they ended up getting one of the largest settlements on record. some $73 million and certainly that's had an effect on the way that teens are marketed. and we're watching closely to see what happens in civil litigation, you know, will there be more settlements like that? will they be thrown out by the courts? so you have these two tracks. you have know cases being brought up to the supreme court and you have the civil litigation gun makers. and it will be interesting to see what happens going forward. all right. well, this has been a really terrific conversation. i think we're going to wrap it up now. congratulations on the publication of your book. good luck with it. and i think people will be well-served to learn more about the ar 15, its history and so forth. and i think book is a great place to go.

ee speech: what everyone needs to know." host: author netty and strossen, the last time i saw you with that freedom fest in memphis in july. a lot of people would be wondering why the former president of the aclu was at a libertarian convention. why were you there? nadine: first of all, peter, i do not only preach to the choir. i think that would be a waste of my time. i speak to just about anybody who is anybody interested and open-minded to hear my civil

libertarian perspectives. i put the emphasis on that phrase because there is a lot of overlap between civil libertarians and libertarians. if people think they are anti-civil liberties, i would love to have the opportunity to persuade them that is not the case. two: you're also a board member of the foundation for individual rights and expressions. nadine: i am a senior fellow of fire. until recently, the acronym stood for the foundation for individual rights in education. a little more than a year ago, fire, recognizing the speech's oppressive atmosphere that is becoming pervasive on college campuses was spreading to our larger society, it received a lot of support and encouragement to expand its activities supported free speech beyond campus. it kept the same acronym but no

stand for the foundation for individual rights and expression. i became one of the first senior fellows. peter: knitting strossen, how did free speech get embedded in our constitution? nadine: the history of free speech predates not only the constitution but also the revolution. a wonderful history has been written by steve solomon, professor at nyu, about how the vigorous experience of dissent through all forms of expressi on, famously the boston tea party and demonstrations, that was embedded in the concept of rebelling and becoming an independent country. even before there was a

constitution or a bill of rights that expressly protected these freedoms, they were completely ingrained in our national culture, our national sense of self identity. the united states could not have existed without the most robust freedom of speech and dissent. peter: at what point in your career or life did free speech become the work of your books, the aclu, etc.? nadine: long before i had the ability to write, i had a sense of the importance of individual expression. the more i read, the more i see this as being innate in humans. you see examples from around the world throughout history. it starts as our sense of self exploration. who am i? what is the essence of my

beliefs and identity? i know i started asking those questions i was just at the beginning of my educational career vis-a-vis kindergarten teachers and my parents. i was thrilled when i learned there are actual legal protections for what seemed to me instinctively and intuitively should be a fundamental human right. peter: your most recent book "free speech,", you look at the five criteria you talk about. content and topic, medium, place, speaker, and type of regulations. walk us through some of these legal issues involved in free speech. nadine: the united states supreme court, first of all, i think it is important to note the clerk did not become protective of free speech until the second half of the 20th century.

most of our history, the first amendment with its wonderful theoretical guarantee of free speech was honored as a practical reality, especially people who were dissenting, protesting government policy were regularly subject to censorship. that certainly continued through the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. no coincidence, the famous warren court under the leadership of chief justice earl warren, which was very protective of civil rights, also began to strongly protect free speech because censorship was being used as a tool to suppress not only civil rights demonstrators themselves but also the national media which was covering them. our free speech jurisprudence is relatively new. it is very fact specific because the first amendment contains an appropriately general standard.

congress or government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. well, that is not absolute because not every restriction is an abridgment and not every abridgment is unjustified. the court has developed about five criteria it regularly takes into account to evaluate whether any particular speech restriction is constitutionally justified or not. if i could pause, it is really important to stress that strong as our current free speech protection currently is, it is not absolute. so many detractors of freedom of speech, including many politicians and sadly many in the media and many students and faculty members, have this distorted caricatured version of free speech in their heads when they say, it is ridiculously absolute and no exceptions can ever be made.

free speech champions even deny free speech can cause harm. no, no. jurisprudence sensibly says free speech that is the most dangerous make an should be restricted. but the censorship that is the most dangerous should also be restricted. the criteria you mentioned are regularly taken into account in determining the appropriateness of the particular restriction. medium is really important because the constitution itself only refers to freedom of speech and of the press. the press was the only other medium that existed at that time. since then, every time there have been a new medium, the supreme court has examined whether it should be subject to the same speech protection the press traditionally has received .

recently, we are going through debates about online communications. we have many cases in front of the supreme court about social media in particular. peter: when do you expect those to be heard? nadine: the supreme court already heard a couple of arguments on these cases on the first day of its current session. these are hard cases so that are not expected to be decided until close to the end of the term next summer. peter: speaker, why is speaker important when it comes to free speech and the supreme court? nadine: it cannot taken for granted whoever is speaking, whatever individual or group, has a free speech right. although, the way the jurisprudence has developed, the supreme court has held regardless of who you are and regardless of what group and form your group is organized in, you have a free speech right. this is very controversial among

the public with respect to corporations in particular. there is a lot of anger about supreme court decisions recognizing for-profit as well as not-for-profit corporations have free speech rights. that is one of the reasons why people are so irritated by the supreme court's controversial decision and the citizens united case. i have to tell you, among the justices, that proposition was not controversial at all. they disagreed about other aspects of the case, in particular whether the regulations were justified, but all of them unanimously agreed people have not only freedom of speech individually but the right to form organizations that will amplify individual speech. for more than 100 years, the court without controversy has ruled corporations to have free

speech rights. peter: are you supportive of the citizens united case? nadine: i agree with most of it. some of the details about particular regulations i might disagree with. the two points that received the most public controversy, i think the court was exactly right. people have the right to organize and corporate form for purposes of engaging in speech. and number two, spending money two advocate for political causes or for or against the election of a candidate's a form -- candidate is a form of expression or a restriction on the amount of money you can spend to advance those messages is a restriction on free speech rights. peter: nadine strossen, it was back in the late 1910's i believe that oliver wendell

holmes used the phrase, "you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater," of course, a supreme court justice at the time. nadine: i am frowning, actually, i'm smiling because you gave me a great opportunity in paraphrasing that statement. you do what 99.99% of people do which is to mis-paraphrase it because you left out a really important word. i was on a panel a few years ago within justice stephen breyer. he did the same thing, so you are in good company. he is in good company. but what he said is you may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. that gets to the essence of the justification for restricting speech. if the theater is on fire, you want people to shout it. in that context, the speech is lifesaving and so it should be protected. that gets to the point we have

to look at every restriction in a very fact-specific way. what is the benefit of allowing the speech? what is the danger of allowing the speech? that word makes a big difference. peter: should speech be more restricted during time of national emergency? nadine: no. exactly the contrary. let me cite a recent decision that came from a federal district court that ruled favorably on the aclu challenge to a puerto rican law that suppressed covid-related disinformation. it was at the beginning of the pandemic. the aclu immediately brought a lawsuit to challenge it representing two prominent members of your profession, two investigative journalists, who said especially during a time of national crisis whether a terrorism attack or a virus attack, it is especially

important for people to have access to information in the chaos, the fog of war, the controversies and lack of precise information and details about what is causing this virus, it is especially important for reporters to be uninhibited and doing their best to pursue the truth. but as these respective reporters said, even the most conscientious journalists in those circumstances will sometimes get it wrong. the judge in granting our request the law be struck down as violating the first amendment made that point very strongly. he said it is especially important when we are facing a national security threat including a public health threat that freedom of speech is the least inhibited. people have the right to disagree and to debate and to have alternative perspectives, but government should not be the arbiter of truth. that would be bad not only for individual liberty but also for

public health. peter: nadine strossen served as president of the aclu from 1991 to 2008. still involved with aclu? nadine: yes, i'm on the national advisory board of the aclu and stay in regular contact with national leaders. peter: i think we are going to tick some people off because i'm going to show two examples. here is a recent press release by the aclu saying they submitted a motion to file an amicus brief arguing and overly broad gag order imposed on donald trump by the judge in one of his court cases, you work supportive -- you are supportive of former president trump's ability to speak. i'm going to read from your first book, " in defense of pornography." we are as committed as any other famous -- feminist but we

believe suppressing words and images will not advance these crucl causes. we are convincedenring sexual expression wouldo more harm than good to women's rights and safety. we adamantly oppose any effort to restrict sexual speech, not onlyecause it would violate our cherished first amendment freedoms, but also because it would undermine our equality, our status, our dignity, and our autonomy. nadine: thank you so much, peter. that second statement was not only for me but we indicated it was on behalf of a group of women that had formed an organization called feminists for free expression. we were taking a different perspective from one that was very dominant among feminists at the time in the late 1980's and early 1990's. the assumption there is an inherent conflict between

women's rights on one hand and freedom of speech, sexual expression or pornography on the other hand. the assumption was if you support women's safety, dignity, and equality, which i certainly do as a lifelong feminist, then somehow you must also support censorship of sexual expression which state referred to by the stigmatizing term pornography. a whole group of us women, including the aclu women's rights project which was famously founded by ruth bader ginsburg, we argued exactly the opposite based on experience. if you give the government power to censor sexual expression, that power is predictably going to be used disproportionately to silence expression that is especially important for women and advocates of women's rights. we see that to this day, peter.

you are kindly referring to my book that was published in 1995. the full title is "defending pornography, free speech, sects, and the fight for women's rights." a lot of important information in the subtitle. i think the publisher was trying to be provocative with the title. earlier this year, they asked to republish the book as part of the nyu classics series, asked me to write a new preface because there had been so many recent attacks on sexual expression, in particular expression about gender identity and sexual orientation. and that stigmatizing term pornography has been wielded by state legislators and executive officials around the country who are attacking under that rubric, attacking books by and about lgbtq+ individuals, seeking to

remove them from public libraries, from school libraries, and from school curricula. the term pornography has very negative connotations. most people tend to use it for whatever sexual expression they dislike. but let us not forget that if we empower the majority under that rubric to go after sexual expression that is unpopular, it is really going to include and endanger a lot of expression that is especially important not only for advocates of lgbtq rights but also reproductive freedom, the right to contraception, and gender equality. peter: house social media added a new, complex layer to the issue of free speech? nadine: yes, for many reasons. let me start with this. every time there has been a new communications medium throughout history going back as far as the printing press, those of us who support free speech and human

rights, very excited, a wonderful opportunity for more people to have more information about more subjects and participate in more debates. but those who have a more authoritarian orientation are a little bit concerned about giving so much power to individuals. there is a desire for control. every time we have a new medium, government predictably responds by trying to suppress that medium. that definitely happened with the whole online medium back in the 1990's when the internet first became widely known to the public and to politicians and the press. scientists had known about it for a while. immediately, congress passed a very suppressive law called the communications decency act which was supported by almost every member of congress on both sides of the aisle, signed by then

president bill clinton. fortunately, the aclu succeeded in our constitutional lawsuit which gave rise to a landmark supreme court decision called reno, as an janet reno, bill clinton's attorney general, versus aclu. this goes back to one of the first questions you asked me. the supreme court did consider whether in the context of this new medium the first amendment free-speech rights should be as robustly protected as it has been safe for the traditional printed medium. i was thrilled 9-0 the justices unanimously agreed with the aclu that online expression should be subject to the highest level of first amendment protection. this gives me an opportunity to make a really basic point that responds to one of your earlier questions as well. freedom of speech is not only the right of individuals to

choose what to say and what not to say, but it is also the right of individuals to choose what to listen to and what not to listen to. if we suppress speech on a new medium such as social media, that is impacting not only the speech rights of the medium owner itself, the platform itself, of the speakers who want access to the platform, but all the rest of us who want to hear what that speaker has to say. that is why, you mentioned the donald trump case, i am very supportive of the aclu's excellent brief which i read arguing very respectfully to the judge that the gag order went too far. because that was violating not only the free-speech rights of donald trump who is a leading presidential candidate, whether people like it or not, that is the reality.

that is why it is especially important for the rest of us to get to hear what he has to say to inform our decisions as voters. peter: but, in a dean strossen, facebook, x, google, private companies, you cite an example in your book "hate" that in 2018, facebook blocked a post with passages from the declaration of independence referring to merciless indian savages. doesn't facebook have that right? nadine: yes. what you're talking about is a really important distinction between a legal right and whether something is right as a matter of morality or public policy. my book "hate," the subtitle is "why we should resist it with free speech and not censorship." i oppose government suppression

of hate speech but i for everybody to exercise self-restraint and not engage in hate speech themselves and not listen to or be supportive of hateful messages other people are issuing. i defend the right of these platforms. as i defend the right of newspapers and c-span to make determinations about who should have access and who should not have access to very important platforms. but i also disagree with particular judgments made in the exercise of that power and would like to persuade these companies to be more speech friendly. peter: i want to quote from "hate." nothing strengthens hate groups more than ceoring them as it turns them into free speech martyrs. free expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. nadine: i am quoting their a

nobel prize-winning chinese dissident. i'm not going to try to pronounce his name. he was speaking from prison. he was imprisoned for having tried to exercise their what would be protected free speech rights here. i think it is one thing to say we absolutely deplore ideas that are hateful or suppressive of women's equality. we may dislike some of donald trump's ideas, to use some of your examples. but you may think you are suppressing those ideas by suppressing speech, but you are kidding yourself because throughout history, to this day, there has been a very widespread phenomenon sometimes called the forbidden fruits phenomenon. sometimes it is called the streisand effect after the

famous example involving barbra streisand. when you try to suppress certain expression, it paradoxically draws people's attention to the expression and leads more of them to view it or this into it -- listen to it than otherwise would have happened. years ago, there were online photographs of one of barbra streisand's beachfront properties. she tried to have it suppressed. suddenly, interest in viewing those photographs enormously spiked. we can look at an example of suppression of hateful speech that backfired. it was in germany 1918-1933 when hitler was rising to power. the weimar republic had many laws against hate speech which it strictly enforced, including against nazis.

hitler himself was subject to a gag order for a couple of years, not allowed to make any public speeches. the verlander anti-semitic publication, the publisher was prosecuted many times. sadly, we know this did not suppress the rise of nazi ideology. conversely, the nazis loved these trials because they became propaganda platforms for them to spew hateful ideas and gain attention and sympathy they otherwise never would have. peter: two take that example, t me quote again from "hate." no matter who we are a individuals and no matter to which society and group we belong, week can and must increase our capacity to resist the hurtful potential of hateful, scrivener tory words that target us -- discriminatory

words that target us. is a call for censorship? nadine: not at all. this is a call to recognize even if we had strict censorship laws, ideas will find a way to express themselves. hateful ideas will migrate from one social media platform to another. people also come up with different means, -- memes, more subtle ways of expressing the same hateful ideas. you will never suppress the harmful speech completely. it is like any prohibition strategy. you cannot completely eliminate the supply, so you have to work on the demand side. try to encourage people to not

seek out the hateful disinformation, expression, and if they are exposed to it to reject it, not allow it to tear them down if it is a matter of insulting their dignity. i put my money where my mouth is. there is a tremendous amount of anti-semitic speech that has been especially virulent in the wake of the hamas terrorist attacks and israel's response. i was commissioned to write a piece defending freedom of speech, even for anti-semitic speech. one of my friends said, that must be hard for you as a jewish person whose father was a holocaust survivor, many of my relatives were murdered by the nazis. it is actually not hard because knowing the history of nazi germany, i'm absolutely convinced that no matter how well intended censoring anti-semitic or other hate

speech might be, it is doomed to fail. the only hope for resisting the hateful ideas and actions is by going after the ideas which you do through education. in after the action which you do by enforcing the criminal law. in the weimar republic, the nazis literally got away with murder. they were not punished for violent attacks. here in the united states, we have many reports of assaults and threats recently that have not been sufficiently punished. peter: i wanted to address that. what you say to the jewish students feeling threatened or have been assaulted because of the issue going on in gaza and israel? nadine: as i said earlier, freedom of speech is not at all absolute. first of all, and actual assault or physical attack is completely

illegal and must be punished to the full extent of the law. but freedom of expression that constitutes what the courts call a true threat or genuine threat should be punished. it is not constitutionally protected. here is how the supreme court has sensibly defined a true threat. it is a little bit narrower than what we use for everyday speech. when the speaker is targeting a particular visual or small group of individuals and it tends to instill a reasonable fear they are going to be subject to attack, that is a punishable true threat and should be punished. this is really important. the speaker does not have to intend to actually carry out the attack. it is enough that the target reasonably fierce being subject to attack because that already inhibits that person's freedom of movement. we have read many accounts of jewish students not only being physically assaulted including

one really disturbing account at my, moderate, harvard, which must be investigated. if the accounts are accurate, there must be punishment. but we have also read many accounts of language that arguably meets that standard of a true threat. for example, at cornell earlier this week, there was an arrest made of a student who issued very anti-semitic, threatening language that specifically identified members of the cornell community who were using a particular dining facility which was frequented by jewish students because it honored kosher laws. i believe and more importantly the fbi and other law enforcement agencies agree it satisfied the standard for a true threat sufficient to arrest

the student and subject him to criminal prosecution. peter: another issue, nadine strossen. we have read reports about law schools pulling offers to students who have signed on to the anti-israel letters. these students were expressing their free speech. now, they are being punished professionally. nadine: let's be clear about this, peter. number one, it is a difficult issue. but number two, i think the legal parameters are quite clear. on the one hand, students certainly have the free-speech right to engage in the most obnoxious, controversial viewpoints as long as they do not cross the line to targeted threats or harassment. number two, employers have no obligation to hire any particular individual, under

federal law. i should note there are some state and local laws that do prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of political beliefs. i would advise all employers to make sure they are acting consistent with state and local laws. that gets to the harder question which is, even if you have a right to do something, is it right to do so? we have had many, many conversations recently about the problem of so-called cancel culture as opposed to a free speech culture. what that is trying to signify, the essence of it is this. we should exercise some self-restraint in advocating or implementing overly punitive, disproportionately harsh responses to people whose speech we dislike. even if we have the right to do

that, maybe in the aggregate it creates the kind of culture where people are so afraid of adverse ramifications, social, employment, or academic, that they engage in rampant self-censorship, not there and to express their views on certain hot button topics -- not daring to express their views on certain hot button topics. surveys continue to indicate throughout our society, including on campus where free speech should be the most robust, people are so afraid of being subject to cancellation measures, including loss of potential jobs, but also just social stigmatizing and ostracizing, that they are not discussing the most important topics. certainly, the october 7 attacks in the political situation in the middle east more generally are very important topics. i would urge employers to exercise some self-restraint

with the goal of fostering a free speech culture. let me mention one other point. these young people are not fully developed in terms of the portions of their brain that enable us to make judgments, to such an extent that the united states supreme court has held imposing the death penalty and other harsh penalties on minors is unconstitutional. college students are not minors, but evidence indicates many of them are not yet fully formed thoughtful individuals. believe in a more merciful, hopeful, restorative justice kind of approach. that is a term we have heard supported by politicians all across the spectrum saying we have been too punitive in our

society and that does not do any good in terms of likely rehabilitation and constructive reintegration into society. even people who have committed homicide are now being offered restorative justice approaches. it seems to me people who are advocating violence, especially when they are so young, that maybe we should err in favor of giving them another chance. that is not a matter of first amendment rights. that is just a matter of what the right thing to do is for society as a whole. peter: cancel culture is a topic you address in your latest book. good afternoon. thank you for joining us on this book to be in depth discussion with the former president of the aclu, nadine strossen. she is the author most recently of "free speech: what everyone needs to know." prior to that, in 2020, "hate"

