Sarah Longwell (3:35)

So I guess I'm going to play devil's advocate because otherwise this would be a boring conversation. But, you know, when you see some of the folks on, I'm just going to say the far right right now, because that's who tends to be mad about these things, on supporting the Trump administration and what they're doing, part of what they're saying is like, well, hey, these aren't Americans. You know, these are people who are here to learn. They are guests in our country. They sort of have a, like, you know, if you invited a guest into your home and they said a bunch of mean things to you, you have a right to kick them out. Why doesn't that make sense as an argument?

Connor Fitzpatrick (4:13)

It doesn't make sense for a few reasons. The first reason it doesn't make sense is that we know from the supreme court in a 1945 called Bridges vs. Wixon, that noncitizens are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So that's been good law for 80 years now. So we know the First Amendment does apply to non citizens. The second reason it doesn't make sense is that as you mentioned, they're here to learn. Well, part of the learning process in a university is hearing other ideas, hearing ideas that make you mad. And then if you hear an idea that does make you mad, offering a counter argument in class, offering a counter argument in a term paper, that's what an American education is all about. So we, we don't want international students to be coming here to experience the wonder of an American education and then say, but while you're here, make sure not to criticize the government. Make sure not to criticize American foreign policy. That's not an education. That's something we would expect in China or Russia, but it should never be an American education. And then on the last point of, well, they're not citizens. They are. And the folks that we're representing here are lawfully present in the United States. And James Madison talked about this all the way back in 1800, that if you're in the United States, we expect you to abide by our laws and respect our Constitution, and in return, you are entitled to the protection of our laws and the protection of our Constitution. And that has always been our understanding of how rights work. Remember the Declaration of Independence? We get our rights not because the government is nice to us and allows us to have rights. We get our rights from our Creator. We have inalienable rights to liberty that our government cannot take away.

Sarah Longwell (5:48)

So in the case of Khalil Mahmoud at Columbia University, you know those protests at the time, some of them, they got out of control. There were cops there. And so when speech and violence, like, because I think this is part of where when I just heard a clip of him recently and he was, to me, it sounded defending the violence of October 7th, how does what talk about the interplay between free speech when that speech has sort of a defense of violence or something? Because I think that's one of the reasons people have, I think sometimes an understandable response to speech. They don't like is when it feels like it's defending violence in some way. And I feel like that's when it gets complicated for people because I that's when you sort of get all the comments of like, well, you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. Can you just explain or break down for us in the case of someplace where it was incendiary, the speech is incendiary and there was sort of violence around it like there was on campus.

Connor Fitzpatrick (6:50)

Sure. So a couple, a couple of thoughts there. The first is violence itself is not protected by the First Amendment. If Mr. Khalil or Ms. Auster had been accused of and convicted of committing violence or throwing a brick through a window or something like that, the First Amendment isn't going to stand in the way of a criminal charge improperly. So what we're talking about is the simple airing of ideas. But when it comes to speech that you sort of mentioned, you know, advocating violence or some or seeing violence and saying, yes, I think that's a good idea idea that still protected speech. And I'll give you an example why. Remember in the days and weeks following 9, 11, when we started to learn who was responsible, that it was likely a group of Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. It was incredibly common to hear people say we should bomb them back into the stone age, we should attack Afghanistan, we should kill Osama bin Laden. Those are ostensibly calls for violence, right? People saying, hey, there should be violence visited against those people. But at the point that we allow the government to pick and choose who we're allowed to say that about. In other words, you're allowed to call for violence against Al Qaeda, but not these other people. We start giving government a tremendous degree of control over which opinions we are and aren't allowed to say. So what the First Amendment does is it forever takes the government out of making that decision. It says we can voice our opinions, whatever they may be, and if they cross into action, if they cross into actual crimes and violence, that's a different story. But as long as what's being advocated is an idea, is an opinion, the First Amendment is always going to protect it.

Sarah Longwell (8:21)

Talk to me about the Trump administration and how they've been approaching free speech in a variety of ways. Cuz I think one of the things that we were told going into there's like a lot of people, I would say, who aren't comfortable with lots of things about Trump, but they thought he was gonna be a really pro free speech president, mainly because he hurls insults at people himself. And so they sort of had this like sense of, no, Trump's gonna be hardcore. And Trump talked about being pro free speech. He kind of led with that. It's oh no, it's the left. They're the ones that tamp down on free speech. But this has been, in my opinion, one of the most aggressively anti free speech administrations I've ever seen in my life. And so what is your impression been of the Trump administration and how it has approached free speech in just the six months they've been in office.

Connor Fitzpatrick (9:12)

So the Trump administration very much likes to talk the talk when it comes to free speech, but they don't walk. If you recall, very early on in the administration, J.D. vance went over to Europe and criticized some of our stalwart allies, and I might say rightly so, for their free speech policies. He criticized the United Kingdom, Denmark and I believe Sweden for some of their hate speech laws, which infringe on a lot of what would be protected speech here in the United States. And we agreed with those comments. But the problem is when it comes to their domestic policy and how they actually treat free speech here in the United States, it's no defense of free speech at all. It's an outright attack on free speech, whether it's non citizen citizens at universities voicing opinions they don't like, whether it's law firms representing clients or advocating causes that they don't like, whether it's universities employing professors who might espouse views that the administration doesn't like. At every turn. What we're seeing from this administration is the attempt to use government power as a cudgel against people who voice opinions that this administration disagrees with. And that's where the First Amendment must stand as a guardrail against.

Sarah Longwell (10:17)

Talk to me a little bit about fire, because I see you guys taking some heat online, you know, because you guys have always done. I mean, I followed you for a million years, and I knew about fire way back in my early 20s. And one of the things that's been interesting and growing up in this turbulent political time is that I've gotten to see fire operate across a number of different administrations. And you guys protect free speech without fear or favor of which administration's in charge, where there are sort of precious few groups that do that. But because for a long time, you guys did mostly campus work, I think a lot of people thought of you as sort of coded as people who are protecting conservatives ability to speak on campus. And so you have a lot of people who are, you know, were conservatives who were pumped about your protection of free speech. I grew up on the right and also believed that they were the stalwart defenders of free speech. But I find the Trump administration to be absolutely one of the most, like I said before, one of the most hostile to free speech that I've ever seen. How is it for you guys to be in an environment where you are having to go toe to toe with this administration over its free speech policies, especially in an environment where so many other people are caving because of the threats and the bullying that this administration sort of brings to bear against universities and law firms, et cetera.

Connor Fitzpatrick (11:42)

Our philosophy is that we are nonpartisan. If what you say is protected by the First Amendment, we will defend it. We don't care what party you're in. We don't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or anything in between. If it's protected, we'll defend it. Right now I have a case defending an LGBT student group who wants to host a drag show in Texas. And I'm representing two conservative students in Michigan who want to wear let's Go Brandon sweatshirts to their public school. We are proudly nonpartisan, and the First Amendment is nonpartisan. So when you bring up some of the flack that we get on the Internet of people calling us this or that, we always have a case that I'm sure they would find much more sympathetic. What we find is that since we are defending free speech, we're often criticizing what the government is doing because it's the government that can infringe free speech. So when Democrats were in power, a lot of our comments were rightly about what the government was doing, which of course was Democrats at the time. Now that Republicans are in power, we're calling out their abuses of free speech. And it's people on the right who suddenly think that we're now a bunch of Democrats. We're not. We are protectors of free speech. And anyone who attacks free speech can expect to hear from us.

Sarah Longwell (12:53)

Anything else that you want us to know about the lawsuit you're bringing right now or anything else we should know about free speech and what's happening?

Connor Fitzpatrick (12:59)

I would say pay attention to this lawsuit because it's an important one. It gets to who we are as a country. And I'll give you a very quick example of how to think about this. Imagine you have a friend from another country who comes to visit you, and you go out to lunch and you ask them, so what do you think about everything that's going on in America right now? And they sort of lean over and they say, well, I'd love to tell you, but before I do, am I allowed to say what I really think? I think most Americans, Republicans or Democrats, we would kind of puff out our chest a little bit and say, well, this is America. Of course you can say what you think. The idea that someone should have to watch what they say in the United States, especially watch what they say about the government, is such a profound betrayal of American values and American liberty. So regardless of whether you find the speech of these pro Palestinian protesters sympathetic or the most vile message you can imagine, it is always worthwhile to defend the Constitution and defend free speech because the only alternative is allowing the government to decide which views people are allowed to voice. And that's a very dangerous path to go down.

Sarah Longwell (14:03)

Connor Fitzpatrick, thank you so much for coming on and talking to the Bulwark. And thanks to all of you for listening to another episode of the Bulwark Takes Go subscribe Rate us on itunes. Join us on Substack all the things. If you love free speech, come hang out with us here. Thanks, Connor.