YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Freedom & Censorship: A Conversation with Greg Lukianoff (Episode #368)

Freedom & Censorship: A Conversation with Greg Lukianoff (Episode #368) — Transcript

by Sam Harris · 7,520 words · 1,072 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:06welcome to the making sense podcast this
0:08is Sam Harris just a note to say that if
0:11you're hearing this you're not currently
0:13on our subscriber feed and will only be
0:15hearing the first part of this
0:16conversation in order to access full
0:19episodes of The Making Sense podcast
0:21you'll need to subscribe at samh
0:22harris.org there you'll also find our
0:25scholarship program where we offer free
0:27accounts to anyone who can't afford one
0:28we don't run ads on the podast podc and
0:30therefore it's made possible entirely
0:32through the support of our subscribers
0:34so if you enjoy what we're doing here
0:36please consider becoming
0:44one today I'm speaking with Greg lukanov
0:48Greg is the president of the foundation
0:50for individual rights and expression the
0:52acronym is fire he earned his
0:55undergraduate degree from American
0:57University and his law degree from
1:00Stanford and he worked for the ACLU of
1:02Northern California and other
1:04organizations before joining fire in
1:072001 and he's one of America's most
1:10passionate Defenders of free speech he
1:12has written about the issue in the New
1:15York Times The Wall Street Journal The
1:17Washington Post he has produced
1:19documentaries on the subject he also
1:22wrote along with Jonathan height the
1:24coddling of the American mind and most
1:26recently he wrote along with Ricky
1:29schlot the cancelling of the American
1:31mind cancel culture undermines trust
1:34destroys institutions and threatens us
1:37all but there is a solution and that is
1:40the topic of today's conversation Greg
1:42and I discuss the origins of political
1:44correctness free speech and its
1:46boundaries the Bedrock principle of the
1:49First Amendment technology and the
1:51marketplace of ideas epistemic Anarchy
1:55social media and cancel culture
1:57comparisons to McCarthyism
2:00self-censorship by professors
2:02cancellations from the left and the
2:04right and how they differ Justified
2:07cancellations the hunter Biden laptop
2:10Story how to deal with Trump in the
2:12media the deplorable state of higher
2:14education in America and other
2:18topics and I bring you Greg
2:26lukianov I am here with Greg lukanov
2:29Greg thanks for joining me thanks for
2:31having me so uh we've got a lot to talk
2:33about the world is on fire and uh you
2:37you you happened to run an organization
2:39called fire which addresses some of
2:41these problems I will have introduced
2:43you properly in my housekeeping but what
2:45is fire and and how do you come to be
2:48running it the fire is a foundation for
2:50individual rights and expression and
2:52we're actually celebrating our 25th
2:54anniversary this year uh we were founded
2:56back in
2:571999 by Harvey silverglate who is a
3:01liberal leaning libertarian and uh Alan
3:04Charles Kors who's a more conservative
3:05leaning libertarian who is one of the
3:08you know world's foremost experts on the
3:10enlightenment especially
3:12voler and they founded it because even
3:15back then they realized that and Allan
3:19was a professor at Penn that students
3:21were increasingly getting in trouble for
3:23what they said not what for they did not
3:25just for what they did and they wrote a
3:27book called The Shadow University um
3:29trying to blow the lid on on what was
3:31going on that came out in 1998 and
3:34Harvey always likes to say that he
3:36thought you know that would solve the
3:38problem but instead they got emails and
3:41letters from people all over the country
3:42asking particularly professors asking
3:44for help and their free speech and
3:46academic freedom cases so in order to
3:49deal with the onslaught of of Interest
3:52they uh founded fire in 1999 and I
3:55joined as the first legal director in
3:582001 and I'm the weird law student who
4:01actually went to law school specifically
4:03to do first amendment law MH I took
4:06every class that Stanford offered on
4:08First Amendment and then when I ran out
4:11I did six credits on censorship during
4:13the tutor Dynasty and I externed the
4:16weird word for internship at the ACLU of
4:19Northern California so when Harvey went
4:23to Kathleen Sullivan who was then the
4:25dean of the law school to ask for who
4:27they would recommend to be the first
4:28legal director of Fire
4:30uh it Remains the greatest compliment I
4:32ever received is she recommended me by
4:34name but what years were you at Stanford
4:371997 to 2000 right actually we
4:40overlapped a little bit there but I was
4:42going back to finish my undergraduate
4:44but I remember that the first time I was
4:46there there were some intimations of the
4:49coming censorship apocalypse I I
4:51remember that the um the great books
4:54approach to um I forget what it was
4:57called in the Freshman years like the
4:58freshman kind of literature requirement
5:01was a um kind of a great books seminar
5:04and you know this was um much maligned
5:08as just teaching the um products of dead
5:11white men and there there had been a
5:13March I think it was might have been a
5:15year before I got there as a freshman
5:16but you know Jesse Jackson had led a a
5:19500 person march on the Stanford campus
5:21that got a lot of coverage and there
5:23were it was certainly a a movement of
5:26foot on that particular campus at that
5:28point to reset everything with respect
5:31to how we talk about ideas it's I don't
5:35quite remember what was happening in
5:361999 but I I can only imagine the pot
5:39just continued to boil from there yeah
5:41it it was interesting that you know I
5:42started there at 90 '97 and nobody
5:46really talked about the fact that just
5:47two years earlier um Stanford law had
5:50lost a court case defending a speech
5:54code that it had come up with with
5:56Professor Tom Gray who was a professor
5:58who was there when I was there to limit
6:00nominally racist and sexist speech but
6:03really going after offensive speech to a
6:05vast degree and even though it was a
6:08private school the legislature passed a
6:11special law which now called the Leonard
6:13law that actually made sure that
6:15non-sectarian schools in the state of
6:17California actually had to abide by
6:19First Amendment standards so they
6:21actually lost in court in '95 and this
6:23was like a dirty little secret by 97
6:26because it was actually kind of a sweet
6:27spot to go to school because what I
6:31missed was what I call in my latest book
6:34the first grade age of political
6:36correctness which is essentially 85 to
6:3995 which is when speech codes came into
6:42Vogue there was I remember actually the
6:44chant was famous by Jessie Jackson it
6:46was hey hey hey ho ho Western Civ has
6:48got to go right that was it yeah yeah
6:50and this was a lot of what Harvey and
6:52Allen were writing about in in the
6:53shadow University but by say
6:569596 political correctness had become
6:58even a joke on the left so there was a
7:01sense that the speech codes were
7:02defeated the professor it kind of fell
7:05out of love with enlightened censorship
7:07the students you know were more the kids
7:09of the Boomers who were actually quite
7:11good on free speech and so this all kind
7:14there was a sense this all kind of died
7:15off what I learned in working with
7:17Jonathan height when I was doing the
7:19research for codling the American mind
7:21was that interestingly even though this
7:24kind of fell off of the public radar
7:26because there was a sense that political
7:27correctness was like this fever that had
7:29brok broken sometime in the mid90s but
7:31that the Viewpoint diversity of of the
7:34professor of of Professor hirings
7:37plummeted in the late 90s it got much
7:39much worse even as people had taken
7:41their eye off the ball and when I
7:43started at fire in 2001 I was pretty
7:46shocked at how easy it was already to
7:48get in trouble for what you said on
7:50campus and I also say when when I got to
7:52Stanford it was a little bit of a
7:54culture shock to meet so many wealthy
7:56kids who were pretty Victorian
8:00I would almost describe it in in their
8:02ideas of what acceptable speech
8:04constituted it seemed like it was very
8:06easy already to get in trouble for
8:07saying something in an unapproved way
8:11but it was a cultural thing it it wasn't
8:13um that people were actually literally
8:14getting punished for it it was more that
8:17it just seemed kind of forgive the
8:18expression uptight well I should say
8:21much of what we're going to talk about
8:23you cover in great depth in your most
8:27recent book The cancelling of the
8:28American mind which you wrote with uh
8:30Ricky Schlott and where you know there's
8:34just a ton of material in there and many
8:36case studies of which we are not going
8:38to get to cover which are we may cover
8:40some but let's cover all of them yeah
8:42feel free to introduce any any that you
8:44want but there's just so much detail in
8:46there where it's just amazing the the
8:50certainly amazing for anyone who thought
8:51that cancel culture wasn't a thing I
8:54anyone who can be found having said that
8:56in the last 10 years really needs to
8:58read your book Thank you but um let's
9:00start with the concept of free speech
9:04and its
9:05boundaries how do you think about free
9:07speech and and what precisely do we want
9:10to defend here I have a pretty um
9:13expansive view of what the term Free
9:14Speech means and I I think of it as the
9:17big Boolean sphere that includes the
9:20First Amendment but is much much larger
9:22than that um and I definitely you know I
9:25think of it as not just being about the
9:27limits of the law of what you're to say
9:30but also your the cultural tolerance for
9:33the acceptance of people with any kind
9:36of opinion I I sometimes explain there's
9:38no such thing as a free speech
9:39absolutist or at least I haven't met a
9:42serious person who is yeah because we
9:43all believe that some speech is and
9:45should be unprotected but I am an
9:48opinion absolutist and what I mean by
9:50that is that if you're merely expressing
9:52your opinion even if it's repugnant that
9:54is protected it has to be something more
9:56than the mere expression of opinion uh
9:59it has to be something like
10:00discriminatory harassment which is a
10:03pattern of severe persistent and
10:05pervasive behavior that targets someone
10:07on the basis of a protected category
10:09that a reasonable person would also find
10:11offensive and by the way we actually
10:13have seen genuine discriminatory
10:15harassment on campus since October 7th
10:17in a number of cases so it's not an
10:19unmet standard intimidation also also
10:23known as true threats which is when you
10:25make someone we we' make a reasonable
10:27person fear that they're in danger of
10:29Bot harm or death that is not protected
10:31nor should it be defamation is not
10:33protected which is basically making a
10:36factual allegation that someone for
10:38example is guilty of an odious crime you
10:40know I always gave the example when I
10:42was at the student newspaper of you know
10:45groundlessly asserting that you know
10:47that someone is a pedophile for example
10:48is is a classic example because that
10:50could ruin someone's life if if they
10:52believed you if they believed you so
10:55nobody really believes that there
10:57there's no way to use words in a way
10:59that isn't protected I mean there's also
11:01of course you know you use words to
11:03commit extortion you use words to uh
11:05that are incidental parts of existing
11:08crimes use words to commit conspiracies
11:11for example but I think that the the
11:14most clearly protected kind of freedom
11:17of speech is when you're merely
11:18expressing a Viewpoint and under that
11:21they really the law I think is sensibly
11:23set up in the United States to have what
11:26we call the Bedrock principle which is
11:29it comes from a case called Texas V
11:31Johnson from 1989 which is about whether
11:33or not you can burn an American flag or
11:36whether or not a Anti Flag burning law
11:38would be constitutional uh and it's a
11:40great opinion by the way like I I really
11:42recommend reading it because when I used
11:44to teach First Amendment it does this
11:46wonderful kind of overview of the entire
11:48history of the First Amendment and a
11:49free speech decision so it's a it's a
11:51great one to just One-Stop shopping for
11:54for learning about the the field but it
11:56calls the Bedrock principle of for the
11:59first amendment is that you cannot in
12:01the United States ban speech simply
12:03because it's offensive and I always make
12:05the point that this is a great rule for
12:08a genuinely Multicultural Society
12:10because what people find offensive and I
12:14my dad's Russian my mother's British I
12:16grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of
12:17kids from Vietnam and Puerto Rico and
12:20Korea and from Peru like all people who
12:23had very different ideas of like what
12:26offensive speech looked like and it was
12:28such a example for why Free Speech had
12:31to be the rule because we couldn't you
12:33know my British mom thought all sorts of
12:35things were offensive my Russian father
12:38thought practically nothing was but
12:39Danny nen's you know parents had
12:41different ideas of what was in what was
12:43offensive and same thing with Nelson
12:44bitos and so I think that the Bedrock
12:47principle is a very sensible rule for a
12:50free Multicultural diverse Society but
12:54it is one of the major things that makes
12:56America so very different from the from
12:58Europe for
13:00example let's Linger on that point
13:02because I'm often guilty of just
13:05reflexively seeing everything through an
13:07American lens and then I'm reminded that
13:10even our closest Cousins over in the UK
13:14or or um elsewhere in the english-
13:17speaking world don't enjoy the same
13:19kinds of protections that we do how is
13:22it different in in Europe and Canada and
13:24Australia and New Zealand and and
13:26elsewhere and and I think you you and I
13:29both going to agree that we have it
13:32closer to right in America than exists
13:35anywhere else at least that I'm aware of
13:37what do we have that that other other
13:39nations don't around free speech I was
13:42ort sort sort of laughing right there
13:44because I I violate a major convention
13:47among constitutional lawyers when I
13:48travel to Europe it's generally
13:50considered and it's partially because a
13:52lot of other constitutional lawyers are
13:54highly sympathetic to Greater
13:56limitations to to free speech so it's
13:58it's partially also just agreement but
14:00even when they're not um there's a
14:02tendency to go over there and be very
14:04deprecating of our own system and very
14:06complimentary towards uh the way things
14:09work in Europe and I am not that lawyer
14:11I I go over and I and I'm rude about I'm
14:14I'm sorry I actually think I'm quite
14:15polite about it but I I I violate the
14:18the rule of saying you you guys have it
14:20all right and we have it all wrong
14:21because I'm like I don't think we do
14:22particularly since I attend a lot of
14:24these hate speech conferences and
14:26watching someone with a you know German
14:28accent explain why you know this cartoon
14:32landed someone in jail but this cartoon
14:34didn't and you're like this doesn't make
14:37any sense these These are both arguably
14:39equally offensive and you're just being
14:41arbitrary about it so you're not really
14:43persuading me that this is the way to go
14:46and that's partially because they don't
14:47have a Bedrock principle that um You
14:50Can't Ban speech simply because it's
14:51offensive but I think that comes from an
14:53interesting place and I think it's
14:55essentially oh God I found myself
14:57thinking about the Treaty of w failure
14:591648 um the nation state model you know
15:02essentially I think that in my mother's
15:05Britain there is an idea that there's
15:07sort of a modal Brit and that that
15:10Nation can be kind of almost analogized
15:13to a single person who has just like any
15:16person a list of things that are
15:19offensive and a list of things that
15:20aren't a John bow kind of character and
15:23I think that that's something that
15:25you'll see in sort of like the national
15:27character of Germany and France and is
15:29an idea that there is like a a modal
15:31version of that person and if you think
15:34of of your country that way it can make
15:36sense that you can call balls and
15:37Strikes in terms of what's offensive and
15:39what's not because you think that
15:40there's there there's some way that most
15:42people in your country would I think
15:44this has gotten much harder to argue as
15:46all of these countries have become much
15:48more diverse much more Multicultural and
15:50I think it was also a little bit asinine
15:52to argue in the first place particularly
15:53in a lot of these places because of
15:55profound class differences Within These
15:57same cultures m and so I think that
16:00that's one of the reasons why that they
16:02can be more comfortable thinking that
16:04they have that that not having a Bedrock
16:06principle makes sense but I but I can
16:07see that that the strain on the system
16:10is really happening in places like
16:12Scotland and Ireland and Germany for
16:14that matter in terms of how do you
16:15enforce this fairly and the answer is
16:17it's incredibly difficult meanwhile in
16:19the United States we've always had an
16:22understanding that Boston is not like
16:25Richmond is not like Georgia is not like
16:27and then later Califoria
16:29uh not like Texas so we've never really
16:32thought of ourselves despite the image
16:34of Uncle Sam we've always been a country
16:36that we know full well that that
16:38different parts of us are simply not
16:40going to agree and I think frankly we've
16:42been at the genuinely Multicultural
16:45generally multiethnic Society thing
16:48longer than a lot of the countries in
16:50Europe and so I think we actually did
16:52get this one right and I think that what
16:55you see going on currently in Europe
16:57particularly around issues like
16:58immigration I mean I I think about that
17:01the the polling that you you you
17:03presented on on Bill marah's show about
17:06so some conservative Muslim attitudes
17:08about a variety of of issues that struck
17:12me as something that absolutely
17:13protected the United States but I could
17:15imagine that even some factual
17:17assertions could be treated in some
17:18countries in Europe as if they're actual
17:20offenses now yeah yeah yeah well the the
17:23the modal Brit or the modal German or
17:26the mo modal Frenchman is increasingly
17:28to be guilty of islamophobia in that
17:31context so let's return to the American
17:36view of things I so I think we both
17:38agree that as well- intended as they
17:40might be prescriptions against offensive
17:44speech in other countries like the UK or
17:47Germany Holocaust denial laws for
17:50instance inh places like Germany and I
17:52think Austria has it I'm not sure where
17:54else you they can you know literally
17:57land you in prison for denying the
17:59Holocaust you know as much as I am a
18:02student of the Holocaust and am alert to
18:04the even to the the forward-looking
18:06prospect of future Holocaust I think
18:10laws of that sort are just wrong-headed
18:11I mean they're not they they don't
18:13accomplish what you would hope they
18:14would accomplish which is to get
18:16everyone to understand that you know in
18:18this case the Holocaust really did
18:19happen and it was horrific and it's just
18:22the wrong algorithm to be running
18:25socially so as to purify people's
18:28thinking and to get people to converge
18:30on a fact-based and well-intentioned
18:32discussion about reality right I what I
18:35think we want and I'm now putting words
18:37in your mouth and feel free to take them
18:39out but what I think we want is the the
18:41proper error correcting mechanism of it
18:44being legal to more or less talk about
18:48anything leaving aside those cases where
18:51speech isn't quite just speech uh where
18:54it is you know I think as you said a
18:57provocation to imminent law Lawless
18:59action or you know obvious harassment or
19:01it's more you know you're it's a kind of
19:04behavior you know you could be
19:05defrauding someone with speech Etc but
19:08if you're if you're just expressing
19:10opinions and even you know
19:11extraordinarily odious ones and and even
19:14in principle Dangerous Ones and you know
19:17dangerous if acted upon I think we want
19:20the generally speaking in the public
19:23sphere which is to say you know that the
19:25sphere that the government coercion cast
19:28a shadow over I think we want just the
19:32best idea to win in collision with all
19:35other ideas is that how you do you agree
19:37with what I've said on that well the
19:40marketplace of ideas theory of freedom
19:42of speech I think is I think it's a
19:44great idea and I think it's particularly
19:46relevant um in higher education where it
19:49is supposed to be a Clashing of ideas
19:52and VI of disconfirmation to you know
19:54chip ever closer to the truth by
19:56chipping away at falsity but I have a
19:59little bit of a more idiosyncratic
20:01theory on freedom of speech that
20:03unsurprisingly is fairly expansive and I
20:06just call it simply the pure
20:07informational theory of free speech
20:09which is that there is if the goal of
20:11human knowledge is to know the world as
20:13it is then you can't really know the
20:17world as it is without knowing what
20:19people actually think and if you create
20:21a situation in which people aren't too
20:23terrified to say what they actually
20:25think for fear of punishment you are
20:26depriving yourself of really important
20:28knowledge about the world and I and
20:30extend this also to conspiracy theories
20:32so like let's take a real one the
20:34protocols of the Elders of Zion if uh
20:37the idea that that wasn't a relevant and
20:40important thing to know about its
20:41existence in history it is just
20:45delusional I I think it's very important
20:47that people understand that there was
20:48this massive conspiracy theory at the
20:50early part of the 20th century that was
20:52based on very shoddy writing that
20:54basically were saying that Jews
20:56controlled the world is it true no no is
20:59it worth knowing of course it is and so
21:02when it comes to conspiracy theories
21:04when I'm being a little more
21:05light-hearted about it the way I explain
21:06it is listen lizard people who live
21:09under the Denver Airport do not control
21:11the world but knowing that your
21:13girlfriend or Uncle believe that lizard
21:16people living under the Denver Airport
21:18control the world is very important
21:20information to have and so knowing what
21:23people really think and why is a key
21:25part to under understanding the world
21:27and when it comes to conspiracy theories
21:29I mean here's one thing that I just have
21:31to say over and over again if you're
21:33battling someone who believes that
21:35there's a conspiracy to shut them up do
21:38absolutely nothing that looks like a
21:41conspiracy to shut them up because
21:43they're just going to take that is like
21:45well I must be on to something and then
21:47the the last part of like why you have
21:49to let these bad ideas out is something
21:52that I call the um call Mills Trident
21:55from the uh from on Liberty which is
21:58that in a truth seeking discussion which
22:00is actually not most discussions but in
22:02a discussion to try to get towards truth
22:04there's only three possibilities you're
22:06either completely wrong you're partially
22:10wrong or partially right or you're
22:12completely right and now that middle
22:14category is the one that's going to be
22:16the most common yes well populated yeah
22:18exactly but in the case that you're
22:20completely wrong of course free speech
22:22is useful because people can point out H
22:25how and why you're wrong in the middle
22:27one there's really no other way to get
22:30at what's the wrong parts of your
22:33opinion uh without usually a somewhat
22:35long process of of debate and discussion
22:38but even under that final one if you're
22:40completely right that obviously that the
22:42Holocaust really happened but you never
22:45actually get tested on that people tend
22:47to hold their beliefs like they hold
22:49prejudices they know that something's
22:51true or they believe that something's
22:53true but they don't know why and that's
22:55a very brittle State of Affairs because
22:58if basically you know that it's illegal
23:01to say that the Holocaust didn't happen
23:03but you're never actually challenged on
23:05whether or not it happened you may not
23:06even end up being aware of how
23:08overwhelming the evidence that it
23:10absolutely completely happened is and so
23:13I I think that a lot of these
23:14anti-conspiracy laws backfire in of
23:18multiple ways and one thing that is I I
23:20think interesting is when you look at
23:23the prevalence of a holocaust denial but
23:25also of things like anti-Semitism in
23:28Europe versus the United States yet
23:30Europe passed a lot of laws that
23:32critically places like France laws that
23:34were designed to go after anti-semitic
23:37speech there was also a push of course
23:39on college campuses to do the same thing
23:41both in the 90s but they actually got
23:43passed in France and they only got
23:44passed on campuses in in the United
23:47States and for the most part they were
23:48defeated in court but when you look at
23:51sort of like the rates of anti-Semitism
23:53in Europe they're much much higher than
23:57they are in the United States although
23:58unfortunately things have been getting
23:59worse in the past couple years and I
24:02think that's at least in part
24:03underestimating what can happen if you
24:06don't actually create a situation in
24:08which people are people are actually
24:10finding out what people really think and
24:12why I think we should introduce a few
24:14more distinctions here because I I think
24:16as as much as we seem to agree that we
24:19may disagree on a few points and it'll
24:21be interesting to to have you defrag my
24:23hard drive if uh it needs it so there
24:27there's a distinction between laws and
24:30norms and there's a distinction between
24:33public and private spaces or or you know
24:36platforms and and a failure to notice
24:39these distinctions in my view does
24:41confound a lot of the discussion around
24:43censorship and misinformation and you
24:45know the big Tech and what should have
24:48happened on Twitter during Co Etc and
24:51some of what you cover in your book so
24:54as I just said I'm I'm I fully agree
24:56agree with you that nobody is a free
24:58speech absolutist that's just a cartoon
25:00of a cartoon and especially when you
25:03move into private space and private
25:06platforms and businesses that have
25:08Brands to be maintained right your meta
25:11or Instagram or uh your Twitter now X
25:15right you're you're a business that has
25:17to make money at some point presumably
25:20and then the question is what what sort
25:22of information do you want on your
25:24platform you're you're in a position to
25:26make decisions you know curatory you
25:28know moderating decisions you have to
25:31make those decisions unless you're going
25:34to become the next 4chan or a Chan or
25:37some other digital sewer that nobody or
25:41few few of us want to spend much time in
25:43and certainly no one wants to advertise
25:44in right and yet any effort to clean up
25:49the sewage is you know your routinely
25:52described you know mostly right of
25:54center now as censorship right and this
25:59has always just struck me as pure
26:01confusion and especially in a political
26:03context where you're you're you're
26:06seeing the the algorithmic amplification
26:09of obvious misinformation and
26:11disinformation some of which obviously
26:14is is put there maliciously by you know
26:16Russian troll Farms right although
26:18that's not the bulk of it that certainly
26:19happens but much of it is just generated
26:21by Maniacs whether it's Alex Jones or or
26:24someone you've never heard of and the
26:27way it's different than ordinary speech
26:29is once again it is algorithmically
26:31Amplified based on the Dynamics of these
26:35hallucination machines that we have
26:36built and it's just a much more
26:39complicated picture again there are
26:42distinctions between laws and Norms
26:43public and private normal speech versus
26:46algorithmically boosted speech speech
26:48whose terrible effects you can see play
26:51out hour by hour and in certain cases
26:54you know many of us worry that the
26:56misinformation component of this if Le
26:59left
27:01unchecked could render us just
27:03ungovernable politically right I mean
27:05the people are so confused when you look
27:07at what's happening on college campuses
27:09now mhm I look at it as just a a a it's
27:12a manufactured hysteria based on almost
27:16pure misinformation I there's a lot of
27:18stupidity you know greasing the wheels
27:19there and and moral blindness but
27:22there's a tremendous amount of
27:24misinformation and so that you know the
27:27happy talk I I uttered a few minutes ago
27:29about how you know the best idea should
27:31win in collision with all other ideas we
27:33have created private and public and you
27:37know semi-private semi-public you know
27:39contexts whether you think of each of
27:41these things as Publishers or platforms
27:43you know depending on how you squint
27:45your eyes you can make a case for either
27:47we've created a situation where we
27:50appear to be driving ourselves fairly
27:52crazy and it's worth worrying about this
27:55and so I'm I'm just wondering I mean
27:58take any side of that you know grotesque
28:00object I just put in view you want but
28:02how does your commitment to free speech
28:07in a in a very you know deep way help
28:10you navigate the the mess I just made
28:13yeah no this this is I and I wish I
28:17could I could have a a short answer to
28:19this but I don't I don't think we I
28:21really can because I I think that we
28:23have to take a big step back to where we
28:26are in 2024 and I talk about this a lot
28:30within my organization probably people
28:32are sick and tired of hearing the
28:33printing press but I mentioned that I
28:36did censorship during the tutor Dynasty
28:38but the reason why I was uh studying
28:40censorship during the tutor Dynasty is
28:42that was all directed at the printing
28:44press as being this Infernal Device that
28:47spread misinformation that led to all of
28:49these social ills and I always want to
28:52be clear here it did it really did um in
28:55a in a lot of ways because and this is
28:58this is a point that I sometimes you
28:59know take a somewhat different approach
29:01than my much beloved friend John hey is
29:04that I'm you know I'm more of a civil
29:05libertarian but also I come from you
29:07know a little bit of a different sort of
29:10academic background and I definitely you
29:13know tend to see Solutions as more
29:15bottom up than top down because I look
29:18at what happened in England around the
29:21printing press starting with Henry and
29:22then also going all the way through
29:24Elizabeth actually all the way through
29:26through the Glorious Revolution a little
29:28Beyond about the printing press and
29:31essentially what happened there was you
29:33suddenly had millions of of additional
29:36people in a fast in a faster paced
29:39Global discussion about what is true and
29:42what is not and in the short run it was
29:46devastating it meant an increase in The
29:49Witch Trials it meant religious unrest
29:53it meant political unrest it meant
29:55genuine Bloodshed and in some ways this
29:58disorder led to the the biggest war in
30:01European history before the before World
30:03War I the 30 Years War yeah which was
30:06just a absolute Calamity so Henry's and
30:09and and Elizabeth's and Mary and
30:11Edward's you know concerned about the
30:13printing press you know it honestly
30:15should not be so easily dismissed
30:17because it really was a device that led
30:19to all this destruction but that's going
30:22to happen anytime that you have this
30:24many additional people brought into a
30:26conversation over the long term it
30:28actually turns out that this many
30:29additional eyeballs and Minds on
30:31problems was a tremendous Boon for the
30:34production of thought and for human
30:36progress because it allowed for things
30:38like the Scientific Revolution it
30:40allowed for decentralized
30:42disconfirmation of of information which
30:45which is you know one of a great that
30:47we're still benefiting from to this day
30:49social media has added billions of
30:53people to an instantaneous and
30:56fast-paced Global conversation ation so
30:58there's literally no way to avoid that
31:02being a anarchical epistemically
31:05anarchical uh period so I feel like
31:08we're unavoidably in a crazy period
31:10right now and I get sometimes more
31:13concerned about ways to fix the problem
31:15if they're heavy-handed top- down
31:17problems but another thing that happened
31:19when you have this many new minds and
31:21voices into a conversation is you
31:23realize that the old authorities
31:25probably didn't necessarily deserve to
31:28be authorities in many ways because with
31:30this many minds and eyes on a problem
31:33you realize you know the thinness of
31:36what you know some of the ancient voices
31:37were actually telling us particularly
31:39about things like science and so the old
31:42Authority gets destroyed and there's
31:43always a period before new new Authority
31:47is able to establish itself and it can
31:49be a messy ugly process I feel like
31:52we're in the epistemic Anarchy period
31:54still but I do think that people are
31:56kind of raising their hands to say
31:58actually or and institutions and papers
32:02and Publications as being I will
32:04actually you know I I can I I will be
32:07straight I will I will actually be be
32:09someone who will be a reliable source of
32:12expertise and information but the thing
32:15that one of the reasons why trust is in
32:17the title cancelling of the American
32:19mind is because I think cancel culture I
32:22think what the calamities we're seeing
32:24on campus has been a well-deserved
32:28disaster for The credibility of the
32:30academic class and for the for the
32:32expert class overall because nobody
32:34really after you know a professor loses
32:37their job for example for saying
32:38biological sex is real which really
32:40happened you're nobody's going to listen
32:42to you again when you try to claim
32:44actually it exists on a spectrum because
32:45they realize you can't be objective in
32:47an environment where your job would
32:49depend on giving the quote unquote right
32:51answer on that so I think that right now
32:55we're seeing a much bigger disruption
32:57because nobody knows who to trust and a
33:00lot of the voices that we were supposed
33:02to be able to trust whether it's
33:03mainstream media whether it's Academia
33:05whether it's the expert class have shown
33:08themselves to not be that trustworthy
33:09and and unfortunately I I actually agree
33:12with that to a large degree I actually
33:14think that the expert class has really
33:15shot itself in the foot in in a lot of
33:17ways but we haven't yet reached the the
33:20stage where we know which experts are
33:22actually reliable and unfortunately the
33:25a lot of those same experts you know
33:27that we that we would hope would be are
33:29the same people who created sort of the
33:31the misinformation on campus so there's
33:33a big problem there and I've been
33:35thinking a lot about how to create
33:39social media specifically for Truth For
33:43Truth identification and and I think
33:45it's possible I I talked about on Lex
33:47freedman's podcast about the idea of um
33:49being able to even create a truth
33:52seeking stream within X now the rules
33:54have to be different in order to create
33:56that in order to create but if you do it
33:58top down people aren't going to trust it
34:00but it also largely be based on the
34:03expertise of existing Authority who've
34:04proven themselves not that trustworthy
34:06so it has to be a process it has to be
34:08relatively transparent but we're not
34:11quite doing it yet I think that some of
34:13the authorities that you should have
34:15some faith in have raised their hands
34:17for example on substack um I think the
34:20New York Times is trying to improve its
34:22trustworthiness to to the larger public
34:24at least to some degree but I think
34:26we're unavoidably in a messy period
34:28where we haven't figured out a way to
34:31make our systems for chipping away at
34:33falsity for establishing what is true by
34:36get getting rid of what isn't I I think
34:38we need to figure out a way to make that
34:39whole knowledge system more reliable
34:42yeah I take your point about the
34:43printing press and I I have a uh printed
34:46copy of the malas malif aarum somewhere
34:49in the house oh wow so uh not not an old
34:51one I mean a new one so but uh it's just
34:55I understand the chaos rought of
34:57suddenly being able to manufacture crazy
35:00documents and has it help you find some
35:02witches yeah yeah I'm still looking but
35:05uh it's a good read but the I I I worry
35:10about drawing a false analogy here or
35:13being misled by an analogy that doesn't
35:16quite capture the Dynamics of what we're
35:19suffering here because it's not just a
35:22matter of more people talking right
35:24because it's you know if you're going to
35:27talk about just literacy and its
35:29consequences well we we almost got maxed
35:31out before the internet right I mean not
35:34you know leaving aside like perhaps
35:36great swaths of illiterate people but
35:38when you're talking about the developed
35:40world you know we had something like you
35:42know 90 plus% literacy across it and we
35:47were talking to each other about
35:48everything under the sun and what's
35:50happened now is we're talking much
35:54faster yeah and the usual Gatekeepers
35:57know no longer you know really can man
36:00the gates because because we go around
36:02them and above them and Below them on
36:04social media and it's introduced some
36:09fairly perverse incentives to the and
36:12that have undermined the the business
36:13model of of Journalism in particular
36:16it's made you know Academia brittle in
36:19the face of public opinion online you
36:22know perhaps quite unnecessarily but
36:24nonetheless they respond to the the ious
36:27mobbins we have seen on Twitter in in
36:29ways that have proven totally
36:32dysfunctional you know firing a
36:34professor for claiming that they're only
36:35two biological Sexes is the perfect
36:38example we've so we've created a
36:40Machinery that is it's not just more
36:43voices it is a again it's algorithmic
36:47amplification that preferentially
36:49spreads misinformation over the truth it
36:53biases us toward outrage I mean all of
36:56these these effects have been you know
36:58at this point endlessly described by me
37:01and others but um and and I'm not saying
37:03there's there there no benefits to you
37:06know every piece of this machine I mean
37:08it's not that social media has been bad
37:11for us across the board but it does have
37:14this effect of I mean now we have you
37:15know people in Congress who are there it
37:18seems just to talk to their social media
37:22followers right I they're not there to
37:24govern you you somebody like margorie
37:25Taylor green it's just she's building
37:28a lunatic brand on social media from
37:32Congress that seems to be the project
37:35and I worry that it's a different
37:38situation and like you know for instance
37:41one like one thing you said before we
37:43hit this topic which you seem to take as
37:45a a fairly Ironclad heuristic which is
37:48you know if in the face of a conspiracy
37:51theorist who claims that he he's being
37:53deprived of speech or a community that
37:56claims as much
37:58by no means do anything to deprive such
38:00people of speech because then you're
38:02just you know then you have you know
38:04you've it's like the um I guess the
38:06David Kesh principle you know that he
38:08pulled himself up in a bunker claiming
38:10the government was going to come and
38:12take his guns and the government came to
38:13try to take his guns and all hell broke
38:16loose but given the Dynamics of the
38:19situation I think a very strong case
38:22could be made for canceling certain
38:25people that is depriving them of speech
38:26on these priv platforms I I think Alex I
38:28think the defenestration of Alex Jones
38:31has always made a lot of sense given
38:33what he was doing on Twitter yeah and I
38:37was actually kind of shocked that he was
38:38invited back to Twitter because well I
38:42it's also kind of personal I I I grew up
38:45in Danbury Connecticut and New Town is
38:47kind of a suburb of Danbury and one of
38:50the guys who used to come to parties at
38:51my house lost a little girl at Sandy
38:54Hook and so yeah I knew from friends and
38:58family you know that that some of the
39:00Alex Jones Insanity was leading to you
39:04know people showing up and targeting
39:06parents who lost their kids but here's
39:09the thing that was defamation like like
39:12and that was textbook defamation that
39:14and and and the idea of actually saying
39:17that these particular parents are
39:19engaged they're part of a conspiracy
39:22they they didn't even lose their kids
39:24you know and leading to a situation in
39:26which they were actually being targeted
39:29that's something that that I I actually
39:31thought that him being devastated in
39:34court was completely appropriate and I
39:36think once you have a finding like that
39:37against you it would have been perfectly
39:39justifiable because that's unprotected
39:41speech that the he not be invited back
39:43to a but Greg I'm sure there's a version
39:45of it where he let's say he hadn't named
39:47the parents specifically but he's still
39:50talking about it in such a way on again
39:53this media platform that facilitates
39:57this kind of MBL convergence on untruth
40:01he's propagating his lies and you know
40:04his quote opinions in a way that doesn't
40:06meet the standard of defamation no one
40:08could sue him over no one would have the
40:11standing to sue him over it it's a
40:13little bit like you know mini Holocaust
40:15denial which we you you and I think
40:18should be legal and I I I think to be
40:20clear I think everything that I'm aware
40:22of for defamation aside most of what
40:24Alex Jones has said I think he should be
40:26free legally free to say but I think any
40:30platform should be free to say we want
40:33nothing to do with this and we certainly
40:34don't want to help this Maniac ruin the
40:37lives of people who have already
40:39suffered the worst worst thing on earth
40:42so yeah well he's he's gone right we've
40:45effectively buried him in a digital hole
40:47out in the desert I think that's totally
40:50fair game and if I was running one of
40:51those platforms I would have kicked him
40:54off in the first five minutes of my
40:56tenure there and many people Beyond him
40:59who are participating in the same kind
41:01of destruction of our of our information
41:05Wilderness you know in many cases
41:07consciously and maliciously but in many
41:09other cases they're just insane right so
41:12the way I tend to think about this is if
41:14you shrink the scale of it if you just
41:16imagine you if I own a restaurant and
41:18the bar I find out that the bartender is
41:20talking to customers about how the the
41:23Holocaust never happened or you know the
41:25Jews deserved it on October 7th right
41:27well you know I'm totally within my
41:29rights to fire that bartender right it's
41:31just he's destroying the brand of the
41:33restaurant right he doesn't get to do
41:35that as my employee uh and so it would
41:37be with a patron to the restaurant if
41:39somebody's is actually just making it an
41:41unpleasant place to be I should be able
41:43to kick them out right so how does that
41:46change when it scales to the size of a a
41:50quote platform like X or meta or or does
41:54it change in your view yeah I mean the
41:57primary concern with misinformation and
42:00disinformation as a rationale for for
42:02kicking people well certainly like you
42:04know as rationale for punishing people
42:07in a legal sense scares a hell of us if
42:10you'd like to continue listening to this
42:11conversation you'll need to subscribe at
42:13samh harris.org once you do you'll get
42:16access to all fulllength episodes of The
42:18Making Sense podcast the podcast is
42:21available to everyone through our
42:22scholarship program so if you can't
42:24afford a subscription please request a
42:26free account on the website the making
42:28sense podcast is ad free and relies
42:31entirely on listener support and you can
42:33subscribe now at Sam harris.org

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Freedom & Censorship: A Conversation with Greg Lukianoff (Episode #368) by Sam Harris, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,520 words across 1,072 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.