Ep. 283: Robby Soave on Trump’s press ban, Macklemore, and free speech culture wars The free speech culture wars look different than they did a decade ago. @reason senior editor and @RisingTheHill host @robbysoave joins @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino to discuss the White House’s restrictions on media access, Macklemore getting dropped from Ed Sheeran’s tour, and why efforts to suppress controversial speech so often backfire. They also look back at how the free speech debate has changed since Robby and Nico began covering it — from campus censorship and cancel culture to social media moderation and the changing politics of free speech. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:46 How Robby prepares for Rising 03:35 How the media landscape has changed 10:43 Trump, the press, and censorship 20:25 Cancel culture 23:55 Macklemore, Ed Sheeran, and the Streisand Effect 30:30 Why should we defend the media? 36:57 Campus free speech 43:47 The changing politics of free speech 58:34 Outro

Trying to silence controversial speech can have the opposite effect. @RobbySoave calls Macklemore’s removal from Ed Sheeran’s tour a prime example of the Streisand effect: Trying to suppress a message can end up drawing even more attention to it.

Defending a news outlet’s First Amendment rights ≠ endorsing its journalism. The media landscape has changed dramatically. The principle hasn’t.

FIRE Reacts: Trump’s media ban @TheFIREorg staff responds to @POTUS's decision to ban @CNN, @MSNOWNews, and @politico from the White House, with President Trump citing their “constant ‘reporting’” of “FAKE NEWS!” Barring journalists from the White House because of their coverage raises serious First Amendment concerns and strikes at the heart of a free and independent press. FIRE experts break down what happened and answer your questions about the ban. Joining us: @marie_mac99 — SPFI program manager and counsel @jacob_gaba — Staff attorney @aaronterr1 — Director of public advocacy Timestamps 00:00 Intro 02:06 Why does the White House Correspondents Association decide who serves in the White House press pool? 05:32 Can the president ban anyone from the White House? 07:07 Obama and Biden-era restrictions on press access 10:38 Access to the press room vs. being called on to ask a question 11:55 Could TrumpTV have a chilling effect on the press? 13:39 Can the White House reject a reporter but not their news organization? 14:56 What is a temporary restraining order? 17:27 The government’s argument 22:03 National security and the First Amendment 23:57 What if a news organization publishes false information? 27:31 Does the White House have to justify press restrictions? 28:27 Is there something wrong with “a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories”? 32:04 The scope of the White House restrictions 34:03 Public distrust of the press 36:48 Does restricting press access really address any national security concerns? 39:22 Can future administrations exclude partisan or influencer journalists? 41:05 Is barring journalists from the White House a prior restraint? 42:17 The impacts of a collective media boycott 45:04 Outro

New tech. Same First Amendment. The government can’t dictate the editorial judgment of a newspaper. @kate_ruane says it shouldn't dictate Facebook’s news feed either.

“We the People” means more than voting every four years. Stephen Solomon says self-government depends on citizens being free to scrutinize, challenge, and criticize the people acting in their name.

Protest is protected speech. Shouting down speakers so nobody else can hear them isn’t. We said it back in May. FIRE’s 2027 College Free Speech Rankings show why it still matters: 69% of students think violence can sometimes be an acceptable way to stop campus speech. Disagreement is part of the marketplace of ideas. Silencing the marketplace isn’t. Check out the rankings at: rankings.fire.org/

Turns out, the right book really can change you. New research from Cambridge links reading for pleasure with better attention, memory, empathy, and mental health. For @nicoperrino, A Clockwork Orange changed how he understood language and demonstrated why exposure to challenging books matters.

You don’t need to ban the newspaper — just make every crucial story expensive to publish. Defamation lawsuits once threatened to do exactly that. That’s why New York Times v. Sullivan matters.

Ep. 282: Breaking down our 2027 College Free Speech Rankings Harvard, institutional neutrality, how we determine the rankings, partisan censorship, how schools can improve their ranking, and more! Joining us to break it all down is @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino; vp of research Angela Erickson; chief researcher Sean Stevens; general counsel Ronnie London; and campus advocacy chief of staff @ConnorMurnane. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:18 Learn about our inaugural Soapbox conference 04:02 Preorder Nico’s book Free Speech Generation 5:00 Check out FIRE’s 2027 College Free Speech rankings 06:05 Who are the top- and bottom-ranked schools? 09:27 What’s new with the Harvard evaluation? 13:08 How does FIRE choose which schools to rank? 13:46 What can universities do to improve their ranking? 15:54 What is institutional neutrality? 18:05 What exactly are students being asked about campus speech? 21:25 How does FIRE make sure defending free speech doesn’t inadvertently protect censorship in the classroom? 25:19 Is campus censorship coming more from the “right” or the “left”? 26:53 Did the University of Washington settlement involving Professor Stuart Reges affect its ranking? 30:45 What does it mean to pre-register our methodology? 31:35 Why did Claremont McKenna drop in the rankings? 33:07 What advice does FIRE have for students at low-ranked schools facing censorship? 36:47 Do politically homogeneous campuses make students more comfortable speaking freely? 40:26 Do low-ranked colleges tell FIRE how they are improving? 42:56 What can administrators do now to improve next year’s ranking? 43:50 Does FIRE account for turnover in university leadership? 45:47 What do the rankings reveal about different student demographic groups? 49:41 Does FIRE account for differences between types of institutions? 52:00 What’s up with MIT? 56:02 Should attacks on tenured professors carry more weight than actions against other faculty? 57:02 Who does FIRE contact when evaluating a university? 58:09 Are there regional patterns in the rankings? 58:57 Were there bigger ranking swings than usual this year? 01:00:44 Outro

“Protecting the public good” sounds nice. But it also sounds like a phrase that can justify a lot of censorship. Stephen Solomon warns that once lawmakers have broad power over speech in the name of “the public good,” that power can stretch very far, very fast.

Ep. 281: What’s the First Amendment’s original meaning? w/ Jud Campbell and Stephen Solomon The First Amendment is only 45 words long. But more than 200 years and thousands of court decisions later, we’re still arguing over a basic question: what do those words mean — and what did they mean to the early Americans who adopted them? To look through history and debate what originalism can — and can’t — tell us about the First Amendment’s free speech clause, @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino is joined by @StanfordLaw's Jud Campbell and @nyuniversity's Stephen Solomon. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:20 Original meaning and modern First Amendment doctrine 09:12 Would the founders recognize our Constitution today? 16:00 The Alien and Sedition Acts 20:21 How the founding generation practiced free speech 24:35 Can we define “originalism”? 32:05 Representative government and the promise of liberty 45:00 The First Amendment’s absolute language 51:36 New York Times v. Sullivan 58:01 Amending the First Amendment 01:04:30 Outro

Age verification sounds like something that affects kids. Until you have to scan your face or upload your ID to use social media. @kate_ruane’s point: To identify minors, platforms may have to identify everybody. That changes the privacy equation fast.

Social media may not have a monopoly on the addiction debate. @joellthayer says AI can create some of the same dependency concerns we’re already debating with social media.

“Protect kids from harmful content.” Okay — but who decides what counts as harmful? LGBTQ issues? Guns? Religion? Climate change? @kate_ruane says that’s how a child-safety rule can turn into a government-approved internet.

In 2017, I attended the funeral of the late, great civil libertarian Nat Hentoff. I realized then that a generation of Americans who secured some of our greatest free speech victories was quickly retiring from the barricades. It's hard to appreciate just how profound those victories were. Prior to their arrival, Americans were routinely arrested for criticizing government officials, protesting wars, distributing birth control literature, and engaging in other expression that we take for granted is protected today. In one case, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for reading the First Amendment aloud while protesting in support of striking California dockworkers. The arresting officer told him, "We’ll have none of that Constitution stuff.” This censorship happened despite clear state and federal constitutional protections for free speech. After all, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Today, America's free speech protections actually mean something. They are the strongest in the world. So strong, in fact, that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan worries they've become "weaponized." What's more, free speech has become a defining characteristic of American culture. One British commentator recently remarked that Americans have an “almost religious-like commitment to free speech” that is hard for foreigners to understand. So how did free speech go from an unfulfilled promise to something Americans see as their most important freedom? That's the story my book seeks to tell, and it's now available for preorder. Writing a book is hard, but it's been nice to think through some of the hardest questions with you all. From coming up with a title to designing the cover, I've benefited from "the wisdom of the crowd." So thank you for the help. If you are at all inclined to continue supporting the project, preorders are the best way to do so. They signal to retailers, the media, and publishers that a book deserves more attention ahead of its release. I would greatly appreciate that support. Onward!

Is social media “speech”? @joellthayer says laws aimed at addictive design aren’t trying to control what kids see — they’re trying to control how platforms keep them hooked.

Think of the most private thing you’ve ever Googled. Now imagine it on the front page of The New York Times. @kate_ruane says that’s the privacy risk we should be thinking about before requiring more platforms to identify, verify, and track us online.

Do kids have their own First Amendment rights? This question sits at the center of a lot of today’s fights over social media and AI.

Ep. 280: Social media, speech, and kids w/ Joel Thayer and Kate Ruane **Note: This episode was recorded before Meta settled a social media addiction trial with a coalition of state attorneys general on Aug. 26, 2026. The case alleged the company knew some of its features on Facebook and Instagram could be harmful to kids and the company publicly misrepresented those risks. Social media and artificial intelligence are increasingly powerful tools for sharing and accessing information. They’re also at the center of a push for the government to address their potential harms — particularly to kids. So where’s the constitutional line between regulating technology and regulating speech? And could this latest wave of legislation and litigation change what we can see, say, and create online? Joining @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino to break down the latest developments in social media and AI and what it all means for free speech are @joellthayer, senior fellow for AI and emerging technology policy @A1Policy and president @DigitalProInst and @kate_ruane, director of the @CenDemTech’s Free Expression Project. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:02 The case for regulating social media 09:23 The case for social media as protected speech 18:12 Are social media design features protected speech? 23:46 Section 230 and platform liability 37:21 Privacy, COPPA, and online child safety 58:40 Are AI chatbots speech? 01:09:06 Will Congress regulate social media and AI? 01:12:27 Outro