So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Long before the First Amendment, John Peter Zenger stood trial for publishing criticisms of New York's then colonial governor. Although the law seemed to guarantee a guilty verdict, a jury refused to convict him. Zenger's trial was an early indication that the American colonists harbored a view of liberty more expansive than that offered to them by the British Crown.  
Few people are better suited to explain the case than Michael Tigar. Over a legendary legal career spanning more than six decades, Tigar has argued before the Supreme Court (multiple times), represented civil rights activists and other controversial clients, taught generations of lawyers, and written what has become the definitive stage play about the Zenger trial.
 Michael joins us to revisit the Zenger trial and reflect on his own remarkable career from the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the Chicago Eight trial to jury nullification and lawyers' First Amendment rights.
 To read more about Michael's life, check out his memoir.
 
Timestamps: 
00:00 Intro  
03:11 The Berkeley Free Speech Movement
09:17 Michael's path to becoming a lawyer
13:44 Defending the Chicago Eight
20:25 The trial of John Peter Zenger
27:03 Jury nullification and the Zenger verdict
37:26 The Zenger play and its legacy
39:52 NYT v. Sullivan and SLAPP lawsuits
44:30 Outro
 
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 May 2026, the Office of Management and Budget proposed sweeping changes to how the federal government administers billions of dollars in federal research grants.
That funding fuels scientific discovery, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The proposal was open for public comment for 45 days and drew more than half a million responses.
Supporters of the proposal argue that it will prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. Critics contend that the proposal will politicize research funding by giving executive branch political appointees greater influence over which research projects receive federal support.
Joining us to break down the OMB proposal and what it could mean for the future of research are: 
Evan Morris, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging and of biomedical engineering at Yale

Catharine Young, senior fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Ryne Weiss, director of research here at FIRE

 
Timestamps: 
00:00 Intro  
02:57 What's in the OMB proposal?
08:57 Research grant "kill switches" and their consequences
17:17 Limits on foreign research partnerships and professional activities
21:29 The importance of federal funding to medical research
23:23 Are pharmaceutical companies the "boogeymen"?
25:13 The gold standard of scientific research
26:22 The "replication crisis"  
31:16 Open science and peer review
40:37 Bias in research funding decisions
44:06 Should science be shielded from politics? 
49:04 Has research always been political?
53:14 How politicization could change scientific research
58:59 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.

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.