Defending Free Speech: Professor Tara Smith on the First Amendment and Intellectual Freedom

Join us for an enlightening conversation with Professor Tara Smith, a University of Texas philosopher and an expert on Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, as we delve deep into the First Amendment and the imperative of intellectual freedom.

You can buy Tara's book, which includes essays and contributions by Onkar Ghate, Greg Salmieri, and Elan. Journo https://a.co/d/hG4VZqK

Tara Smith is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. Specializing in moral, legal, and political philosophy, she is a prominent scholar on Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Her latest book, The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom, explores the critical importance of free speech and intellectual freedom in today’s society.

Transcript

00:00:00:00 - 00:00:23:15
Unknown
Welcome to my studio. Great to be here, Professor Tara Smith. Thanks for being here to talk about your latest book, among other issues. The First Amendment Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom. And, I'm really excited about this. We've we've had one little video together before, and I had a great time, you know, interviewing you there in front of an audience.

00:00:23:17 - 00:00:52:03
Unknown
I thought it'd be great to sit down and have a more in-depth conversation about, this issue, the First Amendment in particular, among other issues, or among other related issues that you're dealing with in First Amendment. And, you know, actually, I was going to start a certain way, but I just occurred to me, I was I don't 100% know how you got into like, why First Amendment specifically is there now?

00:00:52:06 - 00:01:10:18
Unknown
You mean First Amendment as opposed to something else? Yeah. As opposed to because you're interested. I mean, here's a few of your books, not all of your books. But you're interested in moral rights broadly. Yeah. Yeah. When I Google you, it's as American philosopher. It's I love that. Yeah. Well, so I've long been interested in political philosophy.

00:01:10:19 - 00:01:25:17
Unknown
My dissertation, you know, I was a graduate student, was in, political philosophy. The issue of rights. And then I gravitated more and was doing a lot more and moral philosophy. At any rate, it's gone back and forth a little bit in terms of where the focus is for a given period in my work.

00:01:25:17 - 00:01:28:08
Unknown
You know, the dominant work for a long time was on legal philosophy.

00:01:28:08 - 00:01:48:05
Unknown
But even while I was teaching a variety of other things, not on the First Amendment or free speech, I was very interested in free speech. I mean, I just, so this goes back 15 to 20 years, before the kind of in the last ten years, I think the world and America has paid a lot more attention to free speech.

00:01:48:05 - 00:02:08:21
Unknown
But going back about 20 years like this is really important. We have to pay attention to this. So I started some programs for students, at UT, an essay contest, a series of free speech dialogs where I had and speakers from different fields like journalism or a law professor or a think tank and different points of view on an issue.

00:02:08:21 - 00:02:32:03
Unknown
And anyway, I was doing a lot, but it was I wasn't teaching a class on free speech, and I wasn't writing on free speech, but I was keeping alive kind of student interest and good ideas. And then from that, I thought I had to put so much work into those dialogs. In preparing to be a good moderator for those, because the the format was such that I was asking a lot of the questions I had, I was really asking the questions.

00:02:32:04 - 00:02:49:20
Unknown
I had to do a lot of research to figure out the best people to invite. My point is, I was doing so much damn work on that. I thought, I want to teach a course on this, you know, get some more money's worth. Out of all the work I had invested. And then from teaching the course, as often happens, you think, well, I want to clear up this issue in writing.

00:02:49:20 - 00:03:15:10
Unknown
You know, I want to write an essay on this because this this seems like something I can clear up, you know, readily you think, and then it's always more complicated. But anyway, that's kind of how I came to end up writing a few articles on free speech. I mean, there's another story to tell about how I ended up also writing these articles on religious freedom and how I got interested in that, that really grew out of my my work on judicial interpretation.

00:03:15:10 - 00:03:32:18
Unknown
But we can get back to that if you want. I don't want to go on too long about this. Oh, sure. That's nice I appreciate it. Yeah. Because the reason some of the things I'm thinking about is I in prepping for this, I watched some of the interviews you've done on this book. I've read the book. I've started taking a course on The Great Courses,

00:03:32:18 - 00:03:35:12
Unknown
just to kind of learn a little bit more about First Amendment.

00:03:35:14 - 00:03:58:22
Unknown
And it really made me think about my lack of understanding of this issue as a non you know, I'm a non academic scholar and just, you know, I went to college and that's about it. And I try to read some books here and there and I I think there's a lot of people like me. And one of the things I'm learning and I hope this is for, you know, an educated people who want to be informed is,

00:03:59:15 - 00:04:21:07
Unknown
I had basically two understandings of free speech before being presented with some of your work and, getting interact, interacting with Objectivism and one and first First Amendment. I put under the same category to me that they were equivalent. Right. And that was it for a lot of people. But that's it. Many people. Yeah. Exactly. And it amounted to two broad feelings.

00:04:21:07 - 00:04:37:07
Unknown
And I put it like this is that I and other Americans can say whatever we want. That's basically it. Right. That's the amount and extent to And I understand there's more to it than that. Right. So I beg your indulgence for those of you who are like, that's that's what it is, I think that, it's a sensible thing.

00:04:37:07 - 00:04:57:14
Unknown
I mean, as a sort of first pass and as what a lot of people think, like, you get to say whatever you want. I mean, if we can fill in the nuances and the qualifications there, but that that does get to the heart of things. So go ahead. Go ahead. No, I yeah, that's that's true. And then the second one is that the this is literally taught to me in K-through-12 school.

00:04:57:14 - 00:05:14:20
Unknown
Is that the exception to that is we can think of it categorically as the you can't yell fire in a, in a crowded theater that that stupid theater. Yeah, yeah. We'll we'll go there. Yeah. And I did want to mention how, you know, again, researching for this, I saw Tim Waltz, and I don't know if you saw this right in here.

00:05:14:20 - 00:05:36:03
Unknown
I think I heard a clip of it. Yeah. So he in an AR in a debate with JD Vance during the election. He this is the quote he's referring to the the, storming of the Capitol January 6th. He said, quote, to Vance, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's the test. That's the Supreme Court test.

00:05:36:05 - 00:06:08:18
Unknown
And no, it's not. It's my understanding of that right now. I didn't want to debate that. My whole point is that I think it's representative of a lot of citizens view. Right. That's the extent of the First Amendment. Right. In my opinion. Yeah. And that's why I wanted to frame our conversation. It's like I want to reach Kirk and people who are interested in that before this, about why this is so important, how much there is involved in this issue and what threatens it, and what ideas might, you know, encroach on it.

00:06:08:20 - 00:06:26:08
Unknown
And, you know, we don't want to lose that value and why we don't want to lose, that value. So I think of it as almost as a civic duty, as close to that as possible to learn more about. Yeah. Well, with all of our rights, if we don't really know what they mean, like, if we've got a, you know, we've got a gut instinct about them.

00:06:26:08 - 00:06:44:05
Unknown
And a lot of Americans do a very fierce gut instinct and emotional attachment to them. But if it's just that, yeah, if we don't know what it is, what it means, what it doesn't mean, why it makes sense, why it really is. Yes. You are entitled to say whatever you like as long as you're not infringing on others rights.

00:06:44:05 - 00:07:03:12
Unknown
Right? If you don't understand why that makes sense, you're not going to be in a very good position to defend it. And that's why exactly like we are so losing, I think first First Amendment freedoms in general, the whole intellectual freedom. And the subtitle of the book is essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom. We've been losing that.

00:07:03:14 - 00:07:24:01
Unknown
And part of the reason why is people don't understand that. They don't bother to try to understand it, so they accept encroachments on it as, oh, yeah, well, I guess you need that. I guess you need a balance. I guess you need a compromise because they have a misguided understanding of what it is in the first place. I mean, again, we can go into some of that if you want, but yeah, I know that.

00:07:24:01 - 00:07:40:23
Unknown
I mean, that is the the view. That's the framing of it because I agree with that feeling. Like to me, it led to a kind of apathy and, you know, civic duty, like it's not a duty. Oh, I have a civic duty. Like, oh, this is what I have to pay for my right to vote. Like, do you want freedom?

00:07:40:23 - 00:08:01:12
Unknown
Do you want to be able to lead your life as you like? Do you think you're entitled? Well, think about why you're entitled, not just. And again, I think so much of unfortunately, I just think there's a lot of emotion about the First Amendment. And many, many Americans feel a righteous, you know, possessiveness about it. But that's the level of understanding.

00:08:01:12 - 00:08:18:07
Unknown
And again, that's not going to be sustainable when you when you I mean, the rights are not going to be sustainable if it just stands on my strong emotions because then when you have other people with strong emotions, oh no, we've got to, oh, we have strong emotions about how hateful what he said was. Or how, you know, incendiary.

00:08:18:07 - 00:08:37:09
Unknown
What she said was that we're just going to have these fights of you know, gut guts and emotions and so on. And that's not, that's not going to leave anybody free to lead his life. Say what he wants, publish what he wants. Again, as long as he's not infringing on anybody else's rights. I mean, that freedom is going to be gone.

00:08:37:09 - 00:08:59:00
Unknown
And that's what we're I mean, increasingly, we're seeing from left and right alike proposals to, you know, limit, you know, quote unquote, you know, limit the First Amendment a little bit, put it within its boundaries. You know, we can have these extremes of hate speech. And so, I mean, we we've been getting this for the proposals, been in Congress for years.

00:08:59:02 - 00:09:16:22
Unknown
Yeah. And we won't notice it as Americans until it's, you know, so far gone that it's gone, which is why we should learn more about it. Yeah. And so yeah, I agree with like it's such an important thing. And, you know, when you were talking, it made me think of, this idea that I had about the American sense of life.

00:09:17:00 - 00:09:38:20
Unknown
And it seems like so many of us Americans do leave it there. And I think we do, you know, pro-American is it's a great sense of life in a lot of ways. Yeah. You know, like you said, it's an emotional connection. It's like, yeah, no, I get, you know, the one way I think about it is like teenagers, I don't I wonder if they do this in other, like in, in more oppressive cultures, like teenagers here.

00:09:38:20 - 00:09:53:22
Unknown
Like, I got to express myself, like, it's really important, too. It's like, think it's, And that's a, it's it's I mean, the feeling is fine, but the feeling isn't the basis for it, and the feeling isn't the argument for it and the understanding of why it's so crucial. I mean, so let's get maybe get to some of that.

00:09:53:22 - 00:09:59:22
Unknown
The First Amendment protects intellectual freedom of all sorts of exercises of

00:09:59:23 - 00:10:16:03
Unknown
intellectual freedom. And even though, as you said, many of us just think First Amendment free speech. And then when somebody brings up, oh, yeah, but it says something about freedom of the press doesn't. Oh yeah. That's sort of like, oh yeah, yeah, I've heard of that, you know, or it says something about, you know, freedom of religion.

00:10:16:03 - 00:10:26:22
Unknown
Oh yeah. Freedom of religion. That's important too. But we have this very many, many, at least of us. Yes. I'm hazy impression of the First Amendment, mostly associated with free speech.

00:10:26:22 - 00:10:33:15
Unknown
it's. But the amendment is about intellectual freedom. That is what unites concern with religion.

00:10:33:15 - 00:10:50:04
Unknown
For instance, you think there's this kind of God, God bless you. Go for it. You know, pray to that kind of God. Eat what that kind of God wants, follow that kind of got, you know, your beliefs as long as you're not forcing anybody else to do that, as long as you're not beating the hell out of your kids because you have these religious convictions, okay?

00:10:50:04 - 00:11:14:18
Unknown
You're not Manipur, you know, mutilating women because of your religious right. If you keep it to yourself. So you're not forcing it on anybody. I believe whatever you want to believe. Believe in Objectivism, believe in Buddhism, whatever you want to be. Okay. It's an intellectual matter. Publish, publish podcasts, write papers, blogs, Substack thing, whatever you want, like whatever you want.

00:11:14:20 - 00:11:34:13
Unknown
People can agree or disagree. Listen or not listen. Right. So freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech about all sorts of matters. What you want to sell me that you. Why you want to be the next governor of the state of Texas or what have you? We should be able to assemble. We should be able to again, this is another, you know, few more elements in the First Amendment.

00:11:34:13 - 00:11:55:14
Unknown
When you look at the text petition assembly, we should be able to petition the government to say, no, no, we think you got it wrong here, or we think this is an injustice what you're doing here. And we get to talk to you about this and express our ways. We get to assemble to do that because, yeah, back in the day, you had to physically assemble to get.

00:11:55:19 - 00:12:20:02
Unknown
You couldn't just have an online petition, for instance, right? You couldn't have a call in campaign where everybody from home, you know, with the old fashioned telephones, would call their congressmen, you know, you needed to assemble in order to express a point of view about, you know, some political issue and so on. And anyway, the point is, all of these are forms or expressions of your freedom to think and to think what you want to like, think.

00:12:20:02 - 00:12:43:12
Unknown
You might think rationally. You might think irrationally. You know, many people, somewhat rational, somewhat irrational and different issues. But it's the freedom to think is crucial because we human beings, we live on ideas. That's why we're here. That's where we're comfortably here in Maynard Texas today. That's why we have all this technology that can record us and be projected out there in the world.

00:12:43:13 - 00:13:12:09
Unknown
I mean, I think the major theme obviously, and on Rand's philosophy, reason, our mind is our motor. It is what enables us to figure out our needs and meet our needs and create, you know, everything that we do create to bring these great lives to ourselves. We live on ideas. We need freedom of thought so that we can generate true ideas, valid ideas, usable ideas.

00:13:12:09 - 00:13:31:00
Unknown
You know, the kinds of ideas that can motor our lives. Our mind is as I put it in some places, your mind is your meal ticket, right? But you can only cash in on that when you're free to use your mind to listen to what Kirk has to say, what this author has to say, or that speaker, and to assess it for yourself.

00:13:31:00 - 00:13:53:22
Unknown
So you need that kind of intellectual freedom so that you can use reason in the fruitful way that you can. It's no mistake that it was enlightenment figures, right? In, in the founding of our country and the drafting of our Constitution, who were yeah, they were fans of reason, you know, and it's no mistake that they were fans of do your own reasoning.

00:13:53:22 - 00:14:11:07
Unknown
Yeah, yeah. And I wanted to, so I want to get to some of the specific articles actually, and bring up some important issues before we get there, because we're talking about this. And I want to, you know, again, for most of us have heard this amendment, I actually want to read the amendment, okay. So we actually have it there as part of it.

00:14:11:09 - 00:14:38:09
Unknown
So if this is the first time you've heard in a long time, there we go. We should have this is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

00:14:38:11 - 00:14:52:00
Unknown
And then the last thing I'd like to do real quick is just some broad misconception. So I think one misconception, that we don't have to dig into each one of these things, but and then I want to get into like religious freedom and the intellectual that you were.

00:14:52:00 - 00:15:00:12
Unknown
So one I think tell me if you think that's a misconception, but I think it is. But the First Amendment protects all forms of speech without exception.

00:15:00:12 - 00:15:07:07
Unknown
It's a little complicated. Not all forms of speech, without exception. All forms of free speech, without exception.

00:15:07:07 - 00:15:29:01
Unknown
Here we go. Notice that the amendments right. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say abridging speech. Exactly. Yeah. There are utterances, things you can say and that can be heard. Right. There are utterances there, speech that would violate others rights. You have no freedom to do that. But that here's what I think is,

00:15:29:01 - 00:15:35:17
Unknown
the mistake in there, people think I you see, that's an exception, the fact that there are boundaries around what you may say.

00:15:35:18 - 00:16:01:03
Unknown
So to many people take as an exception to freedom of speech. And then they, they quickly go on to say, so you see free speech is not an absolute. Whereas I think that the fact is free speech. You talk about freedom of speech. Yeah. No one I'll, I'll go back to that. Right. Freedom of speech is an absolute but it has boundaries namely your rights or the next guy's rights.

00:16:01:03 - 00:16:20:14
Unknown
But the fact that there are boundaries around the freedom doesn't mean my freedom is a farce or a canard. I mean, one thing I liken it to is property boundaries. My backyard goes up to Steve's backyard and goes up to Jimmy's backyard. The fact that, well, there are boundaries doesn't mean, oh well, his property is an exception to my property.

00:16:20:14 - 00:16:48:09
Unknown
Yeah, my my right. Right. It's not incursions like you see, I don't really have. I have the right to my my property is mine. It's bounded. Right at any rate. So yeah. But but we even with that analogy, there are limits. I can't build a nuclear silo in my if it's going to infringe on his right. Exactly. But but the limits are set by each other by and that sort of underneath that is I'm not using force against you.

