So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Take an uncensored look at the world of free expression through personal stories and candid conversations. Created by @TheFIREorg. Hosted by @nicoperrino.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Ep. 273: Debating Super PACs and campaign finance w/ Larry Lessig and Paul Sherman

In 2010, two landmark decisions transformed American campaign finance law. The first was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The second was https://t.co/aLHHvuA7xD 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, @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino is joined by @lessig and @PaulMSherman. Lessig is a @Harvard_Law professor and the founder of @EqualCitizensUS, one of the country’s leading advocates for campaign finance reform. Sherman is a senior attorney at the @IJ who served as co-counsel in https://t.co/aLHHvuA7xD.

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

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

It’s not a good sign when the whole courtroom gasps at your argument.

@paulmsherman explains how one question about banning books may have been the moment the government lost Citizens United.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

.@lessig argues Super PACs aren’t some distant risk – they’ve become the center of modern political corruption

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Buckley v. Valeo has haunted campaign finance law for 50 years.

The Supreme Court tried to “split the baby” between money and speech – and nobody has been happy since.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

What if campaign finance corruption is downstream from something bigger: unaccountable government power?

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

“Crony capitalism is the worst flaw inside of our system right now.”

@lessig’s solution? Cut off the money in elections.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

When news and opinion blend together, audiences can’t always tell what they’re looking at.

@RSFUSA’s Clayton Weimers says this contributes to a lack of trust in journalism.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Taiwan didn’t crack down on speech. They opened up.

Through radical transparency, they built public trust without heavy regulation.

Could this be the blueprint for tackling speech challenges worldwide?

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

.@prestonjbyrne explains how the UK’s Online Safety Act clashes with Americans’ right to free speech

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Ep. 272: FIRE Monthly Member Webinar - May 2026

Shouting down speakers, UCLA free speech, heckling, AI, doxxing, cancel culture, and more!

Featuring @TheFIREorg's @glukianoff, @WillatFIRE, @acglennon, and @NicoPerrino

Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:40 Get your tickets to Soapbox now!
06:30 Congratulations to Will on 20 years at FIRE
07:31 How is FIRE responding to shouting down speakers?
11:33 Will FIRE include viewpoint diversity in our College Free Speech Rankings?
13:48 What is FIRE’s response to UCLA Law students protesting a DHS speaker?
17:07 NYU’s commencement speaker Jonathan Haidt
21:20 Is walking out on a controversial speaker protected free speech?
23:28 Is FIRE involved in Texas State University professor Tom Alter’s case?
25:50 What is the scholar to attorney ratio at FIRE?
27:47 Has cancel culture on college campuses changed since Trump 2.0?
32:00 What is FIRE’s stance on doxxing?
37:02 FIRE volunteer opportunities
37:33 Can the government regulate AI?
42:01 Is talk therapy speech or medical treatment? (Chiles v. Salazar)
46:02 What are the most pressing threats to online expression?
51:30 Special thanks to the Middlebury College Democrats and Republicans
53:45 What are the most challenging aspects of FIRE’s work with technology and free speech?
57:10 Does accepting government money protect or restrict speech?
1:00:25 Is FIRE a reactive organization and what solutions do we offer?
01:01:41 Outro

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

The American Revolution wasn’t just fought in public, it was planned in private.

The Founders knew public dissent depends on private space. That logic still holds today.

No privacy → no organizing
No organizing → no accountability
No accountability → no democracy

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Can executive power be used to sideline the press?

@RSFUSA’s Clayton Weimers says it’s not a policy disagreement. It’s a government that acts like the law doesn’t matter.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

“You can’t just sue a media outlet because you don’t like their coverage.”

It should be as simple as that.

But lawsuits like Kash Patel’s against @TheAtlantic are putting that to the test.

@RSFUSA’s Clayton Weimers believes the courts will continue to protect critical coverage of public officials, but warns these attacks are part of a broader effort to censor the press.

[The Atlantic Communications @TheAtlanticPR]

Statement from The Atlantic:

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day and the US just dropped to 64th in the global rankings.

This isn’t about one politician or one party. It’s been a decades-long slide.

@RSFUSA's Clayton Weimers says it points to something deeper: structural problems that keep dragging press freedom down.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

The Uncensored Library is a living archive inside @Minecraft that preserves censored journalism.

Its newest wing focuses on the US, because free speech threats don’t stop at authoritarian borders.

It’s not always about obvious censorship. Sometimes it’s erased data, restricted access, or even silence.

