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

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

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

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

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

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

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