The Right Needs to Conserve Free Speech
It’s tempting to follow the left’s lead and censor one’s foes, but a FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate says it’s unwise.
By Tunku Varadarajan Sept. 26, 2025 at 5:19 pm ET
The latest national battle over speech follows the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Jimmy Kimmel, a TV personality of modest talents, opined on his ABC show on Sept. 15 that the murderer was associated with the “MAGA gang”—which he wasn’t. The wrath of the right descended on Mr. Kimmel, who was suspended for a week, then reinstated.
“In the wake of the tragedy, Kimmel should have waited for things to cool down before speaking out,” says Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer who’s been fighting in the civil-liberties trenches for more than five decades. But he insists that “we should not be afraid of free speech. Free speech is what saves us from civil war.”
Mr. Silverglate objects in particular to the comments of Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who suggested that the FCC would find “remedies” to use against ABC and its station owners: “We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Mr. Silverglate says Mr. Carr’s crude threats were “outrageous and unconstitutional. It’s not the FCC’s job to police content.” Mr. Silvergllate, 83, describes himself as a “liberal libertarian” who has distanced himself from the left with age. He speaks to me by Zoom from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He is a co-founder, with the historian Alan Charles Kors, of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, best-known by its acronym, FIRE. The two had co-written a book, “The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on American Campuses” (1998). After its publication, Mr. Silverglate says, “we got an enormous number of complaints from students and faculty members that they were being silenced.” FIRE came into being to address this campus crisis.
Greg Lukianoff, FIRE’s president since 2006, was Mr. Silverglate’s first hire. The outfit was originally called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, but it expanded its remit to become an all-encompassing national speech watchdog in 2022, largely because, Mr. Silverglate says, the American Civil Liberties Union had lost “any meaningful interest in free speech.
” Mr. Silverglate believes the ACLU “has defaulted on its prior role of being the main civil-liberties organization in the country.” When “the great Ira Glasser” retired as executive director in 2001, the organization went into “a downward spiral,” which Mr. Silverglate attributes to “the problems of affirmative action”: The ACLU board decided that, “having had a Jewish male executive director, it was time for a gay Hispanic.” That was Anthony Romero, who Mr. Silverglate says is “not a civil libertarian but a creature of the left. He has stopped the ACLU’s historic focus on free speech and due process and has taken on leftist causes.”
Mr. Silverglate met Mr. Romero in 2001, when the former was president of the ACLU’s Massachusetts affiliate. Over lunch Mr. Silverglate listened to Mr. Romero’s plans for the ACLU.t the end of his spiel, I said, ‘Anthony, I didn’t hear one word about civil liberties. I heard about workers’ rights, but there are unions that deal with that. I didn’t hear one word about free speech.’ And Romero just got up and stomped out. He was so insulted he left.” Mr. Silverglate was stuck with the restaurant tab, which FIRE picked up along with “the baton that Romero dropped.” Mr. Silverglate left the ACLU board soon after and is still a member of FIRE’s board.
FIRE was alarmed by the Kimmel suspension: “The government pressured ABC—and ABC caved,” the organization tweeted on Sept. 17. “We cannot be a country where late night talk show hosts serve at the pleasure of the president.” Mr. Silverglate, for his part, is unfazed by what he calls “the Kimmel kerfuffle.” There have “been fears of the death of free speech for as long as I’ve been alive—and longer.” But free speech “always manages to survive, because there’s a small band of stalwarts who remind people that the First Amendment protects free speech.” There are “times when speech has been in ascendance, and times when it has been in recession. It’s currently in recession. But fundamentally, it survives over the long term.
” What’s new is that “it’s under attack from the right. Most often, it has been under attack from the left.” Mr. Silverglate attributes the left’s drive for censorship to the influence of Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), a German-American philosopher who taught at Brandeis and Harvard. In an influential 1965 essay, “Repressive Tolerance,” Marcuse argued that free speech privileges the “predominant interests” in society and preserves a capitalist status quo. “A lot of our problems,” Mr. Silverglate says, “stem from Marxian logic that people who are the so-called underrepresented are entitled to more free-speech rights than the overrepresented. This is an absurdity, and it’s necessary to battle this theory.”
Kirk’s murder made him a martyr. “We have to be careful about reprisals against the left,” Mr. Silverglate says. “ ‘The left’ did not assassinate him. A mentally unstable fanatic did so.” He notes that President Trump began his administration “praising free speech, but suddenly wants to claim that it has produced violence.” Attorney General Pam Bondi has inveighed against “hate speech.”
