NASHVILLE − There's turmoil over the state of free speech in America.

The issue took center stage as free speech advocates, lawyers and experts from around the world convened recently at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

Conversations at the Global Free Speech Summit, co-organized by the Future of Free Speech and Vanderbilt University, focused heavily on recent pressures confronting the First Amendment in the United States. Lawyers and scholars largely agreed the government has taken an "unprecedented" and outsized role in attempting to curtail certain speech since the Trump administration took office in January.

Even among those who did not see eye-to-eye on government action, there was agreement on this: a culture more hostile to free speech across the world needs immediate action, especially as political violence becomes more commonplace.

"I always have to be very clear: you have a First Amendment right to engage in cancel culture," said Greg Lukianoff, CEO and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "What I am saying is: take a deep breath, people. Do you want to live in the kind of country where you can have a strong opinion and a job, but not both?"

In recent weeks, free speech issues have dominated the headlines, particularly since the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Public employees have been fired, the Federal Communications Commission chair made a veiled threat toward ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi drew criticism, including from conservatives, over comments she made about targeting hate speech.

Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, and Bondi later clarified that the Department of Justice would target hate speech that leads to violence.

That's in addition to President Donald Trump's policies targeting diversity, equity and inclusions programs, increasing criticism of what's aired on television, targeting the pro-Palestinian demonstrators on college campuses and filing lawsuits against the news media.

Here are the key takeaways from this global gathering.

Is this the worst moment for free speech in U.S. History? Debate rages

Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley debated whether the Trump administration's pressure on free speech represented the worst period in American history.

Kennedy argued yes, saying Trump's executive orders and "brazen disregard" for the law were worse than anything he'd seen before. He pointed to executive orders Trump had issued labeling law firms, which had done work for his political foes, as national security threats. The orders canceled government contracts with the firms and revoked their attorneys' security clearances.

Turley said Kennedy's view failed to take into account how censorious the Biden administration was, particularly with regard to pressure on social media companies during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

It also failed to acknowledge positive steps for free speech by the Trump administration, Turley said, such as rejecting the European Union's Digital Services Act. The act modernizes regulations for how tech companies navigate "illegal and harmful activities online" and "the spread of disinformation." Turley said free speech advocates had long been looking for an ally in the White House to reject the DSA.

Turley said the fact that federal courts were ruling both for and against the Trump administration showed the system was working. The lack of productivity by Congress reflected the genuine polarization of the nation, he said.

He acknowledged it was a problem for government to try to quash dissent, but said courts had ruled against Trump for targeting law firms. "The rule of law hasn't died in this country," Turley said.

Kennedy said he hoped his own alarmism would be proven wrong, but that he believes the political right needed to return to principles of limited government, division of power and transparency.

Lack of understanding worsening culture of debate

Weeks apart, the Freedom Forum and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released studies finding Americans lack an understanding of the First Amendment, while students have a greater acceptance of violence. Both, the Freedom Forum's Kevin Goldberg and Lukianoff agree, are threats to the country's free speech culture.

Americans are largely divided on how far the First Amendment should go, the Freedom Forum survey found. The number of Americans who identify the First Amendment as a constitutional right remains high — nine in 10 — but the number of Americans who can explain how it affects their everyday life remains low. When asked to name all five freedoms, only one in 10 could do so.

"The purpose of the First Amendment isn't to change minds. The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow you to even speak in the first place," said Goldberg, a First Amendment lawyer and expert. "Everybody wants to use their free speech to win, but free speech is not a zero-sum game."

Students in colleges and universities across the country have increasingly negative views toward their First Amendment rights on campuses, FIRE found. A record high number of students have become increasingly supportive of disruptive tactics, including violence, to silence controversial speakers and suppress opposing viewpoints over the past five years.

"This is a calamity," Lukianoff said.

Both surveys also found that Americans are becoming increasingly afraid to express their rights. A majority of Americans – 65% – say they are afraid to speak freely, citing the fear of violence, tension with friends and family or perception.

Higher education's role in upholding free speech

Speakers at an "Academic Freedom Under Pressure” panel expressed concern over the Trump administration’s tactics with universities but underscored the responsibility higher education has to promote free expression on campuses.

Colleges and universities “desperately need” to provide First Amendment and free speech orientation to students, according to New York Post columnist Rikki Schlott.

A broader understanding of time, place and manner restrictions, for example, could have both allowed pro-Palestine student protesters to express their views and prevented “bombastic” responses from school officials over encampments, Schlott said.

Jonathan Rauch, a Brookings Institution fellow, said he was hopeful about the future for free speech on college campuses, noting efforts such as Arizona State University's School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. The school prompted concerns early on about bias because it was born out of GOP-driven legislation and received early funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

Rauch said he, too, was skeptical. But he said his experience at the school changed his mind, noting the execution was thoughtfully and responsibly done.

The University of Virginia’s “Think Again” organization promotes “civil, thoughtful conversations from all sides – both inside and outside the classroom – about the great issues of the day.”

There’s been a “noticeably bigger” turnout at its programs in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, according to panelist Mary Kate Cary, a politics professor who serves as the organization’s director.

She added that hundreds of students enrolled in a course on the 2024 election that she co-taught alongside a professor with opposing political views.

“The student demand is there,” Cary said.

'Culture wars' to 'cancel culture'

Speakers discussed a seismic social shift from 2020 to 2025, where the start of the decade was shaped by racial reckoning and culture wars across the political aisle over educational curriculums. Yet more recently, Kirk's death sparked a frenzy of firings across the nation over employees posting opinions critical of Kirk, which experts called another form of "cancel culture."

The primary concern was whether speech could continue to occur with respectful civic discourse. John Wood, who works with the organization Braver Angels and is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY, said this was evident during Black Lives Matter in 2020, which prompted what he called a "radicalized effect" that led to widespread disrespect among people with opposing viewpoints.

Wood likened that to Trump's speech at Kirk's memorial in recent weeks. The president contrasted himself to Erika Kirk, who said she forgave the man who killed her husband, by proclaiming that he hates his opponents.

"He said it in his stand-up comic kind of way, but I also took internally seriously, because that is the line that runs through every human heart, in addition to down the middle of the our politics," Wood said.

The moderator, journalist Michael Moynihan, said one example in 2020 scrutinized by the public was whether people posted a "black square" in their social media to show their solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Moynihan said that it seemed like disagreement, especially at the time, was heightened to become an identity.

Thomas Chatterton Williams, a writer for the Atlantic, agreed. He said that discussion becomes impossible when both sides have an "impulse to disavow liberal principles and norms of compromise and grace and negotiation."

"When ideas overlap with identities, then you can't have good faith disagreement, because it's a rejection of the self," Chatterton Williams said.

The USA TODAY Network's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Free speech is facing threats in the US and beyond. Here are the pressure points

Reporting by Angele Latham, BrieAnna J. Frank, Taylor Seely, Stephany Matat and Cate Charron, USA TODAY NETWORK / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect