Yours truly @TED2025, VICTORY @UW, & more!

Bringing you the latest free speech news (4/13/25)

Stories of the week

• On Wednesday, I delivered my first-ever TED Talk at TED2025 in Vancouver on why so many young people have given up on free speech and how to win them back. After months of seemingly endless writing, rewriting, and rehearsing, I’m very happy with how it turned out! (Many thanks to

  Bob Ewing
  , Kim Hemsley,
  Maryrose Ewing
  , and
  Perry Fein
  for helping me prepare. Couldn’t have done it without them!) We’re not yet sure when the full talk will be available online, but we’ll keep you posted!

Photo by Gilberto Tadday / TED

This week in FIRE’s blog

• FIRE welcomes Allison Hayward to board of directors

• University of Wisconsin academic freedom panel back on after effort to disinvite speaker by

  Graham Piro

While the University of Wisconsin system does exercise some authority over WICCD’s activities, it should wield that authority in ways that maximize the atmosphere for academic freedom for its faculty and may not do so in ways that compromise that freedom. By demanding Buff’s disinvitation because of her political speech, UW sends a deeply chilling message to WICCD’s leadership and to UW faculty as a whole.

• UConn Med now lets students opt out of DEI pledge of allegiance by

  Ross Marchand

Public institutions have every right to try to address any bias that might impact medical education. But forcing med students to pledge themselves to DEI — or any other political ideology — is First Amendment malpractice. They have no more right to do so than they do to force students to pledge allegiance to a political figure, or to the American flag.

This week on

So to Speak

• This week on

  So to Speak
  host & FIRE EVP
  Nico Perrino
  is joined by FIRE Senior Scholar of Global Expression
  Sarah McLaughlin
  as well as FIRE Senior Fellows
  James Kirchick
  &
  Jacob Mchangama
  to ask the question, “Is there a global free speech recession?”

FIRE in the press!

• A Free Speech Fight in Maine (Persuasion) by

  JT Morris

True freedom means government and legislative bodies don’t get to strong-arm people into silence or conformity. That protects Laurel Libby’s right to criticize transgender athletes without losing her voice on the Maine House floor, just as it protected Julian Bond’s right to object to the Vietnam war without facing banishment from the Georgia House. It protects students’ right to hold drag performances at public universities. And it protects the right of all Americans to criticize the White House no matter which party is in charge.

• It starts by silencing the free speech of foreign students like Rümeysa Öztürk. It won’t end there (The Boston Globe) by

  Sarah McLaughlin

Right now, two students, one from abroad and one a citizen, could express the same exact message on campus, but one could be whisked away because he is on a visa. If we create two classes in higher education — citizens who are free to speak and immigrants who are not — we will have an echo of freedom, a pale impression of the values we as a country claim to espouse.

London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup

• Associated Press v. Budowich

A federal court found that by excluding the Associated Press from White House press access solely because it refused to adopt the President’s preferred terminology, the government engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

The federal district court in D.C. preliminarily enjoined the White House’s viewpoint discrimination against the AP for not adopting the President’s nomenclature for the body of water bordered by the U.S., Mexico and Cuba. Specifically, the AP claimed, and the court found, that the government singled it out over refusal to update its Stylebook to reference the “Gulf of America” by excluding the AP from White House Oval Office availabilities, its Briefing Room, Air Force One, and other limited spaces. The court made clear the White House has no obligation to open its doors to the press and can use reasonable criteria to determine access in limited spaces. But once it does allow access, the court held, constitutional obligations follow, including the First Amendment’s bar against viewpoint discrimination. While access may be highly limited in how many may enter these spaces and for what purposes, that still makes them “forums” for First Amendment purposes, even if they’re nonpublic forum. “So while the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint,” which the court agreed the government had been “brazenly” doing. As the court ultimately held, the AP “presented evidence that the government has discriminated against it based on its viewpoint, a claim the Government all but concedes” so AP is “likely to succeed on its claim that its exclusion from eligibility to access … violates its First Amendment rights.” Bottom line: “The AP seeks restored eligibility for admission to the press pool and limited-access press events, untainted by an impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion. That is all the Court orders today: For the Government to put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets, despite the AP’s use of disfavored terminology. ”

International free speech stories of the week

• Editor of German far-right outlet receives suspended sentence in freedom of speech case (Euronews) by Liv Stroud

• Quran-burning charge evokes “blasphemy” offence, legal expert says (National Secular Society)

• Modi’s India Is a Dangerous Place for Standup Comedians (The Diplomat) by Kavita Chowdhury

• Article 23 security law: Hong Kong man jailed for 1 year over publishing 145 seditious comments online (HKFP) by Hans Tse

Interview of the week

• So thrilled to see my episode of ‘The Last Meal with Tom Nash’ out in the wild. Tom is a phenomenal interviewer and just an all-around great guy. Enjoy!