Free speech luminaries talk censorship, civil rights, and social media at National First Amendment Summit

In partnership with FIRE, First Amendment Watch, PEN America, Freedom Forum, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia brought together an A-list roster of institutional leaders, historians, and legal minds Wednesday evening for the National First Amendment Summit. On the stage overlooking Independence Hall, they took part in a wide-ranging discussion of the First Amendment and the unique challenges facing free expression in America today.

The event featured FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley and FIRE Senior Fellows Nadine Strossen and Jacob Mchangama, among other leading free speech advocates and scholars, and opened with a keynote interview with author Salman Rushdie. 

Setting the tone for the evening, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel interviewed Rushdie, who appeared remotely. The lifelong free speech advocate received a standing ovation both before and after his remarks, in which he noted what he believes are the biggest threats to free speech today: authoritarianism, populism, and the erosion of a shared belief in education and truth. Rushdie also underscored the need to persuade young people that First Amendment values are worth fighting for, closing with a prescient message: “It’s too easy to define yourself by what outrages you. It’s necessary for us to understand that you have to allow the speech of those you don’t like.” This message would reverberate through the rest of the night’s conversations. 

The first panel, moderated by National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen, centered around the origins of free speech. Mchangama, author of “Free Speech: A History,” traced the idea of free speech back to ancient Athens and Rome. Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar and New York University journalism professor Stephen Solomon then explained how the American founders carried the concept forward, making the right to criticize the government fundamental to what it means to be an American — a fact that remains true to this day. Fast-forwarding to the present, Amar examined how the spirit of the First Amendment can guide us toward a better culture. 

“There’s not just a freedom of speech. There’s a duty to listen,” he said. “No law can enforce this. This has to come from within.”

The second panel, “The First Amendment in the Courts,” continued to address contemporary issues, this time focusing on First Amendment cases related to social media regulation and moderation. 

“I think that First Amendment doctrine needs to be responsive to technological change,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, on the other hand, advocated “applying principles which have made us the most free” to modern dilemmas.

Continuing the second panel, University of Florida law professor Lyrissa Lidsky turned her attention to how her students perceive free speech issues. “They see a big tension between liberty and equality,” she said. “The younger generation sees emotional harm as a threat to their very safety in a way that might justify speech regulations.” Convincing young people that First Amendment principles are worth upholding, she believes, will require reminding them that history shows that the impulse to silence speech with which we disagree “always ends badly.” 

The importance of persuading the next generation that free speech matters was a common theme throughout the night. In the third and final panel discussion, “The First Amendment on Campus and Online,” FIRE’s legal director, Will Creeley, recounted a case in which a high school student’s First Amendment right to post a profanity-laced criticism of her school to Snapchat while off-campus with a friend was vindicated on free speech grounds. By sharing stories like this, Creeley argues, we can show young people that the First Amendment not only protects people with views they may find abhorrent, but also protects people like them. 

To those who see a tension between free speech and equality, Creeley likewise suggests exploring cases like Gay and Lesbian Students Association v. Gohn, a 1987 case involving a gay rights-focused student group that wished to screen a documentary about Stonewall. Despite facing opposition on campus and elsewhere, the student group emerged victorious, because, in Creeley’s words, “The First Amendment had their back.”

Strossen and Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard University law professor, closed out the final panel by picking up the thread of free speech and the perceived emotional harm of challenging ideas. 

“We have to cultivate resiliency and self-confidence and the ability not to let people undermine our own sense of dignity and self-confidence through words,” said Strossen. Referencing disturbing findings from FIRE’s latest College Free Speech Rankings, she said that for many students, the college experience is unfortunately rife with self-censorship instead of the freedom to speak, listen, and learn. 

Murky as the solutions to these challenges may be, the First Amendment Summit left audiences with a sense of hope, exemplifying the continued clarifying power of candid conversation. 

Suk-Gersen acknowledged that FIRE had ranked her employer, Harvard University last in the rankings, while referencing that this had launched debate over FIRE’s methodology among faculty. Nevertheless, she recounted challenges to free speech from her students. Even the phrase “both sides,” has become conservative-coded and will alienate some students, she said. “Yet our job as legal educators is to teach students to argue at least two sides of an issue.” 

While the many thorny issues addressed by the panelists could not be resolved over the course of one night, their discussion illuminated important areas of tension between free speech, new technology, diversity, and emotional comfort — and suggested paths forward. Notably, it spotlighted the existential challenge of teaching timeless First Amendment principles to a digital generation far removed from the American founding. 

Murky as the solutions to these challenges may be, the First Amendment Summit left audiences with a sense of hope, exemplifying the continued clarifying power of candid conversation.