A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that conservative and very conservative Americans have more confidence that President Trump will protect their First Amendment rights than Gov. Gavin Newsom or the Supreme Court. Liberal and very liberal Americans are skeptical that any of them will protect their first amendment rights, though they are most confident in Newsom.
The fifth installment of FIRE’s National Free Speech Index further reveals that there is a partisan disagreement about the security of free speech in America and whether or not it is headed in the right direction. When it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, conservatives are more likely to think that things in America are heading in the right direction and are likely to think that the right to freedom of speech is secure in America today, compared to liberals.
This was not the case three months ago.
Overall, when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, 41% of Americans think things in America are heading in the right direction, up 5% from October when 36% of Americans felt this way. Yet, compared to last year, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the direction freedom of speech is headed in America in this month’s survey. In July of last year, 31% of very liberal and 45% of liberal Americans reported that freedom of speech in America is headed in the right direction while just 16% of conservative and 20% of very conservative Americans reported the same. Then, in October, 46% of very liberal and 49% of liberal Americans reported the same while just 18% of conservative and 30% of conservative Americans did.
This month however, more conservative (52%) and very conservative (49%) Americans reported thinking things in America are heading in the right direction when it comes to freedom of speech compared to moderate (42%), liberal (34%) or very liberal (31%) Americans. After October last year, a drastic shift in ideological perspective on the state of free speech occurred between liberals and conservatives. While liberal and very liberal Americans were more likely to think that things in America were heading in the right direction in October, in January, conservative and very conservative Americans are now the ones most likely to report the same.
In addition, last year, very liberal and liberal Americans reported much more confidence than conservative and very conservative Americans in the security of free speech in America. In July, 41% of very liberal and 30% of liberal Americans reported that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very” secure while 49% of conservative and 61% of very conservative Americans reported the same.
In October, the partisan divide grew larger, with 32% of very liberal and 27% of liberal Americans reporting that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure” while 55% of conservative and 60% of very conservative Americans reported the same.
The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election.
Yet, this month, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the security of free speech in America, with 46% of very liberal and 36% of liberal Americans reporting “not at all” or “not very secure” and 29% of conservative and 41% of very conservative Americans reporting the same, showcasing conservatives’ growing trust that their free speech rights are secure.
Moderates, on the other hand, have remained consistent in their views over the last six months, with approximately 40% of moderates reporting that the freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure”.
This quarter’s survey makes evident the ideological trends among Americans and their perspectives on the security and condition of their free speech rights. The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election.
FIRE’s poll found confidence in the future of free speech is still low (41%), but jumped 10 points compared to a July poll.
Conservatives went from the most pessimistic subgroup to the most optimistic following Donald Trump’s election, while liberals’ optimism fell.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 30, 2025 —A new poll finds that confidence in the future of free speech in America and belief in Donald Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment both saw an uptick, at least among conservatives. (Liberals are not so sure.)
The newest edition of the National Speech Index — a quarterly barometer of free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — found that Americans are still mostly pessimistic about the state of free expression in America, with only 41% saying the country is headed in the right direction.
But those numbers represent an all-time high since FIRE began asking the question last year, and a 10-point jump from the 31% who said the country was headed in the right direction in July.
The increase in confidence is driven in large part by a substantial surge in free speech optimism from self-described conservatives. The October edition of the National Speech Index found that less than a third (30%) of very conservative Americans and less than a fifth (18%) of conservative Americans said that people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, while now roughly half of very conservative (49%) and conservative (52%) Americans now say it is headed in the right direction.
“Unsurprisingly, the sudden shift suggests that for many Americans’ their feelings about the future of free speech depend in large part on whether they trust whomever occupies the White House,” said FIRE Research Fellow and Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “Of course, we at FIRE have long recognized that no party has a monopoly on censorship.”
Liberals, on the other hand, saw a drop in free speech optimism. In October, 46% of very liberal Americans and 49% of liberal Americans said people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, compared to about a third now (34% and 32% respectively). That fall wasn’t large enough to outweigh the large jump from conservatives.
When asked about Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment, opinions were mixed. While 39% said they had “quite a lot” or “full” confidence he would protect their First Amendment rights, 41% said they had “very little” or “no confidence at all.” But that’s still a seven-point increase from when FIRE asked the same question about then-candidate Trump in October, when 32% said they had “quite a lot” or “full confidence” in Trump’s protection of the First Amendment.
For comparison, FIRE also asked about the Supreme Court and a high-profile elected official on the other side of the political aisle, California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Opinions on Newsom were split neatly into thirds: 34% said they had high confidence, 34% said they had some confidence, and 32% expressed low confidence. Meanwhile, only 23% of Americans said they had high confidence in the Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights, compared to 44% who said they had low confidence.
“Though declining levels of trust in institutions is concerning, skepticism that politicians or the courts will protect your free speech is always a healthy instinct,” said Honeycutt. “The best defense against censorship isn’t a particular public official. It’s the American people themselves cultivating a free speech culture, defending others’ right to disagree, and holding leaders accountable.”
As censorship attempts tend to target controversial and unpopular opinions, FIRE asked respondents to judge several political statements on how offensive they found them. The results showed that wide swathes of Americans identified statements on both sides of certain divisive topics as offensive. While 45% of respondents found it “very” or “extremely” offensive to say “Black Lives Matter is a hate group,” for example, 51% said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” was an offensive statement as well.
In another example, 40% of Americans believe that “transgender people have a mental disorder” — a sentiment banned on Facebook and Instagram until earlier this month — is an extremely or very offensive statement. But 59% also said the idea that “children should be able to transition without parental consent” was offensive.
“The problem with policing offensive speech is that there will always be disagreement on what is and isn’t offensive,” said FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Many people who want to ban offensive speech imagine they could never end up on the receiving end, but often what people find offensive changes rapidly.”
The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab to capture Americans’ views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans’ views change over time. The January 2025 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted between January 3 and January 9, 2025. The survey’s margin of error of +/- 3%.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
Thus far this term, the Supreme Court has rendered judgments in three free speech cases. In two of them, it vacated and remanded the matters for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino (2024) (per curiam, First Amendment retaliation claims). In the other case, TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland, the Court rejected the First Amendment claim.
At this point, the following eight cases remain on the docket and involve everything from student speech to campaign financing to abortion clinic buffer zones and an occupational licensing case, among other things.
The Eight Cases
1. The university bias-response teams case
Issue: Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech under the First Amendment.
Counsel for Petitioner: J. Michael Connolly of Consovoy McCarthy, former Director of the Free Speech Clinic at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
2. The conversations between counselors and their clients case
Issue: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Counsel for Petitioner: John J. Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
3. The public middle school that censored a T-shirt case
Issue: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.
Counsel for Petitioner: John J. Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom.
4. The campaign limits on coordinated party expenditures case
Issue: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.
Counsel for Petitioner: Noel J. Francisco of Jones Day, former Solicitor General.
5. The occupational-licensing law case
Issue: Whether, in an as-applied First Amendment challenge to an occupational-licensing law, the standard for determining whether the law regulates speech or regulates conduct is this Court’s traditional conduct-versus-speech dichotomy.
Counsel for Petitioner: Samuel B. Gedge of the Institute for Justice.
Counsel for Petitioner: Walter M. Weber, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
8. The fee to speak to government officials about political issues case
Issue: Whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.
Counsel for Petitioner: Kyle D. Hawkins of Lehotsky Keller Cohn, who served as a law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito.
Revenge against political enemies: Executive tactic?
In his first week in office, President Trump made clear that his promises to exact revenge on his perceived enemies were not empty campaign pledges — and that his retribution is intended not just to impose punishment for the past but also to intimidate anyone who might cross him in the future.
By removing security protections from former officials facing credible death threats, he signaled that he was willing to impose potentially profound consequences on anyone he sees as having been insufficiently loyal. That included his former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who helped lead the pandemic response.
Mr. Trump’s decision to try to scale back civil service protections was aimed at culling federal employees he believes slowed or blocked his first-term agenda and replacing them with loyalists.
[ . . . ]
[These and other measures taken] together . . . send a clear signal that Mr. Trump feels unconstrained about punishing the disloyal, that he is potentially willing to go further against his enemies than he had pledged on the campaign trail and that there will be a price for any opposition to come.
Trump video clip
WATCH VIDEO: Trump speech: ‘Bring back free speech to America’
Controlling academic freedom: Another Executive tactic?
FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley
“There’s kind of a multifront threat right now as to whether or not you can express views that are unpopular with the folks in the White House and executive agencies and continue to enjoy the protections of the First Amendment on academic freedom,” said Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which fights both left- and right-wing infringements on free speech.
[ . . . ]
Creeley, at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, predicts that many state legislatures, local officials and university trustees are going to enlist, either out of enthusiasm or expediency, in the crusade to bring the academic left to heel. “I think you’ll see professors investigated and terminated. I think you’re going to see students punished, and I think you’re going to see a pre-emptive action on those fronts,” he said.
Just look at what’s happened at Harvard this week. On Tuesday it announced that, as part of a lawsuit settlement, it would adopt a definition of antisemitism that includes some harsh criticisms of Israel and Zionism, such as holding Israel to a “double standard” and likening its policies to Nazism. Though Harvard claims that it still adheres to the First Amendment, under this definition a student or professor who accuses Israel of genocidal action in Gaza — as the Israeli American Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov has — might be subject to disciplinary action.
Trump suit against Pulitzer board — Ballard Spahr for the defense
Charles Tobin for the defense
On Monday, the board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes — which Mr. Trump sued in Florida in 2022 for defamation — said that the case should be put on hold because, as Mr. Trump has argued in two other cases, a state court should not be permitted to exert control over a sitting president.
