Claim OwnershipFree Speech Unmuted
Subscribed: 24Played: 661
Subscribe
© Copyright by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University
Description
Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is one of the country’s foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They’ll also explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect their everyday lives.
35 Episodes
Reverse
Is the FCC about to revive a broad reading of the Equal Time Rule—and should broadcast TV still get “special” First Amendment treatment in 2026?
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer are joined by Duke Law professor Stuart Benjamin to discuss the constitutional backstory behind the federal broadcasting Equal Time Rule and why broadcast media has long been treated differently from newspapers, cable, and the internet. From Red Lion to the collapse of the Fairness Doctrine and beyond, the panel explains how we ended up with a broadcast-only regulatory regime—and why that consensus may now be unraveling.
They also dig into the latest controversy involving political candidates appearing on shows like The View and late-night television, the FCC’s renewed scrutiny, and what it all could mean for the future of media regulation. Would today’s Supreme Court uphold broadcast exceptionalism? Or is this doctrine headed the way of the eight-track tape?
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
When can a public university punish a student for speech that includes violent references, and that frightens some people, but is not a clear threat? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer unpack two recent court cases, one that upholds such punishment and another that says it violates the First Amendment: Damsky v. University of Florida and Christensen v. Ohio State University. Volokh and Bambauer explore how courts are applying the “substantial disruption” standard from Tinker v. Des Moines, and why speech by public university students that alludes in an ambiguous way to violence creates hard First Amendment questions.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer are joined by press freedom advocate Seth Stern to dissect the federal prosecution of journalist Don Lemon. At issue is whether covering—and allegedly accompanying—a disruptive protest inside a church can make a journalist liable for criminal conspiracy under federal laws that ban disruption of worship services. The conversation probes the uneasy boundary between reporting and participation, the limits of First Amendment protection for journalists, and the use of conspiracy claims by prosecutors. Is this a necessary enforcement of neutral criminal law—or a chilling signal that simply documenting controversial events can land reporters in the dock? How this case is resolved may shape the future of press freedom, and of law enforcement, far beyond Don Lemon himself.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
What kind of year was 2025 for free speech? In this special year-in-review episode of Free Speech Unmuted, hosts Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer break down the biggest legal and political fights shaping speech in America right now. From the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision upholding the TikTok divestment law to a pending case that could redefine how much protection professional “talk therapy” gets under the First Amendment, the hosts explain what has happened—and why it matters.
The conversation also covers the Court’s ruling allowing age-verification requirements for online pornography, which dealt with tough questions about protecting kids, adult privacy, and free expression on the internet. Beyond the courts, Volokh and Bambauer examine Trump-administration actions involving law firms, universities, and the media, including federal funding threats, alleged retaliation against certain viewpoints, and the FCC’s response to controversial late-night TV commentary. The episode wraps up with a look at when controversial political speech can get employees fired—and when the Constitution or state law steps in to protect them.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Can the government regulate social media features because they are “addictive”? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer talk with Emory Law professor Matthew Lawrence about whether features like infinite scroll, personalized feeds, “near-miss” reward patterns, and dopamine-driven engagement tactics are comparable to gambling or even drug addiction — and whether that means the government can step in. The conversation digs into current lawsuits, whether there’s a constitutionally significant difference between content and design, how addiction is defined in law and neuroscience, and what First Amendment limits exist when regulating digital platforms. A smart, fast-moving discussion for anyone curious about the future of free speech, tech regulation, and the psychology behind our screens.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
What happens when 1970s defamation law collides with the Internet, social media, and AI? University of Florida Law School legal scholar Lyrissa Lidsky — who is also a co-reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) of Torts: Defamation and Privacy — explains how the law of libel and slander is being rewritten for the digital age. Lyrissa, Jane, and Eugene discuss why the old line between libel and slander no longer makes sense; how Section 230 upended defamation doctrine; the future of New York Times v. Sullivan and related First Amendment doctrines; Large Libel Models (when Large Language Models meet libel law); and more.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, joins Free Speech Unmuted to discuss his new book Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites. Ilya, Jane, and Eugene discuss the state of American law schools, why many students fear open discussion, and what can be done to improve things.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer speak with Eric Heinze, professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, about how the digital age has transformed the meaning and limits of free expression. The discussion ranges from Britain’s recent Lucy Connolly case—involving online incitement and hate speech—to the philosophical and legal contrasts between the American Brandenburg standard and the U.K.’s more interventionist approach. Heinze argues that democracies must rethink free speech in an era dominated by opaque, powerful platforms like Twitter and Facebook, where risk, harm, and accountability are far harder to define. They debate whether governments—or tech companies—should bear responsibility for regulating speech online, and what “freedom” really means when algorithms, not citizens, shape public discourse.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer are joined by Ashutosh Bhagwat (Professor of Law at UC Davis) as they discuss the FCC’s ability to regulate broadcast speech, directly and indirectly. Jimmy Kimmel, the old Fairness Doctrine, Ted Cruz, affiliate/network relations, and more.
