GPF and FAV host forum at the Russell Senate Building on Capitol Hill.

On October 17, in the historic Russell Senate Building on Capitol Hill, the First Amendment Voice Alliance (FAV), in partnership with the Global Peace Foundation (GPF),  convened a timely and thought-provoking event. This forum, “Exploring the Intersection Between Religious Freedom and Free Speech,” brought together a diverse panel of experts, legal scholars, and advocates to address the ever-evolving relationship between two foundational rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Presented by Dr. Paul Murray, the International Vice President of Religious Freedom Initiatives of GPF and serving as the Interim Executive Director of FAV, the dialogue engaged participants in a deep exploration of how these rights support and sometimes challenge one another, particularly in the face of societal changes such as the rise of digital platforms, social media, and shifting cultural norms.

The dialogue, hosted by FAV, engaged participants in a deep exploration of how these rights support and sometimes challenge one another, particularly in the face of societal changes such as the rise of digital platforms, social media, and shifting cultural norms.

Caleb Murray gives opening remarks.

The opening remarks set the tone for a discussion that was not just academic but profoundly personal and societal. Caleb Murray, Project Director of the Global Peace Foundation, welcomed the audience, followed by Jackson Eimer, a DePaul University student and FAV intern. Eimer spoke poignantly about the urgency of the subject from the perspective of a young generation that is growing up navigating the intersection of these freedoms in the digital age. “Free speech today doesn’t just happen in classrooms or public squares,” Eimer noted, “it happens on X, TikTok, and Instagram.” This shift has raised new and complex questions about how to protect the freedoms of speech and religion in the public square, both online and off.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Shaping the Debate

Central to the forum’s discussion were recent Supreme Court cases such as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, both of which have had significant implications for how the United States interprets and protects the rights of free speech and religious freedom. Graham Piro, a Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), delved into these cases, offering insights into the Court’s growing pro-expression stance. In the 303 Creative case, for example, the Court ruled in favor of a website designer who, based on her religious convictions, refused to create a website for a same-sex couple’s wedding.

Piro emphasized the importance of recognizing the tension that often exists between rights—specifically, the clash between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. In cases like 303 Creative, the dissenting opinion argued that the ruling undermined civil rights protections. However, Piro made a compelling case for the necessity of defending the right to disagree, asserting that “free speech includes the right to hold views that others may find offensive or objectionable.” The ability to uphold both pluralism and free speech, he argued, is critical for sustaining a healthy democracy. 

Free Speech and the Challenges of Social Media

The challenges posed by social media platforms, where much of today’s public discourse occurs, were a recurrent theme throughout the event. Anna Sineva, Director of Government Relations and Public Policy for the Church of Scientology, touched on the difficulties of fostering respectful dialogue in an environment where extreme voices often dominate. Sineva emphasized the responsibility of both individuals and platforms to engage in discourse that promotes understanding rather than division. “Words matter,” she stated, “and the way we use them in public forums can either build bridges or deepen divides.”

Sineva’s work in multi-faith advocacy, particularly through her involvement with the Congressional Working Group with the International Religious Freedom Roundtable, provided valuable examples of how advocacy can move beyond confrontation. She contrasted two approaches to activism: a confrontational “us versus them” model and a more collaborative “us and them versus the problem” framework. The latter, Sineva argued, is more sustainable and effective for long-term social progress.

Educational Institutions: A Crucible for Free Speech

Larry Rosenberg discussed role of universities in fostering free speech.

Larry Rosenberg, Esq. of Jones Day Law Firm and Chair of FAV, brought the conversation to the realm of educational institutions. He stressed the critical role universities play in nurturing free speech while maintaining respect for diverse religious beliefs. According to surveys cited during the event, a staggering 90% of students report feeling pressured to self-censor on campuses. This statistic underscored the challenges institutions face in fostering an environment where both speech and belief can flourish without fear of retribution.

Rosenberg discussed how inconsistent enforcement of campus speech policies can exacerbate tensions rather than resolve them. He argued for balanced and proportionate responses to free speech controversies, particularly those that occur in educational settings. “Universities,” he said, “must take quick and transparent action to resolve disputes, ensuring that the rights of all students—regardless of their beliefs—are respected.”

Navigating Conflicts and Fostering Coexistence

Throughout the event, a recurring question was how to balance the inherent tension between religious freedom and free speech in a pluralistic society. Both Piro and Rosenberg highlighted the necessity of legal frameworks that protect diverse viewpoints, even when those viewpoints conflict. Yet, the conversation also made clear that legal protections alone are insufficient. A cultural shift toward greater understanding and mutual respect is equally important.

The audience Q&A reflected a deep engagement with these issues. Questions ranged from the role of social media in shaping public discourse to the responsibilities of educational institutions in managing free speech on campus. Both Piro and Rosenberg responded with a call for more responsible engagement, particularly from younger generations who will inherit these challenges. They noted that social media algorithms often amplify the most extreme viewpoints, but individuals can choose to engage in more respectful and productive ways. 

Paul Murray, International Vice President of Religious Freedom Initiatives of GPF.

A Call to Action: Citizenship is Not a Spectator Sport

As the forum concluded, one message was clear: protecting both religious freedom and free speech is an ongoing responsibility that requires active participation from all citizens. The panelists emphasized that these rights, though sometimes in tension, are mutually reinforcing and vital to the strength of American democracy.

As Eimer aptly stated in his opening remarks, “Our generation has a unique responsibility to carry forward the legacy of the First Amendment.” This sentiment was echoed by all the speakers, who called on citizens to advocate for policies that foster dialogue, transparency, and respect. In closing, it’s worth remembering the powerful reminder from the First Amendment Voice Alliance: Citizenship is not a spectator sport. We must all actively engage in the public square to protect the freedoms we hold dear.