Podcast Summary

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Episode 256: Ten Arguments Against Free Speech
Host: Nico Perino (FIRE)
Guests: Greg Lukianoff (President & CEO, FIRE) and Nadine Strossen (Senior Fellow, FIRE; former ACLU President)
Date: October 30, 2025

Overview

In this episode, Nico Perino hosts Greg Lukianoff and Nadine Strossen to discuss their new co-authored book, The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech and Why They Fail. Drawing from their extensive experience in the free speech movement and the law, they examine the most common—and pernicious—arguments made against robust protections for free expression, dissecting their underlying logic, historical context, and practical consequences. The conversation is spirited, thorough, and connected to contemporary controversies, both legal and cultural.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Origin of the Book: Collaboration and Motivation

• The book originated from Greg's rapid-fire blog post responding to "arguments I'm tired of answering against freedom of speech," made at the request of Iona Italia (01:19).
• Nadine, an active public speaker, noted that compiling arguments and joint answers was not only efficient but captured the differing philosophical routes they each take to arrive at the same free speech conclusions (02:15).
• They independently created similar lists of the top anti-free speech arguments, eventually reducing 16 to a core 10 for the book.

2. Argument 1: "Words Are Violence"

• Central Theme: The assertion that speech can cause as much harm as physical violence, so it should be similarly regulated.
• Nadine: "We acknowledge that words can do harm, but you never, you pro censorship people, never acknowledge the greater harm that giving the government greater sensorial power will do." (00:00, 25:10)
• They distinguish between metaphor and fact: historical activists used “pornography is rape” as hyperbole but today’s students often take such metaphors literally (05:02).
• Emphasized psychological principles (like stoicism) that empower individuals to contextualize and manage speech’s effects (08:55).
• Greg: "Words and argumentation are the best alternative to violence we've ever invented." (21:36)
• Legal context: Only speech that directly and imminently causes harm (the “emergency principle”) is restrictable (14:16).

Quote (Nadine): “Only an emergency can justify repression... that speech has to directly cause or imminently threaten great harm.” (15:39)

3. Argument 2: "Words Are Dangerous"

• A subtle shift from violence to "danger”; the claim is that words’ power justifies broad restrictions (20:22).
• The panel argues this is a mischaracterization; free speech protection acknowledges words' potential for harm and good.
• Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps cited: "Words are powerful and we protect them not despite that fact, but because of that fact." (23:15)
• The ‘straw-man’ fallacy: Censors portray free speech defenders as claiming "words can cause no harm" (25:10).

4. Argument 3: "Hate Speech Isn’t Free Speech"

• Central Theme: The idea that hate speech falls outside protected expression.
• Nadine: “[Hate speech] is irreducibly subjective. Therefore, whoever has the power to enforce it is given essentially unfettered discretion to pick and choose which views are hated, which views are hateful.” (25:22)
• Legal reality: No “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment in US law (29:19).
• Historical and international context: Laws intending to protect minorities end up being used against them.

5. Argument 4: "Shout Downs Are Speech, Not Censorship"

• Distinction between protest and censorship: "Shout-downs"—where speakers are prevented from being heard—constitute mob censorship, not protected dissent (31:18).
• Greg: "It takes a special kind of blinkered point of view...to actually get to a point where...shout downs are okay on campus." (31:18)
• Clarifies the legal and moral difference between protesting outside versus disrupting the event itself—time/place/manner restrictions are permissible (33:44 - 35:08).

6. Argument 5: "Free Speech is Outdated in the Internet Age"

• Central Theme: Claim that modern technology invalidates the philosophical and legal framework of the Founders.
• The Founders grappled with disruptive media (the press), and legal principles adapt to new tech (37:51).
• Supreme Court history: Missteps with film speech show the law’s evolution (41:38).
• Censorship harms are always compounded when government enforces them, especially with new powerful tools like AI (44:19).
• Greg: "First Amendment people are all epistemologists, whether we know it or not." (42:51)

7. Argument 6: "Free Speech is a Right-Wing Talking Point"

• Addresses misconceptions arising from campus demographics and shifting political climates (46:15).
• Nadine: "Free speech is a tool that is invoked by those whose speech is suppressed... to equate the right with those who are exercising it in a particular case is nonsensical." (46:15)
• FIRE’s experience: Most targets on campus are actually center-left, not “far right” (49:24).

