Ep. 214: ‘Private Censorship’ with J.P. Messina

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 today’s episode, we’re joined by J.P. Messina, an assistant professor in the philosophy department at Purdue University and the author of the new book, “Private Censorship.”

Also on the show is Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of public advocacy.

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction

3:10 The origin story of “Private Censorship”

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

Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)

Cloudflare’s 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.

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

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 “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

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