So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., is the world's largest museum, education, and research complex. Over the past year, hundreds of ordinary Americans have been photographing its exhibits — not because they're enthusiastic tourists, but because they're afraid parts of American history could be altered or even disappear because of political pressure. Nearly 180 years after Congress created the Smithsonian, the White House is trying to change how the nation's museums tell the American story. It has demanded reviews of exhibits, threatened federal funding, targeted museum leaders, and ordered government signs posted outside the National Museum of American History warning visitors that the museum is ideologically biased. In response, a grassroots organization called Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian has mobilized hundreds of volunteers to document every Smithsonian exhibit in Washington, D.C., and New York City. So far, they've compiled an archive of more than 73,000 photos and videos. Joining us to discuss the administration's attacks on—or reforms of—the Smithsonian, is Jessica Dickinson Goodman, co-founder of Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian.   Timestamps:  00:00 Preorder Nico's book Free Speech Generation   01:04 Intro 03:05 The origins of Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian 04:48 The chilling effect on museum staff 06:58 Changes to Smithsonian exhibits and national parks 11:50 Who should decide how history is told? 20:30 The White House's objections to Smithsonian exhibits 32:26 Impact on America's 250th anniversary celebrations 37:28 Could political pressure strengthen public resistance?  44:35 Editorial independence in public institutions 51:50 The future of the Smithsonian's independence 55:46 Outro   Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].  

Growing up, most of us learned one simple rule: don't talk to strangers. But American Dialogues is betting on the opposite. In New York City parks, the group's organizers set out folding chairs and invite anybody passing by to sit down and talk about politics, culture, and everyday life. The goal is to get strangers to speak honestly and keep listening when the conversation becomes difficult. Joining us to discuss how American Dialogues began, what happens when strangers disagree, and whether these conversations can help bridge America's divides are: Fin Colleton, student fellow at Columbia University's Trust Collaboratory and the creator of the public conversation tables that grew into American Dialogues Kratima Divakar, graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a Trust Collaboratory student fellow who leads American Dialogues' outreach Check out more about American Dialogues' work at americandialogues.org or @americandialogues on Instagram. Preorder Nico's book now!    Timestamps:  00:00 Preorder Nico's book and get a free tshirt! 01:55 Intro     03:36 Fin's first experiment with talking to strangers 05:54 Kratima's introduction to Listening Tables 07:32 Bringing American Dialogues to New York City 10:43 Conversations across political divides 14:32 How do they handle disruptive participants? 19:52 The purpose of American Dialogues 28:16 Why New York City is the perfect venue 32:07 Online versus face-to-face conversations 33:56 Expanding American Dialogues 37:34 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Shirt photo credit: March from Sproul Plaza to Regent's meeting in University Hall on Oxford St., Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement Photographs, circa 1964, BANC PIC 2000.002--NEG Strip 44:33 © The Regents of the University of California, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/54188

For more than half a century, Radio Caracas Televisión, or RCTV, broadcast news, sports, comedies, and telenovelas in Venezuela. Its news coverage was also fiercely critical of President Hugo Chávez. When RCTV's broadcast license expired, the government refused to renew it. Minutes later, a state-funded channel took its place. RCTV was one target in a broader campaign to silence dissent. Under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, the government gradually tightened its grip on the media, punished political dissent, and weakened institutions that had protected democratic freedoms. A new documentary, Escaping Venezuela, traces the erosion of free speech and press freedom through the story of Carlos Mora, who was imprisoned and tortured after helping Venezuelan dissidents escape to Colombia. Joining us are director Jim Epstein and narrator Germania Rodríguez Poleo to discuss the film and how Venezuela's democratic institutions broke down. Read more about Escaping Venezuela here. Read Germania's Reason article here.   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   03:12 Fear and self-censorship under Chavez 07:39 Making Escaping Venezuela 12:53 Germania's family and the crackdown on journalists 18:41 The destruction of Venezuela's free press 22:43 How Venezuela silenced dissent 32:56 RCTV as a symbol for press freedom 39:31 Venezuela after Maduro's capture 44:41 How Venezuela embraced socialism and Chavez came to power 50:13 Venezuelan immigrants and the end of TPS  52:44 Can Venezuela become a democracy again? 01:01:01 Where to watch Escaping Venezuela 01:04:05 Outro   Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

