Ep. 250: Civil rights, hate speech, and the First Amendment

What is the Federal Communications Commission, and why does its chairman think the agency can regulate Jimmy Kimmel’s jokes? Note: Shortly after recording this episode, Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would return “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to their stations. Joining us: Anna Gomez, FCC Commissioner  Ronnie London, FIRE General Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, FIRE Chief Counsel Timestamps:  00:00 Intro  04:46 What’s the FCC? 07:35 What’s the “public interest” standard? 14:20 What is the “fairness doctrine”? 25:21 What is the “broadcast hoax” rule? 28:55 What is “news distortion”? 35:31 Role of network affiliates 41:15 What happens now? Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-what-going-fcc 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].  

FIRE staff also take your questions on Charlie Kirk's assassination, President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times, cancel culture, and more. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments that "hate speech" is distinct from "free speech" 02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people for "hate speech"? 05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas? 07:19 President Trump's response to Pam Bondi's “hate speech” remarks 08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats” free speech? 11:22 What about doxxing? 15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the assassination of Charlie Kirk? 21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response to their commentary on Kirk's assassination 28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had towards Kirk ahead of the assassination? 30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech under the incitement standard 31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of citizens and non-citizens? 36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a wide range of behaviors and actions? 37:40 What is the Trump's administration's legal strategy with the New York Times lawsuit? 39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for their political commentary? 46:50 What is Charlie Kirk's legacy on free speech? 50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members? 52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free speech? 56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York Times? 59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on social media and promote civil discourse? Joining us: Ronnie London, general counsel Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar, global expression Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy

We’re joined by award-winning author, Charles (Charlie) Slack, to discuss his book, Liberty’s First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech.  Slack focuses on the infamous Sedition Act of 1798, which sparked the first major controversy over freedom of speech in America. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro (including note about Charlie Kirk) 03:59 Book origins 12:05 What were the Alien and Sedition Acts? 16:00 Prosecutions under the Act and their free speech implications 25:35 Free speech during the Revolutionary era 28:14 Adams’ perspective on the Sedition Act 46:02 Was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase a partisan hack? 53:57 Sedition Act fallout 01:01:02 Outro Read the transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-americas-first-free-speech-crisis-sedition-act-1798 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

What are the limits of presidential power? How many days has it been since President Trump’s TikTok ban moratorium went into place? What is the state of the conservative legal movement? And where did former FIRE president David French go on his first date? French and Sarah Isgur of the popular legal podcast “Advisory Opinions” join the show to answer these questions and discuss the few free speech issues where they disagree with FIRE. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:18 Origin story of “Advisory Opinions” 08:15 Disagreements between FIRE and AO 15:04 Why FIRE doesn’t editorialize on the content of speech 24:27 Limits of presidential power 43:30 Free speech, the dread of tyrants 51:01 The prosecution of political figures 58:01 Cracker Barrel 01:00:09 State of the conservative legal movement 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

We know the First Amendment protects hate speech. But has it always done so? And how have civil rights groups responded when their members are the target of hate speech? University of Iowa Law Professor Samantha Barbas is the author of a new law review article, “How American Civil Rights Groups Defeated Hate Speech Laws.” Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 04:04 “The Birth of a Nation” movie controversy 12:44 Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic “Dearborn Independent” 22:41 American Jewish Committee’s “quarantining” solution 28:41 ACLU’s Eleanor Holmes Norton defending a racist in court 33:42 Racist Senate candidate J.B. Stoner 37:28 Neo-Nazis and Skokie 47:20 Why are college students afraid of saying “the wrong thing?” 52:31 Barbas’ favorite free speech literature 53:15 Barbas’ free speech hero Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-civil-rights-hate-speech-and-first-amendment.  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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: Morris Ernst, free speech renegade (Barbas’ previous So to Speak appearance, July 29, 2021) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) via FIRE  

2025 has not been kind to Harvard. To date, the Trump administration has revoked nearly $3 billion in research funding to the university, demanding violations of free speech, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy in return for restoring the funding. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit, raising First Amendment claims.  Helping us unpack all things Harvard are: Larry Summers, President Emeritus, professor (Harvard) & advisory council member (FIRE) Greg Lukianoff, President & CEO (FIRE) Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:32 Harvard’s disputes with the Trump administration 08:29 The need for internal reforms at Harvard 42:50 Institutional neutrality debate 46:16 IHRA definition of anti-Semitism 01:01:28 Latest update on potential Harvard-Trump administration settlement Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-fire-reacts-where-does-harvard-go-here-larry-summers 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—and Why They Fail by Greg Lukianoff & Nadine Strossen (2025)  