“Defendants agree,” wrote the law firm representing the board, Ballard Spahr. “To avoid such constitutional conflicts, the court should stay this case until plaintiff’s term in office has concluded.”
Mr. Trump’s lawsuit accuses the Pulitzer board of defaming him, in essence, by continuing to honor The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A state judge in Florida last year cleared the case to proceed toward trial.
The Pulitzer board’s filing on Monday leaned heavily on statements the president’s legal team had made in other cases. One involved a suit filed in 2017 by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice” reality show, who accused the president of unwanted sexual advances. Mr. Trump’s team argued that her suit should be thrown out or delayed because dealing with it — including by producing records during discovery or being forced to appear in court — would “disrupt and impair” Mr. Trump’s ability to do his job. (The suit was settled in 2021, after he was out of office.)
Mr. Trump’s lawyers repeated that argument last week in a differentcase in Delaware, in which he and his social media company are defendants.
Excerpt from Trump v. Members of the Pulitzer Prize Board
[Motion to temporarily stay civil action]
It is well-established that “a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to stay a case pending before it.” Shake Consulting, LLC v. Suncruz Casinos, LLC, 781So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming trial court’s entry of stay). For three reasons, the Court should exercise that discretion and stay this action until Plaintiff’s term in office has concluded.
First, as Plaintiff himself has argued, and continues to argue, allowing a lawsuit to proceed in state court while a party to that action is the sitting President would invite irresolvable constitutional conflicts arising from the Supremacy Clause.
Second, the grounds for staying this action are particularly strong because the prize-winning articles concern — and discovery will thus need to probe — Plaintiff’s official actions during his first term.
Third, entering a stay will not prejudice Plaintiff, whereas denying a stay would pose constitutional issues both by stopping him from seeking to stay future civil litigation that may arise in state court during his presidency and by raising due process concerns for the Defendants.
Attorneys for the Defendants
Nunes loses defamation case
Nunes and his family’s farm can’t sufficiently show damages, so the court doesn’t have to reach any of the other elements of defamation.
New scholarly article: Calo on holding social media accountable
Prof. Ryan Calo
Plaintiffs are beginning to test the boundaries of tort law once again to fit social media. Seattle and other public-school districts recently sued TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms on the age-old theory of nuisance, arguing that these companies endanger public health by fostering a toxic online environment. When two boys died in a high-speed accident trying to trigger Snapchat’s “Speed Filter,” the Ninth Circuit allowed a cause of action to proceed against the company for negligent design. Snap could be held responsible for the “predictable consequences” of its irresponsible feature, the court reasoned, even though the “Speed Filter” always accompanied user-generated content. Washington election officials successfully sued Facebook, over its Section 230 objection, for failing to keep records on political ads in the state. The emphasis, again, was on Facebook’s own conduct around the ads, rather than the content of the ads themselves.
There is an admittedly fine line between attributing third party content to the platform, which federal law forbids, and holding the platform accountable for foreseeable harms to people and communities, which tort law encourages. What did TikTok do wrong in Anderson? They did not film or upload a dangerous challenge video, and they cannot be held liable for hosting, distributing, or even recommending it. But has TikTok invested enough time and resources in protecting children on the platform, especially considering what the company knows about the toxic content that appears there?
Should families like Nylah’s be able to rely upon TikTok’s own community guidelines, which pledge to “[r]estrict content that is not suitable for youth”? Such questions sound less in derivative liability as non- and misfeasance. Section 230 was meant to be a shield, not a shibboleth. Courts should be trying to thread this needle, rather than pretending Section 230 does not exist. Obviously wrong interpretations of Section 230, like the Third Circuit’s in Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., only set the law back.
Forthcoming scholarly article on AI and free speech
This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, First Amendment protections. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment right to receive the outputs.
We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government’s ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.
Freedom Forum’s new ad campaign
Barbara Yolles Ludwig, CEO of LUDWIG+
LUDWIG+, a woman-owned brand actualization and business acceleration agency, is pleased to announce that they have been named as the creative agency for Freedom Forum’s new advertising campaign. Freedom Forum is the nation’s foremost nonpartisan advocate for First Amendment freedoms. As part of this collaboration, LUDWIG+ helped conceptualize and launch “Brought to You By the First Amendment,” a multichannel advertising campaign designed to drive awareness for the everyday freedoms made possible by the First Amendment.
Today, Freedom Forum launched a dynamic and engaging digital experience with The Onion to further magnify the reach of this campaign. Combining The Onion’s satirical voice with Freedom Forum’s mission to foster First Amendment freedoms for all, this collaboration features onsite and social content strategically created and curated by LUDWIG+. The activation includes several articles published by The Onion that highlight First Amendment freedoms, as well as multiple digital infographics, videos and ad banners that showcase how freedom of speech is central to a thriving and diverse society.
[ . . . ]
“It’s an incredible honor to partner with Freedom Forum in championing our First Amendment freedoms and bringing the ‘Brought To You By the First Amendment’ campaign to life,” said Barbara Yolles Ludwig, Founder and CEO of LUDWIG+. “The First Amendment shapes our everyday lives — from the clothes we wear, the music we love, the books we cherish and the beliefs we hold. We look forward to bringing awareness to this paramount mission and the continued success of this campaign.”
New Book: The Chicago canon on free inquiry
A collection of texts that provide the foundation for the University of Chicago’s longstanding tradition of free expression, principles that are at the center of current debates within higher education and society more broadly.
Free inquiry and expression are hotly contested, both on campus and in social and political life. Since its founding in the late nineteenth century, the University of Chicago has been at the forefront of conversations around free speech and academic freedom in higher education. The University’s approach to free expression grew from a sterling reputation as a research university as well as a commitment to American pragmatism and democratic progress, all of which depended on what its first president referred to as the “complete freedom of speech on all subjects.” In 2015, more than 100 years later, then University provost and president J.D. Isaacs and Robert Zimmer echoed this commitment, releasing a statement by a faculty committee led by law professor Geoffrey R. Stone that has come to be known as the Chicago Principles, now adopted or endorsed by one hundred U.S. colleges and universities. These principles are just a part of the long-standing dialogue at the University of Chicago around freedom of expression — its meaning and limits. The Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression brings together exemplary documents — some published for the first time here — that explain and situate this ongoing conversation with an introductory essay that brings the tradition to light.
Throughout waves of historical and societal challenges, this first principle of free expression has required rearticulation and new interpretations. The documents gathered here include, among others, William Rainey Harper’s “Freedom of Speech” (1900), the Kalven Committee’s report on the University’s role in political and social action (1967), and Geoffrey R. Stone’s “Free Speech on Campus: A Challenge of Our Times” (2016). Together, the writings of the canon reveal how the Chicago tradition is neither static nor stagnant, but a vibrant experiment; a lively struggle to understand, practice, and advance free inquiry and expression.
At a time of nationwide campus speech debates, engaging with these texts and the questions they raise is essential to sustaining an environment of broad intellectual and ideological diversity. This book offers a blueprint for the future of higher education’s vital work and points to the civic value of free expression.
‘So to Speak’ Podcast: Interview with the editors of ‘The Chicago Canon’
The University of Chicago is known for its commitment to free speech and academic freedom. Why are these values important to the university? Where do they originate? And how do they help administrators navigate conflicts and controversies?
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
Burnsville, MN – January 16, 2025 – Mackin, a leader in providing print and digital educational resources for PK-12, is proud to announce that its free digital content management platform, MackinVIA, has earned the Platinum Award in LibraryWorks’ 10th annual Modern Library Awards (MLAs). This prestigious accolade marks MackinVIA’s 10th consecutive win, solidifying its position as a top choice for digital content management in schools worldwide.
The MLAs, which celebrate the best products and services in the library industry, are awarded based on an unbiased voting process involving over 80,000 librarians from public, K-12, academic, and special libraries. Judges evaluated submissions on a range of criteria, including functionality, value, and customer service. MackinVIA received an outstanding score of 9.25, a testament to its continued excellence and innovation.
“We’re honored to receive the Platinum Award for the 10th year in a row,” said Troy Mikell, Director of Marketing and Communications at Mackin. “Since launching MackinVIA over a decade ago, we’ve continually focused on creating a powerful, user-friendly platform for educators and students. Our relentless drive for improvement and exceptional customer service has fueled MackinVIA’s success, and it’s thrilling to see that effort recognized once again.”
MackinVIA is accessible by more than 9 million students worldwide, providing access to over 4 million eBooks, audiobooks, read-alongs, databases, and video resources. Its digital platform offers a dynamic and comprehensive solution for PK-12 schools looking to streamline content management and improve student engagement.
Jenny Newman, Publisher and MLA Program Manager, noted, “MackinVIA’s consistent excellence in functionality and service is what has kept them at the forefront of the industry for over 40 years. Their innovative approach continues to break barriers and set new standards.”
About Mackin For over 40 years, Mackin has provided PK-12 grade libraries and classrooms with access to nearly 4 million printed and digital titles. The 24-time, multi-award-winning, digital content management system, MackinVIA, along with divisions Mackin Classroom, MackinMaker, Mackin Learning, and the brand-new, whole school resource management system, MackinVision, help to create a truly unique and robust educational resource company that schools and educators have relied on, year after year. For more information, visit www.mackin.com or call 800-245-9540.
About LibraryWorks LibraryWorks helps library administrators make informed decisions regarding technology, automation, collection management, staffing, and other key areas that support efficient library operations. Their resources empower libraries to implement best practices, monitor trends, evaluate products and services, and more.