Mr. Silverglate points out “the irony upon irony”: that Kirk rejected all this. In a much-cited tweet from May 2, 2024, Kirk declared: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”e Silverglate points out “the irony upon irony”: that Kirk rejected all this. In a much-cited tweet from May 2, 2024, Kirk declared: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
“I happen to like Charlie Kirk,” Mr. Silverglate says. “I’m a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. I didn’t agree with much of what he said, but his tolerance was crucial. He showed extraordinary tolerance of those who disagreed with him when he went to the campuses.” Kirk was able to “welcome and debate people of the left with whom he disagreed completely. And that’s the sign of a civilized person. Charlie Kirk was a civilized human being.”
Mr. Silverglate describes himself a “free-speech absolutist.” He even thinks American defamation law makes it too easy to sue for libel: “The law should be changed to allow a 30-day period in which a newspaper can publish a correction in as prominent a place in the paper as the defamation was placed. The correction would obviate a lawsuit.
”Free speech helps people “develop a thick skin, which is indispensable in a diverse democracy,” Mr. Silverglate says. “We cannot have laws based on what the thin-skinned want. It’s as simple as that. If the weakest among us determine what the laws are, the laws become oppressive.” He paraphrases a line he used in a 2006 interview: “You are not immune from being called an a—h —.” Then he explains why this is a good thing: “It’s a much better society where everyone can call everyone else an a—h— than a society where no one can call anyone an a—h—. Besides, it has a practical benefit. I know who doesn’t like me.”
I draw Mr. Silverglate’s attention to an essay published in the New York Times by Mr. Lukianoff, his protégé who now runs FIRE. It frames a seemingly intractable problem of “tit-for-tat” censorship by Democrats and Republicans when in power, implying that both sides are equally culpable. Obviously they aren’t. The Biden administration muzzled opinions on Covid and climate change that didn’t toe the government line. Mr. Lukianoff highlights the hounding of Mr. Kimmel, a rare counterexample. The high-minded solution he offers is that there be a disarmament-style pact between the parties to refrain from such curbs on speech. “So here’s my practical warning,” Mr. Lukianoff writes. “The weapon that you reach for today will be used against you tomorrow.”
A conservative would respond that it was used against him yesterday and for decades before that. As Mr. Silverglate acknowledges, speech suppression is rare on the modern right and an established practice on the left. He agrees that it would be easier to get the right to embrace a commitment to unimpaired free speech than the left, and that any “disarmament” would likely leave the left at an advantage. He insists nonetheless that “the way to deal with this heavyhandedness is not to abandon the principle of free speech, and not to emulate your enemy. That’s why neutral rules are so essential.”
He goes further. “It’s the right’s duty—D-U-T-Y—to protect what the left isn’t protecting. Because free speech is fundamentally a conservative principle. Historically in this country, the left has gone off the rails more frequently than the right. And it’s in the long-term interest of the right—and of the American nation—to keep us on the rails by protecting free speech.
” If the right fulfills this duty, Mr. Silverglate says, “it would also help those of good faith on the left to regain the ascendance within their own party. Right now, the Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders wing of the party seems to be in control. But history is a long battle, and their dominance can be reversed.”
Mr. Silverglate has one other suggestion for the protection of free speech from government overreach, and it draws on the University of Chicago’s free-speech policy statement from 2015.The statement affirms that “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” He suggests a “Chicago statement for the nation,” which would declare that “it is not the proper role of government to attempt to shield individuals” from ideas and opinions they don’t care for.
“I don’t know anybody in public life right now who would do that if he were in the White House,” he says. “But I think an articulate president could justify it. Only an articulate president could pull that off.”
Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at New York University Law School’s Classical Liberal Institute
*****
Can School Shootings Be Stopped?
By Chuck Carroll
The recent school shooting in Minneapolis was a horrible event. Both for those involved and for every parent and every school-aged child, everywhere.
The media has done its reporting job. Unfortunately, most is gobbledygook: sensationalizing, hand-wringing and faux causal analysis. These are distractions to preventing such tragedies in the future.
And prevention must be done. Even though the risks of being shot at school are statistically low, the best possible solutionsshould be implemented. To paraphrase a proverbial truth–The Right Solution is the One Most Likely to Succeed.