8. Argument 7: "You Can’t Shout Fire in a Crowded Theater" / "Marketplace of Ideas"

• Commonly misused: the phrase was “falsely shouting fire...” and it’s not a general principle—it's a narrowly defined emergency (50:44, 52:01).
• The “marketplace of ideas” is often caricatured. Free speech is necessary, but not sufficient, for truth-seeking; suppression hides what people really think (54:07-57:26).

Quote (Greg): "You need a very high level of free speech protections for people to be completely honest with each other." (55:13)

9. Argument 8: "Free Speech Protects the Powerful"

• It’s a “bad history” argument: the rich and powerful have always had means—the First Amendment was intended for those without access (64:07, 65:31).
• Social media democratizes communication more than legacy media ever did (66:21).
• Nadine: “We need a First Amendment law that's protective, that's necessary, but not sufficient. We also have to encourage the development and deployment of technology and resources and education that can make it possible for people generally to be able to take advantage of their legal rights to free speech.” (67:45)

10. Argument 9: "Misinformation Undermines Democracy"

• Misinformation/disinformation (especially foreign-origin) is real, but the solution is trustworthy institutions and experts, not government censorship (59:41-62:45).
• Greg: "People are going to try to manipulate you. The only thing you can have [as protection] are higher integrity sources of knowledge." (62:11)
• Nadine: “If government were permitted to determine which ideas should be punishable or as false, the most vulnerable would be ideas that challenge government policy.” (62:51)

11. Argument 10: "History (the Holocaust, Rwanda) Shows the Need for Censorship"

• Historical accuracy: anti-hate speech laws existed in Weimar Germany and Rwanda, and they failed to prevent atrocity; often, such laws become tools for the future oppressors (69:48-73:26).
• Nadine: “The historical record is the opposite [of the pro-censorship claim]... the problem with the Nazis was that they got away with murder, quite literally, of physically assaulting and killing their political opponents, Jews and others.” (71:20)

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Nadine (on hate speech): “Human rights advocates in countries all over the world oppose censoring hate speech not because it violates the free speech principles in their own countries, it does not. But because these laws... end up doing more harm than good.” (26:40)
• Greg (on “words are violence”): “It just feels like an insult to everybody who survived something horrible to say [that words are violence].” (11:09)
• Nadine (on emergencies): “Only an emergency can justify repression.” (15:39, quoting Brandeis)
• Greg (on misinformation): “People are going to try to manipulate you. The only thing you can have are higher integrity sources of knowledge.” (62:11)
• Nadine (on government censorship): “If government were permitted to determine which ideas should be punishable or as false, the most vulnerable would be ideas that challenge government policy.” (62:51)

Notable Timestamps

• 00:00-02:35: Book origin, collaboration, Nadine’s speaking schedule, and the need for a “wholesale” written argumentation against recurring anti-free speech claims.
• 03:15: The prevalence and dangers of “words are violence” as a contemporary belief.
• 09:29: “Sticks and stones” as an aspirational lesson, not a literal truth.
• 14:16-15:39: Legal standards – “emergency principle”, viewpoint neutrality, and exceptions.
• 23:15: Supreme Court’s Snyder v. Phelps case about words’ power and protection.
• 25:22: Hate speech’s inherent subjectivity and legal status.
• 31:18, 32:44: Shout-downs as censorship, not protest.
• 37:51-38:18: Free speech in an evolving technological context: analogy to press, law’s adaptability.
• 46:15-49:24: Free speech’s ideological associations and FIRE’s experience with censorship’s targets.
• 54:07-55:13: Marketplace of ideas and “Lab in the Looking Glass”—real value is knowing what people think.
• 59:41-62:45: Disinformation, the need for independent and trustworthy expert authority, not government regulation.
• 69:48-71:20: Nazi Germany/Rwanda: anti-hate speech laws were ineffective, sometimes weaponized by oppressors.

Conclusion

This episode provides a comprehensive, accessible, and deeply informed tour through the most common anti-free speech arguments and the principled, practical refutations grounded in history, law, and philosophy. Throughout, Greg and Nadine emphasize the nuanced balance between speech’s undeniable power and the far greater dangers of empowering authorities to suppress it. The discussion is directly relevant to current debates on campus and in society at large, making it essential for anyone interested in the ongoing battle over the boundaries of free expression.