Eitan Hersh, a political science professor at Tufts University and expert in conservatism, dives into the complexities of teaching conservative thought on a liberal campus. He discusses the challenges of fostering political diversity among students and faculty. The conversation highlights his innovative course aimed at providing a conservative perspective in higher education and its impact on campus dialogue. Hersh also addresses the delicate balance of institutional neutrality and the importance of creating a more inclusive environment for diverse ideologies.

In this discussion, Eric Kasper, a political science professor, and Troy Kozma, a professor of philosophy, dive into John Stuart Mill's profound influence on American free speech jurisprudence. They unpack Mill's 'harm principle' and its connection to Supreme Court decisions, highlighting key cases like Abrams v. U.S. and the evolution of First Amendment interpretations. The conversation explores the tensions between governmental pressures and free expression, as well as Mill's views on education and race, showcasing why his philosophies remain vital today.

Rep. Christopher Cox, a former House member and co-author of Section 230, dives into the law that shapes our internet landscape. He discusses whether Section 230 was essential for the internet's growth and how it allows platforms to flourish despite the challenges of harmful content. Cox shares his insights on user privacy, age verification, and the impact of AI on content moderation. He also reflects on the law's future and potential changes needed to adapt to today's digital environment.

Discussion with Flemming Rose, Nadine Strossen, and Jacob Mchangama on political violence, free speech, and the impact of rhetoric. Topics include historical contexts like Weimar Germany, the balance between freedom of speech & security, trends in college campus attitudes towards speech, and the importance of cultivating a free speech culture.

Legal experts Bob Corn-Revere, Ronnie London, and Robert McNamara discuss recent Supreme Court First Amendment cases, including challenges to social media regulation, common carrier arguments, evolving dynamics of online platforms, government influence on speech moderation, and implications of court rulings on constitutional principles.

Debate on restricting social media for minors due to harm concerns. Critics argue about civil liberties violations. Age-verification challenges discussed. First Amendment issues raised. Parental involvement solutions proposed.

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  

J.P. Messina, author of 'Private Censorship', discusses private censorship in liberal society with topics such as regulating speech at work, on social media platforms, and search engines. The debate on social media and ISPs being public utilities and defining illiberalism outside of government censorship is also explored.

Kenneth Stern, lead drafter of the anti-Semitism definition in the act, clarifies its purpose as aiding data collectors. Debate covers hate speech codes, campus discrimination, and the impact of the Antisemitism Awareness Act on free speech. Stern questions the Senate's vote and explains the intention behind enshrining the IHRA definition in state laws.