Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Caleb Zakrin
Guests: Greg Lukianoff, Nadine Strossen
Book Discussed: The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—And Why They Fail (Heresy Press, 2025)
Date: October 2, 2025

Overview

This episode of the New Books Network features a wide-ranging, passionate conversation with Greg Lukianoff (President & CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, "FIRE") and Nadine Strossen (Professor of Law at NY Law School and former ACLU President), discussing their co-authored book, The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—And Why They Fail. The conversation explores the main arguments against free speech, debunks common misconceptions, and delves into the necessity of both legal and cultural protections for expression.

Key Themes & Discussion Points

1. Origins and Structure of the Book (03:21–05:30)

• Greg and Nadine’s longstanding professional relationship and shared passion for free speech.
• Originated from Greg’s essay and subsequent collaborations addressing recurring anti–free-speech arguments, which evolved into a series and ultimately the book.
• Aim: Provide practical answers to the most persistent anti–free-speech claims, using their differing perspectives for a richer dialogue.

2. Defining Free Speech: Legal and Cultural Dimensions (07:11–12:34)

• Both guests generally align with First Amendment law but have nuanced disagreements, particularly on the obscenity doctrine.
  • Nadine Strossen ([09:03]): “The Supreme Court has more and more consistently enforced what it has called the bedrock principle of free speech—viewpoint neutrality or content neutrality…”
• Distinction between state-enforced and private/cultural censorship.
  • Nadine Strossen ([11:48]): “Speech-protective law is necessary for freedom of speech to thrive, it is not sufficient…We’re always also complaining about so-called cancel culture…”

3. Argument #1: “Words are Violence” (12:34–20:07)

• The increasing popularity of the “words are violence” argument on campus and elsewhere, tracing its roots and current manifestations.
• Debunked by distinguishing between direct physical harm and the emotional impact of speech, referencing both historical and modern psychological insights.
  • Greg Lukianoff ([13:08]): “For most of human history, we had essentially decided as a species that there wasn’t that big of a distinction between words and violence... The idea that we’d settled them through persuasion and argumentation in a democratic society was a revolutionary idea...”
  • Nadine Strossen ([17:21]): Asserts “emergency principle”—speech can be limited only when it directly incites (and is likely to result in) imminent harm.
• Legal “incitement” and “true threats” are valid exceptions; mere offense or emotional harm is not.

4. Shout Downs, Deplatforming, and the Heckler’s Veto (21:34–26:52)

• Increasing bipartisan student support for shout-downs as an acceptable tactic.
• Shout-downs violate not only the speaker’s right, but the audience’s right to hear (“heckler’s veto”).
  • Nadine Strossen ([21:36]): “The term the Supreme Court has used to describe this phenomenon is the heckler’s veto…not only does a speaker have the right to convey information and ideas, but the First Amendment also protects the rights of audience members to receive information and ideas.”
• Importance of historical perspective: Early censorship efforts (including shout-downs) often targeted abolitionists and other social reformers.

5. Free Speech and the Internet (26:52–30:41)

• Arguments for new forms of censorship online echo arguments from prior technological revolutions (printing press, radio, TV).
  • Greg Lukianoff ([27:45]): “All the arguments made for censorship on the Internet were arguments made against the printing press, or radio, or television... There’s nothing new under the sun.”
• The Internet amplifies both positive and negative speech, but also unprecedented opportunities for “counterspeech.”
  • Nadine Strossen ([28:51]): “…The positive [online] includes an unprecedentedly effective way to counter the negative… opportunities for so called counterspeech… are also extraordinarily great online.”
• “Streisand effect”: Suppression often brings more attention to the censored message.

6. Free Speech as a Tool of the Powerless (31:35–38:13)

• Rebutting the myth that free speech mainly serves bullies and the powerful (“the three Bs: the bully, the bigot, and the robber baron”).

  • Greg Lukianoff ([33:07]): “Historically, robber barons…do just fine [without free speech]; there’s only two types of people who need special protections—minorities and people who are unpopular with the majority and the elite.”
  • Nadine Strossen ([31:35]): “…Throughout American history…human rights and social justice have been advanced on behalf of groups that were marginalized or excluded has been through freedom of speech…”

• Free speech protections are most crucial for dissenters, minorities, and marginalized groups.

  • Example: ACLU defends free speech rights of even despised groups (NRA), later benefiting their ideological opponents.
  • Legal victories cited (e.g., NRA's Supreme Court win) show long-term value for all viewpoints.