came out. we talk about a bit about her first book, "defending pornography." it came out in 1995 and is being reissued next year i believe you said by nyu press. if you would like to participate in this conversation, we would love to hear from you. if you live in the east and central time zones, 8201 mountain and pacific. you can try our text number. that is for text messages only. please include your first name and city if you would. at some point, we will also scroll through our social media sites. if you would like to join and make a comment that way, you can do so. nadine strossen, you mentioned

your father was captured or taken prisoner during the holocaust. tell us about your parents. nadine: yes. my father, i am so proud of him, peter. key was not just a holocaust survivor. he was an opponent of the nazi regime before he was imprisoned and after he was liberated by americans. let me say a word about that. under the pernicious, racist, nuremberg laws, he was called have to -- a half jew or jute of the second degree. he was under so much pressure to divorce his wife and bravely stood by her under an enormous amount of economic, political, and other pressure. when my father was imprisoned,

it was not only for the crime of being a have to -- half jew but also because of his anti-nazi political activities. because of that double discriminatory factor, he was slated to be sterilized. the nazis had a program not only of genocide but of eugenicide. he literally had a date scheduled. one day before he would have been sterilized, he was liberated by americans. i recently learned from one of my uncles that the individual member of the american military who dug my father out, apparently there had been a bomb right before, was black. that still gives me chills. unfortunately in the united states, thank god we did not have death camps, but we had jim crow.

this brave man who liberated my father was subject to norman's discrimination back home. all of this feeds into my passion for human rights, as does the story on my mother's side. her father was an immigrant to the united states from what is now croatia in the early part of the 20th century. he was a pacifist, a marxist, and a conscientious objector in world war i for the crime of objecting to the crime of the united states' war policy and refusing to serve, he was sentenced by the court in new jersey where he lived to stand outside the courthouse with his hands and feet splayed against the courthouse walls so passersby could spit on him. peter: free speech was an issue during world war i. nadine: interestingly enough,

that was the issue that gave rise to the aclu. it was originally the civil liberties bureau of an organization called the american union against militarism. it's prime focus was defending free speech rights of the thousands of individuals who were imprisoned or prosecuted simply for peacefully expressing opposition to the war. unfortunately, they did not get there in time to assist my grandfather. but i think it is wonderful, poetic justice i have been active in that organization my whole life. peter: nadine strossen, under grand harvard -- undergrad harvard, law school, harvard, law professor to this day? nadine: i took a break from teaching in 2019 despite loving my students, and i got feedback from them, too. i started to see the attacks against freedom of speech from both ends of the political spectrum were becoming so random

-- rampant i decided it was even more important for me to spend my time writing and speaking more broadly about those issues. freedom of speech, intellectual freedoms, civil discourse. even more important than teaching my students other aspects of constitutional law. i have been doing about 200 public presentations per year since then. if i could also mention, i am the host of a newly issued three-part public tv series called "free to speak" which aired starting last month and is on public tv around the company -- country and is also available on youtube. peter: given the topic to talk about and we have talked about today, what is the biggest critique you get? nadine: i think i have already alluded to it, which is that i would absolutely support free speech to the detriment of other

values. thank you for giving me an opportunity to reinforce why that is a misplaced critique. i continue to be fully committed to the full range of human rights, not only civil liberties in the united states, but i also have been very active in the international human rights movement. i remain absolutely convinced that without the most robust freedom of speech, including freedom to engage in speech that is seen as controversial, harmful, and dangerous, without that, we are never going to make progress on any other human right. you and i may have a certain concept of what speech we consider to be dangerous. but when you look at the pattern across history and around the world, disproportionally government, not surprisingly, considers speech to be dangerous that is critical of government

policies, that seeks to reform and challenge the status quo. that is why throughout most of u.s. history, before the supreme court began to strongly enforce free speech, during the civil rights movement, not coincidentally during the second half of the 20th century, until that point, government censorship suppressed the abolition movement, the movement for women's suffrage, the movement for labor rights and unionization, antiwar speech, pacifist speech, socialist speech, lgbtq writes speech, basically all speech advocating for in my view bringing to reality the ideals set forth in the declaration of independence, that free and full and equal rights for all of us. peter: i believe, and tell me if i am wrong, margaret sanger's original brochure or pamphlet

was outlawed in the u.s., advocating abortion rights. nadine: even advocating, at that point, she was advocating information to women about their reproductive functions, information about contraception methodologies, and she was repeatedly subject to prosecution and imprisonment. interestingly enough, she was one of the aclu's original clients. she was also prevented from speaking on campus, which is very interesting because today it would be somebody probably opposing what i would call reproductive freedom on college campuses likely to be censored. again, if we want to have freedom for the speech we agree with, we have to be willing to give freedom to speech we disagree with or our own speech is going to be endangered. peter: i want to quote from an article he wrote for "tablet" magazine in 2022.

because many campus communits skew liberal or progressive a because progressive views tend to disproportionately dominate fields that favor workers with academic degrees self-censorship is particularly acute ong non-progressives, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, the politically indifferent, and even d-style liberals. many left-leaning members of campus communities explicitly admit or boast they would deny employment or other professional opportunities to academics with conservative views about public policy issues. nadine: yes. this is a pattern that continues to be documented. the most recent in-depth survey i am familiar with came out a few weeks ago from fire and college pulse. it was a detailed survey, examination of 248 campuses which showed self-censorship is

rampant among students and faculty members alike in every context including classes, extracurricular activities, conversations between faculty members and students. interestingly enough, the self-censorship does come even on the part of those on the left end of the political spectrum but not the extreme left end of the spectrum. that said, the survey also underscored, as have other data, that a lot of censorship efforts are coming from the right. those tend to be government laws, executive decrees, legislation. some of the rationales both the left and right use are the same. famously, college students and faculty members on the left started talking about repressing speech that made them

uncomfortable or that was divisive. usually, that meant speech about issues of race or gender that were not sufficiently progressive. conservatives would make fun of that nomenclature, mock liberal or progressive snowflakes. and yet, we have seen this raft of laws passed by mostly conservative state legislatures around the country that outlaw expression about race or gender that makes people uncomfortable or that is divisive. they are targeting the 6019 project and so called critical race theory. again, i'm going to be a broken record here, if we care about freedom for the speech we agree with, we have to mutually defend the same principles that are also in some circumstances going to protect speech we disagree with. the fact that speech may make you uncomfortable for maybe divisive is not a reason for

censoring the speech, either direct censorship through government legislation or soft censorship through cancel culture. it is a reason for responding to that speech and developing habits of resiliency so it does not have a negative impact on us, but it is not a justification for suppression. peter: it was in 1988 that the term aclu played on a large stage and became part of america's lexicon. let's listen. [video clip] >> he is the one that said that, not me. i am the one that probably says i am not a card-carrying member of the aclu. [applause] you see, i don't want to take away the tax exemption from our churches. i do not believe child pornography should be legalized. and i do believe that in god we

trust ought to stay on our currency. [applause] i believe we are one nation under god. [applause] he is entitled to his opinion. we believe in free speech. we believe in tolerance. i think i have a right to ask this question. if you respect the aclu so much, will he take their advice when it comes to appointing justices for the supreme court of the united states? peter: nadine strossen, what was the effect of george h.w. bush using the aclu as a beating post at that time? nadine: as you might imagine, it drew a tremendous amount of attention to the aclu and gave us an opportunity, including through the national media, to respond to those charges. interestingly enough, there was a movie made about this, "the american president," that

lionized the candidate who said i am a proud card-carrying member of the aclu. he actually gave a speech we wish michael dukakis had given in real life. to his opponent, he said i am a member of this organization which defends all fundamental freedoms for all people no matter who you are, no matter what you believe. the question is, why are you not a member of the aclu? our membership numbers shot up. sadly, this shows when people see a dramatic threat to civil liberties, including free speech, is when they tend to be supportive. otherwise, they tend to take it for granted and not realize it is always under siege and requires, to quote a phrase it's riveted to thomas jefferson, eternal -- attributed to thomas jefferson, eternal vigilance. peter: have your political views altered in the past couple of

decades? you were at freedom fest. nadine: my political views have more or less been centrist liberal throughout my life. but much more important to me than my views on policy issues are my views on neutral, fundamental civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights issues, where i continue to believe no matter who you are or what you believe that you are entitled to these freedoms and basic rights. i will defend them for you. the organizations i have been active with are organizations mutually committed to the defense of those principles and have undertaken to actually defend them on behalf of of the immediate beneficiaries who widely vary in terms of their political beliefs. the ultimate beneficiaries are every single one of us.

when freedom of speech is defended for the nazis, as the aclu famously did in the late 1970's in the case coming out of illinois which had a large jewish population, many of whom were holocaust survivors, the positions we took in that case rebounded to the benefit of anti-nazi, pro civil rights demonstrators in washington, d.c. let me stress the lead aclu counsel in that case was eleanor holmes norton, now the longtime representative in congress of the district of columbia. she was then a new staff lawyer at the aclu. i saw an interview she gave less than a year ago on this topic saying she was so proud of having defended freedom of speech and a case called

brandenberg versus ohio, but the same principle involved. it involved the leader of the kkk. she said although she knew the beneficiary of the case would be a nazi that the really important beneficiaries would be her colleagues in the aclu, the student nonviolent coordinating community, and other civil rights organizations. peter: let's take some calls. let's begin with carl in chicago. please go ahead. you are on with arthur nadine strossen. caller: yes. what is your take on the polarization of social media and the intervention of moneyed interests and how it is undermining free speech.

peter: before she answers that, what is your take? caller: i have been an over 65-year member of the aclu. i am a big free speech advocate. peter: thank you for calling in. nadine: thank you so much for that great question. ellis is a colleague and friend of mine, the only writer in residence at the aclu. he is very prolific, quoting the book that you cite. he wrote a history of the aclu. the point he makes is a very important one which is freedom of speech depends on a robust speech protective enforcement of the first amendment by the supreme court. that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for having

meaningful, real, freedom of speech for everybody in this society. beyond t and so beyond the legal protection, we need to do other things, which is to make sure everybody has the necessary educational, financial and technological resources to meaningfully exercise free speech and this is one of the reasons the aclu has been so supportive of free speech for the online media including social media from the beginning because it drastically reduced the cost of reaching an extremely large audience, no longer do you need to use the really extensive broadcast media to disseminate your political message and we look at movements like the black lives movement or the me too movement which have existed for a long time but never got

traction until the social media came along making it cheaper and easier and faster to reach a larger audience. >> host: jim in california, good afternoon. >> caller: terrific discussion, really wonderful. question is 14th amendment cases saying donald trump should not be allowed to be on the ballot because of the insurrection or rebellion clause, section 3 and 4 of the amendment and as i read that it seems to me very clear what they are talking about in the use of those words as the civil war, not anything that has happened subsequently or would happen subsequently but they didn't use the word civil war because that was not a word in use or term in use in 1868 but that if you put in the term

civil war instead of insurrection or rebellion the argument would fail. i'm a retired attorney and it seems to be an absurd argument but i'm interested in your position in the aclu position. >> thank you. i don't know if the aclu has a position on this. i'm not involved in its activities anymore. i can tell you i do not have a firm position because i recognize i have been so focused on just a huge proliferating number of free-speech issues, it's all i can do to keep on top of those. on this issue i do know enough to note that it is extremely complicated, has been subject to enormous debate and disagreement including among people who often agree with each other and some experts recently re-examined their

positions. the pieces that i have read about it, one that was appealing to me, not that i have reached a conclusion but it was written by michael mcconnell, a respected conservative law professor and he said we should go easy here recognizing that the impact of the interpretations that would disqualify somebody from the ballot is deeply threatening to democratic values, at least potentially, that we should air in favor when there's a debatable certification in interpreting the disqualification. narrowly. because what is involved. this goes back to a point i made about free speech. not only the speaker but the audience. this would not any mean donald trump would be deprived of the

opportunity to run for president, but 50% of the public that seems to support him would be disenfranchised, deprived of the opportunity to vote for him. i don't have the expertise to give you a definitive conclusion. but that would be a big concern i would have. >> host: nadine strossman was born in jersey city. how are you raised their? >> guest: my father was working for a large corporation. and oil company. he was initially working for the archer daniels midland company based in minneapolis. we talked about our common minnesota origins, they transferred him to minneapolis and subsequently overtaken or that division was overtaken, he was transferred to ohio. i have minnesota roots as we say here.

