So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Censorship is often associated with authoritarian governments. But throughout history, efforts to control ideas have taken many different forms — and they haven't always come from the state.
In this episode, Nico sits down with University of Chicago professor Ada Palmer to explore the history of censorship from the Renaissance to the present day. They discuss what motivates censorship, why it evolves alongside new communication technologies, how effective it has been throughout history, and what historical patterns can teach us about today's free speech debates.
Ada Palmer is a professor of early modern European history at the University of Chicago and the author of Inventing the Renaissance: Myths of a Golden Age. She is also an acclaimed science fiction and fantasy author, composer, singer, and expert on anime and Japanese popular culture. Visit her website to read her blog and explore her other projects.
 
Timestamps: 
00:00 Intro
01:29 Palmer's interest in censorship 
03:13 Renaissance censorship
13:15 The Inquisition and Jansenism 
22:50 The blurry line between state and private censorship
31:35 Fear and self-censorship
35:12 Does America hide its censorship efforts?
38:45 The case of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 
43:50 Will AI change censorship?
53:36 Censorship will always be with us
01:06:47 Are you a free speech absolutist?
01:13:46 Outro
Read the transcript here.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. 
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.

Over the past five years, book bans and book challenges have become a major flashpoint in American politics.
School boards, parents, librarians, and lawmakers are fighting over what students should—and shouldn't—have access to on library shelves. Supporters of library restrictions say they are protecting children. Opponents say they are censoring ideas.
But this debate isn't new.
In the 1970s, America saw a similar surge in book challenges. One local dispute in Long Island, New York, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and became the only school-library book-removal case the Court has ever decided.
That case was Island Trees School District v. Pico, better known simply as Pico.
In this episode, we're joined by Anthony Aycock, legislative library director at the North Carolina General Assembly and the author of Just Plain Filthy: The Story Behind Book Banning's Trial of the Century.
His book tells the story behind Pico, including the school board that removed the books from its libraries, the students who fought back, and the Supreme Court justices who delivered a fractured ruling that left some of the case's most important constitutional questions unresolved.
Don't miss the free speech event of the year! Get your tickets and learn more about our Soapbox Conference at soapbox.fire.org. The early bird discount ends July 4.
 
Timestamps: 
00:00 Intro  
03:02 How Anthony became a librarian
05:08 What inspired Anthony's book?
07:33 The origins of Island Trees School District v. Pico
13:25 The Miller test for obscenity 
14:43 Steven Pico and the road to the Supreme Court
18:15 The local reaction to Pico
20:17 If libraries choose what comes in, why can't they choose what goes out?
20:51 How librarians build a collection
26:05 When and why books leave library shelves
26:52 The Supreme Court's plurality opinion
30:08 Why Pico still matters: the Llano County case
35:41 Libraries, viewpoint diversity, and public access 
38:24 When is censorship justified?
39:55 Should parents decide what everyone can read?
51:01 Stress test: Should Hitler's Mein Kampf be available in libraries?
54:05 How librarians feel about literary censorship today
57:57 Outro
Read the transcript here.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. 
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.

Debates over religious freedom have shaped American life for centuries. From Quakers facing persecution in colonial America to The Crucible to South Park, fights over religious expression have repeatedly tested the country's commitment to free speech and religious liberty.
At the heart of these debates are a few difficult questions: Does the Constitution protect only popular beliefs, or all of them? If the government opens the door for one form of religious expression, does it have to allow every form? And if not, where does the Constitution draw the line?
Few people have tested those questions more directly than Chaz Stevens.
Stevens is the founder of the Church of Satanology and a longtime activist who uses satire, publicity stunts, and litigation to challenge what he sees as hypocrisy in how governments apply First Amendment protections.
In this episode, Chaz joins us to talk about those battles, the philosophy behind his activism, and what he's learned from years of pushing the boundaries of the First Amendment.
Follow Chaz on Substack here.
 
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:26 What is Satanology?
04:15 Using malicious compliance to defend viewpoint neutrality
07:14 Pushing the boundaries of religious freedom protections
10:12 The First Amendment right to petition the government
11:20 Fighting state-mandated religious displays
15:37 Why Chaz puts Festivus poles in state capitols
19:59 Ron DeSantis, school libraries, and book ban controversies
23:44 Suing the government without a lawyer (pro se litigation)
30:18 Chaz's lawsuit against Rep. Chip LaMarca and Lindke v. Freed
34:48 How Chaz's activism started
35:54 The Consentivius tour and the Epstein files
38:55 What is Chaz's endgame?
41:27 Outro
Read the transcript here.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.

What is financial censorship?
Rainey Reitman joins the show to discuss what happens when people are denied access to financial services because of their lawful speech and conduct.
Reitman is the author of Transaction Denied: Big Finance's Power to Punish Speech, which examines the role financial companies like Visa, Chase, and PayPal play in policing speech and silencing speakers.
 
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:29 Ben Reitman: Rainey's great-grandfather and free speech activist
05:42 How Rainey joined the fight for internet freedom
08:19 Chelsea Manning, whistleblowers, and the WikiLeaks banking blockade
16:11 The National Committee for Religious Freedom's fight with Chase Bank
19:10 NRA v. Vullo: The Supreme Court case on indirect government censorship
21:24 The Wolfsberg Group and global banking institutions
23:51 What is a "politically exposed person"?
25:52 Reputational risk management
27:40 Trump's 2025 executive order on debanking
29:45 Sanctions, terrorism screening, and the impact on Muslim communities
33:04 Why banks are so afraid of sanctions violations
34:10 Can you fight back after being debanked?
35:32 Can the private sector censor?
37:50 Operation Choke Point, cannabis, and crypto
47:25 Why are banks policing porn and adult content?
54:11 Solutions to debanking: incentives, crypto, and cash
59:15 Outro
Read the transcript here.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.

In 2010, two landmark decisions transformed American campaign finance law. The first was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The second was SpeechNow.org v. FEC.
Together, these cases cleared the way for corporations and so-called Super PACs to raise and spend unlimited sums of money in elections.
What followed was a new era in American politics where individuals, corporations, and industries increasingly spent more and more money to influence campaigns and public opinion.
To debate the constitutional, political, and historical questions surrounding money in politics, we are joined by Larry Lessig and Paul Sherman. Lessig is a Harvard Law professor and the founder of Equal Citizens, one of the country's leading advocates for campaign finance reform. Sherman is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org.
Read Larry's paper "If Roe, then Buckley" here.
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:43 How Larry and Paul became interested in political speech and campaign finance
05:33 Citizens United, political speech, and quid pro quo corruption
18:34 What was the SpeechNow case?
32:31 Elon Musk and billionaire influence in the 2024 election
49:06 History of campaign finance regulation
51:26 First Amendment originalism, Federalist 52, and Federalist 57
01:07:07 Does money actually influence election outcomes?
01:14:20 Outro
Read the transcript here.
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.