About the Modern Library Awards (MLAs) The MLAs recognize outstanding products and services that enhance library operations and improve the user experience. Entries are judged by library professionals based on their relevance, functionality, and impact on the library sector.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
Social media has connected kids like never before, but what they get in likes and shares, they lose in real, meaningful engagement with their peers and classmates. Lunch hours are spent hunched over smartphones, and after-school time means less sports and more Snapchat.
The adverse effects of this excessive screen time have significantly impacted students’ social- emotional health. Forty-one percent of teens with the highest social media usage struggle with mental health issues, and between 2010 and 2020, anxiety among adolescents skyrocketed by 106 percent.
At Spokane Public Schools (SPS), educators and administrators are reversing the side effects of social media by re-connecting with students through school-based extracurricular activities. Through its transformative Engage IRL (Engage in Real Life) initiative, the district is encouraging kids to get off their devices and onto the pickleball court, into the swimming pool, and outside in the fresh air. With more than 300 clubs and sports to choose from, SPS students are happier, healthier, and less likely to reach for their smartphones.
An innovative approach to student engagement
Even before the pandemic, SPS saw levels of engagement plummet among the student population, especially in school attendance rates, due in part to an increase in mental health issues caused by social media. Rebuilding classroom connections in the era of phone-based childhoods would require district leaders to think big.
“The question was not ‘How do we get kids off their phones?’ but ‘How do we get them engaged with each other more often?’” said Ryan Lancaster, executive director of communications for SPS. “Our intent was to get every kid, every day, involved in something positive outside the school day and extend that community learning past the classroom.”
To meet the district’s goal of creating a caring and connected community, in 2022, school leaders formed a workgroup of parents, community members, coaches, and teachers to take inventory of current extracurriculars at all district schools and identify gaps in meeting students’ diverse interests and hobbies.
Engaging with students was a top priority for workgroup members. “The students were excited to be heard,” explained Nikki Otero Lockwood, SPS board president. “A lot of them wanted an art club. They wanted to play board games and learn to knit. No matter their interests, what they really wanted was to be at school and be connected to others.”
Working with community partners and LaunchNW, an Innovia Foundation initiative focused on helping every child feel a sense of belonging, SPS launched Engage IRL–an ambitious push to turn students’ ideas for fun and fulfillment into real-life, engaging activities.
Over the past two years, Engage IRL has been the catalyst for increasing access and opportunities for K-12 students to participate in clubs, sports, arts activities, and other community events. From the Math is Cool Club and creative writing classes to wrestling and advanced martial arts, kids can find a full range of activities to join through the Elite IRL website. In addition, five engagement navigators in the district help connect families and students to engagement opportunities through individual IRL Plans and work with local organizations to expand programming.
“All day, every day, our navigators are working to break down barriers and tackle challenges to make sure nothing gets in the way of what kids want to be involved in and engaged in,” said Stephanie Splater, executive director of athletics and activities for SPS. “For example, when we didn’t have a coach for one of the schools in our middle school football program, our navigators mobilized for really good candidates in a short amount of time just from their personal outreach.”
In only two years, student engagement in extracurriculars has nearly doubled. Furthermore, according to Lancaster, since the Engage IRL launch, SPS hasn’t experienced a day where it dipped below 90 percent attendance.
“That’s an outlier in the past few years for us, for sure, and we think it’s because kids want to be at school. They want to be engaged and be part of all the cool things we’re doing. We’ve had a really great start to the 2024-2025 school year, and Engage IRL has played a huge role.”
Engage IRL also helped SPS weather student blowback when the district launched a new cell phone policy this year. The policy prohibits cell phone use in elementary and middle school and limits it to lunch and periods between classes for high school students. Because students were already building personal connections with classmates and teachers through Engage IRL, many easily handled social media withdrawal.
Creating opportunities for all kids
Key to Engage IRL’s success was ensuring partnerships and programs were centered in equity, allowing every child to participate regardless of ability, financial or transportation constraints, or language barriers.
Establishing a no-cut policy in athletics by creating additional JV and C teams ensured kids with a passion for sports, but not college-level skills, continued to compete on the court or field. Partnering with Special Olympics also helped SPS build new unified sports programs that gave children with disabilities a chance to play. And engagement navigators are assisting English language learners and their families in finding activities that help them connect with kids in their new country.
For Otero Lockwood, getting her daughter with autism connected to clubs after years of struggling to find school activities has been life-changing.
“There are barriers to finding community for some kids,” she shared. “We know kids with disabilities are more likely to be underemployed as adults and not as connected to the community. This is something we have the power to do that will have a lasting impact on the children we serve.”
Through Engage IRL, SPS has redefined student engagement by expanding access and opportunity to 6,000 students across 58 schools. In just two short years, the district has seen attendance increase, student wellness improve, and dependence on smartphones diminish. By continuing to listen to the needs of students and rallying the community to partner on out-of-school activities, Spokane Public Schools is successfully fostering the face-to-face connections every child needs to thrive.