>> next call is from julie in minneapolis. >> i missed the minnesota part so that's interesting. two things that i have thought. one is they are both relevant to the subject of your book and free-speech. my first is my favorite headline these days, euphemism is the enemy of the people. we cannot talk freely about things openly, directly. this is kind of a longer what you are saying about self-censorship, that we are inclined to use nice words rather than direct true words. the other thing i think about with regard to free-speech, and communication between people who disagree or don't understand is i think hate

speech is fear's. >> host: hate speech is almost always what? >> fear. so if you agree or disagree with that notion in my head but if you have any agreement with it, how does the perspective of the readers of your book, the general public, how does the perspective, they are talking hate speech versus fear's speech, coming from hate, coming from fear, from that perspective, influence, response, and the opportunity for true communication. >> let me start with euphemism. self-censorship isn't always bad, right? so if we are self censoring and

using euphemisms for a constructive purpose to convey the same idea but in a more respectful way, that is effective communication, right? we try to use the language that is not going to alienate people but more likely to make them receptive to our ideas. as a lawyer i would say that's effective advocacy. if, however, we use euphemisms to cancel an entire idea as opposed to conveying the same idea in a more respectful, courteous manner, that is a horse of a different color, we should never censor ideas, not only as a matter of self-expression but also because that is the lifeblood of democratic discourse. so much of george orwell's

dystopian novel 1984, remember the language newspeak which was a laminating words that convey controversial ideas with the specific goal of suppressing the idea. the united states supreme court said in a famous case involving a four letter word i'm not allowed to say on broadcast tv, probably can on c-span, no i can't but i won't. different media having different -- >> host: we are on the radio right now. >> the supreme court said you cannot eliminate a particular word without also altering or illuminating the particular idea. and your second point, hate speech is fear's speech, you get into one of the reasons i

say if what you are trying to a lemonade, and i believe it is, is not the speech itself, but the underlying attitude you are astutely trying to figure out what is the attitude, what is causing that person to voice, harbor, and voice hateful ideas. a lot of historical, anthropological, cultural, psychological, sociological evidence does indicate that what is most likely to lead people to other groups of people to engage in hateful speech against them is fear. fear that these people are threatening their autonomy, their identity. i think of the hate speech in charlottesville, virginia, in 2017, the unite to write demonstrators, you will not

replace us, jews will not replace us. i still get chills when i say that but the ideology that reflects is this notion that white people feel embattled, that they are endangered, that they are losing political and economic and cultural power in this country and it is that fear that triggers the hate. if we are effectively 2d amplify the hate and reduce it, then we have to address its underlying cause and we don't do that by suppressing the message, we do that by educating them about the benefits, that they are not going to be harmed, that their own lives and well-being and those of their children are going to be enhanced by the growing diversity and pluralism of our great country. >> host: julie's call reminded me of bernard professor jonathan writer who you have written about. what's the case there? >> jonathan is a friend and

colleague of mine and he is one of many professors who have been sanctioned for simply using a racial epithet. i'm not going to use the euphemism for that epithet because a law professor has been punished for even using the euphemism. i have a right to say it but i am not going to be you foolhardy and endanger my career and my status as an accepted human being but even when you have a strong pedagogical purpose, jonathan is an expert on culture including music, and he was teaching about rapp and other music, a common, essential aspect of culture indicating when it is used by those performers in the community it

doesn't have the stigmatizing intent or impact it can if used by a racist sheriff against a black person. there is such -- let me say i do not at all defend the use of any epithet in any stigmatizing or insulting way but i wish that we could be a little more discriminating. in my field, martin luther king wrote a historical letter from the birmingham jail that i consider one of the most clarion calls for full and equal human rights for everybody including black americans. uses that racial epithet two times and professors have been sanctioned for even assigning that wonderful letter to their students because of the use of that word. to decontextualized what was

the speaker intending by using that word, huckleberry finn. i know you had a program about it recently. another great example where i think that is one of the most powerful indictments of slavery and racism that has ever been written and the use of that term was to _ antiracism, anti-slavery message but it is treated as if it were coming out of the mouth of a white supremacist, that kind of lack of distinction and judgment is ultimately certainly not good for free-speech but even more importantly i don't think it is good for human rights and equal rights for blacks and other racial minorities. >> next call, michael, broward county, florida. >> caller: you mentioned education a few times. this could be taught even in kindergarten, these are basic

human issues, you mentioned education and if you are not educated you don't have freedom of thought, you don't have the ability to think. your exact phrase was meaningful exercise, the ability to meaningfully exercise free speech you need biology, you can't be traumatized, we need cultural, we think of that guy who didn't do the nazi salute. you mentioned a great example of that, in god we trust is on all of our money which significantly affects our freedom to think in ways that we are not aware of and a better example as far as truth and relativism is the fact that our entire education system, all the think tanks, our economy is based on a false perception of evolution so there is a truth you. evolution clearly says it is

not a synonym for competition and yet in education as a great example we make it a competition where we guarantee 30% aren't going to be able to. if a kid takes out the garbage we don't give them a beef are taking 80% we have an expectation of one hundred%. %. i used to teach science, the expectation in science class, this affects -- >> host: we have to leave it there. let's get a response from our guest. >> guest: you've made many points. the first one has been a theme for your other comments and that is the importance of rigorous education that is not indoctrinating but from the earliest educational levels is stimulating critical inquiry,

especially important in the sciences but also incredibly important in literature and humanities and social sciences that we have 2 educate our students to ask questions, to do research, to be exposed to and articulate different perspectives. let me tell you the mantra i use for my law students, i don't see why you shouldn't apply all the way down k-12 as well as that is i wanted my students to understand, articulate and advocate all plausible perspectives on all issues, anything supported by evidence, by analysis, by reason. no unsubstantiated remarks, no ad hominem arguments based on liking or disliking particular people and ultimately that is going to resound not only to

individual freedom but also to our democracy. a healthy democracy. >> host: let's follow-up michael's question with this text message from eric in warren, michigan. what does the dean think about the rights of parents and their children's elementary schools especially concerning drag queens, pornography and reading material. >> let me start with the general question first and that is that the public schools are a microcosm of our democracy, local government in action where we basically give, in our democratic republic, majority several right in -- and the community has the power to elect government officials who are accountable to them and the school board, the local school board, board of education is a

paradigm of local grassroots democracy in action. the bill of rights was added to the constitution to make it expressly clear that we are not up your democracy. our framers wisely recognized some rights are so important that no majority should have the power to take them away from any minority no matter how small and despised that minority can be. the supreme court has said balancing these two concerns most decisions are made by the local school board but on the other hand, a decision about a curricular matter or school library matter sharply and directly implicates freedom of speech, freedom of speech trumps that. for example, the example the supreme court gave, let's assume the school board said we will ban all books from the library that are written by members of the democratic party or are written by black people

or are written by women. that would violate the first amendment. in between, there is a lot of latitude for decisions to be made by the local school board but i would urge as the supreme court has that those decisions should be made on the basis of considerations such as educational suitability and age appropriateness. not on whether the ideas of the author or the identity of the author are popular or unpopular with the political majority in a certain community and with that in mind, the label pornography has been used for a wide range of very educationally suitable material including, we were talking about the holocaust, the award-winning graphic novel

mouse, because one frame shows a woman who is partially nude with her breasts exposed. the book might not be age appropriate for other reasons but to say that is pornographic and band on that ground is not justifiable. >> host: your first book was called defending pornography, free-speech, sex and the fight for women's rights, being reissued as a classic by nyu press next year. stephen indiana texts to you i understand certain types of pornography can be restricted if it relates to living person. can pornography the does not relate to living persons but is generated by artificial intelligence be restricted? interesting take.