Recorded on September 22, 2025.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
FIRE is one of the leading free speech advocacy and litigation groups in the country, and Greg is not only its long-time head but also coauthor of several books, including Coddling of the American Mind (with psychologist Jonathan Haidt) and War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—And Why They Fail (with law professor and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen). Jane and Eugene talk with Greg about free speech lawsuits, free speech debates, and more.
Recorded on September 4, 2025.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Hosts and law professors Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer dive into President Trump’s new executive order on flag burning. Is it bold politics or bad law? Or maybe both? They break down what the order really says, how it clashes with First Amendment precedents, and why targeting flag desecration even under otherwise content-neutral laws could violate the First Amendment. Jane and Eugene also discuss the tricky question of whether non-citizens can be deported for speech or symbolic expression that is protected for citizens (more on that in this Free Speech Unmuted episode).
Recorded on August 26, 2025.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer dive into the debate about “doxing” — putting someone’s personal info out in public, usually to call them out or put pressure on them. They talk about how the term is defined (or not) in different laws, and how those laws bump up against the First Amendment. They also share real-life examples — from civil rights boycotts to the online outrage over the dentist who shot Cecil the Lion — and look at how exceptions like “true threats” or “incitement” fit in. The big case in this area is the recent Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick, where New Jersey’s highest court upheld “Daniel’s Law,” letting judges and police demand their home addresses not be published online (including by news sites). Eugene and Jane break down what that means for privacy and free speech.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the Court’s June 27 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which upheld a state law that required pornography sites to “use reasonable age verification methods ... to verify” that their users are adults.
Recorded on July 1, 2025.
Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the First Amendment rules pertaining to public school students. The occasion: The Supreme Court just declined to consider a federal appeals court case that led a public school to punish a student for wearing a T-shirt saying “There Are Only Two Genders.” Did the lower court get that right?
Recorded on June 3, 2025.
A mother sues Character.AI, claiming that a conversation between her teenage son and a Character.AI chatbot led him to commit suicide. A conservative activist sues Meta, claiming that its AI-generated false accusations about him. Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh analyze these cases, and more broadly, discuss lawsuits against AI companies, and possible First Amendment defenses to those lawsuits.
Recorded on May 6, 2025.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the Administration’s freezing of grants to Harvard, and Harvard’s lawsuit challenging the freeze.
The Trump Administration has announced that it was freezing grants to Harvard, and demanding that Harvard change many of its policies and practices in order to get back in the Administration’s good graces. President Trump has also suggested that Harvard might lose its tax-exempt status for “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness.’” Would such a cutoff of funding or tax exemption benefits violate the First Amendment? Jane and Eugene dig deep into that.
Recorded on April 22, 2025.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump’s Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block).
The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms’ (and their clients’) Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)?
Recorded on March 31, 2025.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the First Amendment and immigration law.
Recorded on March 12, 2025.
Does the Free Press Clause provide extra rights to the institutional press, or instead protect all speakers’ equal rights to use the printing press and its technological heirs? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss this and more with legendary First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams.
Download the 2025 Stanford Emerging Technology Review here: https://stanford.io/4bilFg0
Recorded on February 21, 2025.
The Constitution generally covers only government action; if a private university expels students for their speech, or a private shopping mall forbids leafletting, or a private employer fires an employee for backing some candidate, that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. But state laws in roughly half the states do limit some such private restrictions on speech and political activity, especially ones imposed by private employers, much as federal law limits private employers’ restriction on their employees’ religious activity. Should there be more such laws? Fewer? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer talk about this, and more.
Recorded on January 28, 2025.
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States