My husband Leif Smith and I ran an information and idea exchange for 25 years here in Denver. Our clientele ran the proverbial political gamut, from Marxists to members of the John Birch Society as well as mainstream Republicans and Democrats, progressive liberals, the founders of the Libertarian party, avowed socialists, and Christian conservatives. Also, rich people, poor people, some famous people, and mostly folks looking for information and connections.
Our goals were simple - help our clients with their individual quests: building nonprofits, businesses, and helping their government agencies.
Liked your rules. Thank you for what you do.
Our one rule was we never talked about our personal points of view. We were not there to convince people that we were right and they were wrong. We able to help nurture an open marketplace of ideas, which tended to attract innovators from many walks of life. We saw a greater good of working with people we might disagree with, but, as you pointed out, we never talked about that.
When a fellow traveler did show up, they already knew us from other venues. Ironically, we identify as libertarians and were denounced publicly by someone in the party for working with unacceptable people. I was proud (grin).
One of our clients called us "Little Switzerland." Cause-driven folks, opponents in debates on topics such as abortion, nuclear power, taxation, and community development aka gentrification, could come to our office and talk to the other side without the glare of publicity.
We did a good enough job that many people thought we were one of the "them." In some cases, at the end of our run, we let people know our personal positions when asked. Some were shocked. Some stopped talking to us.
By committing to a respect for the individual explorer above all, we were able to help each client, regardless of their position. We rarely turned away a client, usually because they wanted to access a list of all of the other clients to sell them something. I am pleased that we became a source for authors, librarians, newspaper reporters and editors, and other people who were focused on providing information for their customers.
I think it comes down to what someone's values are. A simple mission statement makes it easy, in most cases, to make decisions and take actions that stay on track.
I voted for Trump, and being a man of your caste, I'm sure you hate him. However, I continue to support your work because I trust you to hold the Left just as accountable as the Right when it comes to protecting Free Speech. I'm not happy with the AP being barred from white house press briefings, for instance. I'm also not happy with trump suing pollsters or media companies. Still not sorry for my vote. Please help me to keep it that way. Thank You.
"There's nothing partisan about wealth disparity or the abuse of power. The issue isn’t left or right—it’s who holds control over speech, access, and influence." — HumanITy @ PLAINTXT//DECODED
Greg, you emphasize non-partisanship as a virtue in defending free speech, but in practice, FIRE’s focus often leans toward protecting one side’s grievances more than another’s. The problem isn’t just government suppression—it’s the economic and systemic control over who gets to be heard.
Some key questions worth considering:
1️⃣ If free speech is under threat, why is there so little focus on corporate suppression? Social media gatekeeping, AI-driven moderation, and media consolidation shape discourse just as much—if not more—than government overreach.
2️⃣ You cite O’Sullivan’s Curse as proof that institutions "drift left," but have you considered that this could reflect public sentiment evolving, not corruption? Social shifts toward inclusivity aren’t ideological decay—they’re adaptation.
3️⃣ You rightly criticize Europe’s speech laws, but where’s the same concern for economic suppression in the U.S.? Union-busting, media monopolies, and SLAPP lawsuits against journalists are all systemic silencers—yet FIRE rarely highlights them.
The issue isn’t who is being silenced; it’s why and who benefits. That’s the real conversation. Power seeks to preserve itself, whether through government censorship, corporate control of platforms, or the strategic framing of “free speech” to serve elite interests.
Free speech matters. But if we’re going to talk about it, we should talk about all of it. 💙🌱
On (2), the last election doesn’t refute a leftward drift—it highlights a disconnect between public sentiment and electoral outcomes. Despite conservative wins, polls consistently show support for progressive policies like healthcare access, labor rights, and wealth tax. The narrative that society is “monotonically drifting left” ignores structural issues like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and media framing. The problem isn’t ideological shift; it’s how power manipulates perception and suppresses genuine public sentiment. Progress isn’t decay—it’s adaptation.
I stopped listening to Limbaugh at his height of popularity. At the same time, I left the Republican party.
I live in a very Red state, Nebraska, but supported minimum wage, medical marijuana and paid sick leave petitions and voted for them on the ballot. The local paper Omaha World Herald uses the AP for the main source and it is nauseating at best. Want to go to the locals for comments, there is no person on the left who wants conversation, just old tropes and quite frankly lies. I would like to fly over this state sometimes also.
