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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Ep. 270: The fight for privacy and free speech in the surveillance age The early internet opened unprecedented avenues for speech, creativity, and connection without traditional gatekeepers. But it also raised civil liberties questions: Do our offline freedoms exist online? And if so, how far do they extend? Today, those questions are more urgent than ever. Advances in AI have given governments powerful new tools to track, monitor, and analyze our behavior, raising fundamental concerns about the future of free expression in the digital age. Today, @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino is joined by Cindy Cohn, the executive director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She has spent thirty years as a civil liberties attorney specializing in digital rights, which she documents in her newly published memoir Privacy’s Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 05:17 Why write this book now? 09:11 Does privacy make free speech possible? 14:52 Code as speech: Bernstein v. United States 33:34 The Patriot Act and government spying 51:09 National security letters and Section 702 57:57 Who is Tony Coppolino? 01:06:06 Why EFF left X 01:11:05 What’s next for Cindy 01:13:56 Outro

What if the only way Americans will truly value free speech is by losing it? @JMchangama’s most pessimistic take: it may take experiencing authoritarianism to understand what’s at stake

History shows that people rarely let go of power quietly. From propaganda to AI, leaders will use whatever tools they can to stay in control. Jeff Kosseff cautions that if governments control AI, they could commandeer the tool to cling to power.

Ep. 269: Is free speech declining worldwide? Free speech has long been a cornerstone of democratic society. But today, its principles face increasing pressure. Around the world, governments are expanding speech restrictions in the name of combating misinformation, hate speech, and extremism, while new technologies make it easier to monitor and control public discourse. Many free speech advocates warn that these efforts risk eroding democracy itself. Joining @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino to discuss this “global free speech recession” is @JMchangama, a senior fellow at FIRE and the founder and executive director of @SpeechFuture at Vanderbilt University, and Jeff Kosseff, a senior fellow at The Future of Free Speech. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:07 Why write this book? 04:40 Where free speech stands in America today 05:53 What is a “global free speech recession”? 11:22 Free speech’s high point and what changed 18:56 Election misinformation, disinformation, and the role of AI 34:40 The EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act 40:00 Are democracies starting to adopt more restrictive speech laws? 43:52 Solutions to reversing the free speech recession 52:25 Outro

Ep. 268: News and misinformation in early America In 18th century America, news traveled slowly across the Atlantic. Newspapers reprinted secondhand reports, private letters, and unverified stories from abroad, leaving readers with multiple versions of reality. In a world educated by an unverifiable news cycle, how did misinformation shape early American life? @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino sits down with Jordan Taylor, historian of American history, to explore how news, rumor, and misrepresentation influenced the course of the American Revolution and the nation that followed. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:05 How colonists got their news 08:28 Why foreign news dominated early newspapers 17:33 How colonial newspapers verified information 22:32 Did miscommunication help spark the Revolution? 29:57 The XYZ Affair and the Sedition Act 39:21 The First Amendment’s original meaning 44:34 Current day parallels 55:41 Outro

Ep. 267: Social media = cigarettes? In March, juries in California and New Mexico delivered seminal verdicts holding Meta and YouTube liable for failing to protect young users from harm. Both verdicts found that the companies were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms and that each company knew their platforms could be dangerous when used by a minor. The courts found that the design elements of the platforms could be separated from the content hosted on the platforms, thus removing the need to consider the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. CEO & founder of @techdirt & @CopiaInstitute @mmasnick joins @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino to break down the rulings and their possible free speech implications. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:29 Why these verdicts scare the hell out of Mike 10:34 Are social media algorithms “addictive”? 21:45 Did Meta fail to protect kids? 30:37 The First Amendment and Section 230 43:13 Is social media the new Big Tobacco? 55:15 The role of parents in social media use 59:04: 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 and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.

The UK’s internet regulator is brushing aside international law when it comes to Americans’ speech online. @prestonjbyrne suggests trying something a little more… internet-native.