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

EFF’s Cindy Cohn warns Section 702 can act as a backdoor to Americans’ data.

You don’t have to be a target to get caught in it. Your texts, calls, and online activity can still be swept up and searched.

The real question is: who decides when your privacy matters?

[ABC News @ABC]

The House on Wednesday passed a three-year reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act by a vote of 235-191, but the bill could run into problems in the Senate. https://t.co/xAiPh5Do6q

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Ep. 271: Minecraft, censorship, and threats to press freedom with Clayton Weimers

Editorial note: This conversation was recorded on Friday, April 24, the day before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Both Nico and Clayton attended the event, where a gunman breached security and opened fire before being apprehended.

No one was seriously injured, but the incident serves as a reminder of the threats reporters can face in the course of their work. Since we recorded the conversation before the shooting, Nico and Clayton do not address it, but the incident underscores the stakes of their discussion.

—

In 2020, Reporters Without Borders launched the Uncensored Library, a virtual archive housed inside Minecraft, the world’s most popular computer game.

It preserves the work of journalists who have faced censorship, imprisonment, exile, or even death. In countries where their reporting is banned, Minecraft itself is not, making the library a digital sanctuary for suppressed journalism that millions can still access.

In March 2026, the project added a United States wing, reminding Americans that subtler, less direct threats to a free press happen everywhere – even at home.

With today’s release of the 2026 World Press Freedom Index and World Press Freedom Day approaching on May 3, @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino is unpacking the state of press freedom with Clayton Weimers, the executive director of @RSF_inter USA.

Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
04:41 The state of press freedom in the United States
10:51 Trump administration’s threats to press freedom
14:16 Patel v. The Atlantic and actual malice
22:55 Who is to blame for distrust in media?
27:58 Viewpoint diversity in the newsroom
32:15 The modern media ecosystem
40:27 What is RSF?
47:00 Freelance and independent journalism
49:11 Clayton’s background and more on Reporters Without Borders
51:25 Inside the Uncensored Library
01:01:59 Outro

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

FIRE Reacts: Comey, Kimmel, ABC & the FCC

We break down the legal case against James Comey over an alleged “true threat” and how far the government can go in prosecuting speech. Plus, we examine renewed FCC pressure on ABC and Jimmy Kimmel.

Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:57 Does the DOJ have a viable case against James Comey?
04:51 “True threats” and Comey’s case
06:36 Threats against U.S. presidents and Watts v. United States
09:55 Was it a mistake for Comey to take down the “8647” seashell image?
11:18 Can the case be dismissed before it goes to trial?
12:38 Can Comey’s case be considered a selective prosecution?
13:23 Is the process itself a punishment?
15:29 Could prosecutors face consequences for bringing this case?
18:07 Examples of true threats
20:35 “True threat” versus “incitement to imminent lawless action”
22:53 Is it still a “true threat” if charges come a year later?
24:32 Can Comey recover his legal fees?
25:34 Do threats become more real in the wake of other active threats?
26:32 Does the First Amendment differ for speech about the president?
30:06 What’s going on with the FCC and ABC?
34:20 What do NRA v. Vullo and the FCC’s calls to fire Jimmy Kimmel have in common?
35:17 Why does broadcast licensing exist in the internet age?
36:51 Have past presidents historically influenced broadcast licensing?
38:33 Is the Fairness Doctrine still in effect?
40:30 What can ABC do if the FCC takes away their licenses?
42:40 Will ABC fight back?
46:01 Has broadcast media regulation always been a frustration for 1A advocates?
49:20 Humphrey’s Executor & content-based regulation
50:58 Is the FCC independent from the executive branch?
51:45 The past 18 months of FCC action
52:15 Outro

Joining @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino:
@CTFitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney
@aaronterr1, director of public advocacy
@CornRevere, chief counsel

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Here’s the catch: geofence warrants are only possible because companies collect and store massive amounts of our personal data in the first place.

The result? People who have nothing to do with a crime can still get swept into an investigation.

Digital privacy is a safeguard against mass surveillance.

[CSPAN @cspan]

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Chatrie v. U.S., examining whether "geofence warrants" -- which compel tech companies to reveal users' data to identify suspects -- violate the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches – LIVE on C-SPAN2 https://t.co/4IvR2YH83L

[So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast @freespeechtalk]

Does speech inspire violence?

In light of the shooting at this weekend’s White House Correspondents Dinner, this exchange from a 2024 episode feels just as urgent.

After moments like these, calls to restrict speech come fast.

But scaling back our rights in response to fear has consequences that last far longer than the moment.