The Current - What’s the state of free speech in America?

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

Jimmy Kimmel returned to his late night show last night after being suspended for comments he made surrounding the death of Charlie Kirk. The suspension ignited a debate about free speech in the media — but is his return a victory? We speak to Greg Lukianoff, is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Canadians love Canadian eggs. You can count on them to be fresh, local, and reliable, because for every egg, it takes a farmer. Up early, working hard, meeting Canada standards. And behind every egg farmer is supply management. A made-in-Canada system that delivers a steady supply of eggs produced right here at home. Learn more at eggfarmers.ca.com slash supply management. Brought to you by Egg Farmers of Canada.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this. Jimmy Kimmel is back. The late-night show host was emotional in his opening monologue. One week after ABC suspended his show indefinitely for comments he made in the wake of the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

That suspension followed pressure from the Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chair, Brendan Carr. And despite the return of the late-night program, Kimmel's suspension also reignited a debate about free speech in America. Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression or Fire. Greg, good morning. Good morning. How are you? I'm really well, thanks. Jimmy Kimmel said last night that a government that silences a comedian the president doesn't like is anti-American. is anti-American.

That must have been music to your ears. Oh, absolutely. I really appreciate the opening monologue, particularly drawing attention to the fact that censorship tends to backfire by making the point that by trying to shut him up, you actually ended up giving him probably the best ratings he's ever had in his life.

Were you surprised when ABC pulled the plug on his program last night? And it's ABC under the direction of Disney after, as we said, the chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr made some comments. Are you surprised by that? Not particularly. It's been a pretty rough eight months or so for free speech. The Trump administration has shown itself willing to use practically any power lever it can against its perceived enemies, whether it's law firms, higher education, or the media. And so, I mean, what's the root of that, do you think? We'll talk

more broadly about free speech. But that decision, what do you make of what Disney and ABC we're trying to do? Yeah, I think that essentially, one of the things we've seen the Trump administration do, well, first of all, he was very clear that Kimmel is next after Colbert's show was canceled. But he's been willing to dangle over the heads of these massive conglomerates, whether or not he will, or his administration, will approve their mergers, which can be life or death for some of these companies. So the, I do think that, and he's also been shown a willingness to sue and massive lawsuits. We already had one against ABC, against CBS, against the Wall Street Journal, against the New York Times. So I think he is trying to put, you know, the fear of God into these

companies, and I think that they're trying to figure out ways to stay on as good graces, which is pretty unusual in American history. And he has the support of the chair of the FCC, who last night on Kimmel was played by Robert De Niro as a mob boss, because in part, Brendan Carr said we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. Oh, absolutely. And the funny thing is about Brendan Carr is that, you know, years ago, as Kimmel pointed out, by the way, Brendan Carr said great things about freedom of speech, that the government shouldn't be the arbiter of truth. It shouldn't be censoring anybody. And of course, he's done a complete 180 on those positions he had since the Trump administration began. Have you ever seen anything, like from another U.S. President,

use their power to influence mass media on this level. He said, President Trump said last night, and truth social, I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million. This one sounds even more lucrative. Have you ever heard anything like that from an American leader? The Biden administration did a lot of things to get Google, for example, or Facebook to remove what they saw as COVID misinformation. This was during the pandemic, looking at and calling, I mean, there's stories of Biden officials calling meta, for example, and yelling, saying, take this information down.

Yeah, and clearly implying, you know, threats in this case. And I think that was totally inappropriate. But they didn't brag about it in the same way that the Trump administration is doing. So it's been funny watching conservatives actually claim that this was just a business decision by ABC while the president is basically saying, you know, I want this. I'm doing this. We'll go after Kimmel for maybe now we're going to make the argument that all of his comedy is basically an illegitimate campaign contribution. So it's interesting just how loud the administration has been about their desire to chill speech. Who's next do you think? I mean, if they go after ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, he's already, to your point, gone after the near. Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, and others. Who's next, do you think? Probably Thallon, but I do think that having a setback in the Kimmel case may actually mean that he changed his targets for a while, and we'll see. But he does particularly

hate those late-night hosts. You wrote in the New York Times, these are your words. Again and again, political actors preach the importance of free speech only to reach for the censor's muzzle when it helps their side. How would you describe the state, of free speech in America right now. Step out of the Kimmel story. How would you describe it broadly? Precarious. I would say I'm concerned about the global situation for free speech.

And I do think that America has uniquely protective First Amendment law, freedom of speech law. But we run the risk of blowing it here as well. And that gives us an idea of sort of a dark future. So I was pleased to see, just as Kimmel pointed out, that people on the, a lot of prominent people on the right came out and said, this is not right. But I hope we can come together at least on freedom of speech, if not, hopefully at some point, more. Do you see this as, I mean, we're talking about the Trump administration. Do you see this as an issue coming from the right, coming from the left, or is this a bipartisan issue?

Oh, it's absolutely been. I've been doing this for 25 years. And censorship is absolutely bipartisan thing. But it has been getting worse over the past 10 years. I wrote a book called Coddling of the American Mind, another one called canceling in the American mind, another one from freedom from speech. And in all of those, by the way, I've always taken on both left and right. But the intensity of the attacks and the sort of forthrightness of the attacks has reached a new level in the past eight months. Why is it worse now? Is it just because of Trump?

It is primarily because of the Trump administration. That definitely a lot of the stuff we used to see on campuses were unacceptable. And I understand Trump supporters being mad that those issues didn't get. enough attention previously in the past. But the answer is not, you know, for example, demanding that Harvard essentially be a federalized institution, which was, you know, unlike anything I'd seen in my career. You mentioned the book that you co-wrote with Jonathan Haidt, Coddling of the American Mind. This was in part about what happens on campuses, saying that things like trigger warnings and the idea of safe spaces and protests against controversial speakers, that those are

are, well, I mean, how would you phrase that? I mean, I was going to say that it limits the ability of students to learn in the broadest way possible. But how would you frame that? Well, the original article came out actually 10 years ago this month. And one of the things that we always have to point out is, by the way, I'm not a fan of the title. I've never been a fan of the title. We were trying to make, you know, three major points. We are teaching unintentionally with the best of intentions.

We are teaching young people the mental habits of anxious and depressed people, like catastrophizing for example. So we shouldn't be surprised that their mental health declines. And it did. It declined massively. Way worse than Hyden, I thought it would. We also said that this kind of way of thinking is going to be a disaster for academic freedom and free speech on campus, which it absolutely was. I mean, the numbers from 2014 for professors losing their jobs is just off the charts. But the third thing we said was it will probably promote a right-wing backlash, which unfortunately has also, come true. So it's one of these things where it was a popular book, but I kind of wish people took its advice more seriously, because I think that we're doing something cruel to young

people in the way that I think we're miseducating them. Canadians love Canadian eggs. You can count on them to be fresh, local, and reliable, because for every egg, it takes a farmer. Up early, working hard, meeting Canada standards. And behind every egg farmer is supply management. A made-in-canada system that delivers a steady supply of eggs produced right here at home. Learn more at eggfarmers.ca.ca. Brought to you by Egg Farmers of Canada. This message comes from Viking, committed to exploring the world in comfort.

Journey through the heart of Europe on a Viking long ship, with thoughtful service, destination-focused dining, and cultural environment. enrichment, on board, and on shore. With a variety of voyages and sailing dates to choose from, now is the time to explore Europe's waterways. Learn more at viking.com. How much has that changed? You put out a report earlier this month looking at free speech on campus through your organization. You surveyed nearly 70,000 students, roughly 34% of them, say using violence to stop campus speech can be acceptable in some circumstances, roughly

70 to 72 percent say the same about shouting down speakers. So how much has that changed? It's actually unfortunately gotten worse for student attitudes. One thing that should make no one happy is we've got greater parity among the different sides of the political fence. But what they agree now on is it used to be much more left-wing students, like far-left students who were, who found violence in response to speech at some level acceptable. And now the right-leaning students have actually caught up to them, which is, which portends poorly for the future. You say, again, in that New York Times piece, that the weapon you reach for today will be used against you tomorrow. Is that how this, this plays out? I mean, it's like mutually shared

destruction in some ways. It always has been historically, it is almost the civil libertarian, it's tired of being right about this kind of stuff, is that the weapon you think you're developing, or actually the tool that you think is helpful but can go after really bad speech is going to be used against you in the future. And what we want to avoid as people defend freedom of speech is not that each side gets their turn on the seesaw of power to censor their other side. The goal of the First Amendment was to get off the seesaw in the first place. There is a term that is thrown around called free speech absolutist. You call yourself an opinion absolutist? What's the difference between the two? So free speech absolutism is basically

the idea that anything you do with words should be protected. So there would be no threats. So threats would be protected speech, for example, defamation would be protected speech. I don't believe any of that should be protected. I think American First Amendment law gets it right on the exceptions to freedom of speech. Where's that

line? How do you draw that line? It depends on the exception. That would actually take a while to explain. So defamation is, the clearest case of defamation is when you lie about someone having committed a crime, for example. When it comes to incite That's a situation where, you know, where, you know, everyone's got their torches out and you're saying, let's go burn down the mayor's office.

When it comes to, when it comes to threats, you know, that is like saying, I know where you live and I'm going to kill you. All of, like a lot of these exceptions, what they have in common is generally they look more like just incidental uses of words to do actions. But when it comes to opinions, when it comes to the heart of free speech, it's your right to think what you will and say what you think. And I make the point over and over again that I think we've fallen into a trap of saying to ourselves, oh, but that opinion is bad or that opinion is harmful or that opinion is dangerous. And I'm like, yes, and all the more reason to know that someone has that opinion or for that matter to know they don't have that opinion. So I come at free speech from, to use an overly fancy word, epistemological standpoint. Do you think that people conflate the two, that people blur the line between being an opinion absolutist and a free speech? absolutely just and it speaks again you used a couple of words one is dangerous and one is

I mean just the idea that some words or some some some thoughts can be dangerous yeah I think they do I think the rhetoric oftentimes I mean it's kind of like the constant call that speech that I don't like or speech that I find uh in some cases hateful or bigoted is like shouting fire in a crowded theater um and meanwhile you know first amendment people's heads practically explode would you use that because because it's basically a bad analogy from a overturned case that no longer even applies. But the thing I really want people to understand is you are not safer for knowing less about what people really think. And I want people to put on their anthropologist hats, their scientist hats,

to try to understand their fellow citizens better. And the only way you can do that is if they're actually telling you, they're actually engaging in candor with you. If they're pretending to believe things they don't, that's not good for a democracy. Do you think there is an opportunity if the left is angry now that the right is going after people like Jimmy Kimmel and that the right was angry that some members perhaps the left were upset about certain people speaking on campus, for example? Is there an opportunity to bring those two sides together on this issue? I mean, that might be faint hope in a polarized time, but do you see that possibility?

I surely hope so. And it has been nice seeing some people, you know, raise their hands and say, enough is enough on either side. So I do think there is a chance that particularly when free speech gets threatened, people tend to appreciate it more. I do wish that it didn't take people's own free speech feeling under threat for them to appreciate it. But, you know, I'll take it if that's all I can get. You wrote a piece just finally in the FP that said, free speech is not merely a favor for our friends. it is the best non-violent technology humans have for solving our conflicts. Do you really believe that?

Oh, absolutely. I think freedom of speech is – sometimes people criticize free speech for occasionally being harsh, but I say what it's historically replacing is the use of violence or the threat of violence to settle our disputes. So we should always be thankful that we have this alternative to the traditional way of resolving disputes. But we also shouldn't be surprised that because it's – it's about oftentimes life or death issues that sometimes, sure, it's heated, but you would expect that in a generally free society when we're making such important decisions.

And so the last point, if that is actually, that idea is under threat from the highest office in your nation, what do you think is at stake? What do you most worry about? You know, I don't know where this ends. And I say that genuinely, you know, like the, I would say that Donald Trump has played havoc with my ability to predict the future. I hope that the American public, that even people to support Trump will say enough is enough. We're not going to let you, you know, attack freedom of speech. Do you have any evidence that that's going to happen? There has been some nice things, you know, like as Kimmel said, having Ted Cruz come out and say, this goes too far, Ben Shapiro. So I have, I do have some hope.

And there usually is sort of a honeymoon period for presidents of maybe like the first 100 days or six months. Once you get beyond that, the possibility of people actually saying, disagreeing, you know, with their side becomes more real. But will that necessarily happen? I wish I could say I know, but I don't. Greg, good to speak with you. Thank you very much. Take care. Greg Luchinoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression or Fire. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca.