Yale report refutes ‘Silver spoon rule,’ FIRE finds concerning Gen-Z acceptance of violence, Adam Thierer joins FIRE, & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (4/19/26)
Story of the week
Yale Report Finds Colleges Deserve Blame for Higher Education’s Problems (NYT) by Alan Blinder
The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies. People in academia, the committee said, “must be willing to admit where we have been wrong and where we might improve, even as we defend what is essential about higher education and its academic mission.”
This week in ERI
AI, free speech, and America’s real advantage over China by new FIRE Senior Fellow Adam Thierer & me
This week in Expression
Free Speech Future: Episode II – Regulating AI: Who decides?
Gen Z is 10 times more accepting of violence against speakers than Boomers by Chapin Lenthall-Cleary
Forget walking on eggshells. Faculty now need to walk across the verbal equivalent of broken glass if they dare include material that could conceivably violate these rules. If a student asks a question that mentions sex or gender? Be sure not to “assess” the question!
You don’t need to live in China to experience China’s censorship by Sarah McLaughlin
French bill would criminalize ‘from the river to the sea’ by Sarah McLaughlin & Zoe Armbruster
How silencing medical debates puts patients at risk by Allison Riddoch
This week in FIRE’s blog
FIRE in the press!
In Poisoned Ivies, Stefanik Sees Censorship as a Cure for ‘Anti-Americanism’ (Reason) by Sarah McLaughlin
Fact Checking Without Facts (Broadband Breakfast) by Bob Corn-Revere
An Open Letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr (Checks & Balances) by Bob Corn-Revere
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup
Illinois federal court grants preliminary injunction motion challenging DOJ and DHS jawboning of online services into removing the ICE Sightings Facebook group and the Eyes Up video app, each of which platformed posts about ICE based on publicly available information
Holding there is “no dispute that Plaintiffs allege a First Amendment violation,” the U.S. District Court in Chicago granted the preliminary injunction motion of two social media platforms that allowed users to share public information about U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement activity.
Plaintiff Rosado created the ICE Sightings–Chicagoland Facebook group, and plaintiff Kreisau Group created the “Eyes Up” smartphone app in 2025—each for sharing videos and information about ICE activity—and received, respectively, reassurance from Facebook that individual participant posts would not affect the group’s status, and favorable review from Apple allowing entry into its App Store. But in October 2025, then-Attorney General Bondi and then-Homeland Security Secretary Noem boasted about federal outreach to Facebook and Apple, which was followed by the services removing user platforms that allowed sharing information on ICE-related activity.
The court first confirmed plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the federal pressure against the online services. It held the First Amendment right to record police performing duties in public is “beyond debate” and that collection and publishing of third-party content is itself expressive and protected, so interference with those activities constitutes legal injury. And it found the plaintiffs showed those injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement, given Facebook and Apple had earlier determined plaintiffs’ content met their requirements, but changed position and removed it only after defendants contacted them, as confirmed by defendants taking credit in public statements. And the court could redress those injuries because the defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple, and the coercion continues to suppress the still-disabled Chicagoland Facebook group and still-unavailable Eyes Up app, such that court intervention “will allow Facebook and Apple to reach their own decisions regarding Plaintiff’s speech rather than be pressured by Defendants.”
The court was then able to succinctly conclude that preliminary injunctive relief lies because plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims. It explained that the First Amendment bars public officials from trying to coerce private parties into punishing or suppressing views the government disfavors—yet defendants contacted Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that they censor plaintiffs’ speech, while intimating the service providers may face prosecution if they did not comply. As the loss of First Amendment rights for even minimal periods is irreparable harm, and injunctions protecting those rights are always in the public interest, a preliminary injunction order will follow. FIRE is litigating the case.
International free speech stories of the week
Orbán’s War on Free Speech: The Receipts (The Bedrock Principle) by FIRE Senior Fellow Jacob Mchangama
Being in favor of stronger national sovereignty, against EU membership, and in favor of traditional values is a perfectly valid political position. But those who want to advance such policies should not pretend that in pursuing these ends, Orbán was a champion of free speech and open democracy.
Americans who rightly hail the First Amendment and point to arrests in the UK and Germany as vindication of US free speech exceptionalism should not be taken seriously if they simultaneously insist that Orbán was fighting for freedom.
EU age verification app ready as Europe moves to curb children’s social media access (Reuters) by Gianluca Lo Nostro
“We are moving ahead with full speed and determination on the enforcement of our European rules. We are holding accountable those online platforms that do not protect our kids enough,” von der Leyen said at a press conference in Brussels.
The app, which will be compatible with both mobile devices and computers, will require users to upload their passport or ID card to confirm their age anonymously, she said.
‘Ban her’: Conservative MP reportedly calls for musician DJ Haram to be barred from UK (EuroNews) by David Mouriquand
Kanye West postpones Marseille concert as France considers blocking him from performing (The Guardian) by Sian Cain
MP demands death penalty for insulting Prophet (PBUH) (Dhaka Tribune)
Music video of the week
I’m a huge fan of OK Go, so a “music video of the week” from them is long overdue!
Why would you link to a New York Times article behind a Pay wall? Nobody wants to go there anymore!
I value the content of this feed and the mission of FIRE, but the use of generated images sourced from tech businesses that have little interest in any of our freedoms, seems counterintuitive. My illustrations for Toni Morrison’s Beloved were scraped by Stable Diffusion in their training process for their model—the LAION 5B dataset scraped all of Pinterest. My work was shared on Pinterest without my consent. In the business of Illustration copyright is one of the ways that artists can be compensated as rates for commissioned illustration haven’t changed since the 1960’s. How do we balance the freedom of ideas but also reward the unique expression of ideas—-if copyright is broken, let’s fix it. Why not use an illustration College student to intern and help with visual problem solving instead of OpenAI.