How to find the best possible solutions? Get clear on what actually happened. Answer the questions Who, What, Where. Parse the event into a just-the-facts police report:
· Who: A human, driven by insanity, terror and/or criminal gain
· What: Fired bullets from guns
· Where: Into a church/school complex
This resulted in 2 deaths, 21 woundings and nation-wide psychological trauma. These results could have been prevented by stopping any one of the Who, What, Where’s listed above. How would that work?
Who. The insane, terrorists and criminals require different interdictions. Of course, law enforcement should continue to stop these people. But none can be totally prevented. The insane are the hardest to stop, as many are Lone Wolves who have no associates who could report them.
What. Bullets and guns. This is a mess. There are more guns in circulation than the population of the United States. Even handled carefully, guns are dangerous. Our founding document–the US Constitution–includes language that seems to make gun ownership “a right”. Even if all guns were somehow confiscated, any 3D printer can manufacture a working gun in an afternoon.
I believe all guns should be registered, licensed and insured for damages they might cause. The model is automobile ownership. This would reduce guns in the hands of the insane, terrorists and criminals. But it would never eliminate them. The shooter in Minneapolis only had three guns.
This leads to Where: a church/school complex. This particular school failed at protecting its students.
We need to have armed guards at all schools. How about one guard for each side of the building. That would be 4 per school. Times the 87,711 elementary and high schools in the US. That would be 350,844 armed guards, at a burdened cost of $100K each. Or over $35 BILLION a year. Less than the cost of three aircraft carriers.
Surprisingly, this could be the best possible solution to protecting children in school.
A more cost-effective variation: state-of-the-art electronic security systems at every school. Each system would be intensely monitored by both human and AI surveillance during the entire school day. Suspicious visitors or actual intruders would trigger alarms to dispatch roving SWAT teams to stop the intruders before any shots are fired.
As I wrote this, I thought about why kids go to school in the first place. Universal education is relatively new in human history. “In 1852, Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to pass a compulsory universal public education law,” says Google. That was less than 200 years ago. Modern Homo Sapiens have been around about 160,000 years. So separating children from their mothers is a very new and sometimes deadly experiment.
We need to fix it.
AI Hype Cycle
by Chuck Carroll
Artificial Intelligence may be the greatest technology advance since Guttenberg
invented movable type. That was in 1450. For reference, only 7% of Germans could
actually read in 1450.
AI is a hot topic. Everybody has a story, an opinion perhaps even warnings about AI.
But what is it, really? To find out, let us consult Gartner, Inc.
Gartner is a global advisory firm to help executives make informed business and
technology decisions. One tool they use is the Hype Cycle to represent the maturity,
adoption, and social application of specific technologies.
Here is an overview of AI by a Gartner client Jan Beger, Global Head of AI Advocacy,
GE HealthCare, following the Hype Cycle model:
“Based on the 2025 Gartner Hype Cycle for Artificial Intelligence, AI technologies
are currently spread across the first four phases of the cycle. No technologies
have reached the Plateau of Productivity yet.
“Several technologies—such as AI Agents, AI-Ready Data, Responsible AI, AI
Engineering, and Multimodal AI—are positioned at or near the Peak of Inflated
Expectations. These areas are attracting significant attention and investment,
though real-world impact and scalability remain uncertain.
“Technologies like Foundation Models, Synthetic Data, Edge AI, and Generative
AI have moved into the Trough of Disillusionment, where initial hype has tapered
off and organizations are facing practical challenges in implementation, cost, and
return on investment.
“More mature approaches—such as model distillation, knowledge graphs, and
cloud AI services—are on the Slope of Enlightenment, where benefits are clearer
and adoption is expanding in targeted use cases.
“Earlier-stage innovations, including Quantum AI, AI-Native Software
Engineering, and Artificial General Intelligence, remain in the Innovation Trigger
phase. These are still in research or pilot stages, with limited adoption and longer
timelines to maturity.
“Overall, the AI landscape in 2025 reflects a mix of hype, early progress, and
emerging value. Understanding where each technology stands on the cycle can
help organizations set realistic expectations and make better-informed
investment decisions.”
Well, that is interesting. AI appears quite complex, multi-disciplinary and needing many
humans to get up to speed. And like Guttenberg’s fellow citizens, I would hazard that
most people do not understand AI.
Note to Investors: best investments might be in companies that make it to the Plateau of
Productivity.
Good luck to us all.
The author was a Gartner client and Technology Evangelist for the first mainframe Y2K
remediation solution.