Your Cart is Empty
Greg Lukianoff
The Eternally Radical Idea
Excerpt: As regular ERI readers and followers of FIRE will know, I’ve been defending free speech on campus since 2001 — nearly all of FIRE’s 25-year history. In 2022, FIRE expanded its mission, going from being the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This was in no small part because we grew more and more concerned that the free speech crises we were dealing with on campus could and would spill over to other areas of our country.
I am speaking about bias reporting systems, sometimes called bias response teams, which are essentially snitch hotlines where people can report others for “offensive” or “hateful” speech. The act of doing this to your fellow Americans over protected speech would be bad enough, but these systems go further. They often consist not only of administrators, but also law enforcement.
Cary Nelson and Joe Lockard
Quillette
Excerpt: On 10 January 2025, Katherine Franke announced her departure from the Columbia University Law School. After she issued a public statement, she had it republished on the Academe blog of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
Two of Franke’s law-school colleagues had filed a complaint after Franke gave an interview to Democracy Now on 25 January 2024, in which she claimed that IDF veterans enrolled at Columbia had a history of harassing other students but that the university was not taking this harassment seriously. The complaint stated that Franke had “harassed members of the Columbia community based on their national origin.” An independent law-firm investigation found that she had violated university anti-discrimination policy.
Allison Stanger
The Atlantic
Excerpt: In ruling Friday on the future of the social-media app TikTok, the Supreme Court understood it was dealing with a novel issue. “We are conscious that the cases before us involve new technologies with transformative capabilities,” the justices declared in a per curiam opinion. “This challenging new context counsels caution on our part.”
When the nation’s Founders enshrined freedom of speech in the First Amendment, they couldn’t have imagined phone apps that amplify information around the world almost instantaneously—much less one controlled by a foreign power, as TikTok is, and capable of tracking the movements, relationships, and behaviors of millions of Americans in real time.
Ryan Quinn
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: Texas A&M University said this week it’s no longer sending representatives to a conference aimed at recruiting prospective minority doctoral students after online accusations and threats—including from the governor.
Martin Gurri
City Journal
Excerpt: Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to “get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram” marks an astonishing turnaround in the long, twilight struggle over information in the digital age. In this conflict, it should be noted, Zuckerberg has played a Hamlet-like part, uncertain whether to be or not to be an advocate of openness and free speech. His latest decision to embrace a set of grand principles was doubtless influenced by political considerations; now he stands accused of currying favor with the free-speech rebels of the incoming Trump crowd.
But at 3 billion monthly active users and 100 billion pieces of content daily, Facebook remains, at least for now, the brontosaurus in the room when it comes to social media.
Eugene Volokh
Volokh Conspiracy, Reason
Excerpt: I was having a conversation with my Stanford colleague Diego Zambrano, and this perspective on the TikTok case emerged. I'm not positive it's a sound perspective; but I thought I'd pass it along and see what people thought about it.
