In part 2 of April and Glen’s “Red/Blue” discussion on free speech, they delve into the challenges of combating misinformation and “bad speech” in a free speech society. Glen argues that simply providing more accurate information is not always effective, as people’s beliefs are often influenced by emotions and tribalism rather than rationality. April concurs and emphasizes the significance of relationship-building and structured debates in addressing misinformation. She highlights Braver Angels’ approach, which utilizes compassionate curiosity and structured conversations to understand diverse perspectives and challenge falsehoods without compromising free speech. Both speakers underscore the need for nuanced approaches that transcend mere facts to effectively address misinformation. The discussion also explores the complexities of regulating speech on social media and in society as a whole. Glen and April discuss the intricate balance between free speech and the imperative to combat misinformation and harmful content. They delve into categories of unprotected speech, the concept of cancel culture, and the roles of government and private companies in content moderation. The conversation also touches upon the importance of ethical communication, including the current practice of doxing individuals of power on “the other side,” the challenges of determining factual information, and the necessity of respectful dialogue when addressing controversial topics. Both speakers acknowledge the difficulty of drawing clear lines between protected and unprotected speech in the digital age.

In this first of a four-part “Red/Blue” discussion, Glen and April engage in a free-wheeling conversation on the topic of freedom of speech. They delve into issues surrounding free speech in the United States, with April speaking from a primarily conservative view and Glen from a generally liberal perspective. Among key points of discussion, April emphasizes free speech as a fundamental constitutional right safeguarding individuals from government interference, particularly when expressing unpopular or traditional views. She introduces the concept of “virtuous free speech,” striking a balance between the right to speak and the responsibility to speak well. Glen concurs with many of April’s points, highlighting that free speech rights are primarily protected against government intrusion, not in the private sector. He underscores that while free speech is a legal right, responsible use of it is a voluntary moral decision. Glen provides examples of controversial protected speech, such as flag burning and Westboro Baptist Church protests, to illustrate the importance of protecting even objectionable speech to prevent government overreach. Both speakers acknowledge the need to strike a balance between free speech rights and other competing principles and interests.

The discussion then shifts to the complexities of free speech in higher education, particularly on public university campuses. April and Glen explore the role of government in regulating speech and the challenges of balancing free expression with the need for a safe learning environment. April describes her interest in the Heterodox Academy, an organization that advocates for viewpoint diversity and open inquiry in universities. Part 1 concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate about the limits of free speech and the potential for self-censorship among students.

In part 2 of our conversation with Carlton Wing, Glen and April explore his thoughts on how to legislate from principle vs populism. Carlton bemoans the negative influences of extremists on both the left and right, and he cites the challenges politicians face in sometimes having to speak to the base of the party in order to be re-elected. Yet Carlton rejects name-calling as “an intellectual copout.” He also outlines a largely optimistic view of where he thinks Arkansas is headed politically. Carlton offers insights into how Arkansans can best provide feedback and have on impact on legislators, and he urges everyone to consider reaching out to their governmental officials. He finishes with a description of his poetic approach to lobbying for passage of his first bill as a freshman legislator.

Carlton Wing, Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives from the 70th district, sits down with April and Glen to talk about his career in sports media, his role as a host several years for a worldwide fishing tournament, and as a legislator since 2016. Carlton traces his early influences on his views and then describes his current work in government as “servant leadership.” He strongly believes that his role in the legislature is to serve the people by focusing on principle before policies, and he believes the majority of Arkansans see things from somewhere in the middle, between extremes on both the left and right. Carlton feels all in government should work together, something he promotes by seeking to lower the temperature politically and to build bridges. After describing friendships he has made with Democrats, he outlines several key laws and issues that have been passed recently or that he feels must be addressed soon. Carlton focuses in particular on the need for addressing taxation policy that ensures all programs seen as important are able to be funded. He also praises recent work to promote the natural resources of Arkansas, given research showing the value to mental health of time spent in nature.

In part 2 of April and Glen’s conversation with Jonathan Seaborn, general manager of Little Rock Public Radio, Jonathan addresses criticisms from some listeners who complain of excessive coverage of some right-leaning figures such as Steve Bannon and President Trump. We also discuss the challenges of dealing with misinformation and disinformation in media, and how KUAR is working to meet that challenge. In discussing the past and current pushes to defund public media (e.g., NPR & PBS), Jonathan cites the relative contributions by public and private sources for KUAR’s operations and what recent threats to disable public funding of public media could mean in terms of what is likely to be lost within the community should that threat come to fruition. We also learn how the public radio stations in Arkansas are collaborating to serve the entire state of Arkansas, including more rural areas that may lack any alternative media options.

April and Glen talk with Jonathan Seaborn, general manager of Little Rock Public Radio & KUAR/KLRE radio stations. In this first part of our chat with Jonathan, we learn about his impressive credentials that brought him to Little Rock, as well as the extensive work he now does for Little Rock Public Radio to ensure that the many regulations and compliance requirements for public media are met. While this accountability is welcome, it reflects the station’s primary purpose of meeting needs of the community that may not always be met by more commercially viable media, where the emphasis tends to lean toward income from popular content or issues. Jonathan gives examples in both central Arkansas and in other states where local needs are met by public media that play critical roles in such areas as how citizens can secure resources and assistance in the aftermath of natural disasters. Jonathan mentions recent and existing concerns about aging infrastructure and technology, needing to relocate to a new space, and other challenges that are currently or have recently been addressed via community donations. Also discussed is the common perception that public radio tends to be a liberal voice, a perception that Jonathan asserts is, in large part, a misunderstanding of the products of National Public Radio vs other non-NPR products that may be part of programming for some NPR-affiliated stations.

In part 2 of April and Glen’s conversation with Dr. Julien Mirivel, Professor of Applied Communication at UA-Little Rock and developer of the positive communication model (www.julienmirivel.com), we explore how to use positive communication practically. One specific example is how to deal with “conflict entrepreneurs” who purposely create or stoke conflict across divisions as a way to gain personally in some way. Julien emphasizes that communication is a choice and a “moral act” -- and gives examples of how he uses this approach in his classroom during difficult discussions. We also hear about his work with Heifer International in studying human transformation that happens as a result of that organization’s work. Julien also describes the individual and community aspects of positive communication, as well as how he thinks loneliness, an increasing problem in our society, may be helped via his ideas. We conclude with his story about an influential and memorable moment he experienced in Nepal.

April and Glen’s guest for this episode is Dr. Julien Mirivel, Professor of Applied Communication at UA-Little Rock, an author, teacher, scholar, researcher and academic leader. Julien is a native of France but has lived most of his adult life in the US. He is now a citizen and lives in Little Rock with his wife and 3 children. In this first part of our conversation with Julien, he explains his model of positive communication and breaks down the several key elements of his model, which he teaches and promotes nationally and internationally via the Positive Communication Network (http://www.positivecommunication.net/) he led in developing. We discuss ways his approach to communication can help overcome the strong attraction of negative or fear-based types of communication, and how it can also help with the problem of political polarization.