Podcast Summary: "Why A Lifelong Free Speech Defender Is Optimistic In This Moment"

Podcast: GD POLITICS
Host: Galen Druke
Guest: Nadine Strossen (ACLU President Emerita, Senior Fellow at FIRE)
Date: September 22, 2025

Overview

This episode tackles the escalating attacks on free speech in America following a particularly tumultuous week of executive and governmental threats against journalists, media companies, protestors, and dissenters in President Trump’s second administration. Host Galen Druke speaks with Nadine Strossen, a renowned First Amendment defender, to contextualize these events historically and legally, examine why she remains optimistic, and explore what ordinary Americans and civil society can do to protect free expression.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recent Attacks on Free Speech in the U.S.

• Galen opens with a rundown of recent, alarming government actions against free expression—including lawsuits and threats against media, protestors, and political opponents.
  • [00:30] “This is not what's happened since Trump took office. This has all happened in just the past week.” (A)
• Druke summarizes a week in which Trump and allies threatened media figures, sued newspapers, urged lawsuits against protesters, and pushed agencies to limit criticism.
• Nadine Strossen underscores that these events represent an unprecedented, rapid-fire assault on First Amendment norms.
  • [06:42] “Every single one of them…has engaged in some serious violations of free speech. But the Trump administration, I have to say, has hit a new low with the constant barrage of assaults.” (B)

2. Nadine Strossen’s Free Speech Philosophy & Background

• Nadine discusses why she considers free speech the linchpin of all other rights, quoting Justice Brandeis and framing free expression as both an intrinsic and instrumental value.
  • [04:40] “Without free speech, we cannot advocate for any other human right…It is the essence of self-government.” (B)
• Her ACLU history includes defending speech across the ideological spectrum, from neo-Nazi marches to liberal movements, leading to her apolitical, “principled neutrality” stance on speech.

3. The Unique Danger of a Constant Barrage and Chilling Effect

• Strossen identifies the persistent nature of attacks as a deliberate strategy to normalize suppression and exhaust resistance.
  • [08:15] “There is such a constant barrage...we just become so buffeted and inured that it is too exhausting to even think of fighting back.” (B)
• She expresses concern that, despite strong First Amendment case law, many large institutions (media, universities) choose not to litigate due to the cost and risk, effectively allowing suppression via intimidation.

4. The FCC and Government “Jawboning”

• [11:02] Nadine explains the FCC’s original, narrow mandate—technical regulation, not censorship—with explicit statutory bars on content regulation.
• She contrasts “broadcast indecency” (a unique, archaic U.S. exception aimed at protecting children) to political speech, underscoring how unprecedented it is for a president and FCC chair to threaten political criticism.
  • [13:01] “That violates what the Supreme Court has called the bedrock principle of freedom of speech, namely viewpoint neutrality or content neutrality.” (B)

5. Legal Recourse and Limitations

• Druke and Strossen discuss the hurdles to challenging government overreach: standing, court delays, and institutional hesitancy.
  • [17:31] “I think it would be a slam dunk winner on the merits of the First Amendment. The standing issue is something that the Supreme Court has enforced inconsistently…” (B)
• The First Amendment protects not only speakers but also the audience’s right to hear—suppression injures the public at large.
  • [21:40] “The Supreme Court rightly has recognized that the First Amendment protects…the right of the speaker…[and] of audience members to receive the information and ideas.” (B)

6. Cancel Culture, Social Pressures, and the Non-Legal Threat to Free Speech

• The conversation turns to how “cancel culture” and government threats combine to stifle expression outside the court system.
  • [25:34] “…If we care about creating a society… it's really, really important that we supplant the so-called cancel culture with a free speech culture…” (B)
• Strossen notes the “turning of the political tables,” with cancel culture now being wielded by both left and right, underscoring why principled, neutral free speech defense is vital.
  • [29:35] “If you want to have freedom for the speech that you love, then you must defend freedom for the speech that you loathe.” (B)

7. Is There an Unprecedented Crisis?

• Strossen asserts the current situation is unique—not so much in any singular act, but “never in such concentration and never such brazen disregard of Supreme Court precedents and of federal statutes.”
  • [32:12] “There seems to be this arrogant attitude that the law doesn't matter because we have power on our side and we can act more quickly and swiftly. That is truly unprecedented…” (B)
• Despite this, she points to the courts’ historical protection of free speech as a cause for some optimism.

8. The Importance of Civil Society and Public Opinion

• Americans will have as much free speech as public sentiment demands; historical periods of weak free speech correlated with lack of public engagement.
  • [37:40] “In the long run, people will have just as much freedom of speech as they want. If there is not public support for free speech…we're going to elect government officials who do not respect free speech…” (B)
• Druke and Strossen discuss how polling shows broad support for the principle of free speech, but much shakier support when “offensive” speech is involved.

9. The Limits of Free Speech and the "Hate Speech" Debate

• Strossen makes clear: U.S. law does NOT recognize “hate speech” as a separate unprotected category.
  • [46:49] “I would say that they're not really so much exceptions, but they are not within the concept of free speech...”
  • Punishable speech is defined by direct, imminent harm: true threats, incitement, harassment—not by ideology, emotion, or offense.
• She warns against subjective categories like “misinformation,” citing their historical use to silence dissent from both right and left.
  • [51:43] “One person's hated message is somebody else's loving message…Those epithets have been used to stigmatize and seek to censor a whole range of messages…”

10. The Impact (and Failure) of Hate Speech Laws Abroad

• Europe, Canada, and others criminalize “hate speech”; such laws are frequently weaponized against dissidents and religious minorities, often suppressing rather than protecting vulnerable groups.
  • [52:14] “Just about every other country in the world does allow government to suppress hate speech…ordinary members of the public are constantly being subject to investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment.”
• Empirical research shows no link between such laws and reduction of hate or violence; sometimes, repression increases appeal and notoriety of extremists (“forbidden fruit” effect).
  • [54:17] “There is no correlation between strict anti-hate speech laws and any reduction in discriminatory attitudes and even more disturbingly, discriminatory conduct and discriminatory violence.” (B)

11. Why Remain Optimistic?

• Strossen expresses hope that moments of aggressive censorship provoke a public recommitment to free speech.
  • [58:20] “It is an opportunity for us to no longer take for granted an incredibly precious right…I'm already starting to observe, that the censorship has raised people's concerns, people who were not previously concerned about it as a problem and therefore will redouble their commitment to join in raising their voices to advocate freedom of speech…” (B)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the current climate:
  • [06:42] "The Trump administration...has hit a new low with the constant barrage of assaults ...it truly is a uniquely dangerous approach in my long experience." (Strossen)
• On the paradox of hate speech calls:
  • [29:27] “You mentioned... Pam Bondi and others from the right calling for suppression of hate speech...Whereas Trump and Vance and others on the right have long denounced the concept of hate speech...So you know, when we have these shifting patterns...we can go in two directions...We can either ratchet down...or...give everybody a wake up call, particularly those on the left who have been less concerned about cancel culture...to now understand, oh this is a tool that can be used to suppress ideas and speakers that I support. Therefore, I'm going to...defend freedom even for the thought that I hate." (B)
• On public responsibility:
  • [37:40] “In the long run, people will have just as much freedom of speech as they want...” (B)
• On why censorship backfires:
  • [54:17] “Many social scientists...have so often observed the phenomenon that when you try to censor something...it has exactly the opposite impact...one is the Forbidden Fruits phenomenon. Another one is the boomerang effect." (B)

Recommended Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:30-03:51: Rundown of recent government threats and moves against speech.
• 04:40-06:32: Strossen’s philosophy and why free speech is essential.
• 08:04-10:18: The danger of constant attacks and institutional reluctance to defend free speech.
• 11:02-13:01: The FCC’s role and the uniqueness of modern executive pressure.
• 17:31-21:40: Legal strategies, standing, and structural obstacles.
• 25:34-30:35: Cancel culture and the necessity of a robust free speech culture.
• 32:12-37:40: Severity and uniqueness of the current anti-speech onslaught, and optimism about the courts.
• 39:27-46:17: Public opinion, partisan hypocrisy, and how to foster tolerance for all speech.
• 46:49-53:52: What’s not protected, dangers of "hate speech" laws here and abroad.
• 54:17-57:51: Why hate speech laws fail and sometimes worsen polarization or violence.
• 58:20-end: Why this moment is a chance for reinvigoration and activism.

Conclusion

In a climate where both legislative and extra-legal pressures threaten free speech—and where political allegiances on this issue are increasingly unstable—Nadine Strossen makes the case for neutral, principled defense of the First Amendment. While alarmed by recent developments, she believes the crisis may galvanize civil society, refocus public attention, and ultimately strengthen national commitment to free expression.

For further resources, transcript, and more episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com.