��֭����

Note: This is an unedited rush transcript. Please check any quotations against the audio recording.

Nico Perrino: Welcome to ��֭����’s monthly webinar. Typically, these are open only to member of FIREwith a $25.00 donation, but this month we are opening it up to a wider audience of people. If you are not an existing FIREmember and you wanna be invited to other monthly webinars, please donate to ��֭����. It’s the end of the year. It’s the time when FIREraises most of its money throughout the year to support the admission and we greatly appreciate all the supporters and members that we do have. Before I introduce my colleagues here I have on the call with me, I wanna talk about how this is going to work for those who haven’t been at a monthly webinar before.

It’s largely question driven. So, please, as you come into the webinar, go down to the Q and A button at the bottom of your screen. A window should pop up and in that window, you can type in your questions. We will get to as many questions as we can over the course of the next hour. So, without further ado, I wanna introduce my colleagues who are joining me today. I’ve been at FIREfor 13 years and all of my colleagues on this call have been at FIRElonger than I have. So, I’m the newbie on the call. Alisah Glennon is ��֭����’s Chief Operation Officer. Will Creeley is ��֭����’s Legal Director and Greg Lukianoff, of course, is ��֭����’s President and CEO. Alisha, Will, Greg, welcome to the monthly webinar.

Alisha Glennon: Hey, Nico! Glad you’re back.

Nico Perrino: I’m not quite back yet. Alisha is referencing a book I’m writing. I put the ink – not quite ink because I’m typing it on a computer, of course. But I put the last word on the page for the first draft and now I’m going through the process of editing it. Hopefully, it will be done here soon and I can return to these monthly webinars on a more frequent basis.

Greg Lukianoff: And if you’re wondering, it’s Taylor Swift fanfiction.

Nico Perrino: Yes. Yes, I’ve been to a Taylor Swift concert before. I am a Swiftie. We are the same age, so we kind of came of age together, although I’m a bigger fan of her country music. Before we hopped on, we had a couple of members submit questions ahead of time. I wanna address one of them to get started as people are submitting their questions in the Q and A box.

One member asked, “Does freedom of the press apply only to corporations or organizations, such as university publications? At the time the First Amendment was drafted, people didn’t have what is the equivalent of a printing press in their homes as we do today.” Put in parentheses here, “Meaning a computer, printer, and quantities of ink.” Greg, what does the press clause of the First Amendment mean and who does it apply to?

Greg Lukianoff: It’s a great question. I mean, a lot of us come from a journalism background. That was part of my undergrad major and I was a student journalist. But the press clause, what it actually means is surprisingly undeveloped. I definitely fall more into the camp of people who think that I want the speech clause to be interpreted as strongly as possible. That will also benefit the press. But there’s also an interesting side discussion about what the press clause actually meant in the first place.

I’m very much on the side of people like, I believe, Eugene Volokh who makes the argument that essentially they really were thinking about the physical machine, the technology of the press, much more so than they were thinking about the institution of the press because it didn’t quite exist. Actually, it certainly didn’t exist in any way like it would 150 years later, for example. But I think that’s helpful to think about. Also, another factual thing, people really did, in some cases. Wealthier people really did have printing presses in their basements and shops and that kind of stuff.

They were privately owned, sometimes by one or two or just a family of people. But I do think that there’s room for exploring more what the press clause could mean as additional protection. Right now, our citizen journalist is pretty well protected by the speech clause act, absolutely. But when they’re not, in cases like the v. RL case, which we’ve been involved in for some time that Will can talk a little bit more about. When it’s not respected sufficiently, FIREis there to argue that every citizen journalist has the right as an American to engage in citizen journalism.

Nico Perrino: So, Will, does that mean that if I am some public event and I report on that public event and am posting about it, live Tweeting about it on social media, that the press clause should theoretically protect me because I’m engaged in activities that the press is engaged in?

Will Creeley: Sure thing.

Nico Perrino: Even though I’m not a report for the New York Times?

Will Creeley: That’s right. Your First Amendment rights don’t depend on some credential. In fact, FIREhas been involved in cases where those credentials have been denied to folks on the basis of viewpoint. I’m thinking about a case involving conservative commentator at the Gateway Pundit who were covering the Maricopa County Board of Elections following the 2020 election. There were some changes in their admissions in response to their disagreements with the viewpoints espoused by the Gateway Pundit.

FIRE participated as an amicus there. We’ve participated likewise on cases on the other side of the ideological spectrum. I don’t think that any reading of the press clause renders your rights contingent upon a vocation or some kind of credential is at all credible. To Greg’s point about Volokh’s argument about the technology of the press, I would only add that folks who are interested in the subject should check out Matt Schafer’s response –

Nico Perrino: Yeah.

Will Creeley: To Volokh challenging the understanding advanced by Volokh. It’s a really interesting debate between the two of them. Schafer’s article is called “The Press: A Response to Professor Volokh.” And you can find it with a simple Google search and read the back and forth. It’s fun.

Nico Perrino: Will, I wanna stay with you. We have another question from Robert. Robert asks, “What position has or would FIREtake in regards to the Oklahoma student who was failed on a paper recently when she cited scripture and scripture only in her paper? She is claiming this as an infringement.” Is that –

Will Creeley: Yeah. Let me start out by saying, traditionally FIREand still – not like traditionally as in we used to do it and now we don’t, but traditionally like we still don’t do it. We don’t get involved in grading disputes. That’s for good reason. We are academic freedom and First Amendment freedom of expression experts. We’re not, say, Biology professors. But I do think that it’s important to think about this case and others like it, this controversy and others like it, by remembering that the AUP’s guidelines warn against indoctrination of students, to treat controversial matters in a way that does not dictate answers to students.

So, if a student were to cite the Bible or any other document in support of an argument and then was failed, again absent any other considerations like don’t cite Bible, only cite X works, whatever. If you just had a vacuum where there was a punishment based on that kind of citation and there had been no request not to use those kinds of citations, yeah. I think that would be noteworthy. Whether or not it applies in this case, I think, is probably a little tricky because I don’t know. I asked my colleagues before we got on this call if they knew more about it. We don’t know the exact grading standards. We’ll keep an eye on it. We’ve reached out and we’ll be in touch.

But long story short, if you’re punishing students with a bad grade because they cited a source that you don’t like, that might be indicative of a pedagogical choice that you might wanna revisit. I think that there’s probably ways in which you wanna run a class that doesn’t allow folks to cite the Bible. There’s probably ways in which you wanna run a class that allows folks to cite the Bible or any other text.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah, I mean for me one of the frustrating things is that pedagogical questions generally in academic freedom theory are supposed to, in an ideal world, be left to departments to decide if it was considered a good pedagogy. But after doing this for 24 years, I’ve been like, wow. That’s not working out so great. I don’t have a good answer for what exactly should happen if the argument is essentially that this person is engaging in an unscholarly approach to grading. I don’t have a great answer for it. Generally, that’s one of the reasons why we stay out of grading disputes.

Nico Perrino: At the top of this webinar, I had mentioned that it’s the end of the year. It’s big fundraising season for ��֭����. It’s when we raise most of our revenue. I encourage all of those who, again, are attending this and who aren’t already FIREmembers to go to the ��֭����.org and become a FIREmember. But Alisha, we have a question from Bradley Boyer who asks, “Besides money, what does FIREneed the most from members?”

Alisha Glennon: That’s a great question. We need to find more of our people. We need our message spread. I would ask everyone who cares about ��֭����, whether you can contribute financially or not, spread the good word about what we’re doing. Share our content with your friends. Read our arguments and then use those arguments in conversation. Practice what we preach. We try to talk across lines of difference. We tried to strongman the other person’s argument. Actually live a life where you’re embracing free speech and free speech culture. Attend our events. Email us for volunteer opportunities.

There’s a lot of things that we can do besides financial support because we're trying to build a movement here, right? So, we can’t do with the 137 people at ��֭����. We need to have an army of free speechers behind us, championing our work. Especially when we’re trying to put pressure on people in charge. If we’re trying to do a campaign in a school to win a case, or we’re trying to go after a government official who is censoring their constituents. Take action. We have opportunities where we have petitions where you can sign on to them. Again, really, I think, sharing our content and encouraging other people to embrace this value and join this movement that we’re building.

Nico Perrino: Yeah, embrace the value regardless of whether you agree with the speaker. I think so much of what we see today is people rising up and expressing opposition to censorship when it’s someone on their side who is being censored and relative quiescence when it’s someone on the other side who is being censored. Free speech can only prevail if it’s applied equally to all speakers in America.

So, I think the thing that’s unique about the community that we’re trying to create at FIREis that we are trying to create a principled community that’s gonna be there for this value regardless of whether we agree with the speaker because we know at some point the speakers that we do agree with will be the target of censorship. The pendulum swings back and forth, that which we’ve seen throughout American history.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah, and I did wanna add there. Both Alisha and I have been traveling the country like crazy people, in part because it is harder to be a genuinely non-partisan organization. We’ve always known that if you tack hard right or hard left, there’s a built-in constituency to give you money and won’t even pay attention to that much even what you do. But we’ve always chosen to go the much harder way and that requires actually finding those individuals. I think of Kurt Jaggers, the head of our board. One thing that I love about him, among many things, is that I would talk to him about cases in which I know he was completely, opinion-wise, on the other side of it.

The visible delight in his face in this situation. You defend them. There was no second guessing it. He believes in this as a principle. And those people, you have to identify individually, but we have an amazing group of supporters already and we just wanna grow the family.

Will Creeley: Yeah the –

Alisha Glennon: Maybe I’ll – we could post in for our viewers today, Greg’s recent article in Eternally Radical Idea, a bad business model.

Nico Perrino: Said lovingly about us.

Alisha Glennon: Said lovingly about us about FIREhas such a bad business model because we’re just always pissing everybody off. We don’t have any one constituency that’s always going to have our back, except for those free speechers out there. That’s who we’re really looking for. But I think our members today will really value that article if we can pace it.

Nico Perrino: We’re fighting against human instinct here. There was an editorial writer many decades ago who said that censorship was the strongest human drive with sex being a distant second. So, it’s really hard when you have that strong drive to shup up those with whom you disagree to convince people that, no, that’s short-sighted. Greg, you were recently the subject of an episode of The Daily Podcast.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah.

Nico Perrino: From the New York Times. To give folks a sense of how big this podcast is, on any given day it’s usually the No. 1 podcast in the country. They recently had an episode that speaks to this theme that we’re talking about right now. Regina Dickens, one of our members, says, “Thank you, Greg, for your podcast. I heard earlier this week about the loneliness of being an advocate for free speech and the First Amendment.” And the title of that podcast was, I think, something like The Lonely Life of a Free Speech Advocate. So, it was really cool to see that sort of thing highlighted. Greg, did you get a lot of good feedback about the episode?

Greg Lukianoff: I did.

Nico Perrino: You got pretty personal in it.

Greg Lukianoff: I did. There’s entire constituencies of people who don’t know anything I do, but they only read the New York Times or the New Yorker who slowly are coming out of woodworks to be like, “That was great!” And I’m like, “Great. Okay, good.” Now I appreciate that. I was really anxious about that recording because I recorded for over four hours for that thing. First, it was a two and half hour breathless, awesome conversation with Natalie, the person in the interview who I love. And then, a couple weeks later, I had to come back and do another hour.

And then an additional half an hour that included like, “Well, don’t you feel responsible for Trump?” The good news is my answer there was like I’ve been warning about like if you don’t actually fix the free speech situation on campuses, in addition to that being bad all by itself, you’re going to have a right-wing backlash. Obviously. You don’t really blame the person who is actually warning you about something that could have avoided it. Honestly, I was moved. I really felt like with that much rope, they could have hung me if they wanted to, ‘cause that’s a lot of me yammering on.

So, I was really pleased with how it came out. A lot of people have been writing me and saying, “Well, why didn’t you talk about this thing?” I’m like, “I did, but it was over four hours of interviews that they tried to squish into about 45 minutes of me talking.” But overall, it was a great experience.

Nico Perrino: And don’t invite Greg to a baseball game. If you wanna know what that’s a reference to, you have to listen to the podcast. Sorry, Alisha.

Alisha Glennon: It was the only part of the podcast that I didn’t like.

Greg Lukianoff: Perry told me and I’m thinking about actually writing a post of what I mean by that.

Alisha Glennon: I think you should. I think you should. All I was gonna say is that I thought it was heartening that you got feedback from people old and young. You even had high schoolers write you about what should I try to do in college so I can follow in your footsteps and defend free speech. It shows the extent that The Daily is listened to, but also how people were moved to reach out to us and ask more about our work and about Greg. It was a great opportunity and I hope you all listen.

Nico Perrino: I think, Greg, you did say on the podcast that you were somewhat of a juvenile delinquent. Don’t follow in those footsteps necessarily.

Greg Lukianoff: I got more specific about that, by the way, in the EIR post. Angel took out my confessing to things essentially. One of my best friends from high school was like, “Why didn’t you mention that thing?” I’m like, “I tried to!”

Nico Perrino: So, it was a big deal for us, big platform for people to become acquainted with our work and hopefully join the movement to free speech that we were just talking about. But Greg, I wanna stay with you. We have another question from Nabeel Mohamed, who says, “Iowa State rose significantly in ��֭����’s latest free speech rankings this year, signaling positive institutional movement. At the same time, we recently saw a case where an ISU employee was dismissed after posting provocative comments online after a controversial public figure’s death. How should we interpret tension between macrolevel improvements and microlevel punitive incidents?”

So, I’m imagining that incident, if it involved a faculty or a student, wouldn’t be reflected in the latest free speech rankings. These are things that evolve year-over-year. I guess to zoom out, what can you take from the college free speech ranking on any given year and what does an incident like that signal –

Greg Lukianoff: I first wanna say, that’s a terrifically formulated question. Just really thoughtful. So, yeah. The first point is the one that Nico already made, is that if there was an incident involving free speech that might have affected student perception of free speech on that campus, or harmed a student or faculty member, that probably happened too late to be included in last year’s data, either in perception or to have something like scholars under fire, or students under fire. If it's a staffer, that gets more complicated. Staffers don’t have the same kind of free speech rights as students and faculty. That’s one of those interesting things.

Honestly, on a lot of cases, we’re opposing administrative overreach. But when it comes to the gap in perception in that, I am very proud. There’s no such thing as a perfect survey, but the amount of data we crunch in the free speech survey is, I think, just amazing. It always includes the biggest survey ever done of student opinions on freedom of speech and the largest database that exists ever made of faculty getting punished, students being threatened with punishment, speech codes, and deplatforming. There’s never been anything even vaguely close to it before FIREstarted doing this.

When you factor those things together, I do think you tend to get a pretty accurate picture of what it’s like. Around the edges, could there be cases that we never hear about that were horrible? Absolutely. But I do think that what you’re picking up there, and I assume this is related to the murder of Charlie Kirk, is that the opportunistic, frankly, backlash. I wanna be really clear. I was horrified by the murder of Charlie Kirk. I disagreed with him on any number of things, but I just thought it was a horrible moment for free speech as well. I think it was pretty clear he was killed for his point of view.

The backlash to it led to an absolute spike in people getting in trouble for, in some cases, saying things like, more or less, “He had it coming.” But also, people saying things almost as tame as I just said, which is essentially, “I disagree with him on a lot of things.” So, that was something we’re gonna be looking back. It was so bad it was of historic significance. This was something I wrote about in the New York Times about a case that we’re involved in where a former cop got 37 days in jail for a meme that you can look up which is really more critical of Trump than it is of Charlie Kirk.

I think what you’re talking about is a massive national backlash that we have been fighting nonstop for a long time. It’s an ugly and sad sign about the state of free speech nationally.

Nico Perrino: Let’s stay in Iowa. We’ve got a question from Rich, who asks, “What’s the latest with the Ann Selzer case.” For those of you who aren’t familiar with this case, this involves the Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, who had a poll before the 2024 election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris winning. Ultimately, of course, President Trump won the state of Iowa and subsequently President Trump sued Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for consumer fraud in that state, essentially for getting a poll wrong. Will, assuming that I got the facts of that case right –

Will Creeley: You did.

Nico Perrino: Where does that stand currently?

Will Creeley: Well, there are two cases, so I’ll take them in turn. Thanks, Rich, for joining us. Good to hear from you. There’s the case filed by the President directly against Selzer and the Des Moines Register, and that one is now in State Court. Then there’s the copycat suit filed, styled as a class action, against the same defendants, Selzer and the Register, making the same argument. It’s just another bite at the apple. The first one is proceeding, the Trump suit. The second one, we just got a good victory last month where the court here, Federal District Court, found that the allegation that Selzer getting a poll was somehow actionable consumer fraud under state law was completely baseless.

I’ll just quote to you some of the very satisfying words from the court. “Court held the plaintiff had ‘no factual allegations’ to support his claim. Instead, ‘invoking mere buzzwords and speculation.’” So, we’re really happy about that. The result of an opinion poll are not an actionable false representation merely because the anticipated results differ from what eventually occurred. Maybe most satisfyingly of all, the court said, “There is no free pass around the First Amendment.” So, we were very gratified to see that result. It was exactly right and we’re hopeful for a similar result in the President’s case.

Nico Perrino: Will, I see that there are a number of questions that you said you were gonna answer live here.

Will Creeley: Yeah, I’ve been jumping in. Folks are asking a lot of good ones. It’s been hard to not just jump in –

Nico Perrino: Do you want me to pick one for you, or do you have one that you wanna go with now?

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah, stop asking weird questions, people.

Will Creeley: Let’s spin the wheel. Whatever you got.

Nico Perrino: All right. Let’s go with Bill. Bill says, “I’m publisher of the Gateway Journalism Review, formerly the St. Louis Journalism Review, where we’ve written a lot about the Gateway Pundit.” Which is a publication or poster that you had referenced earlier, Will.

Will Creeley: Right. Yup.

Nico Perrino: “What do you think about his arrival in the Pentagon press room under the new press regulations?” I’m assuming that means the Gateway Pundit’s one person. I don’t know that, but I’m assuming the question more broadly is about the new Pentagon press room regulations.

Will Creeley: Well, let me say a couple things off the top. No. 1, and this is important. It probably bears repeating every time we’re speaking to new folks. FIREtakes no position on the merits of the speech we’re defending. What happened in Maricopa County with the case I was referring to earlier was the use of viewpoint-based rules to define who can and can’t gain access to a press space. That strikes us as inherently problematic.

In the same, on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, that the President’s anger with the Associated Press about their decision to continue calling that particular body of water the Gulf of Mexico rather than the Gulf of America was equally problematic. So, let me just make that clear at first. With regards –

Alisha Glennon: Doesn’t that feel like that was 10 years when that happened?

Will Creeley: It feels about 4,000 years ago. But to Bill’s good question, what do you think about the new Pentagon press room and I guess I did not know the Gateway Pundit was in there, but that checks out. I think that what happened with the Pentagon press rules is ridiculous. Our colleague, Adam Goldstein, has written at some length about the various First Amendment problems presented by – and the normative problems presented by the Pentagon’s new rules for the press. Rules that the organizations and institutional press members that have been there before, to their good credit I think, collectively refused to cede to.

Now you’ve got other folks in there instead. I will refer folks, I mean, I’ll throw a link in to Adam’s good post. But to summarize briefly, those rules really require the press to self-censor, to disregard it’s journalistic function, to play patsy to the government and accept the party line. I don’t care who’s in office. That’s the exact wrong thing to ask of our free press, which is one of the cornerstones of our system of government. You can’t have an informed electorate without a press that’s willing to ask hard questions and not just receive spoon-fed answers. It makes me mad as hell, Bill, to answer your good question.

Nico Perrino: Alisha, there are two questions that can probably be taken together here that are similar to the one that we addressed earlier but different in other ways. What is the value of a small dollar donation, ballpark $25.00 to $100.00 donation? Do smaller donors help you unlock bigger donors? And then Lorna also asks, “How do we find ways to volunteer?”

Alisha Glennon: I’ll take the last one first. They can email me at alisha@fire – Oh, that’s interesting. We actually changed our email addresses recently, guys.

Nico Perrino: That’s pretty cool.

Alisha Glennon: So, our email addresses are just now @fire.org instead of “the ��֭����.” We got that four-letter URL.

Nico Perrino: That was a decade-long odyssey that we had to try and pull that URL from some fire suppressant company in Montana.

Greg Lukianoff: Decades.

Alisha Glennon: Nico would put it on his calendar every year to reach out to ��֭����.org to see if they’re ready to talk with us about possibly getting it. And we finally did. So, it’s alisha@fire.org. We don’t have any mass volunteer opportunities, like stuffing envelopes, but we talk to people and figure out what their strengths are, what their skills are, what they’re interested in, and if we have something here we could use your help with, we work with them individually. We’re also going to have a huge conference next year, Soapbox. It will be here in Philadelphia. There will be volunteer opportunities there.

If you reach out to me, we can talk and see if there’s something available. As far as the question about small dollar donations, they’re valuable for a bunch of reasons. I want people to remember that while FIREdoes have some major donor that are giving six figures here, we rely on the tens of thousands of donors that are giving us small dollar donations. Last year, we brought in 22,000 gifts. Every single dollar helps and it really does add up.

As someone who isn’t a major donor to other organizations, but I am a donor, I know that my contributions are making a difference because of the position I get here at FIRE‘cause I can see your donations making a difference, even if they’re $25.00, $50.00, $100.00. Some people just donate $10.00 a month. But to answer your question more directly, it actually does help us unlock –

Nico Perrino: Yes.

Alisha Glennon: Other bigger gifts, because what we wanna show ‘cause it’s true is that we are having an influence. We are changing the conversation. We are bringing people in. We are attracting Americans to this work. If I can go to maybe a major foundation and say, “Hey, look. This year, 30,000 Americans pledged support to ��֭����.” That shows that FIREis having an impact and an influence into the free speech conversation. So, it helps in lots of ways, even if you can only contribute $25.00 or less. Please do. We deeply appreciate it. Every dollar counts.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah, and I really wanna stress that. It’s definitely also something we realized pretty early on is that the health of a civil liberties organization is, in many ways, how many small dollar donors do you have because you don’t wanna be the organization that’s dependent on a handful of people who might, when the political winds turn, decide they don’t like you anymore. I do think that the fact that we do get 22,000 gifts this year is a sign of health, but I want it to be bigger.

Something that actually really does help as well is when you get up to the level where you can get a FIRET-shirt or a FIREPolo, or just go to the swag store and buy one. People just seeing our name out there makes a difference. Being a card-carrying member of FIREis pretty cool. I have my card in my wallet. Although, it doesn’t say 2001, which it should. I do think all that stuff matters.

Nico Perrino: And there is a link at the top of our website if people wanna check out our swag store. I know it is the holiday season and people are considering gifts. So, give the gift of free speech, which you can do at the top of ��֭����’s website. We’ve got an anonymous attendee asking, “How do I join the chat and is there a way to save the transcript?” The chat, just as a reminder if you wanna ask a question, is at the bottom of your screen. You can click the Q and A button. Also, this will run as a So To Speak podcast. So To Speak: The Free Speech Podcast is the podcast I’ve run here at FIREfor the last decade.

You can get it wherever you get your podcasts, including subscribing to the podcast on Substack. If you wanna listen to this down the line, you can do so and we usually post a transcript of each episode a couple of days after. It takes a couple days to get a professional transcript as opposed to an AI transcript, which is less good, to use bad grammar, then some of the professional ones that we get. That’s one way to find it. I wanna answer a question from Mark Schnieder who said, “Isn’t Indiana playing in the football championship? A good opportunity for us to publicize FIREthrough Indiana’s dismal rankings on – ”

Alisha Glennon: Is he a plant? That question is so perfect that I feel like, Mark, you had to know. Nico, I know you want this one.

Nico Perrino: Well, I do want this. Mark’s recognizing there that Indiana University Bloomington was the last ranked public school in our college free speech rankings for free speech. It’s had a litany of censorship incidents over the past couple years, placing snipers on the top of the Student Union overlooking student protests, implementing speech codes, deplatforming an art exhibit at its art museum because it has a pro-Palestinian artist, sanctioning faculty members. The list just goes on and on and on. I am an Indiana University alum.

I loved my time at Indiana University and, in fact, one of the things I loved most about being an Indiana University alum was it’s tradition of defending academic freedom over the years. Back in the 1940s or ‘50s, there was this famous sex research, Alfred Kinsey, who invented the field of sex research, who was repeatedly under pressure from the state legislature to shut down his research institute. Herman B. Wells, the chancellor and president of the university at the time, repeatedly rebuffed those efforts. They even made a movie about this starring Liam Neeson called Kinsey, which I recommend you all check out.

Fast forward to today, and you are getting some of the similar pressure from the state legislature, but the administration at Indiana University doesn’t have the backbone that Herman B. Wells had half a century ago, or more than half a century ago, to rebuff those efforts. And we are doing a lot to push back on the censorship at Indiana University. We took out billboards around the community, so when you’re coming in and out of campus, you can see messages criticizing the university for its censorship.

At the Big 10 playoff game, at the Big 10 championship I should say, last weekend where Indiana University beat, I should say, Ohio State, we had a plane fly around a big banner that says that Indiana University hates free speech with a link to folks can use. Now that game was played in a dome stadium, but we flew it around during the tailgate in the hours preceding the game and they actually had a no-fly zone during the game, so we couldn’t fly it during the game, even if we wanted to. But we were looking for every creative opportunity we can to put pressure on the administration and we’re starting see some movement.

The university just announced that it was going to investigate adopting the Chicago statement on free speech, which is the 2015 statement adopted by the University of Chicago that we have called the gold standard for protecting free speech on a college and university policy. Hopefully, there will be some movement there. I will say, as a non-free-speech note, the fact that Indiana University is the No. 1 football team in the country is incredible. I was an Indiana University student. I ran track there. Indiana University football was the laughing stock. The games were a tailgating opportunity and nothing more.

If I had the opportunity to put $100,000.00 on the idea that Indiana University would never make it to the college football playoff in the next 100 years, I would have taken that bet without a thought in 2012. But here we are and they’re in the college football playoffs. My beloved Notre Dame got screwed out of it. Don’t let me go long on that one. I think we’ll just pivot now to the next question.

Alisha Glennon: Can I just say something really quickly?

Nico Perrino: Sure.

Alisha Glennon: I think that that is a great demonstration of ��֭����’s ability to take cases that we don’t necessarily need to always litigate. When I was looking at a recent board report, we have 33 active litigation cases and 300 active advocacy cases, which we can fight in so many different ways. Obviously, the IU one is a very creative way to try to get our way, but we have whole teams here at FIREthat that’s what they do. That’s what they think of. How can we put pressure on these schools? How we can we put pressure on those in charge to do the right thing? And it doesn’t always have to be with filing a litigation suit.

But the fact that we can file suits and win helps in all of our advocacy cases because they know that there’s teeth in what we’re doing. So, having multiple tools can help us do a lot more advocacy than we would be able to do if we only had one or two.

Nico Perrino: We have a question from William here, “Do you believe US courts are trending in a more speech-protective direction,” Will, “or a more speech-restrictive one over the last few years? And are there any patterns in recent cases that stand out to you?” William did not address it to the other Will on this call, but I’m sending it in your direction anyway, Will.

Will Creeley: I’m happy to field it. It’s a great question. You’re catching me on a somewhat pessimistic morning, so I’m gonna give you a somewhat pessimistic answer. I think there are real threats to First Amendment jurisprudence right now. I think there is a troubling willingness to reexamine what had been considered bedrock, foundational decision of the past 60 and 70 years and to revisit those bedrock, foundational decision in ways that would result in greater hand to the government to restrict free speech. But let me put it like this. Regardless of how I’m feeling in this particular moment, I always tell my attorneys that we are blessed to do this job with a great deal of outstanding precedent.

Not only is the United States the most, I think, speech-protective nation in the world, which is a hell of an inheritance, but we have a good 70 years of very solid case law enshrining our rights with sufficient particularity and flexibility to withstand a variety of threats from all corners of the ideological spectrum and all branches of government. First of all, National Park rule, do no harm. Leave it as nice as you found it.

A lot of the work that FIREdoes in our litigation department and our public advocacy department and in our campus rights advocacy is to keep the starch, so to speak, in First Amendment standards, to make sure that those rights don’t just exist on paper or in dusty precedent, but they are used and still viable and still useful to protect what we have already on the books. That’s No. 1. No. 2, what do I think about right now? I think this current court has gotten a lot of big First Amendment questions right. We had three very solid rulings from the Supreme Court last term about jawboning, for example.

That’s the abuse of government power to shut up disfavored speech from private entities about social media. Laws that would have required social media companies to punish or platform certain speech, that would have been a big problem, and about the use of government accounts to comment on social media and what rules should govern those. So, we’ve got some good rulings from the court. But we also have some disappointing rulings as well and some missed opportunities. I’m thinking of, in particular, a case called Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton regarding age verification online, which is the kind of example of this revisiting of settled precedent that makes me very nervous.

We’ve seen some disappointing decisions not to get involved in cases recently that I could go long on as well. Let me just answer your question in sum, briefly. There’s a hell of a lot worth fighting for and that’s what we’re trying to do here every day. Is it perfect? No, but that’s why we exist and that’s why my colleagues and I get after it 24 hours, just about, seven days a week.

Nico Perrino: We’ve got 49 unanswered questions. We’re gonna try and move at a pretty good clip here in the 20 plus minutes that we have remaining. Greg, this is a question from another William. “Was there not legitimate cause in at least some cases for discharging people from their employment for publicly celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk? For instance, if there was good reason for the principles of a business firm to suppose that retaining,” and then the question cuts off. But I think you get the gist.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah.

Nico Perrino: How should a business think about someone who is on staff and is saying things that makes doing the business hard or violates the principles of that business?

Greg Lukianoff: The frustrating part for a lot of people on the subject of cancel culture is that it’s essentially about culture, unavoidably. It’s never gonna have the same kind of precision as law, nor would you want it to. I think this is one of the reasons why it drives some people with legal backgrounds literally insane. They hate the idea. They think it’s just law and there’s no such thing as cancel culture. It’s like, well, that’s nonsense. Where did our law come from? It came from our culture. I try to get people to think about it in aggregate.

Essentially, if you have a situation in which the boss or the HR committee gets to decide what political opinions you can say publicly at every job in the country, you’re not gonna have a lot in the way of free speech anymore, at least for anybody who works for a private company. And that’s a bad outcome. When it comes to the individual calls from companies to be like, listen – and the law reflects this as well. There’s a lot of wisdom inherent in the law. Garcetti v. Sevillos, for example. If you’re in a front-facing, or for that matter like a spokesperson-type job for a job and suddenly you say something that makes nobody wanna listen to you anymore, that’s understandable consideration.

The court recognized that in that case. However, I also think in that case they had a narrower case way to decide it and they decided to have much wider, vaguer language, and we’ve been suffering from that for a long time. Do I try to make the call that someone shouldn’t be fired in an individual case? In a lot of cases, you just have to weigh cultural concerns and point out how this could be a bad trend and that we shouldn’t want to live in a country where you can have a job and an opinion but not both.

Nico Perrino: Will, there’s a question here from Bill. “If a campus speaker at public university criticizing Israeli war policy in Gaza, is that speech protected by the First Amendment even though some Jewish organization consider it by definition antisemitism? It seems that the Trump enforcement actions rely heavily on equating anti-Israeli speech as creation of a hostile educational environment.” I should say, we have a separate question. I’m having a hard time finding it within the 48 left –

Will Creeley: With the time, it’s a lot of questions. Yeah.

Nico Perrino: But the question was effectively you have Zionists and anti-Zionists both claiming hostile environment because of speakers on the other side of the question on campus. How do you sort through these hostile environment claims? What does hostile environment actually mean under the First Amendment?

Will Creeley: There are a number of good questions on this front. Let me see how quickly I can do this. Title VI is a federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, or shared ethnic ancestry. It’s been interpreted administrations from both Democratic administrations, Republican administrations to include discrimination that would reach shared ethnic ancestry in a Muslim country or Jewish country like Israel. That’s the basics. To constitute discriminatory harassment, you have to have conduct that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it prevents a student from obtaining an educational opportunity or benefit.

Now, that’s a high bar and it has to be because in response to another good question I saw, what does FIREthink about hate speech? Well, a vast majority of hateful speech, first of all, is subjectively defined. My understanding of hate speech might be entirely different from yours. But second of all, it’s protected by the First Amendment. That’s the unique commitment to free expression we have in this country. We’ve chosen, to paraphrase the Chief Justice, a different path to tolerate words that may inflict serious emotional pain on folks in order to preserve the widest possible realm for debate and discussion.

Long story short, if the student is just on campus objecting to Israel or saying, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Entirely protected expression. And we’ve been on that point for a long time making the argument that speech alone is not enough. Now if that same person is protesting and let’s say – I don’t know. How ridiculous do we wanna get here? Brandishing a knife. Or maybe not ridiculous, cornering somebody and refusing to let them leave a room or a place. Or taking over a building. Now you’re starting to talk about differences where it’s not just expression, there’s also actionable conduct involved.

Those things universities can, and we would argue must, prevent and punish. But pure expression alone? Entirely protected. You’d have to concoct some kind of scenario where the person is doing more than just speaking to render it punishable by a university. And let me just quickly add that we’ve got a lot more of this information on our website.

I wrote a post, maybe I’ll throw in a link here, identifying the exceptions to the First Amendment, because there are exceptions. They’re narrow and they’re well-defined and we fight to make sure they stay that way for any number of important reasons. But I wrote about those exceptions and what we’ve seen on campus post October 7th and in the protests that followed.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah, and I do wanna just add that there’s such a widespread misconception that hate speech is unprotected speech in the United States. It’s just not true. I do think of hate speech as being probably the most successful PR campaign for censorship in my lifetime. It has been. It is the reason why they’re arresting 12,000 people a year now in the UK. Basically, when people looked at it, it's like, "Oh my God.” You’d have to arrest people on a massive scale if you actually enforce these across the board. Now, we get to see in the UK, yeah. That’s exactly right.

Alisha Glennon: And it’s not just happened to one side or younger people who should know this. We saw both Tim Walz and Pam Bondi –

Nico Perrino: Yup.

Alisha Glennon: Within minutes of each other both say hate speech wasn’t protected speech. So, another thing that FIREis there to be like, “No, Tim. You’re wrong. No, Pam Bondi, you’re wrong.” We have a bunch more information about that on our site as well.

Greg Lukianoff: So, it’s not just the young.

Alisha Glennon: Right, right.

Nico Perrino: Will, a follow-up question from Chuck Coleman here. He wonders about “globalize the Intifada,” which seems to him like incitement to violence.

Will Creeley: Yeah.

Nico Perrino: What does the First Amendment have to say about that?

Will Creeley: Incitement to violence is speech that is directed to and likely to result in imminent lawless actions. You’d have to be saying – mere advocacy for violence at some unspecified future time is entirely protected by the First Amendment, whether you’re saying globalize the Intifada or its exact opposite. We had a case, I think, involving a professor who said something like every member of Hamas should be executed and was punished for that. We also had a case where somebody said something like, “Kill Zionists.” We were defending both of those because in neither case did the speech meet that narrow definition of incitement.

Again, we give speech the widest possible range in order to allow folks to make up their own minds without the government saying yes you can or no you can’t. As Greg put it, I’ll paraphrase you here, Greg. The widest possible range of opinions and the least possible tolerance for violence. You have to keep that distinction absolutely front and center. I hope that answers the question. Sherry, if you’re on there, I’m working on answering your good question about the rankings over here in the meantime.

Nico Perrino: Craig asks, “How does FIREdistinguish between free speech online and misinformation online?” Craig says he’s from Fort Wayne, Indiana. Go Hoosiers. I like that, Craig. Thank you. Solidarity here as we come into the college football playoff season. So, the First Amendment, and I hope my colleagues will correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t create any sort of distinction between misinformation and free speech. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion in the Alvarez case back from 2012 said that our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.

That’s a reference, of course, to George Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth was a government institution that decided for the rest of its citizens what was true and what was not true. It could only distribute what was true according to the government’s narrative. There’s no distinction here under the First Amendment unless it would fit one of the narrow categories under the First Amendment that are exempted from the First Amendment. That would be fraud, defamation, for example, incitement to imminent lawless action. But I see Greg raising his hand here ‘cause I know this is a particular point of contention with him.

Greg Lukianoff: Did I hear epistemology? I’m so excited. Yeah, I mean, this is the central philosophy of my whole reason of being a First Amendment person in the first place. It’s that one of the great revelations in human history is that the world is hard to understand and know what’s even happening in any given moment. This doesn’t come intuitively to us. We’re designed for it not to come intuitively to us. But it is hard to know what is true on a daily basis and all the time. The only cure for misinformation, disinformation are authorities, not coerced by power, that people can respect and trust and can double check.

One of the things that I was screaming my head off in Coddling of the American Mind and Cancelling of the American Mind even more so, two of my books, is that when you create a situation in which people believe the expert class is actually not saying what they really think because they’re afraid they’re gonna get in trouble, nobody will trust them anymore.

The cure for misinformation and disinformation is structured friction, it’s expertise that we can trust, but it is all the premises embodied in academic freedom and free speech, respected to a huge degree that they simply haven’t been. There’s no easy solution to misinformation, disinformation other than giving power more power than power should ever have.

Will Creeley: Yeah, and with the advent of every new communication technology, there’s also the accusation that it spreads more misinformation and calls for more government involvement to police that alleged misinformation. I think it even happened with the telegraph, for example.

Nico Perrino: We have a question here from Bill. “I’m trying to initiate an alumni and friends group for a major public research university to support free speech, freedom of academic inquiry, etc., but I’m having great difficult getting any traction, either with alumni or members of the academic community. Does FIREhave any ability to assist with such efforts as this? Does FIREhave any experience working on this sort of thing?” Alisha, do we have any experience –

Alisha Glennon: We do!

Nico Perrino: Helping to start alumni groups.

Alisha Glennon: We do. We currently have helped start 30 of them across the country. We have dedicated staffers here at FIREwho that’s what they do. They organize alumni of different schools. We get them together. We send them information. We have events with them. We give them the tools that they need to go and advocate for free speech and academic freedom on their own campuses. We’ve even helped them set up websites, get their administrative work out of the way so they can do the real work, and we’d be happy to help anybody on this call. Just reach out to use. There you go. Thank you all, B.

Nico Perrino: Interesting question here from Lisa. “I teach intellectual property law classes at the University of San Diego School of Law and write about how trademark rights can potentially conflict with free speech. What does FIREthink is the best approach to protecting free speech rights with regard to the training and use of artificially intelligent computer programs to create new text or images, which some argue violates copyright and trademark rights?” I have strong opinions on this.

Will Creeley: Why don’t you go first, ‘cause I’m not sure we have an exact or institutional position on this. It’s something we debate pretty regularly internally, but I don’t know if FIREhas an organizational position. Go ahead, Nico.

Nico Perrino: Yeah. We play with some ideas here. I mean, my position is not necessarily unique. Others have put it forward, but if I can go into a library and survey someone’s copyrighted materials, research their copyrighted materials, and produce a new work based on those copyrighted materials and the learnings I get from them, then I think artificial intelligence should be able to do so as well. Assuming, of course, that the use of those materials is publicly available on the internet and doesn’t require some sort of subscription that the intelligence is trying to circumvent.

If I look at a Mark Rothko painting, which is copyrighted, and I’m inspired by it and create a new work, I think that that should be protected or fair use. If I look at a John Hughes film and I’m inspired by it and create another film that’s in its likings, I think that should be protected as well. In all these cases, I’m learning from copyrighted materials as Greg has a window washer washing his window behind him. I think artificial intelligence is just a tool to research and learn, much in the way hiring a research assistant to go into a library and research any copyrighted material is a tool as well.

I don’t think that we would say you can’t do that. But there are many nuances to this conversation that I know I am glossing over and that complicate it. But Will, what do you think?

Will Creeley: I’m gonna leave it there. Can I answer the question about Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier?

Greg Lukianoff: Will, actually can I get a go at this?

Will Creeley: Go ahead. Go ahead.

Greg Lukianoff: Just real quick before we move. I’m a former IP lawyer. That’s what I actually did for the year before ��֭����. I was looking for a First Amendment job. That’s awesome. Yeah, the obvious tensions between IP law and the First Amendment is one of the things that made me even more about finding a job in the First Amendment. I do think you can balance the two, but there’s always gonna be a necessary tension. It’s been interesting to see how companies are gonna navigate it, but it can be used very cynically.

I just wrote on X like an hour ago about an attempt to use trademark law from China to silence a group in the United States on a US server that tries to show repression in China. It is something that can be a very dangerous weapon and misused to go after core political speech.

Nico Perrino: All right. Will, you wanna talk about student journalism?

Will Creeley: I wanna do a speed round in these last seven minutes. Bill writes, “We’ve written about the college newspaper censorship dispute at Indiana University. Do you think that university officials can rely on Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier when putting strictures on the IDS paper. I’ve written that Hazelwood is one of the most limiting First Amendment decisions in the past half century. Do you agree or am I exaggerating? And would it apply at the college?” For folks who don’t know Hazelwood, it is a 1980s ruling from the Supreme Court about a high school paper and a principal who censored the high school paper.

The Court, to their lasting shame and discredit, got it wrong and said that that censorship did not violate the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper editors because it was part of a legitimate pedagogical reasons for taking the steps to censor the paper. We’ve seen and fought for damn near 20 years now the bleed of Hazelwood into not only other K-12 student speech cases, but to the college setting as well. We have fought against it in letters via friend of the court filings, in our lobbying work. We’re strong supporters of the Student Press Law Center’s New Voices Act, which is designed to reverse Hazelwood and to protect against it.

At the state level, it’s now been passed by, I wanna say, 26 or something states. We’ve been very supportive of that. So, no, Bill. You’re not wrong and thanks for letting me vent about Hazelwood.

Nico Perrino: Alisha, Sarah asks, “How do you stay hopeful in this time when the sides are so divided and are having such trouble recognizing their own hypocrisy?” Hypocrisy –

Alisha Glennon: It’s hard to answer that one rapidly. I feel you, honestly. Sometimes I do feel like, “Oh gosh.” Everything has gone crazy. What is happening? But what makes me feel hopeful is getting to put my hands to work every day. I would really encourage people to find something meaningful where they feel like they can make a difference. It feels good to be active. I saw someone, a donor, say in a meeting yesterday, “FIREisn’t a think tank. We’re a do tank.” And so, I’m hopeful by getting to do the work.

In doing the work, I get to talk to lots of people who really truly get it. I am also hopeful because I know when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment that FIREwill always be there to be a watchdog, no matter who is in power, no matter who is a hypocrite. We’ll be there to call the balls and strikes. Also hopeful because I’ve gotten the opportunity to get to work with our younger students, interns, the high schoolers that come to our camp. I see them. I see them wanting to have free speech. I see them wanting to have artistic freedom and be authentic and I think there’s opportunity there.

I’m not gonna pretend that it’s all flowers and butterflies. This is really hard work. There’s a lot of serious threats going on and sometimes you can feel down about it when it’s coming from all directions. But my biggest advice is to understand that what we’re actually working for, what the American experiment is all about is worth it. We are lucky that we get to do this fight, that we get to do this work, that we get to champion something that no other country in the world is doing like we are. We’re unique in that way and it’s something special.

I find hope in knowing that there’s a group of people, civil libertarians, of people who love liberty and freedom, that are going to come together, be the watchdog that we need no matter who’s in charge, be the ones that are securing our rights. And I get to do that. I get to go to the events and meet the people. So, that’s what brings me hope. And I hope for you all on this call who don’t get to work at ��֭����, but being part of this, you get to put your hands to work a little bit, too, doing this work. That will make you feel a little better.

Nico Perrino: Greg, we have a question from Bruce earlier in the conversation. He asks or says, “The EU has been in the news recently on speech. A report indicates almost a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach. For example, if Spain deems it can restrict certain speech, then that can/must be censored on any large platform, think X. Effectively, its claim preventing someone in, say, Tennessee, access to the certain speech. Pretty daunting it seems.” How do we handle these sort of situations where we have globalized speech platforms?

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah.

Nico Perrino: Like X, and you have certain countries that do not abide by First Amendment standards and to tailor the speech standards in any individual country for any individual company is very costly. I should add, just as an addendum here, we’re sort of seeing this in the United States with artificial intelligence in the moment. You have state-by-state regulation of artificial intelligence and that’s why you see the Trump administration advocating for a so-called AI state regulation moratorium, for example. It just becomes difficult in a globalized world to police speech in localities.

Greg Lukianoff: Yeah. If you follow me right now on X, you can see that I’m in a bit of a food fight about censorship in the European Union. It’s very funny watching people respond to my overall skepticism of the EU. Like the recent massive proposed fines against X, I’m sorry. I mean, if the European Union is trying to bring everyone to heel, they can. I’ve looked at the situation for free speech in the European Union and also outside of it in places like the UK and it’s disastrous. And it’s getting worse. I think that we are deeply aware, at ��֭����, of the potential threats from foreign illiberal regimes, whether they’re Western or not.

We wanna make sure that that doesn’t harm free speech here. But I do actually think you have to start making an argument for free speech as a global human rights norm because we can see serious threats to free speech in the United States. If we just think our little prejudice towards free speech is just our little peculiarity as Americans and everybody else can censor as much as they want with no harm to the rest of us, that’s nonsense. I’m pretty animated about this particular topic.

I think that the threats from China are bad enough by themselves, but when you add to it Russia, Iran, and terrible ideas consistently coming out of the European Union and a lot of the Anglosphere, we’ve gotta regain some ground and not give an inch on free speech as an ethical and deep philosophy.

Nico Perrino: Alisha, you wanna help answer this one? We have a question from Harvey here. “Can you sketch out a Venn diagram comparing FIREwith the ACLU?” We get this question quite a bit, right?

Alisha Glennon: Sure. Well –

Nico Perrino: One obvious difference is that ACLU works on many more issues, I think –

Alisha Glennon: Yeah. I was gonna say the part in the middle is we both defend First Amendment rights, both defend free speech, and we work with a lot of the state and local chapter often to do that. I would say the biggest difference are we have one issue area and one issue area only, free speech. The ACLU, I think at this point, has 19. The other difference is we don’t comment on the nature of the speech that we defend. We don’t do any throat clearing and say, “Well, we don’t agree with the speaker,” or, “While we think this is bad, we’re gonna defend it anyway.” That’s not a practice that the ACLU engages in.

And we’re smaller. They have hundreds of thousands of members. Someday, that could be a goal of ours where we wanna be. But I think we are truly non-partisan. Our staff is very diverse. Our plaintiffs are divers. Our donors are diverse. That’s obviously a difference between the two organizations. I think I work here for a reason. I think that is a superpower of ours and makes us better for it.

Nico Perrino: Yeah. And the ACLU does have a 75-year headstart on us. They were founded in 1920. We were founded in 1999. But folks, that is the end of our hour together. I saw there were a couple of questions about whether FIREhas a Substack. We’ve refenced a couple of Substacks during this call. Greg has one called The Eternally Radical Idea. We have a Substack for my podcast, So To Speak: The Free Speech Podcast. And we also have an institutional Substack called Expression, all of which you can find on our website or just by Googling for it.

Or you can email us. Remember to email us at ��֭����.org. Not at the ��֭����.org, although emails to the @fire.org will also go to us and we can point you in the right direction. A couple of reminders as well, end of the year. If you’re not a FIREmember, please consider being a FIREmember. Considering going to our store at the top of the website and becoming a billboard for free speech by buying one of our shirts or hoodies or hats. Will, I saw you learning in there. Was there something you wanted to get in here at the end?

Will Creeley: The Selzer case wasn’t just for branding. We took it on because we’re seeing folks across the country start to argue that speech should be treated like a product and that it should be considered like a used car that doesn’t have the right mileage. Like getting a poll wrong is something that can be actionable as consumer fraud. Not only is it a good opportunity for us to introduce ourselves and to make clear that we’re here to defend speech no matter who’s challenging it, seeking to censor from the President on down, but also to check a growing threat to First Amendment right. Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

Nico Perrino: Yeah. We had 39 open questions and –

Will Creeley: I tried my damnedest.

Nico Perrino: A stone stuck in Will’s cross. So, he comes in at the end here.

Alisha Glennon: I think I have to say –

Greg Lukianoff: We’re all enthusiastic about that case.

Alisha Glennon: I have to say, maybe I can get the last word if you don’t mind. Of course we want people to become members, but I really wanna thank everybody who are already members, who are already donors. You are the people who make all of our work possible, everything we talked about today, all the links on our website. We cannot do this without you. From the bottom of our hearts, we are deeply grateful for your support, so thank you so much.

Nico Perrino: And maybe one day we do an extra long members webinar. Maybe like two or three hours. We get in a 9:00 a.m. We go until noon.

Will Creeley: I’m in.

Nico Perrino: And maybe that will get the only time we get to every question that is asked.

Greg Lukianoff: Nine hours.

Nico Perrino: Nine hours. Yeah, marathon. We’ll do one of those filibuster things, right, where we stand –

Greg Lukianoff: It’s kind of what the job is anyway. This is just doing it in real time. You know, it’s not all that different.

Nico Perrino: All right, folks. We’re signing off for Greg Lukianoff, Alisha Glennon, Will Creeley. I am Nico Perrino and we will talk to you all next month. Have a good holiday and happy New Year.