Imagine the government forcing you to label your all-natural milk product as “imitation.”  Florida tried to make one dairy farm do just that, sparking a First Amendment question: Where’s the line between a business’s right to speak and protecting consumers from deception? In this episode, we explore how far free speech protections go for commercial speech with: Justin Pearson, managing attorney (Institute for Justice) Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel (FIRE) Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel senior fellow (Hoover Institution, Stanford) Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 05:03 What exactly is commercial speech? 08:25 The evolution of commercial speech law 13:59 Early regulation of commercial speech 23:03 What is false or misleading commercial speech? 26:04 Controversial regulations of non-misleading commercial speech 37:35 Future of commercial speech regulations Read the transcript: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-state-commercial-speech Coming up: Live episode of So To Speak  On Monday, August 11th at 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Nico will be speaking with former Treasury Secretary/Harvard University president, Larry Summers, and FIRE President/CEO, Greg Lukianoff. They will discuss the Trump administration's campaign against elite universities, including Harvard, what outcomes we can expect from that campaign, and what those outcomes might mean for free speech, academic freedom, and university independence. Register for the livestream here: https://thefire-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/5817544039734/WN_AISudjopTvu2Yzk2pXkDYg. 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: Commercial speech: Should it still receive unique constitutional treatment? FIRE (2025) “In 1995, Pepsi offered a $33 million fighter jet for 7 million Pepsi Points. They thought it was a joke. But this 21-year-old took them seriously, found a loophole, and demanded the fighter jet for his 7 million Pepsi Points.” So to Speak repost via X

Throughout his career, former Congressman Justin Amash has been a strong advocate for freedom of speech, writing that “The value of free speech comes from encountering views that are unorthodox, uncommon, or unaccepted…Free speech is a barren concept if people are limited to expressing views already widely held.” In this special live episode, filmed in front of 200+ high schoolers attending FIRE’s Free Speech Forum at American University in Washington, D.C., Amash takes questions from the audience and discusses his upbringing, his political career, the state of American politics, and how the Constitution guided his work in Congress. Earlier this year, Congressman Amash joined FIRE’s Advisory Council. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 03:30 Upbringing 06:21 Law school 13:15 Time in Congress 15:59 Why Amash publicly explained each of his votes 26:30 On being the first libertarian in Congress 30:57 Connection between his principles and free speech 33:10 Trump’s first impeachment 42:48 Dealing with pushback from constituents 46:03 Term limits for members of Congress? 55:25 How high schoolers can pursue a career in politics 59:45 Has there been a regression in First Amendment protections? 01:07:32 What Amash is up to now 01:08:06 Outro Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-justin-amash 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

We’re checking in on the latest news in tech and free speech. We cover the state AI regulation moratorium that failed in Congress, the ongoing Character A.I. lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission’s consent decree with Omnicom and Interpublic Group, the European Union’s Digital Services Act, and what comes next after the Supreme Court’s Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision. Guests: Ari Cohn — lead counsel for tech policy, FIRE Corbin Barthold — internet policy counsel, TechFreedom Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:38 State AI regulation moratorium fails in Congress 20:04 Character AI lawsuit 41:10 FTC, Omnicom x IPG merger, and Media Matters 56:09 Digital Services Act 01:02:43 FSC v. Paxton decision 01:10:49 Outro  Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-tech-check-ai-moratorium-character-ai-lawsuit-ftc 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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected]. Show notes: “The AI will see you now” Paul Sherman (2025) Megan Garcia, plaintiff, v. Character Technologies, Inc. et. al., defendants, United States District Court (2025) Proposed amicus brief in support of appeal - Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. FIRE (2025) “Amplification and its discontents: Why regulating the reach of online content is hard” Daphne Kelly (2021) “Omnicom Group/The Interpublic Group of Co.” FTC (2025)

FIRE staff responds to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing certain sexual material online. Joining us: Will Creeley — Legal director Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel Ronnie London — General counsel Timestamps: 01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court 06:57 Bob’s experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts 09:32 Ronnie’s perspective on the ruling 10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs. online sites 12:07 Has the Court established a new category of partially protected speech? 13:36 What speech is still subject to strict scrutiny after the ruling? 15:55 What does it mean to address the “work as a whole” in the internet context? 17:24 What modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE? 18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet’s risks toward minors? 20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best normative argument against the ruling? 22:38 Why is this ruling a “canary in the coal mine?” 23:36 How is age verification really about identity verification? 24:42 Why did the Court assume the need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in its ruling? 26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based access barriers to lawful online speech? 28:04 Will Americans have to show ID to get into a public library? 29:30 Why does stare decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court? 32:08 Will there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based restrictions on speech? 34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of state laws that create digital borders? 36:26 Is there any other instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First Amendment case? 37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket? 38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene? 40:33 How does the ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms like Reddit and X? 43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age verification laws? Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-reacts-supreme-courts-decision-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton Show notes: - Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf - FIRE statement on FSC v. Paxton ruling: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-upholding-age-verification-adult-content - FIRE’s brief for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.thefire.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-review-fifth-circuit-decision-upholding-texas-adult-content-age - FIRE’s amicus brief in support of petitioners and reversal: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-petitioners-and-reversal-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton