In part 2 of April and Glen’s “Red/Blue” discussion on free speech, they delve into the challenges of combating misinformation and “bad speech” in a free speech society. Glen argues that simply providing more accurate information is not always effective, as people’s beliefs are often influenced by emotions and tribalism rather than rationality. April concurs and emphasizes the significance of relationship-building and structured debates in addressing misinformation. She highlights Braver Angels’ approach, which utilizes compassionate curiosity and structured conversations to understand diverse perspectives and challenge falsehoods without compromising free speech. Both speakers underscore the need for nuanced approaches that transcend mere facts to effectively address misinformation. The discussion also explores the complexities of regulating speech on social media and in society as a whole. Glen and April discuss the intricate balance between free speech and the imperative to combat misinformation and harmful content. They delve into categories of unprotected speech, the concept of cancel culture, and the roles of government and private companies in content moderation. The conversation also touches upon the importance of ethical communication, including the current practice of doxing individuals of power on “the other side,” the challenges of determining factual information, and the necessity of respectful dialogue when addressing controversial topics. Both speakers acknowledge the difficulty of drawing clear lines between protected and unprotected speech in the digital age.

In this first of a four-part “Red/Blue” discussion, Glen and April engage in a free-wheeling conversation on the topic of freedom of speech. They delve into issues surrounding free speech in the United States, with April speaking from a primarily conservative view and Glen from a generally liberal perspective. Among key points of discussion, April emphasizes free speech as a fundamental constitutional right safeguarding individuals from government interference, particularly when expressing unpopular or traditional views. She introduces the concept of “virtuous free speech,” striking a balance between the right to speak and the responsibility to speak well. Glen concurs with many of April’s points, highlighting that free speech rights are primarily protected against government intrusion, not in the private sector. He underscores that while free speech is a legal right, responsible use of it is a voluntary moral decision. Glen provides examples of controversial protected speech, such as flag burning and Westboro Baptist Church protests, to illustrate the importance of protecting even objectionable speech to prevent government overreach. Both speakers acknowledge the need to strike a balance between free speech rights and other competing principles and interests.

The discussion then shifts to the complexities of free speech in higher education, particularly on public university campuses. April and Glen explore the role of government in regulating speech and the challenges of balancing free expression with the need for a safe learning environment. April describes her interest in the Heterodox Academy, an organization that advocates for viewpoint diversity and open inquiry in universities. Part 1 concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate about the limits of free speech and the potential for self-censorship among students.

In part 2 of our conversation with Carlton Wing, Glen and April explore his thoughts on how to legislate from principle vs populism. Carlton bemoans the negative influences of extremists on both the left and right, and he cites the challenges politicians face in sometimes having to speak to the base of the party in order to be re-elected. Yet Carlton rejects name-calling as “an intellectual copout.” He also outlines a largely optimistic view of where he thinks Arkansas is headed politically. Carlton offers insights into how Arkansans can best provide feedback and have on impact on legislators, and he urges everyone to consider reaching out to their governmental officials. He finishes with a description of his poetic approach to lobbying for passage of his first bill as a freshman legislator.