November 20, 2025 • 9 mins
In this conversation on The Alan Nathan Show with guest host Joseph Patterson, we dig into Indiana University’s move to pause student newspaper coverage during Homecoming week. Many are calling it censorship, but not every short-sighted, financially driven decision rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Sometimes it’s simply a leadership failure wrapped in clumsy PR. We walk through what actually happened, why this isn’t a First Amendment issue, and how misuse of the word “censorship” blinds us to the real battles we must fight.
Follow Jeff Dornik on Pickax: https://pickax.com/jeffdornik
Tune into The Jeff Dornik Show LIVE every Tuesday and Thursday at 1pm ET. Subscribe on Rumble and never miss a show. https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornik
Big Tech is silencing truth while farming your data to feed the machine. That’s why I built Pickax… a free speech platform that puts power back in your hands and your voice beyond their reach. Sign up today: https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
Follow Jeff Dornik on Pickax: https://pickax.com/jeffdornik
Tune into The Jeff Dornik Show LIVE every Tuesday and Thursday at 1pm ET. Subscribe on Rumble and never miss a show. https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornik
Big Tech is silencing truth while farming your data to feed the machine. That’s why I built Pickax… a free speech platform that puts power back in your hands and your voice beyond their reach. Sign up today: https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Welcome back to the Alan Nathan Show by Silker Joe
Show co host Joe filling in for Well, why do
is I say filling in for Allen today? I was
because I was thinking I shouldn't say it, because that's
my reflex. Alan passed away. I can't really be filling
in for him since he's longer able to host, unfortunately,
but hosting today is what I was trying to say
for my reflex trip me up. Anyway, we have our
(00:29):
current guest with us, Jeff Dornick. He is founder and
CEO of pick Axe, the groundbreaking social media platform built
on two uncompromising principles, freedom of speech and freedom of reach.
He hosts The Jeff Dornicks Show and his newest book
is called Following the Leader. Jeff Dornic always happy to
have in the program. How are you today, Jeff Dornick?
Do we have you?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Yes? Can hear you now? Good? So we're talking now
about this freedom of speech group fire. They've launched a
campaign against the Indiana the University. What's going on with this?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah? So so really a lot of it just it
just comes down to this idea that you're dealing with
you're dealing with a school newspaper where the where the
school stepped in and uh and told the newspaper, you know,
don't you can't print any news articles on the homecoming edition.
And so there's there's the fight over whether or not
(01:22):
that is censorship or whether that was just a business decision.
And and it's the main advisor for the newspaper ended
up getting fired over the refusal to comply with with
the universities stands for for basically not having news stories
in the newspaper the week of homecoming. So it's it's
(01:43):
it's an interesting thing where I can see the argument
from from both sides of it, where on one hand,
you have the university where they were they're trying to
make a business decision for the newspaper, which is like, hey,
let's focus on the homecoming side of things and the
big football game that's coming up and not you know,
margin controversy. But then from the journalistic standpoint, you're looking
at should the universities be telling them what they can
(02:06):
and can't write. So it's it's it's an interesting debate
to say the least, and.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
See if like a microcosm of what's playing out in
other places like the Washington Post, for example, where you
have Jess Besos coming in making editorial changes and staff
members resigning, quitting in protest, or just saying going out
in protest against his ideas.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yeah, no, it's a it's a fair, it's a fair comparison.
And I think realistically it comes down to this idea
of you know, when we're talking about the First Amendment
and freedom of speech. You know, obviously the way our
founding fathers envisioned it, it was it was for the
individual right. So when you when you look at the
way our founding fathers originally intendidate when they talked about
(02:47):
freedom of speech and freedom of the press, freedom of
the press was not necessarily, you know, freedom for a
an organization or an entity to basically go around and
say whatever they want as long as they're a licensed
credential journalist. It was actually this idea that you as
an individual have the constitution to write a freedom of
the press, which means you can actually write out your grievance,
to take it down to your local printing press, print
(03:07):
out a bunch of copies, and then go distribute it
freely without restriction from the government. That was the original
intention of it, but it's kind of morphed into you know,
the mainstream media today, and so you know, when it
comes to something like this, you know, and you're talking
about censorship and free speech. You know, again, it's one
of those things that it's it's not as clear cut
as I think everybody makes it out to be, because
(03:28):
it's not like the school was coming in and saying, oh,
you're printing conservative viewpoints. You're not allowed to say that.
