The USC Open Dialogue Project welcomed former ACLU President Nadine Strossen (right) for a conversation with USC Gould Dean Franita Tolson. (USC Photo/Melissa Masatani)
Former ACLU president speaks with Trojans about intricacies of the First Amendment and free speech
Nadine Strossen’s conversation with Dean Franita Tolson of the USC Gould School of Law was part of the USC Open Dialogue Project.
When renowned legal scholar Nadine Strossen sat down Monday with Dean Franita Tolson of the USC Gould School of Law for a conversation about free speech, she initially tried to keep things simple.
The former president of the American Civil Liberties Union said First Amendment free speech law really boils down to two “common-sense principles.”
“Government is permitted to restrict the speech that is the most dangerous,” Strossen said to an audience of about 100 people inside a large USC Gould lecture hall on USC’s University Park Campus. “Secondly, government is prohibited from imposing the restrictions that are the most dangerous.”
But during the subsequent 90-minute conversation titled “Can You Really Say That?,” it became clear that there is nothing simple about the differing interpretations of free speech law — even when there have been past legal tests.
The conversation was part of the USC Open Dialogue Project, an initiative launched by USC President Beong-Soo Kim that seeks to advance academic freedom, expression and discourse.
Professor Neeraj Sood of the USC Price School of Public Policy, director of the Open Dialogue Project, set the tone for the event during his introductory remarks, emphasizing three rules for constructive conversation: letting go of winning, being curious and focusing on ideas rather than people.
“Once you let go of winning, you start being curious,” Sood said. “So, be curious. Be here to learn. Try to figure out why some people think the way they think. … Just try to understand different perspectives.”
Strossen and Tolson’s conversation explored the balance between discretion and equity in applying legal principles to specific facts.
“Reasonable people can and do differ,” said Strossen, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor emerita at New York Law School. “So, agreeing on the principle is an essential starting point. But we can disagree about whether the particular facts actually satisfy [the principle].”
Free speech doesn’t have to be true
Strossen spoke on which free speech rules apply on campus and about the rights of faculty and staff to express personal views outside their job. She also weighed in on hate speech, the right to protest and government regulation that continues to test the boundaries of free speech and First Amendment rights.
“No matter how much or how many of us may loathe and vaguely fear the speech because of its message or its idea, that is never a justification for suppressing it,” Strossen said. “We have to answer it back, ignore it, refute it, argue with it — whatever strategy we choose to deal with the idea.”
Strossen added that the most perilous speech restrictions are those thought to be justified because of disagreement with the content of the speech and not because it poses imminent or actual danger.
When Tolson asked if facts matter when it comes to the protection of free speech, Strossen said: “Many people are shocked to learn you do basically have a constitutional right to express false ideas.”
Students appreciate delving deeper into topic
The late-afternoon event was presented by the Open Dialogue Project; the Center for the Political Future at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences; Voices for Liberty; USC Gould; USC Price; and the USC chapter of the Heterodox Academy.
Free copies of Strossen’s 2025 book with lawyer and activist Greg Lukianoff, The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech — And Why They Fail, were given out to early arrivals.
As he waited in line to have his book signed, USC Dornsife sophomore Aidan Snodgrass said he was drawn to the event because of Strossen’s collaboration with Lukianoff, whose previous books he had read.
“It was most interesting when the discussion focused on the differentiation between harmful speech and true harm,” said Snodgrass, who is majoring in intelligence and cyber operations.
USC Dornsife freshman Elizabeth Babauta said she attended the event because as a political science major and future law school student, she is interested in the nuances of free speech.
“It’s really enlightening to hear so many varying opinions on a sensitive topic,” Babauta said. “What particularly interested me was [Strossen] touching on social media, because that is what I find most effective in either promoting hate speech, but also promoting change. It’s interesting to hear about where that line is drawn and about what we can say and where we can be stopped.”
