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

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 sotospeak@thefire.org.

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.

Will Creeley — Legal director

Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel

Ronnie London — General counsel

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

- 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

We discuss the Supreme Court backing Maine lawmaker Laurel Libby, NPR filing suit against Trump, a years-long dispute over a student wearing a “there are only two genders” shirt, the Secret Service investigation into James Comey, the latest on Harvard vs. Trump, and more.

Guests:

Bob Corn-Revere — chief counsel, FIRE

Lee Levine — former senior counsel, Ballard Spahr

Timestamps:

00:00 Intro

03:34 Censure of Rep. Libby

07:02 Supreme Court shadow docket

13:53 NPR lawsuit against Trump admin

19:07 Differences between NPR and Voice of America cases

30:50 Middle school student wearing “there are only two genders” shirt

48:54 Recent investigation into former FBI Director James Comey

55:46 Latest updates with Harvard and Trump

01:05:27 Outro

Read the transcript here.

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 sotospeak@thefire.org.

Show notes:

• “Ep. 56 have you been defamed?” Lee Levine’s previous appearance on the show (2018)

• “Supreme Court backs Republican lawmaker in Maine who was punished for transgender athlete remarks” NBC (2025)

• “NPR and Colorado public radio stations lawsuit against Trump administration” NPR (2025)

• “Ending taxpayer subsidization of biased media” The White House (2025)

• L. M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts Justia (2024)

• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District FIRE (1969)

• “Secret Service is asking Comey about a photo of seashells spelling ‘86 47’” The New York Times (2025)

• “The promise of American higher education” Alan Garber (2025)

• Harvard's lawsuit (complaint) (2025)