00:16:48:11 - 00:17:18:16
Unknown
I have the freedom to do what up? To do whatever I want, including to say whatever I want and publish and pray whatever I want, right up to the point of your freedom. So I may not be initiating force against you, but as long as I'm not doing that now, if some of what I do on my property does infringe on your freedom and your right, if oh well, it's, you know, the feet of the tree or something, you know, but if it's doing something that's genuinely infringing on you, like sending all this pollution that you can't escape into your property.

00:17:18:18 - 00:17:38:00
Unknown
Yeah, that's an infringement of your rights. I don't have a freedom to do that. I never had that freedom in the first place. So it is no impingement or narrowing of my freedom or exception to my freedom to say my freedom, like anybody's freedom is the freedom to do what I want, as long as I'm not using force against anybody else.

00:17:38:00 - 00:17:59:07
Unknown
So just just a couple more real quick ones. So the First Amendment only applies to government actions I think is a misconception. Well, it depends on what you mean. They're actually. Okay. The First Amendment is about government. All of the amendments are about what government may and may not. Right. The Constitution is here's the charter for our government.

00:17:59:09 - 00:18:23:08
Unknown
And it's framing the relationship between the government and the people. Now, what's true, I think, and maybe this is the idea you have in mind, is individual, private individuals are capable of infringing on one another's right to freedom of speech. But the First Amendment, is saying the government will make no law to infringe on people's, people's freedom.

00:18:23:10 - 00:18:43:07
Unknown
Well, so this is one I got from that great courses actually. And I think it's interesting because it and this is a whole conversation, I don't think we should go into all of it, but I think it's important about some of these complications and why this is so important for us to study and think about. Right. So the the example he's giving is basically public parks.

00:18:43:07 - 00:19:00:22
Unknown
Right? So imagine you're at a public park, I have a hot dog stand and I have this little area. And I say, you cannot pass out that literature right now like on this little let's say it's like an actual like place that's like, this is all very sorry. This is very convoluted to begin with because it's a public park.

00:19:01:00 - 00:19:18:16
Unknown
So to government provided park. Okay. And how did the hotdog vendor get his little square. Like what makes it his square and how much is his square and how much is not his square? What I would come back to with this idea of, is it only the government that can infringe on free speech or something like that that you would ask?

00:19:18:16 - 00:19:41:12
Unknown
Yeah. So the First Amendment only applies to government actions. Well, the First Amendment is what what what he was saying over that was not so, but the and also the, the First Amendment causes the First Amendment does only apply to government actions. The concept of freedom of speech is wider in the sense that Kirk's entitled to freedom of speech.

00:19:41:14 - 00:20:02:20
Unknown
Who might violate that private individuals or the government either of them, is perfectly capable of right. If somebody came in somebody's some private individual and destroyed all of your podcasting, broadcasting materials or your printing press, or it's like he's had a problem with your freedom of speech, okay? Whether it be a private individual or just a government. Okay.

00:20:02:20 - 00:20:30:15
Unknown
Yeah. And it's important now what's true? Okay. Part of why this is really important is censorship is something that only the government may engage in. Yes, that is really important. That is censorship. What that word means is government restriction of rightful speech, of speech. That should be that. You should be respected as free to engage in. So it's government restriction.

00:20:30:19 - 00:20:45:17
Unknown
Why. Because the government does it by coercion. If I a private individual or a company want to shut you up. Yeah. You can I can show. No I on your project. You up in a suit. Right. I can say no you're not going to do that in my employment. You're in my house right now. I'm in your house.

00:20:45:17 - 00:20:58:18
Unknown
If you say something like I don't want to talk about it, is that to say the rules? Yeah, I to set the rules. Because if you do, you can leave. If I want wanted, I could leave. But you haven't coerce the like. You haven't restricted my freedom. You've just said I don't want to do that. If you want those terms to.

00:20:58:19 - 00:21:20:10
Unknown
Right. You know, even you can only get, I'm with you. Don't distract me with breakfast tacos. That's true, but. So I just want to point out that this was his example as a Western professor of a misconception. So people have the misconception that the First Amendment only applies to government actions. Okay. And I just thought that was interesting because and he uses the point again, I'm saying.

00:21:20:10 - 00:21:37:18
Unknown
Yeah. And I know I think that's but I think it's interesting. These are the things that are out there. And it's an important issue for us to discuss. And I think it's important in the contemporary context, because we have so much clamoring that social media companies and other big corporations are censoring us. They're not. Yeah, we need to understand what censorship is and is not.

00:21:37:21 - 00:21:57:00
Unknown
We need to understand what violations of race. This is a critical issue because if we don't, we're going to and we're already doing it restricting people's freedom from their access to say, no, you can't do that to certain companies, because that censoring like it is. But in the meantime, you're losing your freedom to speak as you like, to associate as you like.

00:21:57:00 - 00:22:16:07
Unknown
And here we get some of the integration of the elements in the First Amendment right. Freedom of assembly. Assembly was the term they used in the First Amendment, though that's often understood again, because the principle behind intellectual freedom, which is in the First Amendment, is freedom to associate with whom you like and this associate with whom you like.

00:22:16:07 - 00:22:33:19
Unknown
Right. So again, just as Curt can say, Tara, you're not going to you're not going to talk about those kinds of things or use that link or whatever on my that's, you know, on my property in my home that's about you associating with me on certain terms, you know, and if they're not mutually agreeable, then again, I get to go my own way.

00:22:34:00 - 00:22:50:21
Unknown
But when the government says, no, we're going to make you associate, we're not going to let you quote censor, because, again, these terms, they have these emotional connotations to people. And they're not careful about what they really mean, what the term really means. And then, you know, they kind of mean well and they say, oh yeah, that's censorship, censorship, bad stuff.

00:22:50:21 - 00:22:58:06
Unknown
We can't have that. But because they don't know what truly constitutes censorship, that they end up censoring the censors, you know, and on unjustly

00:22:58:06 - 00:23:12:12
Unknown
restricting the freedom of who they are mistakenly calling censors. Yeah. No, I agree, and I think that's an interesting issue for us to, you know, explore as a, as a citizen trying to understand, you know, these days because it's important.

00:23:12:14 - 00:23:31:12
Unknown
Yes. And, and that's an important place to regulate the censors. Yeah. So last two just real quick. And then I want to move on to, some of these intellectual freedoms. The subtitle of your, book is essays on the Emperor Narrative of Intellectual Freedom. So I want to get into that as soon a second. But last two real quick.

00:23:31:14 - 00:23:54:00
Unknown
The First Amendment protects only verbal and written communication. That's a miscommunication. Only verbal and written and written communication. What other kinds of communication or expression? Like symbolic. Oh, symbolic like burning flags. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think that's so the misconception is that the First Amendment protects only what I say. And when I write, not oh, I don't think that's a wide misconception.

00:23:54:05 - 00:24:21:20
Unknown
If anything, I think there's a misconception that it protects that it protects some of these actions which are really actions more than they are. Simple exercises of speech. I think that's the misconception. But one of the articles in there is dedicated to this issue of the difference between speech and action. Yes. And I talk about symbolic action, symbolic speech, so-called, in that and I do think I think that's a tricky issue.

00:24:22:02 - 00:24:42:21
Unknown
I think that I think that's one of the hardest that I've dealt with. But I think it's worth trying to understand. It's definitely worth trying to understand why those two freedom of speech and freedom of action need to be understood somewhat differently. I want to come back to that because if even most of our action should be free.

00:24:42:23 - 00:25:02:00
Unknown
Yeah. But yeah, so there's more to be said on that. Well, if you want, if we have time. Yeah, I think it's a good one. But it just again relaying just the complexity of this 145 word amendment 940. And again, part of it simply is there are a lot of important ideas in there. But they, you know, ideas have very exact meanings that.

00:25:02:01 - 00:25:17:22
Unknown
Yeah. And when you don't take the time to understand and it's not it's not brain surgery, it's not a brain science or whatever. They. Yeah. You don't you don't have to be brilliant to understand the First Amendment for any stretch. It's very accessible. But I definitely do need to think think it through and look why this, why that.

00:25:17:22 - 00:25:40:16
Unknown
And you can get it pretty easily I think. And we need to spend a little more effort doing that if we're to keep the freedoms. And the last one, is I think we'll lead into this religion. One is that freedom of religion means the government must support or endorse, endorse all religions. Oh, as he's saying, that's a misconception.

00:25:40:18 - 00:26:00:03
Unknown
Well, yes. Yes, it certainly is. That's a misconception. That's a misconception. And this was a is he a law professor? The guy who taught this course, you know, I'll I'll get it in a second. But, yeah, he teaches at Wesleyan. He actually I think either Wesleyan. Wesleyan. Wesleyan. Okay. And again, I'm not an academic. I'm not in that world.

00:26:00:05 - 00:26:10:00
Unknown
But he, he also taught at UT, I think at one. Oh, okay. By the way, I believe in some believe, Hillary Clinton went to. Oh, okay. I don't know.

00:26:10:00 - 00:26:28:16
Unknown
So let's I want to move on. And I want to start by reading a John Stuart Mill quote. Oh, okay. And I think this will hopefully get into the, into the spirit of this, the amendment I think of as like the body. Right. And the spirit. What's the spirit behind. Okay, okay. And so this is mill.

00:26:28:16 - 00:26:50:03
Unknown
I understand there's confuse or disagreements with mill as a thinker. Yeah, but the code I think is interesting in tell me what you think he says he who, who knows only his own side of the case. Yeah. Knows little of that. Yeah. And, you know, again, subs barring or separating from the amendment itself. Right. The idea of why do we need this value.

00:26:50:03 - 00:27:07:12
Unknown
Yeah. Of disagreeing about, you know, well, the First Amendment or anything. Oh yeah. Like, no I think mill makes a very good point there. I, I you know, I think his point there is a very good one and it's an epistemic point. It's a point about how we come to know things, how we come to understand things, how we.

00:27:07:14 - 00:27:47:19
Unknown
So by epistemic, all that means for the non philosopher, right is having to do with the nature of knowledge. Okay. And mill again, I think he's really wrongheaded in his basic defense of free speech. And it's not really free speech that he defends. But in the course of his discussion he makes several very good observations about the nature of the search for truth, how we discover things, how we advance knowledge and one of the great ways we do that is by exchange with other people who disagree with us, who tell us that our ideas are crackpot or or who you know very carefully, will refute.

00:27:47:19 - 00:28:12:23
Unknown
Well, you made this inference here, Smith, and here's what's wrong with that. Or look at all this counter evidence to this claim that you made. Yes, you did have some good evidence for that. But look at these other findings. I mean, we can and historically do learn tremendously from, in fact, having it out with people who think all sorts of things, who think, oh, I'm with you 80%, but you got this part wrong.

00:28:12:23 - 00:28:33:19
Unknown
And you get sometimes they turn out to be right, and sometimes I turn out to be wrong. But even if, you know, he says, you know, if you don't. I forget the beginning of the quote again. But if you don't see the other side of the story, you don't even know what you know. Because what you know, you have to know on some grounds and you want to be I mean to have good, valid ground.

00:28:33:20 - 00:28:52:00
Unknown
You want to be as complete and thorough as you can be as to what the reasonable sorts of reservations would be. What like how can you how can you account for, you know, if your thesis is true? Smith, how can you account for A, B, and C that Jones is pointing out? I got a good answer to that, otherwise I don't.

00:28:52:02 - 00:29:15:20
Unknown
Otherwise you accept it on faith, right? Basically, yeah. Yeah. So you want to encourage the kind of contestation of ideas? Yeah. Yeah. So no, that's a good point. And he makes some other good points about the value of, of freedom of speech and exchange and thought for the development of rational understanding. Yeah. I mean, just to, I want to plug third Thursday.

00:29:15:20 - 00:29:36:23
Unknown
So it's an event we do here in Austin, once a month. And I had doctor Mike Mazza come and he gave a talk which is not recorded. It was just to that group. It was, you know, it's a group of mostly Ayn Rand fans, Objectivist. And he made the argument of, you can't really grasp Objectivism or really, you know, integrated properly and understand it and defend it.

00:29:36:23 - 00:29:56:04
Unknown
If you don't study other systems of philosophy, like at least on some level, to have an idea of like what would and not just read it about it a little bit, but like, what would it really be like to live under this, you know, under a million? Yeah. Or, Kantian philosophy on Nietzsche. And I think that's really good advice you need because you need to.

00:29:56:04 - 00:30:19:07
Unknown
And I argue this all the time with the literary canon club of why you need to read the Western works of the world is I really want people to like this is what it would be like to be a Greek, an ancient Greek times like. And because when you do that, you can understand they're humans living under these ideas and they're acting in these ways, and they have these values and we have these values and they're like, why are actually what are the alternatives?

00:30:19:07 - 00:30:36:12
Unknown
And we need to have a real concretized to understand. Yeah. No, absolutely. I do just want to say don't let me get out of here, though, without also criticizing mill a great deal because, I mean, I just get very nice. He says a lot of good epistemological things, but I don't want to leave the impression, oh, he's not so bad because he's terrible on free speech.

00:30:36:12 - 00:31:02:16
Unknown
Okay. So wonderful freedom. So we want it. Why don't you just give your your big criticism on free speech? Because then I want to move into this. So I do want to. So. Okay. Mill makes some good epistemological points about the nature of knowledge and how we actually learn. But his defense and again I want to put like I can't with a straight face say his defense of free speech because it is so not free speech he will allow.

00:31:02:18 - 00:31:24:14
Unknown
He is a utilitarian greatest good of the greatest number, the greatest social good. Like what makes actions right or wrong? What actions should be free or not? Ultimately depends for mill. And this isn't like a secret, but I mean, this is paramount is what's good for society. No one, no concern for the individual as individual. Absolutely right.

00:31:24:14 - 00:31:50:19
Unknown
So it's a collectivist, utilitarian basis for freedom of speech, which you don't agree with, which I don't. Well, because it doesn't know, but because it doesn't actually respect the freedom of speech. You will be on his view. You will be as, quote, free as society thinks. It's useful, like you, it's useful for you to be so. So if they don't, freedom is on a leash.

00:31:50:19 - 00:32:13:23
Unknown
Yeah. If they don't fight for you. Right. Let me get it right. No, your freedom is on a leash. It's not freedom. It's not the right to my life and to do whatever I want with it. Which includes to speak and think as I like. Right? No, no, you don't have that, honey. Under utilitarianism. Under collectivism of John Stuart Mill, you'll be allowed to say what we think it's best for society.

00:32:14:03 - 00:32:33:20
Unknown
You are the pawn. You're the servant. If you can say useful things, good goodwill will loosen the leash a little bit. You have some smart contributions to make in biology or physics or whatever it might be, right? But oh no. If we society deem what you're saying isn't to to healthy for society, to good for society, and we shut you up.

00:32:33:22 - 00:32:59:10
Unknown
That has nothing to do with respecting the individual's freedom because it has nothing. Also, underneath that freedom of speech, our whole Constitution, not just the First Amendment, it's about the respect for the individual as an end in himself individualism. And without that, if you don't respect the individual as end in himself, your life is yours. You do it however the hell you want with it.

00:32:59:12 - 00:33:23:17
Unknown
I mean, just as an entitlement, you know, as a jurisdiction issue, it is yours to lead as you like, as long as you allow others to do the same, you know, leave them free, don't cause them. But that is absolutely absent in the mill picture. And that comes out and it comes back to haunt the mill defenses of again, so-called freedom, which you do mention in the book.

00:33:23:19 - 00:33:41:21
Unknown
Oh, this comes up and it also comes up in, so it's important. So one of the chapters by me has some discussion of mill in it, and then there are some, again, this this is a collection of pieces, several of which are by me. But there are, there are what. There's an individual piece, essay by Onkar Ghate, a piece by Greg.

00:33:41:21 - 00:34:02:12
Unknown
Salmieri And there are a couple of very good, I think, discussions amongst the three of us where Elan Journo served to raise some really interesting questions. And in that discussion as well, issues about John Stuart Mill and his view and the important differences come up. So you also get to hear some other intellectuals takes on some of these issues.

00:34:02:12 - 00:34:24:05
Unknown
And I think there's, you know, benefit from that too. One I'll, I'll also plug your, you did an interview on the So to Speak podcast from fire. Yes. Which is Foundation of individual individual rights in in it for a long time it was in education education. And they read but they just recently within the last 2 or 3 years changed their name.

00:34:24:05 - 00:34:45:07
Unknown
They're broadening their scope to not just defend free speech and education. It was largely in higher education, but more broadly. So it's no foundation for individual rights in expression or end expression. But so the E is no longer education or expression? No, but they're a very good organization overall. And yeah, they have a, so to speak. And I just started listening that because of your because of your interview.

00:34:45:07 - 00:35:00:22
Unknown
Yeah. So thank you. It's a good podcast. Thank you. And that was to me which again that's I think a three way can sometimes be well you talked about this issue a little bit of mill. Okay. So I think thanks. Yes it's good to get a little bit more from Peter is true. Thanks for so let's move on to

00:35:00:22 - 00:35:25:09
Unknown
Yeah. So your first essay, the first chapter, and here is I want to read the title. So this I'm going to I'm going to out you as an atheist I think this is public knowledge, but it's an atheist who writes an article called What Good is Religious Freedom? Right. And then the subtitle is like Locke. So that's John Locke, Ayn Rand and the non-religious case for respecting it.

00:35:25:11 - 00:35:27:21
Unknown
And I think somebody who doesn't know anything about any

00:35:27:21 - 00:35:46:07
Unknown
of us are you think might think that's an interesting like, why would a who why would an atheist care. Yeah. And all in all honesty, let alone write a really in-depth and great I think it's a wonderful essay to read. About, you know, I took away religious freedom is valuable because it's a form of intellectual freedom.

00:35:46:12 - 00:36:04:18
Unknown
Yeah. That is basically it. It's not about religion. Yeah. It's not really about it, about religion, but it's a defense and expression. Well, my point, the First Amendment, even when it refers to religious freedom, in a sense, it's not about religion. That's just a prominent form in its time, an issue that the people then were very concerned with.

00:36:04:18 - 00:36:31:07
Unknown
And we can come back to that in terms of the historical context. Right. But religious freedom is again a form of intellectual freedom, and we all need intellectual freedom so that we can use our minds rationally to learn, you know, to develop better and better lives for ourselves. So yes, even the, the, you know, even Ayn Rand or the atheist should care about religious freedom, because if you start, oh no, you can't have religious freedom.

00:36:31:07 - 00:36:57:22
Unknown
Why not? Well, because, you know, you're not supposed to think that. Well, wait a second. That sounds like mill who we were just talking about. That sounds like, oh, that's not good for somebody else. Or in some other way. It's not. You're right to tell me what to think. I may have some really stupid thoughts. I may have some really self-destructive thoughts, self-destructive in the sense of I'm wasting all my time on this completely irrational religion and devoting a lot of my life and organizing my life around it.

00:36:58:01 - 00:37:19:00
Unknown
But it's my life, my mistake, to make right. Freedom of the mind is what we need to figure out what's wrong with religion, but to figure out what's right and what's true in all spheres. So I'm glad you point to that essay, though, because, well, two reasons. One is, yeah, I think that's a good essay. You know, you have you have your own evaluations of your work and your better work.

00:37:19:00 - 00:37:47:11
Unknown
And that's that's a good I can tell you, the ones that I think are worth the price, you know, but that one's it goes into real depth. Two more than I had in some previous things I had written about, sort of some of them. I don't want to scare people off now, but some of the mechanics of thinking and thinking rationally, that really, I think, bring out the necessity of freedom for you to be able to think rationally.

00:37:47:13 - 00:38:09:16
Unknown
Yeah. You have a, yeah, you have a part of. So one more thing there. Part of what I want to be saying too, is in this country, because so many people continue to be religious and identify strongly with their religion and their religious heritage, you know, their parents and their grandparents, and they're going back and they know religious freedom was a big deal at the time of the founding.

00:38:09:18 - 00:38:34:02
Unknown
They seem to have absorbed the idea that there's something special about religion, that privileges or that gives it this special status. It has no special status. Religion per se. Right. It's no more than journalists have or should have. Special stat, right? Freedom of the right. But that's not because there's some special elevated value in being a journalist.

00:38:34:03 - 00:39:01:22
Unknown
Now, these are just forms that are commonly contested forms of using your intellectual freedom, which is what the amendment overall is about. So these days when we have these debates about religious freedom, some people will mistakenly point to how religious the founders were, or they're seeing certain value in religion as the reason why we should have this, special privileges.

00:39:02:00 - 00:39:21:21
Unknown
And I think one thing that the First Amendment puts very well in that opening clause that you read, right, I'm not going to quote it verbatim, but they say it's a two parter when it comes to freedom of religion. No establishment will respect free exercise, right? It's a two part work. Why don't you read it to us again?

00:39:21:21 - 00:39:48:13
Unknown
Congress shall make no law respecting an established establishment of religion. Go ahead. Or prohibiting prohibiting exercise the exercise thereof. And yeah, that's the first clause, I think. Right. Yeah. But that's all I just wanted to right So just the religion thing that should follow through for everything. Like that understanding was so right and so important in terms of the government saying we're not going to help any religion, we're not going to establish any religion by any by giving any special subsidies or supports to any religion.

00:39:48:15 - 00:40:22:06
Unknown
But nor are we going to get in your way. Right. We're going to respect the complete free exercise. It should have that same attitude, for instance, with the press, which increasingly, well, increasingly it doesn't. PBS's government subsidies. Right. NPR government subsidies. And those are just like the two most conspicuous examples. But when the government subsidizes certain ideas, as it does in a lot of the science foundations that we have, the NIH, right, or various others, right, when the government is subsidizing, that's like an establishment of religion.

00:40:22:08 - 00:40:45:02
Unknown
It's establishing even when it's just giving a leg up. Oh, we're not going to outlaw these other religions or we're not going to outlaw these other scientists, but we're going to give grants to the guys who study this or say that. Right? No, no. Same with newspapers or media. You know, we'll have this kind of public media. It's like, oh, don't establish any don't do anything toward establishment and don't do anything to interfere with the free exercise.

00:40:45:05 - 00:41:15:01
Unknown
Don't establish public schools. That's why, at any rate. So I just wanted to come back to that when speaking about, religion within the First Amendment, they did a really nice job of, I think, characterizing the proper governmental attitude. And what we all need to understand is that attitude is equally appropriate to other kinds of speech, where people don't see any problem with subsidizing this or restricting that.

00:41:15:02 - 00:41:42:05
Unknown
Well, I think so. It sounds like that leads into your second essay a little bit too, which is religious liberty or religious license, legal schizophrenia. That was a great and the case against exemptions. So in the first essay you're arguing about, you know, why you need this kind of imperative of intellectual freedom, which means defending religious freedom, because people need to have, you know, the ability to discourse on this.

00:41:42:05 - 00:41:55:09
Unknown
They need to and also internally. So this is where you quote, Milton, the Areopagitica, which is his defense of the freedom of press, in 1644, I think it was. And,

00:41:55:09 - 00:42:07:08
Unknown
so before the establishment of the First Amendment, right. Some of the things that led up to it, I think. And, so you're arguing about religious freedom, that we need to have that there's an internal reason we need to have that which is like.

00:42:07:08 - 00:42:26:18
Unknown
But it's not just like we need to have intellectual freedom. Religious freedom is only an exercise of that. One of the it's it's there's nothing special about religion. Again, that's that's part of what I'm trying to stress here. And then I'm just trying to like lay the framework for that. So but the second one is, you know, it's so it almost feels like it's like, okay, so yes, we do need this freedom.

00:42:26:18 - 00:42:43:10
Unknown
Yeah. It's because you need to have intellectual freedom in general. Yes. And so religious shouldn't be it's not special. It shouldn't be pro or con from the government's perspective. But it also shouldn't be propre, which is right. And no, it's not. And it does seem like we have special favors. We for this. We do. And it's amazing.

00:42:43:10 - 00:42:56:22
Unknown
this is so this was an article that grew, you know, you asked at the beginning how did I get interested in free speech? And I spoke a little bit about some work I was doing with free speech for students and all, but this is an article that I actually was.

00:42:57:04 - 00:43:17:14
Unknown
And the whole concept of religious exemptions is something I got interested in when I was toward the end of writing my book on judicial review, on how should judges interpret the law? What does the Constitution really mean? Okay, I was writing a book on that has nothing to do with I mean, it's not directly at all about particularly First Amendment, Fourth Amendment anymore.

00:43:17:14 - 00:43:38:03
Unknown
Okay. It's about judicial review, but, you know, paying attention to things in the news about the law just out of interest and out of connection with my book. And in the book, it's one of the books not here, but, judicial review in an objective legal system. The reason why I want to say the title is the emphasis is on an objective legal system.

00:43:38:05 - 00:43:56:13
Unknown
I read about a law case by chance one day, you know, in the New York Times, and it had to do with exemption, religious exemptions. I had never, you know, if I had heard of them, it went right by me before religious exemptions. And then there was some similar kind of concept in another case, because, again, I'm thinking about the objectivity of a legal system.

00:43:56:13 - 00:44:20:23
Unknown
One of the requirements is that it be fully, consistently integrated. You can't have a legal system that's pointing into opposite directions and giving the law. That's the schizophrenia, that's a schizophrenic. And I thought, well, I gotta look into that when I'm done with the, you know, because I'm almost finished with the book. And then the more recent, it's this religious exact, oh, I discovered there's this big category and different states have different laws about what they will exempt.

00:44:20:23 - 00:44:41:00
Unknown
But the basic idea is on religious grounds, you don't have to obey the laws in the way everybody else does. That's the basic idea, putting it in very kind of rough and colloquial terms. But again, we have this law. It applies to everybody except. But if you're religion religious, you know, and there are of course certain conditions placed on how you show you.

00:44:41:00 - 00:45:07:13
Unknown
Really. Right. Oh, but if you're religious, you get to get out of law. Free card. What the hell is that about now again in so I have a whole essay on these religious exemptions and I cite there's a long bullet list of I mean, I think the, the classic case that most people are familiar with is something like a when the, when we have a military draft in place, as during the Vietnam War, some people would claim conscientious objection on religious grounds.

00:45:07:13 - 00:45:15:19
Unknown
You can't put me into combat. I don't want to kill or something like that. Okay. But so, I mean, I had long been familiar with that because I was alive during the Vietnam War.

00:45:15:19 - 00:45:24:16
Unknown
You can get out of certain kinds of standardized testing for your kids. Standardized, like intellectual testing for your kids in certain states on religious grounds.

00:45:24:22 - 00:45:42:02
Unknown
You can get out of certain, vaccines. I think this has become more well known in recent years on religious grounds if all the other kids have to get these vaccines. Oh, but you claim religion. You don't have to. There are. But I mean, even at least equally ominously, there are daycare regulations.

00:45:42:02 - 00:45:49:12
Unknown
Like, if you run a daycare facility, there are all sorts of surprise, surprise, government regulations about safety precautions and so on and who you can hire and so on.

00:45:49:16 - 00:46:18:05
Unknown
Oh, but there are exemptions. Again, in some states the laws vary. In some states on religious grounds, you don't have to comply with those things or certain of the, employment requirements in general, not just in daycares. There is a long list like of, oh, you get what is that about? So this article really goes into those. And I think one of the strengths of this article is it takes on in depth 3 or 4 of the strongest defenses of exemption.

00:46:18:05 - 00:46:43:04
Unknown
I was going to say, and it's not just religious fanatics who defend them, like there are some very cogent, intelligent arguments to be made, all of which I think fail. And I really, I think, do a pretty good job of dismantling them. But I take on very seriously some really substantial, scholarly, deep, well thought through defenses of religious exemptions and show, I think, show why they make utterly no sense.

00:46:43:04 - 00:47:06:18
Unknown
But it's this kind of yes, we'll have the schizophrenic law. And one of the things I argue, well, a very simple, important thing I argue is you have no government's job is to protect our rights, government's role, their function, their whole reason for being is to protect individuals rights. Your rights are no wider than mine because you believe in God.

00:47:06:20 - 00:47:24:12
Unknown
Sunday mornings I come, I go play golf. You go to church. That should make no difference to how the government treats us. Your rights are no wider or no narrower because of what you believe about God, about religion, about anything else. So the government should not be treating us differently by saying all these people get a pass.

00:47:24:15 - 00:47:55:10
Unknown
Some of this came out during Covid. Oh, but, you know, during the period in which there were restrictions in many places on how many could congregate. Okay. But if it's very religious purpose will give you an exception. How does the disease become less contagious if you know you're Jewish. I mean it just so I want to, bring out something about this that I in that I think you, I mean you bring out this in your essay is, you know, the problem with this, the schizophrenia.

00:47:55:14 - 00:48:20:18
Unknown
So it's like, why can't we just have exemptions as one thing that people might have is one of the things, excuse me, but that such a thing. I mean, I think you're quite right. Why can't we have exemptions? But I mean, talk about the shallow level of things. Yeah, yeah, but it just seems like, you know, if I'm a religious person, I believe this is, you know, one of your arguments is about the the identity I have, that it is this and I really believe in this deeply.

00:48:20:18 - 00:48:30:06
Unknown
So I just want to read the four main arguments in favor of, oh that you have if you want to comment on them. But I thought it was interesting. I get when I say metal. Yeah. You know, have them, you know, if you don't want to.

00:48:30:06 - 00:49:04:22
Unknown
But I just think it's interesting because one of the strengths of this piece I do think, is your you don't just say, okay, here's what I said really briefly and like, you really defend it. You say like, this is the best. You know, some the popular way of thinking about this is the steel man. You know, it might be I think so, you know, you talk about the textual argument for exemptions, which is about the First Amendment explicitly mandating it, special treatment essentially the the equality argument, which is about exemptions are necessary to offset the perceived disadvantaged faced by religions, which I find interesting.

00:49:04:22 - 00:49:24:07
Unknown
One, for sure. And then the Liberty based argument, which supports exemptions as a means of protecting individual liberty and limiting government coercion, which I think they're even like nonprofits starting specifically for that. The they're like, they're making the liberty based on. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. As their their main thing. And then the fourth one was the transcendent value argument.

00:49:24:07 - 00:49:46:04
Unknown
And I think that's where you talk about personal identity. So I don't have anything to say now about that. But but I think you might even want to keep the I like the specificity of your referring to those. Yeah. Do you know what I mean? Absolutely. It's important, but I would say yeah to just like, okay, there are some like credible arguments to be had here, but I think one really needs to read the book to engage fully with what the argument is.

00:49:46:04 - 00:49:52:04
Unknown
Yes. For the first and then why I think on careful thought each of them fails.

00:49:52:04 - 00:50:07:05
Unknown
It's like if you make this case about exemptions that I think some people have, part of what you argue is you need to part of what a proper, objective law does is taken to consideration those top possible exemptions people might have.

00:50:07:11 - 00:50:36:15
Unknown
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by taken to account. So but they're writing the law, right? They should think about do like are these exemptions legitimate or not. And rather than having exemptions we just write the law such that, you know, we all can objectively stand by them. Well, and objective legal system requires laws that do what they're supposed to do, in the sense of the only reason for having this law is it's necessary to enable the government to fulfill its function.

00:50:36:18 - 00:51:01:08
Unknown
Yeah, that's the only reason for having this law. It's necessary for the government to fulfill its function. So drafting laws, adopting laws has got to be an incredibly thoughtful thought through conceptual process. But then when you reach the conclusion, it makes sense for us to have this law. That means it makes sense for us to have this law and everybody to be, required to obey that law.

00:51:01:10 - 00:51:25:17
Unknown
Now, there can be certain sorts of exceptional circumstances, not whole swaths of people of the population who will not be subject to this. But there might be extraordinary emergency situations in which the application of that law should vary from what it would normally be. But that's quite different from saying we're going to have it make sense for us to have these rules in order for us to protect everybody's rights really effectively.

00:51:25:19 - 00:51:37:18
Unknown
Except it's not going to apply to people in category A or B or. And we're not talking here about categories such as while they're minors, they're four years old, minors, you know, minors minor right. Or something like that.

00:51:37:18 - 00:51:42:09
Unknown
everything in a proper legal system is pointing in the same direction, so to speak.

00:51:42:12 - 00:52:10:15
Unknown
Like every aspect of government functioning, what the rules are, what the laws are and the ways that they're enforced and the penalties and so on. They're all geared around this, you know, this ultimate purpose of protecting individuals rights. When you have exemptions, what you're doing is on any grounds and not just religious exemptions like, well, we want to give this industry an exemption from this tax because we want to bolster that industry in the state or something.

00:52:10:15 - 00:52:32:10
Unknown
Right? It's like, no, no, no. Now you're injecting different standards for having rules or for governing people then protecting their rights. Oh, well, we've got this economic agenda. Oh we've got this. Oh we like religion for traditional American holiday reasons. Or it's like that has no place there right now. Couple couple of other things related to exemptions and religion.

00:52:32:10 - 00:52:58:23
Unknown
In recent years, we've had a number of cases that have gotten a lot of attention, concerning, a clash between certain interpretations of the 14th amendment and, equal protection and gay rights, for instance. So I'm thinking of these cases, and some of you will definitely have heard of some of these cases, like the masterpiece Cakeshop, where basically the scenario is some private proprietor.

00:52:58:23 - 00:53:27:01
Unknown
He may he's a baker or he's a caterer or he's a florist, or he makes videos of weddings, doesn't want to serve to sell his services to a couple. That's a gay couple getting married or so. I mean, we've had a variety of these kinds of cases. And, they, they create a problem because I think of a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, which has led states to adopt laws that say you may not discriminate on certain grounds.

00:53:27:01 - 00:53:49:07
Unknown
Right now, there are real problems with having those laws, but then those laws seem to come into conflict with I have a freedom of religion, and that means I don't have to do business with people I don't want to do business with. And part of why I think those kinds of cases pose really difficult questions is because you've got inconsistent directions, directives from the law.

00:53:49:12 - 00:53:50:02
Unknown
You've got the

00:53:50:02 - 00:54:20:04
Unknown
schizophrenic law that is pitting, again, a misguided interpretation of the 14th Amendment against the First Amendment. And I think a helpful way to think about exemptions in general is this. And some of our twin sympathies in some cases is bad laws give exemptions a good name. If there's something wrong with the with the law, if there really is something wrong with the law I was trying to get at earlier and you have like Hobby Lobby was a case a few years ago, it's like, well, they didn't want to have to.

00:54:20:05 - 00:54:40:01
Unknown
That's what give the medical insurance, okay. A religious Hobby Lobby owned by religious people. I think it's still a privately held corporation. Right. They didn't want to have to abide by certain Obamacare mandates about providing insurance that would pay medical insurance for their employees, that would pay for, contraceptive services and so on. They wanted no part of that.

00:54:40:03 - 00:55:01:19
Unknown
I felt a tremendous amount of sympathy with them, not because I have a goddamn instant of of, sympathy with their stupid religious views. Yeah, but it's their business. It's their lives. They don't have. Just as you can throw me out for saying things you don't want me to say in your home, Kirk. They can say we don't want to employ people, or we don't want to provide these services to our employees.

00:55:01:21 - 00:55:23:07
Unknown
Yeah, tremendous sympathy for them. On the other hand, if you're going to have this goddamn stupid law and may God damn that law, right, that says you may not set the terms of your own business, you must do business on these terms that the government decrees. Yeah, well, then I have a lot of sympathy for the. Well, now, you you shouldn't get out of this restriction just because you're religious.

00:55:23:07 - 00:55:39:23
Unknown
But again, it gives the exemption a good name because the law is bad. So we need to clean up our laws rather than have this proliferating. Well, an exception for him. An exception for him is it's it's bespoke law. Yeah. Anyway now so we're pushing up against time okay. But I that was what I was trying to say.

00:55:39:23 - 00:56:00:03
Unknown
So yeah. And I think you mentioned it in that, that Hobby Lobby in. Yeah I did talk about I think that's when you talk about just so it's the push up against bad laws I like. Well that gives credibility to the exemptions. Yeah. That's and just one less. I'm really glad that you raised religion. Religion is rearing its head with more confidence than ever in this country.

00:56:00:03 - 00:56:21:09
Unknown
Under these misguided notions of religious freedom. We now have just in this past summer, before the election. And now, of course, they'll all feel empowered with Trump in power again. But Oklahoma and Louisiana passed laws in the one case they want to have the the the the Bible. I almost said the First Amendment. No such like the Bible on you know, in every school room.

00:56:21:09 - 00:56:45:16
Unknown
I think that's Louisiana. I may be confusing, which is Louisiana, which is Oklahoma, and one wants to be teaching the Bible in school and here in Texas. So again, there's already, of course, legal pushback against this. But these issues are very live of, I think, misunderstandings of the First Amendment, of religious freedom and, school curricula debates and the role of we're having those in Texas right now.

00:56:45:18 - 00:57:04:04
Unknown
So we need to be very careful about religious freedom, what it means and what it does not mean. I think a little self-education on that would really help everyone. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and on this whole issue, which is the theme of this podcast. So yeah, if I, with your permission, can ask you some rapid fire question. Okay. I hope I have rapid fire thoughts.

00:57:04:09 - 00:57:21:18
Unknown
Well, if you don't, we can move on. We do have a few minutes, but, you know, I don't. I, I want to play. Yeah, I think, I think would be, you know, also just get some of your thoughts on these big issues, which are super big. And so good luck doing that. And a quick amount of time.

00:57:21:20 - 00:57:41:17
Unknown
Okay. So the number one, social media censorship. So you kind of touched on this, but should private platforms like Twitter and Facebook be considered public forums subject to First Amendment rules? Well, they're public forums, but subject if what you mean by subject to First Amendment restrictions is they should like Congress, make no law, have no such policy.

00:57:41:17 - 00:58:07:20
Unknown
No, I think that's ridiculous. They're private. You're your size, your the value you offer to people or the value that the market places on you on the basis of, you know, whether it be your stock market price or your number of clients and customers and users and all that doesn't change your rights. They're private individuals or groups of individuals who have every right to create whatever conditions they want for engagement with them.

00:58:07:22 - 00:58:25:19
Unknown
They're not censoring when they say you can't speak that language, or you can talk about that or you can't say that on our platform, go somewhere else if you don't want to be, be on, you know, if you don't like those terms. But no, that's not censorship. And they should not be restricted at all. Number two, cancel culture.

00:58:25:21 - 00:58:52:12
Unknown
Does cancel culture cancel culture pose a threat to free speech, or is it a form of social accountability? I wouldn't frame the two alternatives. And quite that way I think it's a messier, more complicated concept. But, so cancel culture seems to mesh together as we normally use it. So this is in no way a criticism of a view here, Kirk, but it seems to mashed together a few things that we really need to separate.

00:58:52:12 - 00:59:10:22
Unknown
I have the freedom, and it should be respected as my freedom to disassociate with someone for whatever reason. Meaning I'm not going to any longer voluntarily engage with you. I'm not going to shop at your store anymore because I don't like your politics or your position on some cultural issue, on gay rights or trans or whatever it might be.

00:59:11:00 - 00:59:28:01
Unknown
I have the right to dissociate from you. I'm sanctioning you in a certain, you know, in that negative sense of sanctioning you. But I have no right to interfere with others continuing to do business with you. I have the right to try to persuade people you shouldn't do business with chick fil A, either, or whatever it might be.

00:59:28:01 - 00:59:48:18
Unknown
Right? I'm not canceling you. Right? Cancel is this metaphor that we like. I cannot cancel you if I act. You know, if I took a torch to your enterprise, to your store or something, that would be wrong. That would be an infringement of your rights. But, I'm not canceling you. I'm not capable of canceling. Canceling you, erasing you doing something like that.

00:59:48:20 - 00:59:51:11
Unknown
But I have every right to dissociate from you.

00:59:51:11 - 01:00:13:08
Unknown
People now I have the right to dissociate to. I'm not going to support you in any way. And that might really hurt you. It might not. Okay, but that's kind of your tough luck. People sometimes are too quick or simply irrational in the way they engage in their choices about who to dissociate from or who to try to shame.

01:00:13:08 - 01:00:28:11
Unknown
Or so that you have the right to do. This doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing it in a rational way, but you have the right to be irrational. You don't have the right to infringe on others rights to start again, going beyond the I'm not going to deal with them, and I'm going to try to persuade other people to not deal with them.

01:00:28:13 - 01:00:54:02
Unknown
But, so where I think there is a threat is that people are sometimes, it seems in recent years to sanctimonious on a rational grant grounds about being very public, about their disapproval of something where that thing may not deserve the disapproval or may not deserve the degree or severity of disapproval or the ways in which one is exercising that.

01:00:54:08 - 01:01:15:01
Unknown
So there's definitely, I think, been some bad behavior in the ways that people practice dissociating. But you have the right to dissociate and I think with cancel culture, we always need when when that's invoked, we need to slow down and specify exactly what elements of it. Then we can consider is this health, is this rational? Is this within your rights?

01:01:15:01 - 01:01:38:08
Unknown
I mean, those are a few different questions to ask, about any instance of so-called canceling. Okay. Okay. So on and there is some discussion of that, I think in both some of the roundtable discussions and I think in Greg Salmieri’s essays. Well, yes, there was. Yeah. So a lot of the stuff is touched on quite a bit in your in the book collection of essays and interviews and things like that.

01:01:38:12 - 01:01:56:20
Unknown
So again, recommend getting the book and, you know, starting your investigation in the First Amendment. Okay. So the third one, so you're a on top of being a Longhorns fan, you're a professor at the University of Texas. So you I think you deal with this. You get your priorities straight. Well, yeah, I got so campus speech. Yeah.

01:01:56:21 - 01:02:08:00
Unknown
There's the third one. Rapid fire question. How should universities balance free speech with creating inclusive environments for all students? Or should they not, you know, is that not a priority?

01:02:08:00 - 01:02:24:16
Unknown
It depends on what your university is primarily going for. So I don't think there's a one size fits all answer. Universities should do. Joe-Szhmoze University, this Baptist University, this, heaven forbid, public university.

01:02:24:16 - 01:02:49:15
Unknown
I mean different institutions of higher education, colleges or universities or technical schools or whatever. I mean, they should all be privately owned and operated for whatever brings that group of people together, like, I want to start a university or we want to start a university. And its primary mission is to do X, Y, or Z. Then consistent with that mission, it should come up with policies for campus speech.

01:02:49:17 - 01:03:18:07
Unknown
In the speech of and again, that's a lot of different people the speech of students, staff, faculty, visiting speakers. So there are many things to to think through. And what kinds of policies do you want to have, to the extent that one wants to be a research university, just to sort of speak in shorthand? Okay. But to the extent that one wants to be a research university advancing knowledge, and there are there are contrary kinds of, of higher institution, higher ed institutions to be right.

01:03:18:07 - 01:03:41:08
Unknown
You want to be that? Well, then you need to think about the kinds of policies that are most conducive to that. And that's going to require a fair amount of free speech, speech that some will find offensive, some will find, you know, off the beam. Well, that may be a little too strong here, but you're going to have to have academic rigor, right?

01:03:41:08 - 01:04:05:19
Unknown
I mean, you can't just say any crackpot can say anything. And we're really this is a useful way to advance the understanding of biology. I mean, there are certain ideas, that have been discredited and short of really credible evidence coming to call into rational question what's been discredited, you would not want to employ such people, you know, as faculty or something like that.

01:04:05:19 - 01:04:29:00
Unknown
so I think there's a lot to be said for at least in certain sorts of and I think maybe the most valuable sorts of higher ed. Yeah, creating very free environments. But at the same time, when you're, for instance, in the classroom educating students, I think it is important. And this is where I have no sympathy for Amy Wax.

01:04:29:00 - 01:04:57:09
Unknown
From what I have read about, she's the law professor at Penn. I mean, at least now I haven't read in great depth about that case, but there are things that one can do is capable of doing in the classroom that can be very intimidating to students and to the kind of environment that's most conducive to the free and open exchange of ideas in the kinds of classes where that's what's called for.

01:04:57:09 - 01:05:29:23
Unknown
Not every it's like, no, there's certain basic classes where you need to learn, you know, the equations in certain math or science, you know, and I mean, it's not that, oh, every subject is open to wide open debate. So I don't want to suggest that kind of thing. But there are you saying seminars of a certain sort and certain kinds, of course subjects that really are best, you know, you optimize the delivery of what that course is supposed to be by having a pretty open, comfortable environment amongst, let's say that ten students in a smallish seminar, something.

01:05:30:03 - 01:05:51:05
Unknown
And there are things, there are views of professors that they might express in those classes that would be that would just be antithetical to, I think, the kind of environment that's necessary to foster the kind of thinking and open exchange, honest exchange of ideas. That would be most valuable. So I wouldn't want to send my kids to.

01:05:51:08 - 01:06:07:18
Unknown
Yeah, I have them, you know, to assert that they represent the values that you're excited about. The campus where you send your kids. Oh, yeah. Well, yeah, that's part of what you would consider. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. Okay. Last but the, the the value of the intellectual freedom not just, oh go to an Objectivist school. Oh sorry.

01:06:07:18 - 01:06:26:05
Unknown
That's what I meant. Yeah. So the value of. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Those types of deep values that will challenge your kid will be the yes to, you know, what you're interested in, right. Okay. Last question. And then, you know, we'll wrap we'll wrap it up. Press freedom, press freedom versus fake news. Do you ever thought about that?

01:06:26:09 - 01:06:44:08
Unknown
Like, how can we protect press freedom while combating the spread? Or should we combat the spread of misinformation? Yeah, I know it's a bit. Sure, but the we as we the we is not the government. So and interesting you ask about this because I have a new paper just out in a journal and a philosophy journal. Oh is it what's on misinformation.

01:06:44:08 - 01:07:03:00
Unknown
Can we access it? Is it. Yes, it is not. So I forget it. Let me give you the title of the journal. Okay. The journal is Social Theory and Practice. It's a philosophy journal. Social Theory and practice I believe it's the October edition. I literally I'll put a link. Yeah. In the social and I can show you the actual give you the title, but it's about missing information.

01:07:03:04 - 01:07:37:10
Unknown
It's based on a talk that I've given before. But, we should of course, be concerned with misinformation. We need knowledge. We need truth. But now there's a difference between honest mistakes and deliberate deception. So there's a difference between misinformation and disinformation. But the main thing we need to worry about in the context of our conversation today about the First Amendment and intellectual freedom is the way to combat misinformation is not by having government information, but but like if the government is going to protect us from what it decides is misinformation.

01:07:37:12 - 01:07:54:15
Unknown
Now we have the thought police. Yeah, we make that point now. We had yes. I mean, now we have the government telling us what it's okay to think of want. It's not okay to think that, A it's a complete violation of our freedom to think for ourselves. Yeah. And with that freedom, like, if you really take ideas seriously, then.

01:07:54:17 - 01:08:12:21
Unknown
Then you individually, we all need to be responsible in where we get our news. And I think a lot of us are just cheap about that. We're cheap with our time and we're cheap with our dollars. You know, we're just cheap about it. So we kind of get it where we can get it and piece it together and, well, that's what that guy at the office said, too.

01:08:13:01 - 01:08:32:12
Unknown
And, you know, you hear a few words and sort of not. So it's news by by cumulate like, if you care and you should care. A lot of the news really does matter to your life. Right? Then you need to make the investment not just to read, you know, read from a more expensive sort of the investment of time to think about what you're at.

01:08:32:12 - 01:08:54:16
Unknown
Does that make sense? Like it takes some real digestion of issues and so on. So, so much of the, I think, problem in our polluted media environment these days and fake news and people being uncertain about what to what to trust and what not to trust is bad thinking, lazy thinking on our parts. And the quality of journalism overall, I think has deteriorated considerably.

01:08:54:18 - 01:09:12:16
Unknown
But the solution is not government regulation, which again, is increasingly being, being advocated. But my again, this new piece really goes into that and I wish I could remember the title that's I'll put a, I'll put a link. I said it'll be freedom of the press I think is the best. And, you know, we just end on that.

01:09:12:21 - 01:09:33:10
Unknown
But I think like one of the I think Onkar makes, you know, an argument in the interview part about what you just said about how the logic of what you have a people opposing big tech as monopolists and misinformation and their response. The solution is, let's have a government monopoly. It's just ludicrous. Like, that's not the right, right.

01:09:33:10 - 01:09:52:08
Unknown
Even if you feel that way, that's just the will. Also you have like as long as it's not the government restricting this, then you don't like the news you get here. You're not sure you should trust that you have plenty of other sources when the government restricts. Nope. Now now you have fewer sources or yeah, fewer. Okay. So thank you so much.

01:09:52:08 - 01:10:11:20
Unknown
I think we're on time. So again, make sure to buy, Tara's book, The First Amendment Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom. And this does have contribution by Onkar Ghate Gregory Salmieri. And Elan Journo. So thanks a lot for a lot of fun. This is great, and I hope that's a great resource for everybody on the First Amendment.

01:10:11:20 - 01:10:13:02
Unknown
Good. Thank you. Thank you.