Afleveringen
-
FIRE staffers take your questions on the TikTok ban, mandatory DEI statements, the Kids Online Safety Act, Trump vs. the media, and more.
Joining us:Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy
Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy
Will Creeley, legal director
This webinar was open to the public. Future monthly FIRE Member Webinars will not be. Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars.
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substackâs paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].
Timestamps:00:00 Intro
00:52 Donate to FIRE!
02:49 TikTok ban
10:01 Ariâs work as tech policy lead counsel
12:03 Mandatory DEI statements at universities
15:19 How does FIRE address forced speech?
18:17 Texasâ age verification law
24:35 Would government social media bans for minors be a First Amendment violation?
33:48 Online age verification
35:17 First Amendment violations while making public comments during city council/school board public meetings
37:25: Edison, New Jersey city council case
39:48 FIREâs role in educating Americans
41:55 If social media addiction cannot be dealt with like drugs, how can it be dealt with?
43:34 âPessimists Archiveâ Substack and moral panics
45:27 Trump and the media
51:23 Gary Gadwa case
52:49 How to distinguish the freedom of speech versus freedom from social consequences?
55:53 Free speech culture is a âmushy conceptâ
57:58 ABC settlement with Trump
01:01:27 Nicoâs upcoming book!
01:02:32 FIRE and K-12 education
01:04:40 Outro
Show notes:âTikTok Inc. and ByteDance LTD. v. Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as attorney general of the United Statesâ (D.C. 2024)
âOpinion: The TikTok court case has staggering implications for free speech in Americaâ L.A. Times (2024)
H.B. No. 1181 (Tex. 2023; Texas age-verification law)
âThe Anxious Generationâ Jonathan Haidt (2024)
S. 1409 - Kids Online Safety Act (2023-2024)
American Amusement MacH. Assân v. Kendrick (Ind. 2000)
âEdison Township, New Jersey: Town Council bans props, including the U.S. flag and Constitution, at council meetingsâ FIRE (2024)
âLAWSUIT: Arizona mom sues city after arrest for criticizing government lawyerâs payâ FIRE (2024)
"President Donald J. Trump v. J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Company, Des Moines Register and Tribune company, and Gannett Co., Inc.â (2024)
âTrump v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.â (2024)
âNew Jersey slaps down censorship with anti-SLAPP legislationâ FIRE (2023)
âFIRE defends Idaho conservation officer sued for criticizing wealthy ranch ownerâs airstrip permitâ FIRE (2023)
âOn Libertyâ John Stuart Mill (1859)
âHome Depot cashier fired over Facebook comment about Trump shootingâ Newsweek (2024)
âFree speech culture, Elon Musk, and Twitterâ FIRE (2022)
âQuestions ABC News should answer following the $16 million Trump settlementâ Columbia Journalism Review (2024)
âAppellantsâ opening brief â B.A., et al. v. Tri County Area Schools, et al.â FIRE (2024)
Transcript:*Unedited transcript and edited transcript for Substack will be available later in the week!
-
âWho controls what is taught in American universities â professors or politicians?â
Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, âYou Canât Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.â He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a âweaponizationâ of intellectual diversity.
Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittingtonâs teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law.
Read the transcript.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:00 The genesis of Yaleâs Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech
04:42 The inspiration behind âYou Canât Teach That!â
06:18 The First Amendment and academic freedom
09:29 Extramural speech and the public sphere
17:56 Intramural speech and its complexities
23:13 Floridaâs Stop WOKE Act
26:34 Distinctive features of K-12 education
31:13 University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax
39:02 University of Kansas professor Phillip Lowcock
43:42 Muhlenberg College professor Maura Finkelstein
47:01 University of Wisconsin La-Crosse professor Joe Gow
54:47 Northwestern professor Arthur Butz
57:52 Inconsistent applications of university policies
01:02:23 Weaponization of âintellectual diversityâ
01:05:53 Outro
Show notes:
âSpeak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speechâ Keith Whittington (2019)
âYou Can't Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classroomsâ Keith Whittington (2023)
AAUP Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1915)
AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940)
âKinseyâ (2004)
Stop WOKE Act, HB 7. (Fla. 2022)
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967)
Indiana intellectual diversity law, S.E.A. 354 (Ind. 2022)
âTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Districtâ (1969)
-
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Woodrow Wilson or Franklin D. Roosevelt: which president was worse for free speech?
In August, FIRE posted a viral X thread, arguing that Woodrow Wilson may be Americaâs worst-ever president for free speech. Despite the growing recognition of Wilsonâs censorship, there was a professor who wrote a recent book on FDRâs free speech record, arguing that FDR was worse.
Representing the Wilson side in our discussion is Christopher Cox, author of the new book, âWoodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn.â Cox is a former member of the House of Representatives, where he served for 17 years, including as chair of the Homeland Security Committee. He is currently a senior scholar in residence at the University of California, Irvine.
Representing the FDR side is professor David T. Beito, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor Emeritus at the University of Alabama. He is the author of a number of books, his latest being âThe New Dealâs War on the Bill of Rights: The Untold Story of FDR's Concentration Camps, Censorship, and Mass Surveillance.â
Read the transcript.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
03:41 Wilsonâs free speech record
15:13 Was FDRâs record worse than Wilsonâs?
24:01 Japanese internment
29:35 Wilson at the end of his presidency
37:42 FDR and Hugo Black
42:31 The Smith Act
45:42 Did Wilson regret his actions?
50:31 The suffragists
56:19 Did FDR regret his actions?
01:02:04 Outro
Show notes:
Espionage Act of 1917
Sedition Act of 1918
Executive Order (creating the Committee on Public Information)
Schenk v. United States (1919)
Abrams v. United States (1919)
Smith Act of 1940
President Franklin D. Rooseveltâs âFour Freedomsâ speech (1941)
The Lend-Lease Program (1941-1945)
-
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.
âYou donât speak up at first,â she told us. âFirst you leave and you find a place of safety. Itâs only after that experience that it occurred to me to speak up about anything.â
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 âInfidel,â âNomad,â âHeretic,â and, âPrey.â 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 oneâs voice
37:20 Hope for the future
43:58 Outro
Show notes:
âSubmission.â Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh (2004)
Brandeis Change.org petition. (2014)
âWhen you use AI to replace every mention of âour democracyâ with âour bureaucracy,â everything starts making a lot more sense.â Bill DâAgnostico via X (2024)
-
In this live recording of âSo to Speakâ 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:
âA machine with First Amendment rights,â Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare (2023)
â22 top AI statistics and trends in 2024,â Forbes (2024)
âGlobal risks 2024: Disinformation tops global risks 2024 as environmental threats intensify,â World Economic Forum (2024)
âCourt lets first AI libel case go forward,â Reason (2024)
âCYBERPORN - EXCLUSIVE: A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids â and free speech?â TIME (1995)
âIt was smart for an AI,â 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 itâs time to âremove an arrow from the governmentâs quiver.âRead 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 OâMara (2003)
United States v. Xavier Alvarez (2012)
-Legislation:
The Comstock Act (1873)
The Stolen Valor Act (2005)
-
The FIRE team discusses Tim Walzâs controversial comments on hate speech and âshouting fire in a crowded theater.â We also examine Californiaâs AI deepfake laws, the punishment of tenured professors, and mask bans.
Joining us are:
Aaron Terr, FIREâs director of Public Advocacy;
Connor Murnane, FIREâs Campus Advocacy chief of staff; and
Adam Goldstein, FIREâs vice president of strategic initiatives.
Read the transcript.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:51 Tim Walzâs comments on hate speech and âshouting fireâ
15:36 Californiaâs AI deepfake laws
32:05 Tenured professors punished for expression
54:27 Nassau Countyâs 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:
âThis is amazingđâ Elon Musk via X (2024)
âBREAKING: The Babylon Bee has obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad.â The Babylon Bee via X (2024)
âThe 1912 war on fake photos.â Pessimists Archive via Substack (2024)
âProfessor fired for porn hobby vows to take university to court.â FIRE (2024)
âAmy Wax is academic freedom's canary in the coal mine.â FIRE (2024)
âIn major hit to tenure, Muhlenberg fires pro-Palestinian professor.â FIRE (2024)
âU.S. Department of Educationâs Office for Civil Rights announces resolution of antisemitism investigation of Muhlenberg College.â 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 âThe Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truthâ and âKindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought.â 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 âInvisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.â
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 Trumpâs 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)
âThis Place Rulesâ (2022)
Murthy v. Missouri (2024)
âWhy Scholars Should Stop Studying 'Misinformation',â by Jacob N. Shapiro and Sean Norton (2024)
âFIRE Statement on Free Speech and Social Mediaâ
-
What happens when philosopher Ayn Randâs theories meet free speech?
Tara Smith and Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute explore Randâs 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, âThe First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom.â 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 Randâs USSR upbringing
24:39 Who was in Randâs âCollectiveâ 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:
âSafe Spaces and Trigger Warnings: Free Speech on Campusâ (2016)
Letters of Ayn Rand (1995)
âGoddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Rightâ (2009)
âBrandenburg v. Ohioâ (1969)
âNRA v. Vulloâ (2023)
âMurthy v. Missouriâ (2024)
âMoody v. NetChoiceâ and âNetChoice v. Paxtonâ (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 Hershâs course on conservatism was profiled in Boston Magazine under the headline, âA Conservative Thought Experiment on a Liberal College Campus.â
Timestamps
00:00 Intro
02:02 Prof. Hershâs personal political beliefs
03:47 Political diversity among faculty and students
05:14 Hershâs journey to academia
06:07 What does a conservatism course look like?
09:30 His colleaguesâ response to the course
10:29 The challenges of discussing controversial topics
13:28 FIREâs 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 Americaâs conception of free speech and the First Amendment?
In their new book, âThe Supreme Court and the Philosopher: How John Stuart Mill Shaped U.S. Free Speech Protections,â co-authors Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma look at how the Supreme Court has increasingly aligned its interpretation of free expression with Millâs philosophy, as articulated in âOn Liberty.â
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 Bookâs origin
06:51 Who is John Stuart Mill?
10:09 What is the âharm principleâ?
16:30 Early Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment
26:25 What was Justice Holmesâ dissent in Abrams v. U.S.?
30:28 Why did Justice Brandeis join Holmesâ dissents?
36:10 What are loyalty oaths?
40:36 Justice Blackâs nuanced view of the First Amendment
43:33 What were Millâs 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 Americaâs technological advancement
11:33 Section 230âs support for good faith content moderation
18:00 User privacy and age verification?
25:37 Rep. Coxâs 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 âThe Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internetâ 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) âSection 230: A Retrospectiveâ 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 todayâs 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 âsuicide pactâ?
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
âFreedom of expression and social conflictâ by Christian BjĂžrnskov and Jacob Mchangama
FIREâs 2024 College Free Speech Rankings (featuring data on college student support for violence)
Recent court ruling in DeRay McKesson protest case
âThe Tyranny of Silenceâ by Flemming Rose
âFree Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Mediaâ 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. Vullo46:57 Murthy v. Missouri
1:06:04 Gonzales v. Trevino
1:17:58 Vidal v. Elster
1:26:04 OâConnor-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
-
There is a movement afoot to restrict young peopleâs access to social media and pornography.
Critics of social media and online porn argue that they can be harmful to minors, and states across the country are taking up the cause, considering laws that would impose age-verification, curfews, parental opt-ins, and other restrictions.
Meanwhile, critics of the critics argue that the evidence of harm isnât so conclusive and that many of the proposed restrictions violate core civil liberties such as privacy and free speech.
So, whoâs right?
Clare Morell is a senior policy analyst at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the author of the forthcoming book, âThe Tech Exit: A Manifesto for Freeing Our Kids.â
Ari Cohn is free speech counsel at TechFreedom, a technology think tank.Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:17 The alleged harms of social media
11:31 Just another technological moral panic?
25:49 How is internet access currently restricted for minors?
41:17 The age verification problem
1:00:27 Assessing the First Amendment problems
1:07:21 Voluntary measures parents can take
1:25:30 Outro
Shownotes
Transcript
âThe Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illnessâ by Jonathan Haidt
âSurgeon General: Why Iâm Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platformsâ by Vivek H. Murthy
-
It is said that censorship is the strongest drive in human nature â with sex being a weak second.
But what happens when these two primordial drives clash? Does censorship or sex win out?
Nadine Strossen is a professor emerita at New York Law School, a former president of the ACLU, and a senior fellow at FIRE. She is also the author of âDefending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Womenâs Rights.â First released in 1995, the book was reissued this year with a new preface.
Mary Anne Franks is a law professor at George Washington University and the president and legislative and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She is the author of âThe Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speechâ and the forthcoming âFearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment.â
Show Notes:
Transcript
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:17 Defining pornography
7:20 Is porn protected by the First Amendment?
11:10 Revenge porn
22:05 Origins of âDefending Pornographyâ
25:06 Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon
29:20 Can porn be consensual?
35:02 Dworkin/MacKinnon model legislation
52:20 Porn in Canada
56:07 Is it possible to ban porn?
1:03:26 College professorâs porn hobby
1:12:39 Outro
-
Did 26 words from an American law passed in 1996 create the internet?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that interactive websites and applications cannot be held legally liable for the content posted on their sites by their users.
Without the law, itâs likely Facebook, Amazon, Reddit, Yelp, and X wouldnât exist â at least not in their current form.
But some say the law shields large tech companies from liability for enabling, or even amplifying, harmful content.On todayâs show, we discuss Section 230, recent efforts to reform it, and new proposals for content moderation on the internet.
Marshall Van Alstyne is a professor of information systems at Boston University.
Robert Corn-Revere is FIREâs chief counsel.
Timestamps
0:00 Intro
3:52 The origins of Section 230?
6:40 Section 230âs âforgotten provisionâ
13:29 User vs. platform control over moderation
23:24 Harms allegedly enabled by Section 230
40:17 Solutions
46:03 Private market for moderation
1:02:42 Case study: Hunter Biden laptop story
1:09:19 âDuty of careâ standard
1:17:49 The future of Section 230
1:20:35 OutroShow Notes
- Show Transcript
- Hearing on a Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (May 22. 2024)
- âPlatform Revolutionâ by Marshall Van Alstyne
- âThe Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholderâ by Robert Corn-Revere
- âProtocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speechâ by Mike Masnick
- âSunset of Section 230 Would Force Big Techâs Handâ By Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr.
- âBuy This Legislation or Weâll Kill the Internetâ By Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden
- âFree Speech, Platforms & The Fake News Problemâ (2021) by Marshall Van Alstyne
- âFree Speech and the Fake News Problemâ (2023) by Marshall Van Alstyne
- âItâs Time to Update Section 230â by Michael D. Smith and Marshall Van Alstyne
âNow It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrongâ by Mike Masnick
-
The First Amendment forbids government censorship. Private institutions, on the other hand, are generally free to restrict speech.
How should we think about private censorship and its role within a liberal society?
On todayâs episode, weâre joined by J.P. Messina, an assistant professor in the philosophy department at Purdue University and the author of the new book, âPrivate Censorship.â
Also on the show is Aaron Terr, FIREâs director of public advocacy.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
3:10 The origin story of âPrivate Censorshipâ
8:29 How does FIRE figure out what to weigh in on?
12:04 Examples of private censorship
18:24 Regulating speech at work
22:21 Regulating speech on social media platforms
30:09 Is social media essentially a public utility?
35:50 Are internet service providers essentially public utilities?
44:43 Social media vs. ISPs
51:02 Censorship on search engines
59:47 Defining illiberalism outside of government censorship
1:16:06 Outro
Show Notes
Episode transcript
Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
Cloudflareâs announcement regarding the Daily Stormer
-
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.
Whoâs 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, âThe Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate.â
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
Transcript
-
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 âobjectively offensiveâ 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
âUSC canceling valedictorianâs commencement speech looks like calculated censorship,â Alex Morey
âEmerson College: Conservative Student Group Investigated for Distributing âChina Kinda Susâ Stickers,â FIREâs case files
âHATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship,â Nadine Strossen
âDefending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom,â Aryeh Neier (pdf)
âDavid Goldberger, lead attorney in âthe Skokie case,ââ âSo to Speakâ Ep. 118
Transcript
- Laat meer zien
