So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Joining the discussion are Aaron Terr, FIRE's director of Public Advocacy; Connor Murnane, Campus Advocacy chief of staff; and Adam Goldstein, vice president of strategic initiatives. They unpack Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s controversial views on hate speech and the limits of free expression. The team dives into California's new deepfake laws and their implications for misinformation. They also shed light on the challenges tenured professors face when expressing unpopular views, alongside the debates around mask mandates and individual rights.

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)

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