In January, President Donald Trump called America’s libel laws “a sham and a disgrace.” Are they? On this episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we sit down with Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel Lee Levine to discuss what America’s libel “laws” really are — and are not. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.orgCall in a question: 215-315-0100

Is there a campus free speech crisis? On this episode of So to Speak, Nico Perrino is joined by FIRE’s Will Creeley and Samantha Harris to discuss this simmering question. Watch the video of this podcast recording: youtu.be/uoO6TCAQpaE Additional reading: “The ‘campus free speech crisis’ is a myth. Here are the facts.” by Jeffrey Adam Sachs “Everything we think about the political correctness debate is wrong” by Matthew Yglesias “The skeptics are wrong: Attitudes about free speech on campus are changing” by Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt “White House forum discusses free speech on campus” by Robert Shibley/FIRE “Gallup/Knight survey sheds light on changing student attitudes about free speech” by Nico Perrino/FIRE www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.orgCall in a question: 215-315-0100

In 2012, a same-sex couple entered Masterpiece Cakeshop and asked its owner, Jack Phillips, to create a cake for their wedding reception in Denver, Colorado. Phillips declined the request, reportedly telling the couple, “Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” That brief, 20-second exchange eventually found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is now the subject of one of the most controversial First Amendment cases in years. The issue before the court is whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create a cake for a gay wedding violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. On this episode of So to Speak, we feature a First Amendment Salon debate about the case that occured last month. Arguing on the side of Masterpiece Cakeshop are Robert Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine) and Ilya Shapiro (Cato Institute). Arguing on the side of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission are John Paul Schnapper-Casteras (Schnapper-Casteras PLLC) and Sarah Warbelow (Human Rights Campaign). The debate is moderated by American University Law School Professor Stephen Warmiel. A video version of this and past First Amendment Salon conversations can be found on the Foundation for Individual rights in Education’s YouTube page (youtube.com/thefireorg). www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.orgCall in a question: 215-315-0100

Former Evergreen State College Professor Bret Weinstein describes himself as a “professor in exile.” The evolutionary biologist left Evergreen last September in the fallout from the controversy surrounding the school’s planned Day of Absence programming. Weinstein’s objection to the programming led fifty students to disrupt his class and demand his resignation. The backlash became so intense that Evergreen’s chief of police told him she could not protect him from protesters. As a result, he had to hold his biology course in a public park. On this episode of So to Speak, we speak with Weinstein about his experience and the state of free speech and inquiry in higher education and beyond. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

Most Americans are familiar with The Great Wall of China. Fewer are familiar with the Great Firewall of China. The Firewall blocks vast expanses of the world’s web content — and it’s just one of the tools the Chinese government uses to monitor, censor, and even manipulate what its approximately 1.4 billion citizens see online. On this episode of So to Speak, we explore one of the most extensive and effective censorship systems ever devised by a government. How does the Chinese government do it? And why? For answers, we turn to the experts: “Charlie Smith,” the pseudonymous co-founder of anti-censorship group greatfire.org, working secretly in China; Jeremy Goldkorn, a co-founder of the Sinica Podcast and editor of supchina; and Bill Bishop, editor of the popular China policy newsletter Sinocism. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

In 2001, University of Alaska president Mark Hamilton made national headlines when he wrote a sternly worded memo declaring that freedom of speech on campus “CANNOT BE QUALIFIED” [emphasis original]. Hamilton retired from his position as University of Alaska president in 2010. However, his memo lives on in FIRE lore as the gold standard for a university president's response to a campus free speech controversy. On this episode of So to Speak, we talk with Hamilton about his famous memo and what he makes of today’s campus free speech controversies. We also explore his illustrious career prior to becoming a university president, where he learned a thing or two about negotiation, talking across lines of difference, and defending the U.S. Constitution. Hamilton has a master’s degree in English literature from Florida State University and taught English at West Point. He also spent 31 years in the U.S. Army, where he negotiated peace deals in El Salvador and Somalia, oversaw U.S. Army recruiting during the “be all you can be” era, and rose to the rank of Major General. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

Has the history of how our constitutional rights came to be protected on campus been forgotten? Professor Randall L. Kennedy believes it has. It’s a history even he wasn’t familiar with until recently. On this episode of So to Speak, Professor Kennedy explains how civil rights activists in the 1950s and 60s secured early victories for free speech, due process, and public assembly on high school and college campuses. Professor Kennedy teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and the regulation of race relations at Harvard Law School, and he is the author of “The Forgotten Origins of the Constitution on Campus.” Prior to arriving at Harvard, he was a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall at the United States Supreme Court. BONUS: Check out and subscribe to the new FIRE-sponsored podcast, Clear and Present Danger: A History of Free Speech. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

Was our modern First Amendment born out of a chance encounter on a train bound for Boston in 1918? On this episode of So to Speak, we speak with Seton Hall Law Professor Thomas Healy. He argues that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ unlikely run-in with Judge Learned Hand in the summer of 1918 set off a series of events that culminated in a new trajectory for the First Amendment in America. Professor Healy is the author of “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind — and Changed the History of Free Speech in America.” The book explores how one man who claimed to disdain all constitutional rights ended up breathing new meaning into our first one. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

Did the founders intend for the First Amendment to protect as much speech as it does today? University of Richmond Assistant Professor of Law Jud Campbell argues probably not. He is the author of an article recently published in The Yale Law Journal that Cass Sunstein says “might well be the most illuminating work on the original understanding of free speech in a generation.” In “Natural Rights and the First Amendment,” professor Campbell argues that the founders’ understanding of the freedoms of speech and of the press rested on “a multifaceted understanding of natural rights that no longer survives in American constitutional thought.” He contends that those rights “were expansive in scope but weak in their legal effect, allowing for restrictions of expression to promote the public good.” On this episode of So to Speak, we investigate professor Campbell’s claims and wonder, if true, what — if anything — we should do about them. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

The Institute for Justice doesn’t litigate your typical First Amendment cases. They don’t take cases involving protest bans, controversial speakers, or political dissent. Instead, the libertarian, public-interest law firm takes cases often ascribed to the margins of First Amendment concerns by the public and even some judges: cases involving occupational speech, commercial speech, and campaign finance. On this episode of So to Speak, we speak with IJ President and General Counsel Scott Bullock about the origin of IJ’s unique brand of First Amendment litigation. Bullock joined the organization at its founding in 1991 and was involved in all of its early free speech cases. We also discuss some of IJ’s current cases and some common arguments against its stances on First Amendment issues. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100