First Amendment Voice webinar discusses free speech.

There have been many times throughout the course of American history where freedom of speech came under dangerous threat and in 2025, this foundational constitutional right is again under attack from a variety of sources.

All across the political spectrum, voices are raised to fever pitch as people joust vigorously about who has the right to express themselves, how and under what circumstances.

At a March 21, 2025 forum and webinar convened by the First Amendment Voice (FAV), panelists discussed “The First Amendment in 2025: It’s Guarantees and Struggles,” delved deeply, over the course of 90 minutes, into the mélange of free speech struggles roiling American businesses, institutions, citizens and residents.

Each guest spoke about the chilling effects of government overreach, increasing government restrictions on the free speech of journalists and the legacy media, efforts to gag student protestors at many of the nation’s universities, and the fear among others that the free exercise of their faith, as guaranteed by the First Amendment is eroding.

Lawrence Rosenberg, an attorney and chair of First Amendment Voice, listed a number of what he called recent “hot legal cases” that have put the First Amendment and free speech under increased scrutiny.

These include the Biden and Trump administrations’ efforts to close down the social media platform Tik Tok; the recent arrest of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil – a green card holder the government arrested and is trying to deport because of his advocacy on behalf of Palestinian human rights; the use of a flurry of executive orders and financial coercion against anyone criticizing the administration; and the case of a web designer who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

“With regards to aspects of free speech, the current state of discourse is that there is a chill in the air when it comes to freedom of expression,” said Graham Piro, a fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending freedom of speech and academic freedom.” A robust free speech culture is possible when the government’s ability to regulate speech and discussions is reduced and there are increasing amounts of debates among the public.”

Piro said a chilling environment around free speech isn’t new, citing the “cancel culture,” pressures from respective Democratic and Republican administrations to curb free speech, and a range of other coercive tactics, including harassment and threats against individuals and institutions.

He and other panelists said they are deeply concerned about hyper-partisanship, the lack of adherence to established principles and a widening campaign of silencing dissent. Piro and his colleagues argue that free speech gives Americans the tools to engage each other without rancor, violence or anyone locking off or ignoring what may be legitimate debate on the other side.

Of Khalil, Rosenberg said: “It’s extremely unusual for the government to try to deport a green card holder who is married to a US citizen. He says he was persecuted for free speech exercise while the administration argues material support of terrorism. The broadest interpretation has been action, not speech or protests. This strains First Amendment free speech and immigration laws.”

Rosenberg is a trial, appellate and Supreme Court litigator at Jones Day in Washington, D.C., who specializes in constitutional, regulatory, IP, antitrust and fiduciary duty litigation. Among the issues of concern and interest are lawsuits that have been filed to reverse executive orders dismantling divestment, equity and inclusion; others targeting “gender ideology;” attacks on the press; and recent statements from the White House and the Attorney General equating vandalizing Teslas to terrorism, the FBI creating a task force to investigate these crimes, and law enforcement officials investigating such incidents as hate crimes.

In the question-and-answer section that followed this much-needed discussion, co-host Dr. Paul Murray, who is GPF’s Vice President of Religious Freedom Initiatives and Interim Executive Director of FAV, encapsulated the difficulties of ensuring that people’s free speech is protected when he commented on a question about artificial intelligence.

“There is a need for an ethical commission but who defines who sits on this commission and who polices the people?” Murray asked. “There are complexities and differences of policing systems. There are not a whole bunch of tools available.”

Panelist Dr. Jennifer Mercieca, Professor of Communications at Texas A&M’s College of Arts also detailed the seemingly intractable thicket in which free speech in America operates. She said the media routinely uses “ubiquitous propaganda and manipulation” to sway people’s emotions and exploit their weaknesses. Meanwhile, the government and media work assiduously to manufacture the consent of the American people.

“There are important differences between persuasion and propaganda, which forces, coerces and manipulates which is anti-democratic and easy,” she said. “They gain our attention by increasing outrage and partisanship first and think of the citizens second. We have to take into consideration all these factors.”

Co-chair of the International Religious Freedom Summit and chair of the National Committee for Religious Freedom Sam Brownback focused on the First Amendment’s importance in protecting people’s right and ability to exercise their faith.

“(Free speech) is absolutely critical for an open and free society,” he said in his opening remarks. “It must always be fought for – free exercise of the First Amendment protection for faith … natural law and natural law rights are shunned, not valued. They represent a set of values and culture that is out-of-step with current trends in culture.”

Brownback, who served as US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, said government officials must contact university students and other “potential propagandists and antagonists” ahead of time to lay down the ground rules.

“There has to be a clear rule about the time, place and manner of these protests. And there must be clear rules that a violation equals punishment and consequences. Any violation, the hammer comes down carefully and forcefully, said Brownback, Former Kansas Governor.

Co-Host Dr. Silva Hamie, who since 2014 has taught courses in post-conflict recovery and development, the role of international organizations in peace and conflict, and qualitative research methods at the Bush School, also advocated strongly for free speech and free expression, saying we face a turbulent battle over hate speech versus free speech.

“Universities should be platforms for the safe exercise of speech and civil dialogue. Free expression is safest in societies where ideas can be challenged and openly discussed,” she said. “There has to be awareness and activism to ensure that these rights are protected. And hate speech should not go unchecked. We need to be careful and mindful of what’s happening and allowing students to express themselves.

“There must be a clear, consistent commitment to free speech and free speech rights. The best response is for people to feel empowered to counter bad speech with more speech … we have a role and responsibility to keep talking about this.”