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