I like the FP and see on my initial foray into FIRE some of the same puzzling complaints. Each side saying the other side is over represented and why don't you even it out.
Several years ago there was site built where you could go and sign up, state your beliefs and be connected with someone with opposite beliefs. It was technically over whelmed and didn't last. Ironically, the first and only person I talked to was from Grand Island Nebraska but living in New York. Grate conversation for over an hour but we agreed on nothing which was fine. I understood him more.
I consider myself a conservative independent but can never find anything the Dems do that I agree with. So am I really an independent? I appreciate your guidance. My issue is the Dems never give me an opportunity to agree with them. Is that my hang up or reality. I do see times if they weren't so radical I could agree, but none of them seem to have an inclination to meet in the middle.
So I am glad I found FIRE who the FP seems to just love. And would love to find a reason to stay.
Hi, as someone who has lived in Germany for a while, I am no expert but I know there are big debates about how Germany relates to its awful past.
Do you think it’s appropriate for FIRE to be advocating for German tolerance of Nazi symbolism? A faint swastika on a book cover is still a swastika, after all. If you allow that, I don’t know how you avoid allowing everything.
Germany and the UK are well on their way to becoming countries that suppress free speech much like Russia, Iran and China. We in the US must acknowledge this fact and realize that we can no longer be allies with countries that don’t share our love of freedom.
I thought the AP was not invited to the Oval office press briefing only. I thought they still have and had access to the Press Briefings in the Press briefing room. There is a difference in my mind. What ablut Biden revoking 400 press passes?
Good advice, thanks for sharing! In particular, I appreciate the point about acknowledging what the other side does well. So often I only see those looking to depolarize aiming to critique both sides equally. If we let others know where we have common ground, we'd feel a lot more connected and a lot less scared of each other.
I'll admit it's been difficult for me to try and avoid these kinds of partisan biases. It can feel like I'm being asked to be Atlas, carrying the world on my shoulders without ever getting the chance to voice my own opinion or make friends who get me. Maybe it's because deep down I'm not really as much of an activist as I'm often expected to be. Professional life is different from personal life, but as I've needed to focus on making better personal connections, I've worried about slipping into an echo chamber. Though I do think there's a difference between an all-out echo chamber and just an ordinary person who simply isn't friends with everybody on the planet.
Non-partisan is a virtue if both parties share a commitment to liberal democracy. One party on occasion has a different understanding of liberal democracy than mine. The other is overly Fascist. Non partisan is no longer a virtue. The fact that some fascists have some good ideas and some non fascists have bad ideas does not change that. We can survive college speech codes We can't survive Trump and his quisling enablers Finally, my use of fascist is historical and analytical, not a lazy epithet
You continue to substantially misrepresent the AP and Selzer cases, hedge your reluctant praise for his Free Speech efforts in a way that implies you assume bad faith, and otherwise talk about Trump in a distinctly different and more negative manner than you do any other President mentioned.
You claim to have ideological diversity in the room on all of this. I'd really like to hear an article on these topics from the perspective of one of your Trump supporting staff (if you actually have any).
I completely agree that free speech lives or dies depending on our willingness, or unwillingness, to listen deeply, affirm points of common interest, and view oppositional speech as the main means by which you can measure the durability and viability of your own worldview. All humans should have a place to speak inside a real or virtual arena, no caveats. But here's my question, raised by Yuval Noah Harari: is censoring or banning bots a denial of free speech?
While oppositional views, even misinformation, expressed by human beings is free game, what about media companies that use bots to overwhelm people inside these information networks? Harari insists, and I agree, that the technological generation of more and more information at lightening speed does not produce more knowledge and, because the quantity and speed of bot generated information is so artificially prolific, the opportunity for human-to-human dialogue, debate and learning is degraded, if not outright denied.
Is free speech a basic right of human beings only, or should non-human agents be equally protected?
My husband Leif Smith and I ran an information and idea exchange for 25 years here in Denver. Our clientele ran the proverbial political gamut, from Marxists to members of the John Birch Society as well as mainstream Republicans and Democrats, progressive liberals, the founders of the Libertarian party, avowed socialists, and Christian conservatives. Also, rich people, poor people, some famous people, and mostly folks looking for information and connections.
