So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

The experts are calling it the free speech debate of the next decade: Who makes the rules for what people can say — and see — on the web? And who pays the price when “The Delete Squad” gets it wrong? On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, FIRE’s Alex Morey talks to experts on all sides of the issue, from the Facebook team working to keep the social network uncensored — but also safe — for users, to directors at Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists, and more. When one entity can unilaterally censor billions of users at the push of a button, what does it mean for the future of the internet? “Is this the day the Internet dies?” 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 British free speech invasion is here. Our friends from the current affairs magazine spiked have traveled across the pond to host “Unsafe Space,” an all-star free speech tour of American college campuses. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we catch up with spiked editors Tom Slater and Ella Whelan in New Jersey to chat about the tour, which kicks off next week in Washington, D.C. We also discuss developments overseas, including spiked’s latest free speech rankings of campuses in the United Kingdom and the implications of Brexit for free expression. Video: https://youtu.be/pnitp0Oa_ts www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

Would Isaac Newton succeed on the modern college campus? The genius who discovered the laws of motion, but who also obsessed over alchemy, was introverted and prone to unpredictable mood swings. Scholars believe he may have had autism, which is one of the many neurological conditions that contribute to “neurodiversity” in the world. And according to one new theory, the way modern colleges regulate speech is particularly chilling for neurodivergent people, like Newton, who are estimated to make up at least 20 percent of the population. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we chat with University of New Mexico Associate Professor Geoffrey Miller. He is the author of two new articles, titled “The neurodiversity case for free speech” and “Mental health ‘disabilities’ as legal superpowers.” In these articles, he argues that overbroad and vague campus speech codes could discriminate against neurodivergent people with diagnosed mental health disabilities. 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

Last week, Judge Richard Posner suddenly retired from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after nearly 36 years on the bench. The 1981 President Reagan appointee authored over 3,300 judicial opinions during his tenure and is widely considered one of the most vocal, provocative, and influential appellate court judges of all time. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we hear Judge Posner’s candid thoughts on the First Amendment as we play for you a conversation he had with Professor Geoffrey Stone on May 16, 2016, at the University of Chicago Law School. In this wide-ranging and candid dialogue, Judge Posner discusses his views on executive power in wartime, including why he believes President Franklin Roosevelt was justified in interning Japanese-Americans during World War II and why President Abraham Lincoln was right to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Merryman. He also addresses Citizens United v. FEC (“terrible”), the Supreme Court in general (“a mediocre institution”), McCullen v. Coakley, the Pentagon Papers, flag burning, and much, much more. This podcast is presented as part of So to Speak’s exclusive partnership with the First Amendment Salon. The First Amendment Salon is a quarterly gathering of members of the First Amendment community for a 90-minute discussion with leading thinkers concerning a timely topic related to freedom of expression. VIDEO: youtu.be/bhLJliXX848 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

Nadine Strossen knows the dangers of Nazism. Her father was liberated from the Buchenwald concentration camp one day before he was scheduled to be sterilized. If American soldiers arrived a day later, Strossen would never become the first female president of the ACLU. She wouldn’t even be alive. After Charlottesville, there has been vigorous debate about the so-called limits of free speech. Should white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies enjoy full First Amendment rights? And if so, should civil liberties groups, like the ACLU, defend them? On today’s episode of So to Speak, Strossen discusses the fallout from Charlottesville and argues forcefully that, yes, even neo-Nazis deserve free speech and assembly rights ― and yes, the ACLU should defend those rights. She believes the best way to preserve a free society is to not compromise the rights guaranteed by a free society. She is authoring a book on this very topic due out next year titled, “HATE: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship.” 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

Fredrik deBoer has been in and around academia his entire life. He’s a fourth generation Ph.D. who has blogged about education issues since 2008. Writing from a socialist perspective, he regularly tackles campus free speech debates. Last month, deBoer wrote a piece for The Los Angeles Times arguing that recent efforts to shut down conservative speakers on campus have contributed to an environment where 58 percent of Republicans say colleges have a negative effect on the country. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we ask deBoer how this distrust threatens the future of higher education, and why he believes his colleagues on “the left” contribute to it. We also review common arguments against free speech, and deBoer explains how anti-communist purges targeting his grandfather sparked his early appreciation for academic freedom. 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

During the summer of 1919, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis changed his mind about free speech. Earlier that year, he voted to uphold the conviction of Charles Schenck for opposing the military draft. A year later, he was the lone dissenter in a case dealing with nearly the same issue. In 1927, he wrote what some consider to be the greatest defense of free speech ever penned by a Supreme Court justice in the case Whitney v. California. Why did Brandeis change his mind? On today’s episode of So to Speak, we explore the life and legacy of Brandeis with National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. Last year, Rosen wrote the book “Louis D. Brandeis: American Prophet,” which explains how Brandeis came to be one of free speech’s most eloquent advocates. 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 Shakespeare’s 1599 play “Julius Caesar,” the title character is warned by a soothsayer to “beware the Ides of March.” After protesters attempted to shut down a modernized production of the play in New York’s Central Park last month, theater companies may now be warning each other to “beware the ire of hecklers.” On today’s episode of So to Speak, we speak with Arts Integrity Initiative Director Howard Sherman about the controversy surrounding The Public Theater’s production of “Julius Caesar,” which captured headlines for portraying Caesar as a costumed Donald Trump (spoiler alert: Caesar gets assassinated). Howard was in the audience on June 16 when a protester stormed the stage. He may have also been the first to report the heckling to the outside world. Was the protest protected speech? What does the controversy tell us about creating art on contemporary political themes? Also, looking beyond the “Julius Caesar” controversy, where else do we see art challenged — or censored — and why? These questions and more are addressed in this wide-ranging interview. 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

It was 100 years ago this month that the Espionage Act of 1917 was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, making it a crime to interfere with the operations of the United States military. During its lifetime, the act has had a troubled history with the First Amendment. It has been used to criminalize wartime dissent, restrict press freedom, and prosecute government whistleblowers. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we speak with University of Washington School of Law scholar Ronald Collins about the Espionage Act and its continuing relevance to civil liberties advocates. We also venture into a slightly unrelated discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case In re Anastaplo (1961), which reveals the sort of risks that accompany standing up for one’s rights during times of uncertainty. 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

Simon Tam likes to quote Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line — paraphrased from transcendentalist Theodore Parker’s earlier statement — that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That said, Tam likes to add that the arc doesn’t bend on its own. It takes courageous individuals willing to stand up for their rights for justice to be achieved. Tam can now add himself to the list of those who bore the cost of standing up for their rights — and found justice. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Matal v. Tam that the First Amendment prohibits the United States Patent and Trademark Office from denying trademark registration for the name of Tam’s rock band, The Slants, because it allegedly “disparages” Asians. The PTO didn’t care that Tam, the founder of and bass player for The Slants, is himself of Asian descent — as are all the band members — or that Tam picked the name to celebrate Asian heritage, not disparage it. On today’s special “extra” episode of So to Speak, we speak with University of Washington School of Law scholar Ronald Collins and FIRE Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow Zachary Greenberg about the decision. We also feature an April interview we conducted with The Slants about the case at FIRE’s Philadelphia office. To close out the show, The Slants perform two acoustic songs for your listening pleasure. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Video: https://youtu.be/iqr6l-mEGCA 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