It was making an editorial decision on whether or not
they should be you know, printing the news and controversy
or make it non news and make it more focused
on homecoming and all that kind of stuff. You know,
I think it's less of a First Amendment issue, to
be honest, when it comes to this specific situation. But
(03:51):
I think there is merit to both sides of the argument.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Yeah, because it's not the platform. The platform doesn't belong
to the writers, and the platform has to do something
to support itself, like direct attention to this homecoming game,
which is bringing in heavy profits for the university. So
you know, if they want these people, these writers to
keep writing, they got to change the format. But then
the writers are like, well, what's the point of having
this format if you have to make these editorial decisions
(04:17):
like this.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, no, it's it's it's a it's a it's a
great it's a great point. And and and I think
I think that the reality of this comes down to,
for me personally, is that if you're working for a
company or or an organization and they're in they're giving you, uh,
you know orders, you know, basically, you know, right, write
in this style or this way, or focus on these
(04:40):
kinds of topics. I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing or an unconstitutional thing, or a violation of the
First Amendment, or censorship or things like that. Now, if
they came in and said, like, look, you hold this
particular viewpoint, we don't want to allow you to say that. Now,
that's that's a completely different matter altogether. But in this one,
I think that there's there's the cries of censorship, But
(05:01):
I don't know if when you actually look at it,
if it fits the Bill of censorship in the way
that we normally would argue about this.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah, I sort of look at it as like joining
a club almost you know, there are rules in that club.
It's not laws that you have to appear to. You
know you can't. There's not a law saying you can't go.
When your free speech rights are restricted, you wave your
rights to free speech. You just joined the club for
the sake of what's going on in that club. So
like these writers, for example, you know they're just abiding
by these rules temporarily because of the homecoming game, but
(05:32):
you know they're still free probably on their social media platforms. Hey,
this is the article I would have published.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Today, Yeah, for sure. And so I think on a
broader scale, you know, when we're looking at a lot
of the mainstream you know media and all that kind
of stuff, there is censorship in the sense of everything
from their hiring practices only hiring you know, a particular
you know political side of the aisle. There there is
dealing with Okay, you're not allowed to touch this topic,
(05:58):
You're not allowed to hold this position. You know, you're
not you know, allowed to push this type this type
of issue. There is definitely censorship within the mainstream media.
But I think it's important that we don't cry censorship
every time that that there is a decision made like
this where you know, there's a lot there's a lot
of more important, uh, you know, censorship First Amendment issues
(06:18):
that we need to be fighting right now, right.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
And you know, these groups who's there, it's their duty
to inform the population. They're coming out and saying, well,
this perspective will not be aired, not because of a
business decision, not because we're putting it off until next week,
but just because we don't like it. Right.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well, it's just like what was it was the ABC
that that I think they they sat on on like
the Epstein story and all that kind of stuff, you know,
like that that to me, like that was actually censorship
where literally you've got this journalist that has this massive,
insane story, but then they're actually saying, well, you can't
cover this because of X, Y and Z. That's again
(06:56):
a different thing than saying like, hey, we're gonna we're
gonna focus on sports today. You know, like again, you know,
we have to with the priorityite and take a look
at you know what, what's really that hill that we're
dying on.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Yeah, and also with the ABC News in the life
there is a sight difference as well, because they do
get certain favors that you know, as came up with
the firing of Jimmy Kimmel or that you know, that
brief thing it came out that you know, the FCC
gives these big broadcasting companies certain leeway in exchange for
serving the public good. So really they it is on
(07:29):
them not to be censorious and not to push one
perspective because you know, we don't treat them, we treat
them differently because they're expected.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Not to right right right, And and again you know,
you can, you can you can make an argument that
that you know, when you're we shouldn't even be having
that kind of like licensing, especially in this new era
of streaming where where everybody has either cable or streaming
or you know, things along along those lines when it
comes to things like ABC and NBC and all of that.
But but but even then, it's like, you know, when
(07:56):
you're actually looking at the at you know, mainstream and
you're looking at those networks where they agree to like
this is for the public benefit, so you're going to
get certain privileges, and then they're going to be completely
biased and push propaganda and push narratives that that are
pushing their own perspective. And to me that that that
that again you're not necessarily dealing with a free speech thing.
(08:18):
You're you're dealing with this idea that you have certain
privileges that are given to you and you need to
comply with that.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Well, Jeff don't appreciate you being on the show to
talk about all of this. We got about twenty seconds left,
so tell us a little bit about Pickax where I
assume some of this free speech stuff sensorial behavior does
not come into play.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, we definitely do not censorship, do any censorship of Pickax.
We give you free speech and you're not going to
deal with the algorithmic manipulations dealing with another platform. So
you can, you know, sign up at pickax dot com.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
All right, listeners, you can go check the network up
to a break, but we got more Alan Nathan show
coming up.
Welcome back to the Alan Nathan Show by Silker Joe
Show co host Joe filling in for Well, why do
is I say filling in for Allen today? I was
because I was thinking I shouldn't say it, because that's
my reflex. Alan passed away. I can't really be filling
in for him since he's longer able to host, unfortunately,
but hosting today is what I was trying to say
for my reflex trip me up. Anyway, we have our
(00:29):
current guest with us, Jeff Dornick. He is founder and
CEO of pick Axe, the groundbreaking social media platform built
on two uncompromising principles, freedom of speech and freedom of reach.
He hosts The Jeff Dornicks Show and his newest book
is called Following the Leader. Jeff Dornic always happy to
have in the program. How are you today, Jeff Dornick?
Do we have you?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Yes? Can hear you now? Good? So we're talking now
about this freedom of speech group fire. They've launched a
campaign against the Indiana the University. What's going on with this?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah? So so really a lot of it just it
just comes down to this idea that you're dealing with
you're dealing with a school newspaper where the where the
school stepped in and uh and told the newspaper, you know,
don't you can't print any news articles on the homecoming edition.
And so there's there's the fight over whether or not
(01:22):
that is censorship or whether that was just a business decision.
And and it's the main advisor for the newspaper ended
up getting fired over the refusal to comply with with
the universities stands for for basically not having news stories
in the newspaper the week of homecoming. So it's it's
(01:43):
it's an interesting thing where I can see the argument
from from both sides of it, where on one hand,
you have the university where they were they're trying to
make a business decision for the newspaper, which is like, hey,
let's focus on the homecoming side of things and the
big football game that's coming up and not you know,
margin controversy. But then from the journalistic standpoint, you're looking
at should the universities be telling them what they can
(02:06):
and can't write. So it's it's it's an interesting debate
to say the least, and.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
See if like a microcosm of what's playing out in
other places like the Washington Post, for example, where you
have Jess Besos coming in making editorial changes and staff
members resigning, quitting in protest, or just saying going out
in protest against his ideas.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yeah, no, it's a it's a fair, it's a fair comparison.
And I think realistically it comes down to this idea
of you know, when we're talking about the First Amendment
and freedom of speech. You know, obviously the way our
founding fathers envisioned it, it was it was for the
individual right. So when you when you look at the
way our founding fathers originally intendidate when they talked about
(02:47):
freedom of speech and freedom of the press, freedom of
the press was not necessarily, you know, freedom for a
an organization or an entity to basically go around and
say whatever they want as long as they're a licensed
credential journalist. It was actually this idea that you as
an individual have the constitution to write a freedom of
the press, which means you can actually write out your grievance,
to take it down to your local printing press, print
(03:07):
out a bunch of copies, and then go distribute it
freely without restriction from the government. That was the original
intention of it, but it's kind of morphed into you know,
the mainstream media today, and so you know, when it
comes to something like this, you know, and you're talking
about censorship and free speech. You know, again, it's one
of those things that it's it's not as clear cut
as I think everybody makes it out to be, because
(03:28):
it's not like the school was coming in and saying, oh,
you're printing conservative viewpoints. You're not allowed to say that.