>> guest: i assume you're referring to revenge pornography which is when any sexually explicit image or naked image of a person is disseminated without that person's express permission that that is a violation of individual privacy. i'm not an expert in this area but i assume the privacy concerns are equally important for somebody who is no longer among the living as well as those who are still living in all situations, it should not be an absolute prohibition. we would have to look at countervailing considerations. i can think of many artistic nude representations that have occurred in films, famous films. i don't think that - presumably that was subject to consent. maybe that's not a good example.

let's consider artifact by fact basis and i would not categorically draw a distinction on the basis of living or dead. >> host: communications professor dwight owens of state university as you know -- >> guest: i'm familiar with professor allison at scholarship. >> host: his question to you. what challenges do you see in the regulation or management of free speech during this age of artificial intelligence where counter speech may be a difficult defense to harmful hate speech. >> guest: artificial intelligence will complicate the equation but in multiple directions because artificial intelligence, along with all communications tools can be used very effectively to counter hateful attitudes

including the fearful attitudes julie from minneapolis questioned about. it can help us to identify people who have hateful ideas based in fear and to craft messages, educational and persuasive messages that are likely to dissuade them from those attitudes much more than censorship is. let's look at the potential positive and do our best to harness that. >> host: you are on with author nadine strossman. >> reporter: i'm interested in the intersection back to my freedom and the first amendment and most specifically would like to have your opinion on the imposition of required they i statements in academic appointments and promotions. >> host: are you affiliated with the university in berkeley? >> i'm an emeritus with the university.

>> host: i know there are a couple of in the last couple years, ben schapiro and ann coulter have been prevented and/or protested from speaking at uc berkeley. what is your take on that? i am asking you. c-span2 that was embarrassed being alumni. i used to be a lawyer for the university. i have an interest in it and concern about what's going on there. there's a lot of self-censorship, and a lot of issues of impositions of students trying to keep other students from speaking. i'm very much in favor of the panoply of first amendment rights on campus, so some of what is going on is very embarrassing. >> host: thanks for calling in. >> guest: thank you for your support for free speech and economic freedom and excellent question which gives me an

opportunity to make an important point i've not had a chance to make which is first amendment freedoms include not only the right to say something we do want to say but the right not to say something we don't want to say. the freedom against compelled speech goes all the way back to a very famous case in the early 1940s in which the aclu successfully defended the rights of jehovah's witness schoolchildren not to be compelled to say the pledge of allegiance and salute the american flag because the supreme court said that violated their freedom of conscience. interestingly enough the supreme court said freedom against being forced to say something that violates your belief is even greater than the freedom to say something consistent with your belief

because it's more intrusive into individual dignity and freedom of choice for the government to force you to mouth a certain script and that is the problem with these they i statements that are now mandatory on so many campuses, applying to jobs or applying for promotions and so forth. mind you, i'm not saying i oppose deer goals. that's beside the.. i oppose a mandatory statement on an issue that is subject to deep debate and disagreement. to me this is akin to the loyalty oath which we also saw on the university of california and other campuses during the mccarthy cold war era and are universally discredited. a future generation will look back on these mandatory they i statements and say they are equally repugnant to first

amendment freedoms. there has been a lawsuit challenging mandatory they i statements at the university of california community college system and we thought that on behalf of very diverse array of faculty members many of whom support deer goals but oppose the compulsory statement. >> host: right over your shoulder, your middle book which is called hate, why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship showing over your shoulder, you see the big very dramatic hate in the title. it was endorsed by cornell west and former republican tennessee senator lamar alexander so you must've been doing something right to get those two voices in that book. >> a liberal attacks on free speech are coming from both ends of the i lot of goal

spectrum but support for free speech also comes from all ends of the ideological spectrum. >> host: your most recent book free-speech:what everyone needs to know, the format. >> host: this is part of a series ou p has been publishing for 20 years, the name is trademarked. what everyone needs to know. the format is question and answer which was completely congenial to me because for the last half dozen or so years i have been giving about 200 public presentations per year and they are all in this question-and-answer format that we are exemplifying today. i hear the same questions over and over because people have the same concerns. i was able to sit at my laptop and relive the in person q and k experiences. >> host: you sent us a code for

a discount on this book. >> guest: i don't know the code. i hope somebody can flash up here. it means anybody who buys the book in connection with this author event receivers a discount of 50% and that makes the book cost $13. it is it is a 30% discount. >> guest: >> host: i'm guessing we have on screen at this point. 202 is the area code if you want to call in and talk with our guests, author and former aclu president nadine strossman. 748-8200 in east and central time zones, 8201 if you live in the mountain at pacific time zone and if you can't get through in the phone lines, our text number 202-748-8903. scroll through our social media sites in case you want to make a comment that way as well. mark from colorado please go ahead.

>> caller: what is your take about the citizens united controversy and whether political contributions should be protected as free speech and beyond that, if wealthy people and corporations have a bigger megaphone by virtue of their wealth, what violence does that do to the value of the quality of free-speech? >> guest: i think i was going to ask you what your opinion was but i think we got it with the second statement, so thank you for calling in. we touched on this at the beginning. >> it's an important point, and give me the opportunity to reinforce something i said earlier which is from a legal protection of free speech is only the start. it is not the conclusion of meaningful support for free speech. we have to make it equally available to everybody in this country and we do that in many ways including through education as we talked about

including through technological resources such as online media and social media meaning you don't have to be a wealthy person to reach potentially every other person in the entire world, that's one of the benefits of these new media. beyond that, citizens united dealt with a law that had nothing to do with how wealthy or non-wealthy the speakers were. it only focused on whether the speakers were organized in the corporate form or i should add as labor unions. it was a law that specifically restricted spending money to advocate political messages if you were a corporation or if you were a labor union. it didn't matter if you were a tiny corporation. it didn't matter if you were a poor corporation. if your goal is to make sure

equal access to speech is available regardless of how many resources the speaker has, that would require a completely different law. in the political science research, in the wake of citizens united, seems to show that wealthy individuals who are not at all restricted by the campaign finance laws are the ones making disproportionate contributions to elections but i happen to agree with the statement that was made by the supreme court many years ago that if we think that some people are speaking too much, disproportionate to others, the result is not to level down the speech but rather to level it up. on much more interested, whether we are talking corporations or wealthy individuals. my concern is how do we level up to make sure that everybody,

every individual in every corporation has equally meaningful opportunity to participate in the debate? >> to quote from hate again, the day's capacious concept of hate speech is often understood as encompassing the expression of any idea that some students consider objectionable, our safe spaces a good idea? >> safe spaces are good idea if we are talking about safety against physical assault or true threats, to go back to what we talked about earlier but to the extent that a safe space means safety from an idea that you might consider to be offensive or insulting, that is in fact dangerous. i am going to quote former president of the university of california who set our job is not -- is to make students safe

for ideas, not safe from ideas. in other words we are going to get students the critical inquiry, resilience psychologically so that they can deal with unpleasant, shocking or insulting speech and not let it undermine their sense of dignity and not be persuaded by it to adopt hateful ideology. >> host: laurie smith is a graphic designer with the designing website, should she have to design a website promoting gay marriage? >> guest: this gets back to the question mike from berkeley asked about compelled speech. the very same principle applies there as applied to schoolchildren, as applies to the mandatory ddi statement. i would say this as a caveat.

