So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast FIRE

On May 1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by a vote of 320 to 91. Proponents of the law say it is necessary to address anti-Semitic discrimination on college campuses. Opponents argue it threatens free speech.
 
Who’s right?
 
Kenneth Stern was the lead drafter of the definition of anti-Semitism used in the act. But he said the definition was never meant to punish speech. Rather, it was drafted to help data collectors write reports. 
Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. His most recent book is titled, “The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate.”
 
Timestamps
 
0:00 Introduction
04:06 Introducing Ken Stern
7:59 Can hate speech codes work?
11:13 Off-campus hate speech codes
13:33 Drafting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition 
21:53 How should administrators judge anti-Semitism without the IHRA definition? 
27:29 Is there a rise in unlawful discrimination on campuses today? 
40:20 Opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act 
43:10 Defenses of the Antisemitism Awareness Act 
51:34 Enshrinement of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in state laws
53:57 Is the IHRA definition internally consistent? 
59:21 How will the Senate vote? 
1:01:16 Outro
 
Show Notes
 
IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
The Antisemitism Awareness Act 
 

Host Nico Perrino joins his FIRE colleagues Will Creeley and Alex Morey to answer questions about the recent campus unrest and its First Amendment implications. 
 
Timestamps
 
0:00 Introduction 
0:41 What is FIRE?/campus unrest
5:44 What are the basic First Amendment principles for campus protest?
11:30 Student encampments 
18:09 Exceptions to the First Amendment
29:01 Can administrators limit access to non-students/faculty?
34:13 Denying recognition to Students for Justice in Palestine
36:26 Were protesters at UT Austin doing anything illegal?
40:54 The USC valedictorian 
45:09 What does “objectively offensive” mean? / Does Davis apply to colleges?
46:55 Is it illegal to protest too loudly?
50:03 What options do colleges have to moderate/address hate speech?
54:20 Does calling for genocide constitute bullying/harassment?
59:09 Wrapping up on the situation 
 
Show Notes
 
“USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship,” Alex Morey
“Emerson College: Conservative Student Group Investigated for Distributing ‘China Kinda Sus’ Stickers,” FIRE’s case files
“HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship,” Nadine Strossen
“Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom,” Aryeh Neier (pdf)
“David Goldberger, lead attorney in ‘the Skokie case,’” “So to Speak” Ep. 118
Transcript

In America, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.
But should it be?
Today’s guest is out with a new book, “Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against First Amendment Protection.”
W. Wat Hopkins is emeritus professor of communication at Virginia Tech, where he taught communication law and cyberspace law. 
Transcript of Interview: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-should-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
5:34 Why write about hate speech?
8:50 Has the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech?
13:56 What speech falls outside First Amendment protection?
16:44 The history of the First Amendment
20:00 Fighting words and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
24:00 How does the Supreme Court determine what speech is protected?
35:24 Defining hate speech
38:54 Debating the value of hate speech
44:02 Defining hate speech (again)
50:30 Abuses of hate speech codes
1:00:10 Skokie
1:02:39 Current Supreme Court and hate speech
1:06:00 Outro
Show Notes 
Scotland’s “Hate Crime and Public Order Act”
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)
United States v. Stevens (2010)
Virginia v. Black (2003)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
“HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship” by Nadine Strossen

In late 2013, some of us at FIRE started noticing a change on college campuses. Students, who were previously the strongest constituency for free speech on campus, were turning against free speech. They began appealing to administrators more frequently for protection from different speakers and using the language of trauma and safety to justify censorship.
What changed?

Neil Howe may have an answer. He is a historian, economist, and demographer who speaks frequently on generational change. His most recent book, “The Fourth Turning is Here,” was published last year. Howe argues that history has seasonal rhythms of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth and that different generations take on different attributes reflecting their place in the cycle.
Joining Howe and host Nico Perrino for the conversation is FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff, co-author of “The Canceling of the American Mind."
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
6:10 Neil’s intent with his book, “Generations”
13:12 Pattern in American history
17:08 The nomad archetype
25:00 Covid and the younger generation
27:28 Do people shape events?
35:35 Gen-Xers and Millennials
41:45 The Fourth Turning
50:24 William James’ “The Moral Equivalent of War”
57:08 Are Gen-Z actually Millennials?
58:10 Dominant generations
01:06:40 How do generational cycles impact civil liberties?
01:10:57 Summary of Millennials
01:18:15 Peaceful periods lead to greater inequality 
1:19:16 Outro
 
Show Notes 
Neil Howe’s Substack, “Demography Unplugged”
Greg Lukianoff’s Substack, “The Eternally Radical Idea”
 

“I have never seen a Supreme Court term that is as consequential as this one is going to be,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, previewing this term’s First Amendment cases.
On today’s show, we analyze the oral arguments in four of those cases: NRA v. Vullo, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice, LLC, v. Paxton.
We also discuss the court’s decision in two cases involving government officials blocking their critics on social media.
Joining the show are Corn-Revere, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London, and FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr.
 
Timestamps
 
0:00 Introduction
3:29 NRA v. Vullo
26:05 Murthy v. Missouri
50:41 Netchoice cases
1:11:26 Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier 
1:21:24 Outro
 
Show Notes 
 
NRA v. Vullo oral argument transcript
Bantam Books, Inc. et. al v Sullivan et al. (1963)
Murthy v. Missouri oral argument transcript
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC oral argument transcript
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton oral argument transcript
Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier decisions 
‘So to Speak’ on Substack
Transcript

There is a recurring debate in the free speech community regarding whether money is speech. 
 
Bitcoin-focused entrepreneur, writer, and philosopher Robert Breedlove joins us today to help resolve the debate. Describing money as “the language of human action,” Robert makes the case that money, like the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, is information and should be free from government regulation and manipulation. During this longer-than-usual episode, Robert and Nico discuss everything from Keynesian economics and 3D-printed firearms to the Chinese Communist Party. 
 
Robert is the host of the popular podcast, “The ‘What is Money?’ Show,” which dives into the nature of money by asking guests one simple question: What is money? In 2020, he co-authored the book, “Thank God for Bitcoin: The Creation, Corruption and Redemption of Money.”
 
Timestamps
 
0:00 Introduction
3:56 Robert’s background 
19:21 What is Austrian economics? 
24:23 Is money speech? 
44:48 Can money express irrational things? 
51:59 Is access to perfect information always a good thing?
1:05:17 Bitcoin and anonymity
1:18:14 Prediction markets 
1:31:49 Is code speech?
1:39:59 Is economic freedom more fundamental than freedom of speech?
1:49:13 Regulating bitcoin
1:55:16 Bitcoin ETFs
1:57:03 Rapid-fire Bitcoin questions
2:03:15 Does more access to information make the world a better place? 
2:06:53 Outro 
 
Show Notes 
 
“The ‘What is Money?’ Show”
“The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G Edward Griffin
“The Bitcoin Standard” by Saifedean Ammous
“The Use of Knowledge in Society” by Friedrich Hayek
“The Logic of Scientific Discovery” by Karl Popper
“Areopagitica” by John Milton
Transcript