Did overheated political rhetoric lead to the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump?

On today’s show we explore political violence: its history, its causes, and its relationship with free speech.

Flemming Rose is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He previously served as foreign affairs editor and culture editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In 2005, he was principally responsible for publishing the cartoons that initiated the Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Nadine Strossen is a professor emerita at New York Law School, former president of the ACLU, and a senior fellow at FIRE.

Jacob Mchangama is the founder and executive director of The Future of Free Speech. He is a research professor at Vanderbilt University and a senior fellow at FIRE.

Timestamps

0:00 Intro

2:45 Initial reactions to Trump assassination attempt

7:39 Can we blame political violence on rhetoric?

15:56 Weimar and Nazi Germany

26:05 Is the Constitution a “suicide pact”?

39:21 Is violence ever justified?

49:24 Censorship in the wake of tragedy and true threats

59:06 Closing thoughts

1:04:54 Outro

Show notes:

Episode transcript

“Freedom of expression and social conflict” by Christian Bjørnskov and Jacob Mchangama

FIRE’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings (featuring data on college student support for violence)

Recent court ruling in DeRay McKesson protest case

“The Tyranny of Silence” by Flemming Rose

“Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” by Jacob Mchangama

The Supreme Court term is over. We review its First Amendment cases.

Joining the show are FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London, and Institute for Justice Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara.

Become a FIRE Member today and gain access to live monthly webinars where you can ask questions of FIRE staff. The next webinar is July 8 at 1 p.m. ET. We will take your questions about the Supreme Court term.

Show Notes:

Transcript

Timestamps

0:00 Intro

2:53 Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton

31:02 NRA v. Vullo

46:57 Murthy v. Missouri

1:06:04 Gonzales v. Trevino

1:17:58 Vidal v. Elster

1:26:04 O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed

1:34:00 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (the Chevron deference case)

1:37:26 Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (forthcoming SCOTUS case)

1:38:30 Outro

There is a movement afoot to restrict young people’s access to social media and pornography.

Critics of social media and online porn argue that they can be harmful to minors, and states across the country are taking up the cause, considering laws that would impose age-verification, curfews, parental opt-ins, and other restrictions.

Meanwhile, critics of the critics argue that the evidence of harm isn’t so conclusive and that many of the proposed restrictions violate core civil liberties such as privacy and free speech.

So, who’s right?

Clare Morell is a senior policy analyst at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the author of the forthcoming book, “The Tech Exit: A Manifesto for Freeing Our Kids.”

Ari Cohn is free speech counsel at TechFreedom, a technology think tank.

Timestamps

0:00 Intro

2:17 The alleged harms of social media

11:31 Just another technological moral panic?

25:49 How is internet access currently restricted for minors?

41:17 The age verification problem

1:00:27 Assessing the First Amendment problems

1:07:21 Voluntary measures parents can take

1:25:30 Outro

Shownotes

Transcript

“The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness” by Jonathan Haidt

“Surgeon General: Why I’m Calling for a Warning Label on Social Media Platforms” by Vivek H. Murthy