FIRE staff responds to President Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, with President Trump citing their "constant 'reporting'" of "FAKE NEWS!" Barring journalists from the White House because of their coverage raises serious First Amendment concerns and strikes at the heart of a free and independent press. FIRE experts break down what happened and answer your questions about the ban.   Timestamps 00:00 Intro 02:06 Why does the White House Correspondents Association decide who serves in the White House press pool? 05:32 Can the president ban anyone from the White House? 07:07 Obama and Biden-era restrictions on press access 10:38 Access to the press room vs. being called on to ask a question 11:55 Could TrumpTV have a chilling effect on the press? 13:39 Can the White House reject a reporter but not their news organization? 14:56 What is a temporary restraining order? 17:27 The government's argument 22:03 National security and the First Amendment 23:57 What if a news organization publishes false information? 27:31 Does the White House have to justify press restrictions? 28:27 Is there something wrong with "a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories"? 32:04 The scope of the White House restrictions 34:03 Public distrust of the press 36:48 Does restricting press access really address any national security concerns? 39:22 Can future administrations exclude partisan or influencer journalists? 41:05 Is barring journalists from the White House a prior restraint? 42:17 The impacts of a collective media boycott 45:04 Outro   Joining us: Marie McMullan — SPFI program manager and counsel Jacob Gaba — Staff attorney Aaron Terr — Director of public advocacy   Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. If you already are a paid subscriber and would like to listen to this episode via Apple Podcasts, click on the "Apple Podcasts" icon at the top right of this page!

The free speech culture wars look different than they did a decade ago. Reason senior editor and Rising host Robby Soave joins us to discuss the White House's restrictions on media access, Macklemore getting dropped from Ed Sheeran's tour, and why efforts to suppress controversial speech so often backfire. We also look back at how the free speech debate has changed since Robby and Nico began covering it — from campus censorship and cancel culture to social media moderation and the changing politics of free speech.   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   01:44 How Robby prepares for Rising 03:35 How the media landscape has changed 10:44 Trump, the press, and censorship 20:26 Cancel culture 23:55 Macklemore, Ed Sheeran, and the Streisand Effect 30:31 Why should we defend the media? 36:58 Campus free speech 43:48 The changing politics of free speech 58:34 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

Harvard, institutional neutrality, how we determine the rankings, partisan censorship, how schools can improve their ranking, and more! Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:18 Learn about our inaugural Soapbox conference 04:02 Preorder Nico's book Free Speech Generation 5:00 Check out FIRE's 2027 College Free Speech rankings 06:05 Who are the top- and bottom-ranked schools? 09:27 What's new with the Harvard evaluation? 13:08 How does FIRE choose which schools to rank? 13:46 What can universities do to improve their ranking? 15:54 What is institutional neutrality? 18:05 What exactly are students being asked about campus speech? 21:25 How does FIRE make sure defending free speech doesn't inadvertently protect censorship in the classroom? 25:19 Is campus censorship coming more from the "right" or the "left"? 26:53 Did the University of Washington settlement involving Professor Stuart Reges affect its ranking? 30:45 What does it mean to pre-register our methodology? 31:35 Why did Claremont McKenna drop in the rankings? 33:07 What advice does FIRE have for students at low-ranked schools facing censorship? 36:47 Do politically homogeneous campuses make students more comfortable speaking freely? 40:26 Do low-ranked colleges tell FIRE how they are improving? 42:56 What can administrators do now to improve next year's ranking? 43:50 Does FIRE account for turnover in university leadership? 45:47 What do the rankings reveal about different student demographic groups? 49:41 Does FIRE account for differences between types of institutions? 52:00 What's up with MIT? 56:02 Should attacks on tenured professors carry more weight than actions against other faculty? 57:02 Who does FIRE contact when evaluating a university? 58:09 Are there regional patterns in the rankings? 58:57 Were there bigger ranking swings than usual this year? 01:00:44 Outro   Joining us: Nico Perrino, executive vice president Angela Erickson, vice president of research Sean Stevens, chief researcher Ronnie London, general counsel and director of litigation Connor Murnane, campus advocacy chief of staff   Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. If you already are a paid subscriber and would like to listen to this episode via Apple Podcasts, click on the "Apple Podcasts" icon at the top right of this page!  

