So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast FIRE

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

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
 

On today’s episode, we discuss Alexei Navalny’s death, Vladimir Putin, censorship in Russia, and Samizdat Online, an anti-censorship platform that grants users living under authoritarian regimes access to news and other censored content. Yevgeny “Genia” Simkin is the co-founder of Samizdat Online and Stanislav “Stas” Kucher is its chief content officer.
 
Timestamps
 
0:00 Introduction 
2:25 Alexei Navalny 
8:53 The state of Russian opposition
20:48 The origins of Samizdat Online
28:17 How does Samizdat Online circumvent censorship? 
35:16 Could Yevgeny Prigozhin have overthrown Putin?
41:03 The progression of Putin’s regime 
58:08 How can people help? 
59:56 Outro
 
Show notes
 
Statement by Russian prison service on Alexei Navalny’s death
The Anti-Corruption Foundation (nonprofit established by Alexei Navalny)
Samizdat Online
“Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible” by Peter Pomerantsev
Transcript
 
Past related episodes
 
Ep. 108: A history of (dis)information wars in the Soviet Union and beyond
Ep. 156: What Russians don’t know about the war in Ukraine
Ep. 157: Former BBC bureau chief Konstantin Eggert and what you need to know about censorship in Russia

On today’s free speech news roundup, we discuss the recent NetChoice oral argument, Taylor Swift, doxxing, October 7 fallout on campus, and Satan in Iowa. 
Joining us on the show are Alex Morey, FIRE director of Campus Rights Advocacy; Aaron Terr, director of Public Advocacy; and Ronnie London, our general counsel.
 
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
0:44 NetChoice oral arguments
19:39 Taylor Swift cease and desist letter 
29:20 Publishing unlawfully obtained information 
39:28 Harvard and doxxing 
47:44 Princeton no contact orders 
55:52 Columbia law denies recognition to Law Students Against Antisemitism 
1:02:38 Columbia adopts Kalven Report
1:06:06 Indiana University art exhibit canceled, professor suspended
1:14:55 Satan in Iowa
1:21:59 Outro
 
Show Notes 
“So to Speak” 2023-24 Supreme Court Preview (contains discussion of NetChoice cases)
Correspondence between Taylor Swift and Jack Sweeney’s attorneys 
Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)
Princeton no contact order 
Columbia university grants recognition to Law Students Against Antisemitism
IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
List of universities that have adopted the Kalven Report
Indiana University art exhibit story
Indiana University professor suspended for improper reservation 
Iowa Satanism bill
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022)
“So to Speak”: Substack
Transcript