Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh analyze the US Supreme Court’s new Chiles v. Salazar decision, which struck down (by an 8-1 vote) a law banning sexual orientation/gender identity conversion therapy, including therapy that consists entirely of speech.

The Court held that the First Amendment protects professional-client speech, including counselors’ use of conversion therapy with minor patients when that therapy consists solely of speech. In the process, the 8-justice majority rejected the state’s argument that such speech can be regulated as “speech integrally related to unlawful conduct” – and in the process, cited Volokh’s discussion of the speech integral to unlawful conduct exception in a friend-of-the-court brief that he filed.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

Is the FCC about to revive a broad reading of the Equal Time Rule—and should broadcast TV still get “special” First Amendment treatment in 2026?

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer are joined by Duke Law professor Stuart Benjamin to discuss the constitutional backstory behind the federal broadcasting Equal Time Rule and why broadcast media has long been treated differently from newspapers, cable, and the internet. From Red Lion to the collapse of the Fairness Doctrine and beyond, the panel explains how we ended up with a broadcast-only regulatory regime—and why that consensus may now be unraveling.

They also dig into the latest controversy involving political candidates appearing on shows like The View and late-night television, the FCC’s renewed scrutiny, and what it all could mean for the future of media regulation. Would today’s Supreme Court uphold broadcast exceptionalism? Or is this doctrine headed the way of the eight-track tape?

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

When can a public university punish a student for speech that includes violent references, and that frightens some people, but is not a clear threat? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer unpack two recent court cases, one that upholds such punishment and another that says it violates the First Amendment: Damsky v. University of Florida and Christensen v. Ohio State University. Volokh and Bambauer explore how courts are applying the “substantial disruption” standard from Tinker v. Des Moines, and why speech by public university students that alludes in an ambiguous way to violence creates hard First Amendment questions.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer are joined by press freedom advocate Seth Stern to dissect the federal prosecution of journalist Don Lemon. At issue is whether covering—and allegedly accompanying—a disruptive protest inside a church can make a journalist liable for criminal conspiracy under federal laws that ban disruption of worship services. The conversation probes the uneasy boundary between reporting and participation, the limits of First Amendment protection for journalists, and the use of conspiracy claims by prosecutors. Is this a necessary enforcement of neutral criminal law—or a chilling signal that simply documenting controversial events can land reporters in the dock? How this case is resolved may shape the future of press freedom, and of law enforcement, far beyond Don Lemon himself.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

What kind of year was 2025 for free speech? In this special year-in-review episode of Free Speech Unmuted, hosts Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer break down the biggest legal and political fights shaping speech in America right now. From the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision upholding the TikTok divestment law to a pending case that could redefine how much protection professional “talk therapy” gets under the First Amendment, the hosts explain what has happened—and why it matters.

The conversation also covers the Court’s ruling allowing age-verification requirements for online pornography, which dealt with tough questions about protecting kids, adult privacy, and free expression on the internet. Beyond the courts, Volokh and Bambauer examine Trump-administration actions involving law firms, universities, and the media, including federal funding threats, alleged retaliation against certain viewpoints, and the FCC’s response to controversial late-night TV commentary. The episode wraps up with a look at when controversial political speech can get employees fired—and when the Constitution or state law steps in to protect them.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

Can the government regulate social media features because they are “addictive”? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer talk with Emory Law professor Matthew Lawrence about whether features like infinite scroll, personalized feeds, “near-miss” reward patterns, and dopamine-driven engagement tactics are comparable to gambling or even drug addiction — and whether that means the government can step in. The conversation digs into current lawsuits, whether there’s a constitutionally significant difference between content and design, how addiction is defined in law and neuroscience, and what First Amendment limits exist when regulating digital platforms. A smart, fast-moving discussion for anyone curious about the future of free speech, tech regulation, and the psychology behind our screens.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

What happens when 1970s defamation law collides with the Internet, social media, and AI? University of Florida Law School legal scholar Lyrissa Lidsky — who is also a co-reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) of Torts: Defamation and Privacy — explains how the law of libel and slander is being rewritten for the digital age. Lyrissa, Jane, and Eugene discuss why the old line between libel and slander no longer makes sense; how Section 230 upended defamation doctrine; the future of New York Times v. Sullivan and related First Amendment doctrines; Large Libel Models (when Large Language Models meet libel law); and more.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, joins Free Speech Unmuted to discuss his new book Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites. Ilya, Jane, and Eugene discuss the state of American law schools, why many students fear open discussion, and what can be done to improve things.

Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today’s proverbial town square.