Our goals were simple - help our clients with their individual quests: building nonprofits, businesses, and helping their government agencies.
Liked your rules. Thank you for what you do.
Our one rule was we never talked about our personal points of view. We were not there to convince people that we were right and they were wrong. We able to help nurture an open marketplace of ideas, which tended to attract innovators from many walks of life. We saw a greater good of working with people we might disagree with, but, as you pointed out, we never talked about that.
When a fellow traveler did show up, they already knew us from other venues. Ironically, we identify as libertarians and were denounced publicly by someone in the party for working with unacceptable people. I was proud (grin).
One of our clients called us "Little Switzerland." Cause-driven folks, opponents in debates on topics such as abortion, nuclear power, taxation, and community development aka gentrification, could come to our office and talk to the other side without the glare of publicity.
We did a good enough job that many people thought we were one of the "them." In some cases, at the end of our run, we let people know our personal positions when asked. Some were shocked. Some stopped talking to us.
By committing to a respect for the individual explorer above all, we were able to help each client, regardless of their position. We rarely turned away a client, usually because they wanted to access a list of all of the other clients to sell them something. I am pleased that we became a source for authors, librarians, newspaper reporters and editors, and other people who were focused on providing information for their customers.
I think it comes down to what someone's values are. A simple mission statement makes it easy, in most cases, to make decisions and take actions that stay on track.
I do think that Margaret Brennan should sit a few plays out.
Rx: If you're going to use an acronym (FIRE, ERI etc), best not to assume everyone knows what it means. Spell it out the first time you use it.
I voted for Trump, and being a man of your caste, I'm sure you hate him. However, I continue to support your work because I trust you to hold the Left just as accountable as the Right when it comes to protecting Free Speech. I'm not happy with the AP being barred from white house press briefings, for instance. I'm also not happy with trump suing pollsters or media companies. Still not sorry for my vote. Please help me to keep it that way. Thank You.
"There's nothing partisan about wealth disparity or the abuse of power. The issue isn’t left or right—it’s who holds control over speech, access, and influence." — HumanITy @ PLAINTXT//DECODED
Greg, you emphasize non-partisanship as a virtue in defending free speech, but in practice, FIRE’s focus often leans toward protecting one side’s grievances more than another’s. The problem isn’t just government suppression—it’s the economic and systemic control over who gets to be heard.
Some key questions worth considering:
1️⃣ If free speech is under threat, why is there so little focus on corporate suppression? Social media gatekeeping, AI-driven moderation, and media consolidation shape discourse just as much—if not more—than government overreach.
2️⃣ You cite O’Sullivan’s Curse as proof that institutions "drift left," but have you considered that this could reflect public sentiment evolving, not corruption? Social shifts toward inclusivity aren’t ideological decay—they’re adaptation.
3️⃣ You rightly criticize Europe’s speech laws, but where’s the same concern for economic suppression in the U.S.? Union-busting, media monopolies, and SLAPP lawsuits against journalists are all systemic silencers—yet FIRE rarely highlights them.
The issue isn’t who is being silenced; it’s why and who benefits. That’s the real conversation. Power seeks to preserve itself, whether through government censorship, corporate control of platforms, or the strategic framing of “free speech” to serve elite interests.
Free speech matters. But if we’re going to talk about it, we should talk about all of it. 💙🌱
On (2) above, I’d say that the last election refutes the idea that society is monotonically drifting leftward.
On (2), the last election doesn’t refute a leftward drift—it highlights a disconnect between public sentiment and electoral outcomes. Despite conservative wins, polls consistently show support for progressive policies like healthcare access, labor rights, and wealth tax. The narrative that society is “monotonically drifting left” ignores structural issues like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and media framing. The problem isn’t ideological shift; it’s how power manipulates perception and suppresses genuine public sentiment. Progress isn’t decay—it’s adaptation.
I stopped listening to Limbaugh at his height of popularity. At the same time, I left the Republican party.
I live in a very Red state, Nebraska, but supported minimum wage, medical marijuana and paid sick leave petitions and voted for them on the ballot. The local paper Omaha World Herald uses the AP for the main source and it is nauseating at best. Want to go to the locals for comments, there is no person on the left who wants conversation, just old tropes and quite frankly lies. I would like to fly over this state sometimes also.
