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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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

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?

01:00:25 Is FIRE a reactive organization and what solutions do we offer?

01:01:41 Outro

Joining us:

• Nico Perrino, executive vice president

• Alisha Glennon, chief operating officer

• Greg Lukianoff, president & chief executive officer

• Will Creeley, legal director

Read the transcript here.

Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars.

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 [email protected].

If you already are a paid subscriber and would like to listen to this episode via Apple Podcasts, click on the "Apple Podcasts" icon at the top right of this page!

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, we're unpacking the state of press freedom with Clayton Weimers, the executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA.

Download The Uncensored Library here.

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

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 thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

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 us:

• Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney

• Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy

• Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel