Advisory Opinions – "Superhighways of Foreign Influence"

The Dispatch | September 16, 2025
Hosts: Sarah Isgur & David French

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sarah Isgur and David French temporarily set aside their usual legal deep-dives to tackle the rapidly evolving collision between speech, violence, social media, foreign influence, and the First Amendment on American campuses and beyond. They focus on recent tragic events, the growing tolerance of violence for political ends, the concept of "stochastic terrorism," Section 230 and potential TikTok bans, the assassin's veto on campuses, and how foreign influence online shapes national discourse.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Tragedy and Liberalism Under Threat

• Sarah emphasizes the personal and national tragedy stemming from the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, distinguishing between the human loss and the broader attack on the American tradition of liberal democracy.
  • "We have two tragedies at play here... The second tragedy, the one that I think our culture is focused on, is... the attack on the very concept of liberalism... the idea that violence isn't an option for a disagreement about the future of the country." (03:00 – 04:24)
• Both hosts urge listeners to reflect on humility and the dangers of extreme certainty in political beliefs.

2. Public Opinion: Violence as Political Dialogue

• David and Sarah cite new polling data showing disturbing attitudes toward violence as a tool of political change:
  • 1 in 5 American adults believes violence may be necessary to "get their country back on track." (05:00)
  • Among college students, 34% now say it’s at least sometimes acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech, up from 20% in 2022. Over 71% think "shouting down" a speaker is permissible at times.
    • "Using violence was at 20% in 2022. Now, it's at 34%." (04:49)
• David contextualizes this by referring to "lethal mass partisanship," where a significant minority would accept the deaths of political opponents (06:31), and finds these views consistent with years-long trends toward radicalization.

3. The Ideological Shift: From Free Speech to "Speech is Violence"

• Both discuss a generational change: elites, especially younger activists, increasingly see free speech as opposed to justice, or as a "tool of the ruling class."
  • Sarah: "They feel like they're right, so they must be right, so they don’t need to listen to anyone who disagrees. And in fact, listening to them is violence done to them..." (08:19)
• David traces this shift through academic currents (Marcuse's "liberating tolerance") and warns that defining justice as the suppression of "bad people’s speech" is poisonous.
  • "The key argument that [Frederick Douglass] makes is that free speech is the great moral renovator of society and government... But what we saw, Sarah, was... you began to see a line of thought... that you have to suppress the speech of the ruling class and elevate the speech of the marginalized." (08:48–10:47)
• Both call for renewed education in the history and value of free speech, starting young.

4. Historical Parallels & Intellectual Humility

• Sarah recalls Chief Justice Roberts's story of Judge Waring (pre–Brown v. Board) facing violence for desegregation rulings, stressing humility: "My God, have the intellectual humility not to think that you're Judge Waring on every single issue..." (12:00)
• The hosts also stress that humility is not weakness, but essential for a functioning pluralistic society.
  • David: "Humility and conviction are not opposing values... There is no incompatibility between having a conviction and possessing humility." (17:16–19:22)

5. Stochastic Terrorism & Incitement: Where Law Meets Rhetoric

[Begin: 20:44]

• The hosts break down the legal and cultural meaning of "stochastic terrorism"—using incendiary rhetoric broadly, knowing it might spur someone, somewhere, to violence, but without direct incitement.
  • Example given: "Someone needs to do something about him..." without explicit instructions.
• Legal Standard (Brandenburg v. Ohio):
  • Speech can only be prosecuted as incitement if it's intended to and likely to cause imminent lawless action.
  • David: "Super apocalyptic rhetoric has a cost... But it is not necessarily all that helpful as a legal concept, because... it would empower the most sweeping censorship." (26:47–29:30)

6. Social Media, Section 230, and the Foreign Influence Superhighway

[Begin: 29:30]

• Discussion on how social platforms amplify extreme speech, allowing small minorities or bots to seem like broad movements:

  • Sarah: "Social media allows you to find the other 1 in 30,000s, feel like you're in a much larger community, and then say crazy stuff." (30:23)

• Section 230 Explained:

  • Platforms aren’t liable for user-posted content, enabling the modern Internet. Recently, the line between algorithmic promotion and user content is under scrutiny (ex: 'blackout challenge' deaths).
    • David: "If you held platforms liable in some circumstances for the actual post itself being on the platform, that would be a really, truly significant change." (32:53)

• The TikTok ban and the problem of foreign-controlled algorithms:

  • David: "You’re continuing to enable two things at once: One is the data collection of Americans by a hostile foreign power, and the other... is the algorithmic influence on our entire political debate through an entity we believe is controlled by a hostile foreign power." (36:33)

• Possible Regulatory Approaches:

