AdGo & I prepare to go LIVE!, I debunk the 'Constitution is not a suicide pact’ argument, the free speech battle over AI continues, & more!

Bringing you the latest free speech news (6/8/25)

Story of the week

• Join Adam Goldstein and me for our first ERI Substack Live!

Join me and my ERI colleague (and FIRE’s Vice President of Strategic Initiatives) Adam Goldstein on Tuesday, June 10 at 4:30 pm Eastern right here on Substack for ERI’s first Live “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) — moderated by another ERI colleague (and FIRE Senior Writer & Editor) Angel Eduardo!

• Americans worry about AI in politics — but they’re more worried about government censorship by

  Sean Stevens

This week in FIRE’s blog

• Same old playbook, new target: AI chatbots by John Coleman

• After Michigan State trustees told students to call professor a racist, his lawsuit is moving ahead by David Volodzko

In his lawsuit, Lipton alleged that two trustees, Rema Vassar and Dennis Denno, met with MSU students, encouraged them to file complaints against Lipton with MSU’s internal civil rights office, and asked students to condemn Lipton as racist in public statements, op-eds, and on social media. MSU hired the law firm Miller & Chevalier to conduct an independent investigation, producing a report you can read online. According to Lipton, it found that Vassar and Denno planned the attacks and even provided others with specific language to paint Lipton as racist, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim.

For example, in one recorded conversation, Denno told students, “The other thing you can do to help us is attack Jack Lipton, the Chair of the Faculty Senate . . . call him out, call him a racist.”

• Voters strongly support prioritizing freedom of speech in potential AI regulation of political messaging, poll finds

• FIRE highlights artistic freedom with launch of new YouTube interview series featuring heavy metal and punk’s biggest stars

• Texas lawmakers shelve SLAPP bills that would have allowed the rich and powerful to sue critics into silence by Carolyn Iodice

This week in ERI

• No, the Constitution is not a suicide pact — but it’s also not a blank check for panic by me

This week on

So to Speak

This week, FIRE EVP and

So to Speak

host

Nico Perrino

is joined by FIRE’s chief counsel, Bob Corn-Revere, and Ballard Spahr’s former senior counsel, Lee Levine to discuss the censure of Maine lawmaker Laurel Libby, NPR vs. Trump, and more!

FIRE in the press!

• Criticism of Islam Remains Uniquely Dangerous in Britain (UnHerd) by FIRE Senior Fellow

  Jacob Mchangama

Perhaps most disturbing was the judge’s logic in justifying the conviction. “That the conduct was disorderly,” he argued, “is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.” In other words: because Coskun was violently attacked for a protest that was provocative but non-violent, his speech became the offence. This is not justice — it is capitulation.

London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup

• Associated Press v. Budowich

Split D.C. Circuit panel stays pending appeal the AP’s preliminary injunction against viewpoint-based denial of access to presidential press events, except in the East Room, where the injunction remains intact

They can’t all be winners. As the business week closed, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a 2-1 ruling mostly granting the White House’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction the trial court had issued AP against viewpoint-based exclusion from press events in the East Room, Oval Office, Air Force One, and Mar-a-Lago. The court issued a PI on grounds AP was likely to succeed on its challenge that such denial of access based on its continued use of “Gulf of Mexico” instead of the President’s preferred “Gulf of America” violated the First Amendment. The D.C. Circuit majority granted a stay pending full appeal, holding instead that the White House is likely to succeed in challenging the PI as to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and Mar-a-Lago, because such “restricted presidential spaces,” as the majority called them, are not forums for private speech. Thus, the majority holds, the White House may decide—including on the basis of viewpoint—which journalists to admit. Though it rejected government claims that press-admissions raise “political questions” beyond judicial review, the majority rejected the decision below that the “restricted spaces” are nonpublic forums where government actors may have considerable discretion what speech to allow, but still cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. Rather, despite a history of press access, the majority holds they are “not places ‘traditionally open to assembly and debate,’ nor are they open to the public for expressive activity.” To get there, it holds (among other things) that “observational newsgathering” is “not itself a communicative activity,” but rather invited journalists “are gathering information for their reporting, … ‘a noncommunicative step in the production of speech.’” And that holds true even if journalists “transmit stories, observations, and photographs in real time,” which the majority claims “has little if any nexus to the restricted spaces in which it occurs.” Given all that, the majority holds, “the White House’s decision to exclude the AP from limited-access presidential events is not the type of action that counts as materially adverse for purposes of a retaliation claim,” because it does not deprive AP of any property right or infringe any liberty interest. So, the majority stays the PI pending appeal holding, “the harm to the White House outweighs the harm to the AP,” because the PI “threatens to impede the President’s ability to select which members of the press to invite into his otherwise private workspaces,” while AP “may continue to exercise its free speech rights in other spaces, including White House press facilities such as the Brady Briefing Room.” The majority did, however, decline to stay the PI’s application to the East Room, which it said (without analysis) “does not share the hallmarks of spaces like the Oval Office.” The dissenting judge, noting that “neither this court nor the Supreme Court has ever upheld the exclusion from a forum or denial of a benefit based on a private recipient’s viewpoint outside the forum or benefit program,” could “see no basis for a stay pending appeal.” It will be interesting to see what happens when the D.C. Circuit gets to the merits, but if this stay decision is a preview ….

International free speech stories of the week

• Comedian sentenced to eight years over discriminatory joke (EuroWeekly) by Santiago Carneri

• Tanzania announces shutdown of X because of pornography (BBC) by Farouk Chothia

TV show of the month: Punisher, Season 1

I only recently got around to watching Netflix’s ‘The Punisher.’ I loved ‘Daredevil’ and thought the first season of ‘Jessica Jones’ was a masterpiece, but I was never a big fan of ‘The Punisher’ comic book to begin with (I found it gratuitously violent). Also, I skipped it because it came after ‘Iron Fist,’ which, as we all know, sucked (except for Colleen Wing). But The Punisher’s story really does perfectly translate to good TV. Spoiler: there’s definitely a lot of violence, but the show was done very skillfully with great acting and characterization. Still kicking myself for waiting so long to watch!