Why Censorship Is About to Get Much Worse | Greg Lukianoff & Liv Boeree

Mar 11, 2026

Read: ~5m · You save: 59 min

Why Censorship Is About to Get Much Worse

Explore the escalating threats to free speech in the AI era. Greg Lukianoff & Liv Boeree discuss censorship, surveillance, and the fight for open discourse.

The landscape of free speech is facing unprecedented challenges, exacerbated by the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and a global trend towards increased censorship. Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), discussed these issues with Liv Boeree on the "Win-Win Podcast," highlighting how the combination of surveillance and AI could enable new levels of tyranny and the critical importance of open discourse for societal progress.

Lukianoff emphasized that free speech is humanity's "ultimate win-win technology," enabling individuals to express their authentic selves and fostering collective intelligence. He argued against the notion that only truthful speech holds value, stating, "Misconceptions rule the world. Incomplete knowledge is the norm." He referenced Karl Popper's concept of "conjectures and refutations," where theories are proposed and then challenged, as the fundamental mechanism for discovering truth.

Global Erosion of Free Speech

While the concept of unfreedom in non-democratic nations is well-established, Lukianoff expressed concern over the increasing restrictions on speech in countries previously considered bastions of liberty. He noted a significant shift in the United Kingdom, which he described as "sprinting to catch up and outdo us in terms of censorship," leading to thousands of arrests annually for speech that would be protected in the United States. Similar trends are observed in Canada, Ireland, and Australia, where national security laws are used to curtail open discussion about government actions.

Lukianoff identified the European Union as a region with a growing "enlightened censorship idea" that is "extremely repressive." He also pointed to a concerning trend on the populist right, which advocates for censoring content deemed "pro-woke" or critical of figures like Donald Trump. This dual pressure, from both the left and the right, has created what Lukianoff considers the most challenging environment for free speech he has witnessed in his career.

AI and the Future of Discourse

The advent of AI presents a new frontier in the battle for free speech. Lukianoff testified before Congress about the potential for AI regulation to be manipulated by incumbents seeking to stifle competition. He warned that granting power to a few AI companies to define "objective reality" for the planet's operating system is a significant threat. He advocates for regulations that uphold "small 'l' liberalism," ensuring that power does not gain undue control over truth.

Lukianoff drew parallels between the current AI landscape and historical technological developments. He contrasted the successful defense of the internet in the 1990s by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU against overbroad regulations, with the less successful creation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the 1930s. The FCC, initially intended to manage the electromagnetic spectrum, evolved into a bureaucracy that polices content, demonstrating how well-intentioned regulations can have dangerous downstream consequences.

Legal Frameworks and Self-Regulation

Lukianoff stressed the importance of existing laws in addressing potential harms from AI, such as defamation and false light. He argued that many perceived threats are already covered by current legal frameworks. However, he expressed skepticism about the capacity of AI companies to self-regulate effectively due to intense competitive pressures.

He also highlighted the dangers of poorly conceived regulations, such as "algorithmic discrimination laws" that could hold AI models responsible for generating information that justifies discriminatory behavior. Lukianoff likened this to a library being held liable for any book that could be used to justify discrimination, effectively stifling the dissemination of information.

The Role of Culture and Advocacy

Lukianoff emphasized that a robust "free speech culture" is as crucial as legal protections. He cited John Stuart Mill's observation in "On Liberty" that a stifling culture, rather than the law itself, was the primary impediment to free speech in Victorian Britain. He expressed concern that younger generations, particularly those in elite circles, may be increasingly hostile to free speech principles, citing FIRE polling data indicating a significant percentage of students believe violence against speakers or shouting down speakers is acceptable.

He called for leaders and influential individuals to unapologetically defend free speech, even for those with whom they disagree. He noted that historically, free speech protections were primarily intended to safeguard unpopular minority opinions, not the speech of the powerful. Lukianoff believes that a principled stance from those in positions of influence could be a "game changer."

Lukianoff also addressed the challenge of combating misinformation and "garbage text" flooding the information ecosystem due to AI. He proposed that AI itself could be a tool for truth-seeking, by analyzing vast amounts of data to identify falsified information, plagiarism, and flawed reasoning. He also suggested the development of platforms that incentivize integrity and transparency, fostering a more reliable system for discerning truth.

In conclusion, Lukianoff underscored that the fight for free speech is essential for navigating the complexities of the modern world and for preventing descent into dystopian scenarios, whether through Orwellian control or societal collapse. He urged individuals to engage in open dialogue, defend unpopular opinions, and support organizations dedicated to protecting these fundamental rights.

The Unprecedented Threat of AI and Surveillance

The discussion opens with the unprecedented tyranny achievable through AI and surveillance, contrasting it with a primitive view of free speech. The concept of 'conjectures and refutations' by Karl Popper is introduced as a method for discovering truth, highlighting the value of knowing what people get wrong. The idea of 'policing thought' is raised through examples of people being punished for private speech that was recorded.

AI and surveillance enable unprecedented levels of tyranny.
A primitive view of free speech dismisses value in untrue statements.
Misconceptions and incomplete knowledge are common.
Speech can be viewed as data, making it important to understand errors.
Karl Popper's 'conjectures and refutations' is a method for truth-seeking.
Policing thought can occur when private speech is recorded and punished.

Free Speech as Humanity's Ultimate Win-Win

Greg Lukianoff explains why free speech is a 'win-win' for humanity, likening it to a technology that allows for non-zero-sum outcomes and authentic self-expression. He emphasizes its role in gaining knowledge about society, preferences, and the existence of issues like phobias. Free speech is presented as the ultimate technology for peace, offering an alternative to violence for resolving differences through discussion and persuasion.

Free speech is described as humanity's ultimate win-win.
It allows for authentic self-expression and knowledge acquisition.
Free speech helps understand societal preferences, phobias, and conspiracy theories.
It is the ultimate technology for peace, replacing violence with discussion.
Solving differences through words and persuasion is preferable to violence.

The Global Erosion of Free Speech

The conversation delves into the global decline of free speech, noting that while the 'unfree world' is expectedly restrictive, the trend is worsening even in democratic nations. Lukianoff highlights concerns in the EU, UK, Canada, Ireland, and Australia, where speech laws are becoming increasingly restrictive, sometimes leading to arrests for speech protected in the US. The US is presented as the last unapologetically pro-free speech player, though it too faces internal pressures from both the left ('enlightened censorship') and the populist right.

Tyranny is increasing due to AI and surveillance.
Free speech is declining in the EU, UK, Canada, Ireland, and Australia.
These countries are implementing increasingly restrictive speech laws.
The US is the last major nation unapologetically pro-free speech.
Internal pressures in the US include 'enlightened censorship' on the left and censorship of 'anti-Trump' or 'pro-woke' content on the right.

Case Study: The Tennessee Meme Incident

A specific case in Tennessee involving a former cop, Larry Bucshon, who was jailed for 37 days for posting a meme about Donald Trump, is discussed. The meme was controversially interpreted as a threat to students due to a similarly named high school. This case is highlighted as one of the worst examples of punishing protected speech in recent US history, drawing parallels to the 1920s.

Larry Bucshon, a former cop in Tennessee, was jailed for 37 days for a meme.
The meme involved a quote from Donald Trump about 'getting over it'.
The justification for his arrest was a perceived threat to students at a similarly named high school.
This case is considered one of the worst examples of punishing protected speech.
Such an event hasn't been seen in the US since the 1920s.

AI, Regulation, and the Control of Truth

The discussion shifts to the role of technology, particularly AI, and its impact on free speech. Lukianoff expresses concern about potential regulations driven by fear, which could favor incumbents and grant excessive control over truth to a few entities. He advocates for 'small l liberalism' in AI regulation, ensuring power does not control the engines of truth. The conversation also touches upon historical parallels with the internet's early days and the creation of the FCC.

AI regulation is a significant concern, with potential for fear-driven policies.
Strict regulations could favor incumbents and grant control over truth.
Advocacy for 'small l liberalism' in AI regulation is crucial.
Power should not control the 'engines of truth'.
Historical parallels exist with early internet regulation and the creation of the FCC.

Navigating Power Structures and Regulatory Pitfalls

The conversation explores various pressure points where power can be applied to control speech, including governments, platforms, app stores, payment providers, advertisers, and NGOs. FIRE's focus on state and federal law is discussed, alongside the proliferation of AI-specific bills. Historical examples of successful (1990s internet regulation) and unsuccessful (1930s FCC creation) regulatory approaches are contrasted, emphasizing the need for careful, non-overbroad legislation.

Power can be applied through governments, platforms, app stores, payment providers, advertisers, and NGOs.
FIRE focuses on state and federal law, with many AI-specific bills emerging.
Overbroad or vague regulations can be detrimental.
The 1990s internet regulation (e.g., Section 230) is seen as a success.
The creation of the FCC in the 1930s is seen as a cautionary tale of regulatory overreach.

AI Curation vs. User Rights and Existing Laws

The discussion addresses the potential conflict between users' free speech rights when prompting AI and AI companies' rights to curate their models. Lukianoff suggests that industry self-regulation, similar to how spam was managed, is a viable approach, with government intervention as a last resort. He also points out that many perceived new threats from AI are already covered by existing laws like defamation and false light torts.

A conflict exists between user prompting rights and AI company curation rights.
Industry self-regulation, like that for spam, is a potential solution.
Government intervention should be a last resort.
Existing laws (defamation, false light) already address many AI-related threats.
Cynicism towards bureaucratic regulation is warranted due to potential unintended consequences.

The AI Arms Race and the Need for Coordination

The conversation touches on the 'arms race' in AI development, with a majority of leading labs based in the US. The need for transparency and diplomatic backchanneling, particularly with China, is highlighted. The idea of incentivizing labs to 'slow down' and coordinate is proposed, countering the narrative that progress must be unchecked. The importance of diplomacy and treaties, as seen during the Cold War nuclear arms reduction, is suggested as a model.

Most leading AI labs are in the US, sharing Western values.
There's a competitive pressure to develop AI rapidly, even if reckless.
Concerns exist about losing AI development leadership to China.
Incentivizing labs to 'slow down' and coordinate is proposed.
Diplomacy and transparency, similar to Cold War arms control, are needed.

Combating Misinformation in the AI Era

The issue of AI generating 'garbage text' and flooding the information ecosystem is discussed. Lukianoff explains that while laws don't directly prevent this, the solution lies in a robust system for knowing what is true, built on competing ideas and checks and balances. He criticizes the erosion of trust in the expert class, exacerbated by events like COVID-19, and suggests using AI itself to analyze the corpus of human knowledge for falsified data and plagiarism.

AI lowers the cost of generating 'garbage text' and misinformation.
Laws don't directly address this, but a system for truth-seeking is needed.
Trust in the expert class has eroded, partly due to events like COVID-19.
AI can be used to analyze human knowledge for falsified data and plagiarism.
An 'epistemic problem' exists, requiring better 'knowledge hygiene'.

Designing Platforms for Truth and Integrity

The conversation explores potential solutions for designing dissemination platforms that prioritize truth over engagement. Ideas include projects like 'A Priori,' which reveals AI assumptions, and 'Integrally,' which rewards integrity in online discourse. The potential for AI to revolutionize truth-seeking through rigorous analysis and comparison of information is emphasized, contrasting with current platforms that often amplify low-quality content.

Current platforms often amplify false or low-quality content.
AI can be used to design better dissemination systems.
Projects like 'A Priori' help identify AI assumptions.
'Integrally' aims to reward integrity in online discourse.
AI can be a powerful tool for truth-seeking if used correctly.