  • Sarah suggests platforms flag domestic vs. foreign accounts: "I would incentivize people to use their real names... mark accounts that are American." (37:31)
  • Discussion on whether a federal law requiring platforms to mark users' residency would violate the First Amendment (they conclude it may be permissible as a transparency rule, akin to calorie labeling). (40:36)

• The illusion of consensus: Don’t trust like counts and apparent "masses":

  • David: "We have opened this superhighway of foreign influence, and it's revealing itself to be just ridiculously easy to manipulate American public opinion and American public anger." (39:46)

7. The Assassin’s Veto, Campus Speech, and Security Fees

[Begin: 43:36]

• Sarah asks: Can universities charge large security fees to student groups hosting controversial speakers, thereby penalizing unpopular views?
• Legal Precedent:
  • Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992): SCOTUS said charging variable fees based on the speech’s potential to provoke opposition is unconstitutional.
    • "The more controversial your speech, the more expensive your permit was going to be. And the Supreme Court was like, nah, dog on that one..." (46:09)
• Case examples from recent campuses: Variable (and costly) security charges for conservative vs. liberal speakers have not held up in court.
• David: "Anything that is going to say this is variable dependent upon our anticipated potential for violence is going to incentivize threats of violence because you'll create... a threatener's veto..." (48:39)
• Sarah presses: Even budget-neutral approaches can discriminate if only controversial speakers trigger high costs:
  • "Isn't it up to the universities to provide a safe place where they punish students for violence and heckling so that you can bring any speaker you want without security concerns?" (50:17)
• David agrees – "Punish disruption... That’s the presumed no-brainer element of this." (51:13)
• Campus administrators are warned: Not only do courts reject discriminatory fees, but settling these lawsuits often ends up being more expensive than simply protecting controversial speech.

8. Brief Supreme Court Update: Emergency Docket

[Begin: 54:34]

• Sarah summarizes SCOTUS's recent refusal to grant a stay of a lower court injunction in a case (South Carolina v. John Doe) about a transgender student and bathroom use.
  • Observes majority provided no explanation, and that this does not necessarily imply how SCOTUS might rule on merits: "This is an indicator that, hey, maybe some of these stays are not really as illuminating on the merits as we might think." (56:50)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Intolerance for Dissent:
  • Sarah: "If you’re cheering someone’s murder... why do you think you’re different now? Even if it’s very few people... it’s just an odd lack of humility driven by that hate." (16:14)
• David, On Free Speech:
  • "Free speech is the great moral renovator of society and government. That’s the core fundamental value." (09:33)
• Sarah, On Social Media Foreign Influence:
  • "You think it’s an American because the person says they’re from Missouri... Many of these aren’t even humans. They’re bots... They are being paid for the purpose of trying to cause us to hate each other." (37:31)
• David, On Threatener’s Veto:
  • "...this is going to incentivize threats of violence because you’ll create ... a threatener’s veto..." (48:39)
• On Humility:
  • David: "Humility and conviction are not opposing values. ...There is no incompatibility between having a conviction and possessing humility." (17:16)

Key Timestamps

• 03:00 – Tragedy of violent intolerance; rise of speech as violence narrative
• 05:00 – Poll data: rising acceptance of violence in public and college student opinion
• 08:19 – Free speech as tool of the ruling class; historical analysis
• 12:00 – Judge Waring and humility in public debates
• 19:22 – Pluralism, humility, and the activist generation
• 20:44 – Stochastic terrorism, incitement law, and Brandenburg
• 29:30 – Role of social media in amplifying fringe views; Section 230 complexities
• 36:33 – TikTok, national security, and foreign algorithmic influence
• 40:36 – Legal viability of platform transparency laws
• 43:36 – Campus speech security fees and the assassin’s veto; legal precedent and recent cases
• 54:34 – SCOTUS emergency docket ruling on bathroom law, lessons for lower courts

Tone & Style

• The episode is thoughtful, analytical, and sometimes wryly humorous. Sarah’s “nah, dog,” and repeated jabs at Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s legacy exemplify their light but rigorous tone. Both emphasize the importance of humility, intellectual curiosity, and historical perspective, pushing back on the sanctimony, polarization, and superficial social media “debates” dominating much of the current student and activist landscape.

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode of Advisory Opinions is a masterclass in the intersection of law, politics, cultural change, and digital influence. Sarah and David move seamlessly from polling and philosophical inquiry to constitutional doctrine, with practical advice for policymakers, campus administrators, and engaged citizens. Their discussion illuminates not only why free speech matters, but how current legal and cultural trends—domestic and foreign—threaten to warp or suppress open debate, especially on campuses and social platforms.

If you care about the future of discourse, the limits of lawful speech, or the infiltration of American conversation by foreign actors—this episode is essential listening.