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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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