Keith Whittington
12/12/2024
Ep. 231: What is academic freedom? With Keith Whittington
“Who controls what is taught in American universities — professors or politicians?” Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, “You Can’t Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a “weaponization” of intellectual diversity. Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington’s teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:00 The genesis of Yale’s Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech 04:42 The inspiration behind “You Can’t Teach That!” 06:18 The First Amendment and academic freedom 09:29 Extramural speech and the public sphere 17:56 Intramural speech and its complexities 23:13 Florida’s Stop WOKE Act 26:34 Distinctive features of K-12 education 31:13 University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax 39:02 University of Kansas professor Phillip Lowcock 43:42 Muhlenberg College professor Maura Finkelstein 47:01 University of Wisconsin La-Crosse professor Joe Gow 54:47 Northwestern professor Arthur Butz 57:52 Inconsistent applications of university policies 01:02:23 Weaponization of “intellectual diversity” 01:05:53 Outro Show notes: Keith Whittington (2019) Keith Whittington (2023) (1915) (1940) (2004) (Fla. 2022) (1967) (Ind. 2022) (1969)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/34399890
info_outline
Ep. 230: Wilson vs. FDR: Who was worse for free speech?
11/25/2024
Ep. 230: Wilson vs. FDR: Who was worse for free speech?
Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt: which president was worse for free speech? In August, FIRE posted a , 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, “.” 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 “.” . 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:
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/34144566
info_outline
Ep. 229: Ayaan Hirsi Ali will not submit
11/14/2024
Ep. 229: Ayaan Hirsi Ali will not submit
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 . She is also the best-selling author of a number of books, including “,” “,” “,” and, “.” Her latest initiative is , which describes itself as a space for courageous conversations. . Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 04:36 Conformity and its consequences 09:03 Islam and free speech 16:38 Immigration and the clash of civilizations 26:03 Censorship and decline in higher education 34:14 Cost of criticism and finding one’s voice 37:20 Hope for the future 43:58 Outro Show notes: “.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh (2004) . (2014) “” Bill D’Agnostico via X (2024)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/33932182
info_outline
Ep. 228: Does artificial intelligence have free speech rights?
11/01/2024
Ep. 228: Does artificial intelligence have free speech rights?
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. is the vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. is the managing partner and co-founder at the law firm Meier Watkins Philips and Pusch. is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and co-founder and editor-in-chief of . . 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: (2023) (2023) (2024) (2024) -Legislation: (Communications Decency Act of 1996) -Articles: “,” Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare (2023) “,” Forbes (2024) “,” World Economic Forum (2024) “,” Reason (2024) “” TIME (1995) “,” Lawfare (2023)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/33734492
info_outline
Ep. 227: Should there be categories of unprotected speech?
10/22/2024
Ep. 227: Should there be categories of unprotected speech?
The FIRE team debates the proposition: Should there be any categories of unprotected speech? General Counsel Ronnie London and Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere go through each category of speech falling outside First Amendment protection to decide whether it should remain unprotected or if it’s time to “remove an arrow from the government’s quiver.” . Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 17:59 Obscenity 21:20 Child pornography 25:25 Fighting words 32:36 Defamation 41:22 Incitement to imminent lawless action 52:07 True threats 56:30 False advertising and hate speech 01:02:50 Outro Show notes: -Court cases: (1919) (1931) (1942) (1957) (1973) (1992) (2023) (1969) (1964) (2003) (2012) -Legislation: (1873) (2005)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/33569437
info_outline
Ep. 226: ‘Shouting fire,’ deepfake laws, tenured professors, and mask bans
10/10/2024
Ep. 226: ‘Shouting fire,’ deepfake laws, tenured professors, and mask bans
The FIRE team discusses Tim Walz’s controversial comments on hate speech and “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” We also examine California’s AI deepfake laws, the punishment of tenured professors, and mask bans. Joining us are: Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of Public Advocacy; Connor Murnane, FIRE’s Campus Advocacy chief of staff; and Adam Goldstein, FIRE’s vice president of strategic initiatives. . Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:51 Tim Walz’s comments on hate speech and “shouting fire” 15:36 California’s AI deepfake laws 32:05 Tenured professors punished for expression 54:27 Nassau County’s mask ban 1:04:39 Outro Show notes: Court cases: (1919) (1969) (1977) (1989) (2011) (2017) (2003) (1958) (this suit challenges the constitutionality of AB 2839 and AB 2655) (2024) (this class action lawsuit alleges Nassau County's Mask Transparency Act is unconstitutional and discriminates against people with disabilities) (2024) Legislation: (Civil Rights Act of 1964) (Communications Decency Act of 1996) Articles/Tweets: “” Elon Musk via X (2024) “” The Babylon Bee via X (2024) “” Pessimists Archive via Substack (2024) “.” FIRE (2024) “.” FIRE (2024) “.” FIRE (2024) “.” U.S. Department of Education (2024)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/33409137
info_outline
Ep. 225: Debating social media content moderation
09/26/2024
Ep. 225: Debating social media content moderation
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. is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “” and “.” 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 “.” . 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: (2021) (2022) and (2024) “” (2022) (2024) “,” by Jacob N. Shapiro and Sean Norton (2024) “”
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/33218177
info_outline
Ep. 224: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and free speech
09/12/2024
Ep. 224: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and free speech
What happens when philosopher Ayn Rand’s theories meet free speech? and 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, “.” 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 Show notes: “” (2016) (1995) “” (2009) “” (1969) “” (2023) “” (2024) “” and “” (2024)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/33023257
info_outline
Ep. 223: Teaching conservatism on a liberal college campus
08/29/2024
Ep. 223: Teaching conservatism on a liberal college campus
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. 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, “.” 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 .