Sean Duke, Washington State School Directors’ Association
Sean Duke is the communications officer for the Washington State School Directors’ Association, where he has served for over six years.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
This blog was written by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Advocacy at HEPI.
Free speech is back in the news. Implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was paused shortly after the general election to allow time for the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson, to consider whether the law should be repealed.
Many expected that to be the case and were perhaps surprised to hear that the Government will implement the ‘Free Speech Act’ after all – with only two measures being considered for repeal – the duties placed on Student Unions and the statutory tort (the proposed legal route for individuals who suffer a loss due to a breach of their free speech). Bridget Philipson announced in the House of Commons that she proposes ‘keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS’. This scheme will consider complaints from staff, external speakers and university members, but not students (who can seek external review of a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education – the OIA). There are a couple of nerdy regulatory points to note here:
There is still the possibility of the following scenario: A student raises a complaint of harassment from a member of staff. The institution concludes that the staff member did harass the student, and the staff member receives a written warning. The student believes that the outcome of the case was inappropriate and (following an unsuccessful appeal) takes the complaint to the OIA, who upholds the complaint and instructs the institution to compensate the student financially. The staff member feels that their free speech has been impinged by this process and raises a complaint with the OfS, who considers the complaint justified and instructs the institution to compensate the staff member financially. Therefore, we end up with a perverse scenario where two external bodies reach contradictory conclusions about the same event.
The OfS will not have a duty to assess every complaint it receives; rather, it will have the power to consider complaints. Bridget Philipson’s speech specifically mentioned the OfS not having to assess poorly put-together or nonsensical complaints. However, a robust, published decision-making framework will need to outline which cases the OfS will consider and which it will not, lest it be perceived that this loophole could be influenced by political persuasion.
Policy wonks and those who must implement this legislation in institutions wait with bated breath….
The quite extraordinary amount of time this legislation took to pass, plus the stopping and starting of its implementation, gave me time to ponder its practical implementation. I wonder if the focus of the free speech debate has missed the mark.
Thousands of column inches have been dedicated to discussing free speech in university, including my own previous blog series:
Much of the discussion has focussed on individual speakers being invited to campus to speak on particularly polarising topics. This may be an important part of promoting free speech, but if it doesn’t change anyone’s mind, is it just someone shouting into the void? Creating an in-person version of Twitter is unlikely to effectively promote free speech if only those who already agree with the speaker attend and those who feel offended by the topic or the speaker stay away. By almost solely focusing on this approach, we risk missing a significant opportunity.
I’ve reflected on the circumstances that have led me to change my mind or opinion – or just to be genuinely interested in someone’s different belief or values system. It was not someone yelling polarising opinions but a considered conversation with someone who thinks differently from me. I have the genuine privilege of working with colleagues from across the political spectrum and engaging in debate and discussion, often publicly, on a daily basis. My ideas and beliefs are constantly challenged and given a chance to develop.
One of the first lectures of my PGCE explained that ‘unlearning’ is much harder than learning. Therefore, if your pupils already believe that they know something, it is much more difficult to change their perception than to paint information on a blank canvas.
If we truly want to promote free speech, we have to teach the skills of unlearning: curiosity, open mindedness, resilience and tolerance. This isn’t to say that all students should change their minds or perceptions. This might happen, but what we also need to develop is the curiosity to understand why someone thinks or believes differently from us. What led them to this belief? Why is it important to them? And, in turn, why do we hold the belief that we do? What led us to that viewpoint and why is it important to us?
I appreciate that this becomes more complex when students’ own identities may be intertwined with these topics. While the right to speak freely is crucial, the choice to disengage from a topic that causes deep distress should also be respected. However, there are myriad interesting and challenging topics we can explore to learn from one another. One memorable experience from my time at the University of Bath was when a student explained to me that she found it patronising and incorrect for UK universities to teach that democracy was always the right way to organise society, especially when she observed greater poverty and inequality in the UK than in her home country. This didn’t alter my view on the importance of democratic rights or that it is the best way to organise society – but I’m so grateful that my ingrained belief and perception were challenged in this way and that I had the opportunity to consider an entire societal structure through the perspective of someone from a different background to my own.
This conversation occurred by chance. As universities strive to promote free speech amidst the new registration requirements, how can we encourage the sharing of diverse, and at times challenging, opinions? Additionally, how can we teach the skills not only to debate our own views but also to listen to the opinions of others? Stimulating debate is, of course, the foundation of university teaching and research, and many institutions create spaces for this to occur daily. However, with ongoing criticism that universities are stifling debate and the new regulations coming into effect, providers will need to formalise and promote these opportunities. (Please write a blog for us if you would like to highlight your best practice in this area!)
In the age of disinformation, where critical thinking is increasingly important, how can we expect students to critically analyse information shared by others if they cannot first critically analyse their own thoughts?
Let’s begin with President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address (Jan. 20), if only to contrast it with last week’s condemnation of his lawsuit against J. Ann Selzer, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett (see also FAN 451, 449 and 436).
Ready? Here it goes:
After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.
Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents, something I know something about. We will not allow that to happen. It will not happen again. Under my leadership, we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.
Never again! It will not happen again! Stop all government censorship!
And there’s more: When it comes to free speech, all views will be treated with “impartial justice.” Against that promissory note, let us turn to his unprecedented executive order as discussed below.
Executive Order: Jan. 20, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
What follows is a brief description of the Executive Order along with some preliminary comments.
Section 1. Purpose
This section opens with an attack on the Biden administration’s alleged “trampl[ing of] free speech rights” when it comes to “online platforms.” Such abridgments, it is asserted, were done in the name of combating “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” in order to advance the Biden administration’s “preferred narrative.”
Note at the outset that this section is primarily addressed to reversing the Biden administration’s apparent censorship of online expression. Even so, there is a generalized statement: “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”
Keep that in mind when it comes to what is set out in Section 4 below.
Section 2. Policy
This section focuses on four commitments: (i) securing free speech rights of all “American[s]”; (ii) mandating that “no [federal] agent engages in or facilitates” abridgments of free speech; (iii) ensuring that no “taxpayer resources” are used to abridge free speech; and (iv) identify and correct any past federal abridgments of free speech.
Unlike Section 1, the explicit focus of this section is not confined to any free speech abridgments committed by the previous administration. The focus is on securing free speech rights of “citizens.” Hence, the policy is directed to an affirmative obligation of the Executive branch to protect free speech rights. The operative action words are “secur[ing],” “ensur[ing],”and“identify[ing].”
Thus, there is a duty to ensure that no federal officers are used or taxpayer dollars expended in violation of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Also, unlike Section 1, much of Section 2 applies to all free speech rights and not those confined to social media. There is also a promise to investigate for any and all existing abridgments of free speech committed by “past misconduct by the Federal Government.”
Section 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech
Like Section 1, this section focuses on the actions of the past administration (i.e., abridgments committed “over the past four years”). This section, unlike section 2, explicitly applies to federal departments and agencies, though it also applies to federal officers, agents and employees. Such agencies and departments must comply with the requirements of Section 2.
The second portion of this section deals with the investigative powers of the attorney general working “in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies.” Again, this investigation is confined to wrongs committed by the past administration. Following such investigations, a “report” shall be submitted to the President suggesting “remedial actions.”
Much of this section seems repetitive of what is set out in Section 2, save for the references to federal departments and agencies and the need for investigation followed by a report to the President. Note that under Section 3, remedial action is suggested, whereas under Section 4, per this Executive Order, remedial action against the United States and its officers is prohibited.
Section 4. General Provisions
In order to appreciate the import of this clause, it is best to quote the final provision (sub-section (c) it in its entirety (with emphasis added):
This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The opening provisions of this Section refer to authorizations of grants of executive power. The Order is to be implemented consistent with the “applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
Importantly, While the First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government and all its officers, this Executive Order:
applies to free speech wrongs committed during “the last 4 years” or “past misconduct by the Federal Government” or abridgments occurring “over the last 4 years,” though there is a passing mention of securing the free speech rights of all “American[s].”
Yet even as against such past alleged free speech wrongs, the sole remedy is by way of corrective action taken by the Executive Branch.
If such corrective action, or any other actions taken by Executive officials in pursuance of this Executive Order, themselves abridge First Amendment rights, there is no independent remedy secured by the Order.
FIRE weighs in with its own free speech recommendations to the President
Below are the four general categories of recommendations made (see link above for specifics):
Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act
Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies
Rein in government jawboning
Protect First Amendment rights when it comes to AI
“As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint — and FIRE stands ready to help in that effort.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in free expression mode at the Inauguration?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2024. (Imagn Images)
Excerpts from Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc.
Kash Patel, seen here at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, is President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FBI. (Consolidated News Photos / Shutterstock.com)
An excerpt from today’s Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc., decided by Judge Rosemarie Annunziata, joined by Judge Vernida Chaney (the opinions weigh in at over 12,000 words, so I only excerpt some key passages).
Abortion picketing case lingers on docket
The cert. petition in the abortion picketing case, with Paul Clement as lead counsel, has been on the Court’s docket since July 16 of last year. It has been distributed for conferences seven times, the last being Jan. 21. In his petition, Mr. Clement (joined by Erin Murphy) explicitly called on the Court to “overrule Hill v. Colorado.” (See FAN 433, July 31, 2024))
Paul Clements and Erin Murphy
More in the News
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
Since the 2008 election, our President and CEO Greg Lukianoff has written to each new president upon their inauguration, offering FIRE’s perspective on how they can help defend free speech and academic freedom.
As President Trump enters office today, there is much work to be done. Free speech is under attack on college campuses. In fact, last year was the worst on record for free speech on college campuses, as more attempts were made to deplatform speakers on campus than any year since FIRE began tracking in 1998. And professors are censoring themselves more now than at the height of the McCarthy era.