The First Amendment is only 45 words long. But more than 200 years and thousands of court decisions later, we're still arguing over a basic question: what do those words mean — and what did they mean to the early Americans who adopted them? To look through history and debate what originalism can — and can't — tell us about the First Amendment's free speech clause, we are joined by:  Jud Campbell, Stanford Law School professor and the author of Natural Rights and the First Amendment and Determining Rights Stephen Solomon, Marjorie Deane Professor of Journalism at New York University, the founding editor of First Amendment Watch, and the author of Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech    Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   02:20 Original meaning and modern First Amendment doctrine 09:12 Would the founders recognize our Constitution today? 16:00 The Alien and Sedition Acts 20:21 How the founding generation practiced free speech 24:35 Can we define "originalism"? 32:05 Representative government and the promise of liberty 45:00 The First Amendment's absolute language 51:36 New York Times v. Sullivan 58:01 Amending the First Amendment 01:04:30 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].  

**Editor's note: This episode was recorded before Meta settled a social media addiction trial with a coalition of state attorneys general on Aug. 26, 2026. The case alleged the company knew some of its features on Facebook and Instagram could be harmful to kids and the company publicly misrepresented those risks. Social media and artificial intelligence are increasingly powerful tools for sharing and accessing information. They're also at the center of a push for the government to address their potential harms — particularly to kids. So where's the constitutional line between regulating technology and regulating speech? And could this latest wave of legislation and litigation change what we can see, say, and create online? Joining us to break down the latest developments in social media and AI and what it all means for free speech are: Joel Thayer, senior fellow for AI and emerging technology policy at the America First Policy Institute and president of the Digital Progress Institute Kate Ruane, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Free Expression Project   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   02:02 The case for regulating social media 09:23 The case for social media as protected speech 18:12 Are social media design features protected speech? 23:46 Section 230 and platform liability 37:21 Privacy, COPPA, and online child safety 58:40 Are AI chatbots speech? 01:09:06 Will Congress regulate social media and AI? 01:12:27 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

Long before the First Amendment, John Peter Zenger stood trial for publishing criticisms of New York's then colonial governor. Although the law seemed to guarantee a guilty verdict, a jury refused to convict him. Zenger's trial was an early indication that the American colonists harbored a view of liberty more expansive than that offered to them by the British Crown.   Few people are better suited to explain the case than Michael Tigar. Over a legendary legal career spanning more than six decades, Tigar has argued before the Supreme Court (multiple times), represented civil rights activists and other controversial clients, taught generations of lawyers, and written what has become the definitive stage play about the Zenger trial.  Michael joins us to revisit the Zenger trial and reflect on his own remarkable career from the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the Chicago Eight trial to jury nullification and lawyers' First Amendment rights.  To read more about Michael's life, check out his memoir.   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   03:11 The Berkeley Free Speech Movement 09:17 Michael's path to becoming a lawyer 13:44 Defending the Chicago Eight 20:25 The trial of John Peter Zenger 27:03 Jury nullification and the Zenger verdict 37:26 The Zenger play and its legacy 39:52 NYT v. Sullivan and SLAPP lawsuits 44:30 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].  

In May 2026, the Office of Management and Budget proposed sweeping changes to how the federal government administers billions of dollars in federal research grants. That funding fuels scientific discovery, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The proposal was open for public comment for 45 days and drew more than half a million responses. Supporters of the proposal argue that it will prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. Critics contend that the proposal will politicize research funding by giving executive branch political appointees greater influence over which research projects receive federal support. Joining us to break down the OMB proposal and what it could mean for the future of research are:  Evan Morris, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging and of biomedical engineering at Yale Catharine Young, senior fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Ryne Weiss, director of research here at FIRE   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   02:57 What's in the OMB proposal? 08:57 Research grant "kill switches" and their consequences 17:17 Limits on foreign research partnerships and professional activities 21:29 The importance of federal funding to medical research 23:23 Are pharmaceutical companies the "boogeymen"? 25:13 The gold standard of scientific research 26:22 The "replication crisis"   31:16 Open science and peer review 40:37 Bias in research funding decisions 44:06 Should science be shielded from politics?  49:04 Has research always been political? 53:14 How politicization could change scientific research 58:59 Outro Read the transcript here. Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].