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/32800477
info_outline
Ep. 222: John Stuart Mill’s lasting impact on the Supreme Court
08/15/2024
Ep. 222: John Stuart Mill’s lasting impact on the Supreme Court
How has 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill influenced America’s conception of free speech and the First Amendment? In their new book, “” 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 “.” 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
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/32582967
info_outline
Ep. 221: Section 230 co-author, Rep. Christopher Cox
08/01/2024
Ep. 221: Section 230 co-author, Rep. Christopher Cox
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: “” by Jeff Kosseff (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) “” by Chris Cox (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/32386657
info_outline
Ep. 220: Political violence and speech
07/18/2024
Ep. 220: Political violence and speech
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: “” by Christian Bjørnskov and Jacob Mchangama (featuring data on college student support for violence) “” by Flemming Rose “” by Jacob Mchangama
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/32200207
info_outline
Ep. 219: The First Amendment at the Supreme Court
07/03/2024
Ep. 219: The First Amendment at the Supreme Court
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. and gain access to live monthly webinars where you can ask questions of FIRE staff. The next webinar is July 8 at 1 p.m. ET. We will take your questions about the Supreme Court term. Show Notes: Timestamps 0:00 Intro 2:53 Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton 31:02 NRA v. Vullo 46:57 Murthy v. Missouri 1:06:04 Gonzales v. Trevino 1:17:58 Vidal v. Elster 1:26:04 O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed 1:34:00 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (the Chevron deference case) 1:37:26 Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (forthcoming SCOTUS case) 1:38:30 Outro
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/32003747
info_outline
Ep. 218: A warning label on social media?
06/25/2024
Ep. 218: A warning label on social media?
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? 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.” 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 “” by Jonathan Haidt “” by Vivek H. Murthy
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/31883992
info_outline
Ep. 217: ‘Defending pornography’
06/20/2024
Ep. 217: ‘Defending pornography’
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 “.” 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 “” and the forthcoming “.” Show Notes: Timestamps 0:00 Intro 2:17 Defining pornography 7:20 Is porn protected by the First Amendment? 11:10 Revenge porn 22:05 Origins of “Defending Pornography” 25:06 Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon 29:20 Can porn be consensual? 35:02 Dworkin/MacKinnon model legislation 52:20 Porn in Canada 56:07 Is it possible to ban porn? 1:03:26 College professor’s porn hobby 1:12:39 Outro
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/31823212
info_outline
Ep. 216: Section 230 and online content moderation
06/06/2024
Ep. 216: Section 230 and online content moderation
Did 26 words from an American law passed in 1996 create the internet? 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 - - (May 22. 2024) - “” by Marshall Van Alstyne - “” by Robert Corn-Revere - “” by Mike Masnick - “” By Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr. - “” By Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden - “” (2021) by Marshall Van Alstyne - “” (2023) by Marshall Van Alstyne - “” by Michael D. Smith and Marshall Van Alstyne “” by Mike Masnick
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/31637007
info_outline
Ep. 215: ‘Private Censorship’ with J.P. Messina
05/21/2024
Ep. 215: ‘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, “.” 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
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/31407287
info_outline
Ep. 214: The Antisemitism Awareness Act
05/07/2024
Ep. 214: The Antisemitism Awareness Act
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, “.” 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
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/31179322
info_outline
Ep. 213: Campus unrest - live webinar
04/30/2024
Ep. 213: Campus unrest - live webinar
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 “,” Alex Morey “,” FIRE’s case files “,” Nadine Strossen “,” Aryeh Neier (pdf) “” “So to Speak” Ep. 118
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/31052358
info_outline
Ep. 212: Should the First Amendment protect hate speech?
04/25/2024
Ep. 212: Should the First Amendment protect hate speech?
In America, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. But should it be? Today’s guest is out with a new book, “.” W. Wat Hopkins is emeritus professor of communication at Virginia Tech, where he taught communication law and cyberspace law. Transcript of Interview: 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 “” by Nadine Strossen
/episode/index/show/sotospeak/id/30984978