Aw man! U. of Vermont comes close, but no cigar on its protected and unprotected speech graphic. Kudos for recognizing that “hateful speech” and “offensive speech” are protected under the 1st Amendment. But encouraging students to “report” that speech anyway is a bad idea and still chills speech. Think it through: 1. Nobody agrees what speech is hateful or offensive, and some people are more sensitive than others, which is the classic problem. Here’s the “common ground value” UVM cites: “we unite against all forms of injustice, including, but not limited to, racism. We reject bigotry, oppression, degradation, and harassment.” To what degree, and on what topics? With no guidance, there’s only one answer - a viewpoint (un)popularity contest. And guidance that satisfies everyone is impossible. 2. Imagine a Ukrainian student says something offensive about Russians in light of the ongoing war. Is a Vermont admin really going to pull them in, sit them down, and tell them they need to cool off? How about a student wearing a “Punch a Nazi” shirt? That’s either not going to happen, in which case UVM's doing viewpoint discrimination in disguise, or it is going to happen, and UVM will be forced into increasingly foolish situations that make everyone look dumb. ("Look, I know Russia bombed your city to the ground and killed your family, but that's no reason to say mean stuff about Russians!") 3. Students will feel duped and betrayed when UVM’s bias response folks turn out not to be able to “solve” what they feel, rightly or wrongly, is a problem, especially when UVM says some speech is against its values. If you report something to the authorities, you expect something to be done about it. And if you have a “value,” people expect you to stick with it. On this one, UVM can’t actually do either. Far better not to send students these mixed messages.

This morning @TheFIREorg filed an amicus brief explaining why the First Amendment prohibits deporting lawfully present noncitizens based on protected speech. The brief covers the Framers’ backlash to the Alien Friends Act, which authorized Pres. Adams to deport “dangerous” aliens

Yesterday, FIRE urged Sec. McMahon to back the renewed focus on campus speech with clear constitutional guardrails: protect lawful expression, enforce harassment rules consistently, and stop colleges from using parallel policies to evade free-speech and due-process protections.

I’ve been warning for a while that the UN’s Cybercrime treaty will bring trouble for free speech. Dozens of nations signed on last year. And in just the first half of 2026, we’re already seeing troubling new cybercrime bills emerge globally. Read it here:

Censors are getting increasingly creative. Here, Florida is using the cover of shareholder accountability to try and force the @nytimes to "open the books" on its editorial practices and discussions. Despite what the AG says, this is an attempted end-run around the First Amendment.

The Center for American Progress says the administration's National Guard deployments didn't reduce urban crime. President Trump says they did. OK. That's what political debate is for. But Trump is now threatening to sue CAP over its conclusion about the effectiveness of a government policy. Whether you agree with CAP's analysis or not, that's heartland First Amendment-protected speech. There's no viable legal claim here. Just another attempt by the president to silence and punish political opponents by tying them up with frivolous litigation.

President Trump said he’ll sue @amprog over this report that found the National Guard’s presence in several American cities hasn’t reduced violent crime. The president — and any of us — can disagree with the report, but the answer is to refute findings with data, not lawsuits. Alarmingly, Trump threatened to add some of the center’s donors to the lawsuit. Threatening non-profit donors sends a chilling message: Fund an organization that criticizes me, and you’ll be sued too. That’s wholly incompatible with a free society.

Want to use your legal skills to defend constitutional freedoms? We're hiring an Amicus Attorney to help advance First Amendment rights in courts across the country. Join the fight for free expression! Apply now:

Folks, hate speech laws mean your society has decided free people must live by the norms of those in charge. It’s anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, and always enforced on the basis of politics. We should be thankful the First Amendment prohibits them—and fight those who try to circumvent that protection.

The University of Washington canceled its scheduled Hasan Piker event after the university said the planning process "did not meet the necessary level of rigor." If the decision was based on process — and not public backlash or criticism — @UW should be transparent about what standards were not met and how they were applied. Public universities can set standards for events. But they can’t use those standards as cover for canceling a speaker because of their views.

"Hate speech" is not a magic phrase that lets the government sidestep the First Amendment. Yet the Columbia Police Department in South Carolina posted this image on its Facebook page and maintains a policy banning "inappropriate" and "offensive" comments. Government officials can't censor speech, online or off, just because they dislike or are offended by it. Period. FIRE is calling on @ColumbiaPDSC to take down the post and bring its social media policies and practices into compliance with the First Amendment.

Free speech allows us to resolve conflict through persuasion instead of violence. That may sound obvious. Historically, it is anything but. For most of human history, disagreement was settled by force, or the threat of it.

Man: "You're going to ticket us for 'offensive' speech?" Fort Worth Cop: "Yes, I am." That’s not how that works. Thankfully, the city says it’s taking steps so this never happens again. FIRE stands ready to help @fortworthpd in providing First Amendment training to officers.

LAWSUIT: We’re suing DHS after agents tracked down a Rochester, NY, man for sending a critical email to ICE’s director. This is America at 250. Dispatching federal agents to your doorstep because you criticized a public official is an insult to the First Amendment.

Behind every lawsuit, every brief, and every hearing is someone willing to do the work. We are hiring a Staff Attorney to defend free speech for all Americans. If that’s your calling, we’d like to hear from you! Apply today. 💼:

An NJ town council refused to pay its bill for ads in a local news outlet, not because of any problem with the ads, but because council members are mad about "false" reporting. Wildly unconstitutional and an apparent breach of contract. All on video:

What began with a one-line email has now escalated into multiple investigations, six disciplinary charges, and a second @BowdoinCollege hearing on whether student Finley Rhys can return to campus. We’re appalled by how far this retaliatory crusade has gone.

Some conversations just belong on stage, especially when they’re part of one of the biggest podcasts in law. We’re thrilled to welcome Advisory Opinions from @thedispatch to Soapbox for a LIVE recording with @whignewtons and @DavidAFrench. You’ll want a front-row seat.