Off campus, the situation is alarming as well.
Greg’s letter to President Trump highlights some policies his administration can implement to help remedy the situation and protect free speech over the next four years, on campus or off.
1. Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act
A 2024 FIRE study found that only 15% of public colleges and universities’ speech policies comply fully with their First Amendment obligations.This should be a national scandal.
But there’s a simple way for the Trump administration, working with Congress, to better protect the free speech rights of our nation’s students.
FIRE to Congress: More work needed to protect free speech on college campuses
News
FIRE joined Rep. Murphy’s annual Campus Free Speech Roundtable to discuss the free speech opportunities and challenges facing colleges.
We ask that Trump support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act — or another piece of legislation to protect campus speech rights — to codify speech protective standards including ending “free speech zones” that limit where students can hold demonstrations, the levying of viewpoint-based security costs to punish student groups seeking to host “controversial” speakers, and encouraging institutions to adopt the Chicago Principles on Free Expression.
At least 23 states have enacted some of these commonsense provisions, but student free speech rights deserve federal protection. Legislation to ensure that all of our nation’s public colleges and universities finally protect the basic free speech rights of their students should be a top priority.
2. Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies
In the landmark 1999 decision Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court defined student-on-student harassment as behavior that “is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”
After 25 years of advocating for students’ rights on campus, FIRE knows all too well how definitions of student-on-student harassment that fail to meet the Davis standard will inevitably be used to punish protected speech. Consider the 2022 case of eight law students at American University who were put under investigation for participating in a heated back-and-forth following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion, after another student said their pro-choice commentary harassed and discriminated against him based on his religious, pro-life beliefs.
As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint
But properly applied, the Davis standard ensures that institutions protect students against actual discriminatory behavior as opposed to punishing students who merely express controversial viewpoints.
3. Rein in government jawboning
Leaks and disclosures over the past few years have brought to light demands, threats, and other coercion from government officials to social media companies aimed at suppressing particular viewpoints and ideas.
This practice, known as jawboning, is a serious threat to free speech. But the Trump administration can prevent jawboning by federal officials with the following steps:
Prohibit federal employees from jawboning;
Support legislation to require transparency when government officials communicate with social media companies about content moderation. FIRE’s SMART Act is one such model bill.
Refrain from threatening or pressuring social media platforms to change their content moderation practices or suppress particular users.
And, of course, refrain from making calls for investigations, prosecutions, or other government retaliation in response to the exercise of First Amendment rights outside of the social media context as well.
4. Protect First Amendment rights when it comes to AI
Over the course of history, technologies that make communication easier have aided the process of knowledge discovery: from the printing press and the telegraph to the radio, phones, and the internet. So too have AI tools revealed their potential to spark the next revolution in knowledge production.
What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?
Issue Pages
Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.
The potential power of AI has also prompted officials at all levels of government to move towards regulating the development and use of AI tools. Too often, these proposals do not account for the First Amendment rights of AI developers and users.
The First Amendment applies to AI just as it does to other technologies that Americans use to create and distribute writings, images, and other speech. Nothing about AI software justifies or permits the trampling of those rights, and doing so would undermine its potential as a tool for contributing to human knowledge.
Trump’s administration can prevent this by rejecting any federal regulation of AI that violates the First Amendment.
Conclusion
The Trump administration faces historic challenges both at home and abroad. But the United States is uniquely capable of solving our challenges because of our unparalleled commitment to freedom of speech.
As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint — and FIRE stands ready to help in that effort.
This week on the podcast the government is to press on with implementing parts of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 while seeking to repeal others – we discuss what will (and should) happen next.
Plus there’s a report on more resilient and sustainable higher education finances, and NEON has been looking at regional inequality in university admissions.
With Richard Sykes, Partner at Mills & Reeve, Paul Greatrix, HE expert and until recently Registrar at the University of Nottingham, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.
During her State of the State address on Tuesday, New York governor Kathy Hochul announced a plan to make community college tuition-free for residents pursuing associate degrees in certain high-demand fields.
The program would be open to adults aged 25 to 55 pursuing degrees in nursing, teaching, technology fields and engineering. If enacted, it could take effect as early as this fall and cover tuition, fees and textbook costs for students attending State University of New York and City University of New York community colleges. Hochul also proposed the creation of new apprenticeship programs for similar high-demand jobs.
Currently, New York students from families making under $125,000 can attend SUNY and CUNY schools tuition-free, regardless of their degree program. For most of its nearly 200-year existence, all CUNY schools were free for New York residents to attend. That policy was abandoned after the 1976 city financial crisis.
In recent years, a number of states have enacted free tuition initiatives targeted to midcareer adults and aimed at boosting employment in specific high-demand jobs. Massachusetts’s new MassReconnect program led to a surge in community college enrollment last year, and Michigan enacted a similar plan last summer.