It was making an editorial decision on whether or not
they should be you know, printing the news and controversy
or make it non news and make it more focused
on homecoming and all that kind of stuff. You know,
I think it's less of a First Amendment issue, to
be honest, when it comes to this specific situation. But
(03:51):
I think there is merit to both sides of the argument.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Yeah, because it's not the platform. The platform doesn't belong
to the writers, and the platform has to do something
to support itself, like direct attention to this homecoming game,
which is bringing in heavy profits for the university. So
you know, if they want these people, these writers to
keep writing, they got to change the format. But then
the writers are like, well, what's the point of having
this format if you have to make these editorial decisions
(04:17):
like this.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, no, it's it's it's a it's a it's a
great it's a great point. And and and I think
I think that the reality of this comes down to,
for me personally, is that if you're working for a
company or or an organization and they're in they're giving you, uh,
you know orders, you know, basically, you know, right, write
in this style or this way, or focus on these
(04:40):
kinds of topics. I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing or an unconstitutional thing, or a violation of the
First Amendment, or censorship or things like that. Now, if
they came in and said, like, look, you hold this
particular viewpoint, we don't want to allow you to say that. Now,
that's that's a completely different matter altogether. But in this one,
I think that there's there's the cries of censorship, But
(05:01):
I don't know if when you actually look at it,
if it fits the Bill of censorship in the way
that we normally would argue about this.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Yeah, I sort of look at it as like joining
a club almost you know, there are rules in that club.
It's not laws that you have to appear to. You
know you can't. There's not a law saying you can't go.
When your free speech rights are restricted, you wave your
rights to free speech. You just joined the club for
the sake of what's going on in that club. So
like these writers, for example, you know they're just abiding
by these rules temporarily because of the homecoming game, but
(05:32):
you know they're still free probably on their social media platforms. Hey,
this is the article I would have published.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Today, Yeah, for sure. And so I think on a
broader scale, you know, when we're looking at a lot
of the mainstream you know media and all that kind
of stuff, there is censorship in the sense of everything
from their hiring practices only hiring you know, a particular
you know political side of the aisle. There there is
dealing with Okay, you're not allowed to touch this topic,
(05:58):
You're not allowed to hold this position. You know, you're
not you know, allowed to push this type this type
of issue. There is definitely censorship within the mainstream media.
But I think it's important that we don't cry censorship
every time that that there is a decision made like
this where you know, there's a lot there's a lot
of more important, uh, you know, censorship First Amendment issues
(06:18):
that we need to be fighting right now, right.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
And you know, these groups who's there, it's their duty
to inform the population. They're coming out and saying, well,
this perspective will not be aired, not because of a
business decision, not because we're putting it off until next week,
but just because we don't like it. Right.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well, it's just like what was it was the ABC
that that I think they they sat on on like
the Epstein story and all that kind of stuff, you know,
like that that to me, like that was actually censorship
where literally you've got this journalist that has this massive,
insane story, but then they're actually saying, well, you can't
cover this because of X, Y and Z. That's again
(06:56):
a different thing than saying like, hey, we're gonna we're
gonna focus on sports today. You know, like again, you know,
we have to with the priorityite and take a look
at you know what, what's really that hill that we're
dying on.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Yeah, and also with the ABC News in the life
there is a sight difference as well, because they do
get certain favors that you know, as came up with
the firing of Jimmy Kimmel or that you know, that
brief thing it came out that you know, the FCC
gives these big broadcasting companies certain leeway in exchange for
serving the public good. So really they it is on
(07:29):
them not to be censorious and not to push one
perspective because you know, we don't treat them, we treat
them differently because they're expected.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Not to right right right, And and again you know,
you can, you can you can make an argument that
that you know, when you're we shouldn't even be having
that kind of like licensing, especially in this new era
of streaming where where everybody has either cable or streaming
or you know, things along along those lines when it
comes to things like ABC and NBC and all of that.
But but but even then, it's like, you know, when
(07:56):
you're actually looking at the at you know, mainstream and
you're looking at those networks where they agree to like
this is for the public benefit, so you're going to
get certain privileges, and then they're going to be completely
biased and push propaganda and push narratives that that are
pushing their own perspective. And to me that that that
that again you're not necessarily dealing with a free speech thing.
(08:18):
You're you're dealing with this idea that you have certain
privileges that are given to you and you need to
comply with that.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Well, Jeff don't appreciate you being on the show to
talk about all of this. We got about twenty seconds left,
so tell us a little bit about Pickax where I
assume some of this free speech stuff sensorial behavior does
not come into play.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, we definitely do not censorship, do any censorship of Pickax.
We give you free speech and you're not going to
deal with the algorithmic manipulations dealing with another platform. So
you can, you know, sign up at pickax dot com.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
All right, listeners, you can go check the network up
to a break, but we got more Alan Nathan show
coming up.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.