Hope and Historical Parallels for Free Speech

The discussion returns to the UK's increasingly restrictive speech environment, citing cases like Lucy Letby's imprisonment for a tweet. Lukianoff draws parallels to the US's First Red Scare (1916-1920), which led to the founding of the ACLU and the modern free speech movement. He expresses hope for similar movements in the UK and EU, mentioning groups like Spiked and Index on Censorship, while criticizing the tendency to dismiss criticism as 'conservative'.

The UK faces significant free speech challenges, with harsh penalties for speech.
This situation is compared to the US First Red Scare (1916-1920).
The ACLU and the modern free speech movement emerged from that era.
Groups like Spiked and Index on Censorship are working on free speech issues in the UK.
Dismissing criticism as 'conservative' is an anti-intellectual tactic that hinders progress.

The Role of Influencers in Defending Free Speech

The role and responsibility of influential figures in advancing free speech are discussed, using J.K. Rowling as an example. Lukianoff stresses that true advocacy for free speech means defending the rights of those whose opinions one disagrees with. He criticizes both the left and right for often being selective in their defense of free speech and calls for powerful individuals to use their influence unapologetically to champion this principle.

Influential figures have a responsibility to advance free speech.
True free speech advocacy means defending unpopular opinions.
Both the left and right have shown selectivity in defending free speech.
Powerful individuals should use their influence unapologetically for free speech.
Free speech is valuable for understanding what people truly think.

Speech Control as Thought Control and the Importance of Culture

Lukianoff argues that speech control is closely related to thought control, citing the 'illusion of explanatory depth' and the learning process through teaching. He highlights cases where private speech, not intended for public consumption, was punished, likening it to policing thought. The importance of a 'free speech culture' alongside legal protections is emphasized, drawing on John Stuart Mill's arguments about stifling societal norms.

Speech control is strongly linked to thought control.
Teaching and articulating ideas are crucial for genuine understanding.
Punishing private speech is akin to policing thought.
A 'free speech culture' is as important as free speech law.
Stifling societal norms can be more damaging than restrictive laws.

Generational Shifts and the Future of Free Speech

Concerns are raised about younger generations, particularly students, showing hostility towards free speech principles, with some condoning violence against speakers. Lukianoff expresses worry that future judges from these demographics could lead to a regression of free speech protections. He stresses the ongoing fight to preserve these rights, especially given the current cultural climate.

Younger generations, especially students, may be hostile to free speech.
Some students believe violence against speakers is acceptable in rare cases.
Shouting down speakers is seen as a common tactic.
This trend could lead to a regression of free speech protections in the future.
The fight for free speech is crucial given the current cultural climate.

Alumni Action for Free Speech on Campus

Advice is given to alumni concerned about universities moving in a 'liberal' direction. Suggestions include engaging alumni groups, advocating for the removal of speech codes, supporting professors and students, and withholding donations until institutions improve their policies. The strategy of redirecting funds to organizations like FIRE while urging alma maters to 'clean up their act' is presented as an effective leverage point.

Alumni can influence university policies regarding free speech.
Engaging alumni groups and advocating for policy changes are key actions.
Supporting professors and students facing censorship is important.
Withholding donations can be a powerful leverage tool.
Redirecting funds to organizations like FIRE can pressure institutions.

Conversations on Free Speech: Bridging Divides

Tips for opening conversations about free speech with those who may not appreciate it are offered. Lukianoff suggests framing arguments around speech not being violence, its role as a replacement for violence, and the safety gained from knowing what people truly think. He critiques the idea that free speech is solely for the powerful, emphasizing its historical role in protecting unpopular minority opinions and the dangers of group polarization.

Frame free speech as a replacement for violence, not violence itself.
Knowing what people truly think enhances safety, not diminishes it.
Free speech historically protected unpopular minority opinions, not just the powerful.
Group polarization is accelerated by avoiding dialogue with those who disagree.
Critiques of free speech often stem from a misunderstanding of its historical purpose.