I like the FP and see on my initial foray into FIRE some of the same puzzling complaints. Each side saying the other side is over represented and why don't you even it out.
Several years ago there was site built where you could go and sign up, state your beliefs and be connected with someone with opposite beliefs. It was technically over whelmed and didn't last. Ironically, the first and only person I talked to was from Grand Island Nebraska but living in New York. Grate conversation for over an hour but we agreed on nothing which was fine. I understood him more.
I consider myself a conservative independent but can never find anything the Dems do that I agree with. So am I really an independent? I appreciate your guidance. My issue is the Dems never give me an opportunity to agree with them. Is that my hang up or reality. I do see times if they weren't so radical I could agree, but none of them seem to have an inclination to meet in the middle.
So I am glad I found FIRE who the FP seems to just love. And would love to find a reason to stay.
Hi, as someone who has lived in Germany for a while, I am no expert but I know there are big debates about how Germany relates to its awful past.
Do you think it’s appropriate for FIRE to be advocating for German tolerance of Nazi symbolism? A faint swastika on a book cover is still a swastika, after all. If you allow that, I don’t know how you avoid allowing everything.
And if you don't allow it, how do you know what to allow?
Personally, I prefer to avoid slippery slopes if possible.
Germany and the UK are well on their way to becoming countries that suppress free speech much like Russia, Iran and China. We in the US must acknowledge this fact and realize that we can no longer be allies with countries that don’t share our love of freedom.
I thought the AP was not invited to the Oval office press briefing only. I thought they still have and had access to the Press Briefings in the Press briefing room. There is a difference in my mind. What ablut Biden revoking 400 press passes?
Good advice, thanks for sharing! In particular, I appreciate the point about acknowledging what the other side does well. So often I only see those looking to depolarize aiming to critique both sides equally. If we let others know where we have common ground, we'd feel a lot more connected and a lot less scared of each other.
I'll admit it's been difficult for me to try and avoid these kinds of partisan biases. It can feel like I'm being asked to be Atlas, carrying the world on my shoulders without ever getting the chance to voice my own opinion or make friends who get me. Maybe it's because deep down I'm not really as much of an activist as I'm often expected to be. Professional life is different from personal life, but as I've needed to focus on making better personal connections, I've worried about slipping into an echo chamber. Though I do think there's a difference between an all-out echo chamber and just an ordinary person who simply isn't friends with everybody on the planet.
Does anyone have any advice on navigating this?
There is a very real potential downside which is normalization of awful ideas.
Trump right now literally wants to do a textbook ethnic cleansing….im not convinced being civil with those people is ethical at this point.
Non-partisan is a virtue if both parties share a commitment to liberal democracy. One party on occasion has a different understanding of liberal democracy than mine. The other is overly Fascist. Non partisan is no longer a virtue. The fact that some fascists have some good ideas and some non fascists have bad ideas does not change that. We can survive college speech codes We can't survive Trump and his quisling enablers Finally, my use of fascist is historical and analytical, not a lazy epithet
It's fascist to deny Free Speech to anyone, regardless of their politics.
You continue to substantially misrepresent the AP and Selzer cases, hedge your reluctant praise for his Free Speech efforts in a way that implies you assume bad faith, and otherwise talk about Trump in a distinctly different and more negative manner than you do any other President mentioned.
You claim to have ideological diversity in the room on all of this. I'd really like to hear an article on these topics from the perspective of one of your Trump supporting staff (if you actually have any).
I completely agree that free speech lives or dies depending on our willingness, or unwillingness, to listen deeply, affirm points of common interest, and view oppositional speech as the main means by which you can measure the durability and viability of your own worldview. All humans should have a place to speak inside a real or virtual arena, no caveats. But here's my question, raised by Yuval Noah Harari: is censoring or banning bots a denial of free speech?
While oppositional views, even misinformation, expressed by human beings is free game, what about media companies that use bots to overwhelm people inside these information networks? Harari insists, and I agree, that the technological generation of more and more information at lightening speed does not produce more knowledge and, because the quantity and speed of bot generated information is so artificially prolific, the opportunity for human-to-human dialogue, debate and learning is degraded, if not outright denied.
Is free speech a basic right of human beings only, or should non-human agents be equally protected?
I have never been successful at denying my dog's right to Free Speech. He barks his damn head off constantly. My dog is the Resistance.