So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

“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: Transcript 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: 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  

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.” Show Notes: Transcript 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 - Show Transcript - Hearing on a Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (May 22. 2024) - “Platform Revolution” by Marshall Van Alstyne - “The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder” by Robert Corn-Revere - “Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech” by Mike Masnick - “Sunset of Section 230 Would Force Big Tech’s Hand” By Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr. - “Buy This Legislation or We’ll Kill the Internet” By Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden - “Free Speech, Platforms & The Fake News Problem” (2021) by Marshall Van Alstyne - “Free Speech and the Fake News Problem” (2023) by Marshall Van Alstyne - “It’s Time to Update Section 230” by Michael D. Smith and Marshall Van Alstyne “Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong” by Mike Masnick  

The First Amendment forbids government censorship. Private institutions, on the other hand, are generally free to restrict speech. How should we think about private censorship and its role within a liberal society? On today’s episode, we’re joined by J.P. Messina, an assistant professor in the philosophy department at Purdue University and the author of the new book, “Private Censorship.” Also on the show is Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of public advocacy. Timestamps 0:00 Introduction 3:10 The origin story of “Private Censorship” 8:29 How does FIRE figure out what to weigh in on?  12:04 Examples of private censorship  18:24 Regulating speech at work  22:21 Regulating speech on social media platforms 30:09 Is social media essentially a public utility? 35:50 Are internet service providers essentially public utilities?  44:43 Social media vs. ISPs  51:02 Censorship on search engines  59:47 Defining illiberalism outside of government censorship 1:16:06 Outro   Show Notes Episode transcript 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  Transcript

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 Transcript

In America, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. But should it be? Today’s guest is out with a new book, “Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against First Amendment Protection.” W. Wat Hopkins is emeritus professor of communication at Virginia Tech, where he taught communication law and cyberspace law.  Transcript of Interview: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-should-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech Timestamps 0:00 Introduction 5:34 Why write about hate speech?8:50 Has the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech? 13:56 What speech falls outside First Amendment protection? 16:44 The history of the First Amendment 20:00 Fighting words and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 24:00 How does the Supreme Court determine what speech is protected? 35:24 Defining hate speech 38:54 Debating the value of hate speech 44:02 Defining hate speech (again) 50:30 Abuses of hate speech codes 1:00:10 Skokie 1:02:39 Current Supreme Court and hate speech 1:06:00 Outro Show Notes  Scotland’s “Hate Crime and Public Order Act” Matal v. Tam (2017) Snyder v. Phelps (2011) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) United States v. Stevens (2010) Virginia v. Black (2003) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) “HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship” by Nadine Strossen