7. Political Diversity in Academia (38:13–44:48)

• Addressing left-wing bias and suppression of conservative viewpoints in academia.

• Value of hearing dissenting perspectives as essential for truth-seeking—based on the “Trident” argument (three possibilities for encountering opposing views: correcting yourself, refining your views, or being reaffirmed).

  • Nadine Strossen ([39:10]): “It is invaluable to hear every plausible perspective on every issue because that is the only way that I can approach what I believe to be the correct answer…”

• Greg Lukianoff ([42:53]): Emphasizes the importance of “epistemic humility” and “genuine curiosity” as habits for a vibrant intellectual climate.

8. The Dangers of Forbidden Knowledge & Censorship (44:48–47:37)

• Suppression of ideas makes them more alluring (“forbidden fruit”) and less likely to be scrutinized or refuted.
  • Greg Lukianoff ([45:04]): On Holocaust denial: “The only way you can actually convince someone…that the Holocaust didn't happen is if they're never forced to prove it…if it actually had to stand up to public scrutiny, it wouldn’t last three seconds.”
  • Nadine Strossen ([46:07]): Bernie Sanders’ quote regarding Ann Coulter: “What are you afraid of—her ideas?”

9. Censoring Nazis & the Weimar Germany Example (47:37–51:06)

• Strong anti-hate speech laws in the Weimar Republic failed to prevent the rise of Nazism and sometimes backfired by making Nazis martyrs.
  • Nadine Strossen ([47:41]): Citing Aryeh Neier, “If I were convinced that censoring the Nazis would have prevented the Holocaust, I would have been all in favor of it…”
• True danger comes from failing to punish violence, not from failing to censor speech; speech suppression often counterproductive.

Notable Quotes & Moments

On viewpoint neutrality:

“Government must remain neutral with respect to the view, the message, the idea, the content of the speech, no matter how disfavored or disliked or hated or hateful it is, that is never a justification for suppressing it.”
— Nadine Strossen ([09:03])

On mob censorship and the heckler’s veto:

“If the mob shuts someone down and power doesn’t do anything about it, basically looks very much like power’s on the side of the mob.”
— Greg Lukianoff ([24:20])

On the role of the internet:

“There’s a value in knowing, full stop… you’re not safer for knowing less about what people really think.”
— Greg Lukianoff ([30:34])

On the three outcomes of hearing dissent:

“If you hear a perspective that's different from your own… it may convince you that you're wrong… or you could refine… or be completely reconvinced… Having wrestled with a counter-argument… deepens your understanding.”
— Nadine Strossen ([39:10])

On forbidden speech:

“If it’s so convincing that it will change my mind, then maybe it’s right…”
— Caleb Zakrin ([44:48])

On free speech and the powerless:

“Minority groups, by definition, only have free speech as their starting point.”
— Nadine Strossen ([31:35])

On failed censorship in Weimar Germany:

“Trials became big propaganda platforms [for Nazis]… The real problem in Germany was that while speech was being punished, actual violence was not.”
— Nadine Strossen ([50:35])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Book origins & collaboration: 03:21–05:30
• Free speech and the First Amendment: 07:11–12:34
• “Words are violence” argument: 12:34–20:07
• Shout-downs & heckler’s veto: 21:34–26:52
• Free speech & the Internet: 26:52–30:41
• Counterspeech for the powerless: 31:35–38:13
• Political diversity in academia: 38:13–44:48
• Forbidden knowledge & Holocaust denial: 44:48–47:37
• Censoring Nazis, Weimar history: 47:37–51:06

Tone

• Personal & anecdotal: The hosts and guests frequently reference their careers, experiences, and major historical events.
• Witty & enthusiastic: Jokes and banter lighten otherwise serious topics.
• Passionate & didactic: Deep belief in the importance of free speech and the need for civic education runs throughout.

Conclusion

This episode offers a nuanced, historically grounded defense of free speech. Lukianoff and Strossen clearly lay out why even offensive or disliked speech must be protected, drawing on both case law and philosophy, and stressing free speech’s indispensable role for the marginalized and powerless. They deftly dismantle common arguments for censorship—on campuses, on the Internet, and from both the left and right—reminding listeners that a culture of robust free inquiry is as important as legal protections.

Highly recommended for students, educators, legal enthusiasts, and anyone grappling with the modern debates over the limits and necessity of free expression.