if there were a type of service or product that is only available from a few suppliers in a particular geographical area, the right of individuals to have equal access to that service should be protected and that might warrant a requirement that web services be provided. the evidence was uncontested that there are multiple, countless providers of that service that they didn't have to use this particular one. if i could say one other thing about lori smith, she was making selections not on the basis of who was speaking -- seeking the service but on the basis of what message they wanted to communicate. she completely did not discriminate on basis of sexual

orientation or gender identity, she just said there are certain messages i won't provide. a jewish website designer should not have to provide pro-nazi, pro-white supremacy messages regardless of the identity of who is asking for those messages. >> host: nadine strossman, should those websites you just mentioned, should they be allowed to be online and accessible? those pro-nazi et cetera examples? >> guest: yes. the fact that you have a discriminatory ideology is no basis for government requiring the social media platforms remove it. social media platforms have their own first amendment rights in their editorial capacity to decide that they are not going to host particular messages or particular speakers. the same way that i have no

first amendment right to be an honored guest on this wonderful program, nobody has a right, even donald trump didn't have a right to be on twitter even when he was a duly elected president of the united states, but again, making that distinction between the law and what is good public policy, given how important the social media platforms are for political discourse, i would urge those in charge of them to exercise their editorial discretion in favor of hosting platforms and speakers that comply with general first amendment principles even if they don't have to do that, it would be very healthy for our democratic discourse for them to do that. >> host: steve, jacksonville, florida, good afternoon. >> a couple of my points have been covered regarding the predominance of mass media and the inequality of voices.

secondly my point about anonymity of a lot of hate speech on the internet and i don't think your message addresses that. generally, what you advocate, while admirable it ignores the disproportionality of the mass media and offers no social remedy to the propagation of evil and false ideas other than kind of a naïve hope that even more free-speech will lead to good in the end. lastly, in economics, the increase of supply of something usually does not lead to the counterintuitive happy result that people will reject it. that is all. have a good day.

>> guest: you make so many excellent points it is hard to know where to start. let me take what i think was your most could go point and i welcomed that because i am always trying to challenge my ideas. i do think that hoping that freedom of speech is ultimately going to lead to truth, you call it naïve, i would say it is a matter of faith but i will also say this. it is a matter of demonstrated fact that censorship is not going to lead to the discovery and establishment of truth. the concept disinformation which you allude is so inherently suggestive, the e speech and other types of pornography is so inherently subjective. one person's hateful speech, one person's disinformation is somebody else's cherished and

truthful speech. what we can predict, not only as a matter of past experience but also logic, is that whoever has the power to make the determinations about what is disinformation or what is hate speech, is predictably going to make those inevitably subjective determinations in accordance either with their own value judgments or in accordance with value judgments of powerful constituencies, and you see the patterns we continue to see to this day. and minority divorces, the questioning critical voices at the status quo are the ones that are disproportionately going to be censored. that includes those who are

economically relatively poorly off. a number of excellent questions i received precisely because i do support equality of access to free speech and other resources. and those who are economically disadvantaged, also have the most to lose from censorship and the most to gain from robust free-speech. >> host: one of the things we do on "in depth" is ask our author what their favorite books aren't what they are currently reading. here's a response we got from nadine strossman. favorite books, les miserables, doctor zhivago, fountain head by ayn rand, fountain of liberty, and arguably co-authored by harriet taylor. we will get to that in a

second. bleak house by charles dickens. is there a theme in these books? >> guest: those books are books i read at a young age. i chose them because they have been influential throughout my life. they all involve themes of justice and they all involve themes of individual freedom. surprise surprise and they deeply resonated with me at a young age and continue to inspire me. i know to say that one continues to appreciate the fountain head beyond adolescence is quite controversial. i know a lot of people on the liberal end of the political spectrum would say i liked her was a teenager but i have

outgrown her and i continue to find the themes of individual creativity, individual self-determination on the part of a strong female protagonist and a male lead character, i continue to find very inspiring. i will admit that. >> host: what do you say to those of us who read the first 10 pages and got confused and ran away from the fountain head? >> i felt that way about moby dick and i keep hearing people, to each his own as with a lot of things we are talking about, this is very subjective. but to me, what all those books have in common is very strong themes that go beyond the particular characters or plot points that transcend particular historical context

but also to me memorable characters and stories. as i travel throughout my lifetime, may be what i'm adhering to is a minor aspect of the overall book but continues to exercise influence on my personality and my quest to do what i can to urge other people to realize their unique individuality and apply whatever their talents and abilities are to advance their own concepts whatever they might be. >> host: on liberty by john stuart mill. who was he and who was harriet taylor? >> guest: john stuart mill was a famous utilitarian philopher in the middle of the 20th century, on libty stands the test of time as the

most powerful defense of individual freedom of speech including some of the same recurring arguments some of your astute viewers have been posing to me. he has a dedication in the book to his wife, harriet taylor, who died a year -- it is such an over-the-top acknowledgment that it reads as if she were a co-author. every word is imbued with her influence, he delayed publishing it because she was sick and he wanted her to be -- hoped she would recover enough to review it one more time. i started being curious. such a strong credit for her enormous role in producing classic work, why wasn't she

treated, other people asked that question. and some scientists done for algorithmic research professor ellis asked about artificial intelligence. one of the positive uses of it, analyze language patterns in order to attribute arthurship and the conclusion was that she is at least the co-author of central aspects of the book. since there are so few female philosophers that have had such a historic role. and the potential coauthorship -- >> host: and i will read out the code for the discount form, nadine strossman's book free-speech, what everyone waits to know. get ready for that.

we also ask our authors what they are currently reading. here is nadine strossman's list. the canceling of the american mi, mr. texas by lree wrht, seven days of possibilities, one teacher, 24 ki a the music that changed their lives forever. nothing sacred, outspoken voices in contemporary fiction. let's start with seven days of possibilities. >> guest: that such an amazing book. i'm such an omnivorous reader. anytime i have a week for an interesting book i never read before, a reporter for the new york times has written excellent pieces about subjects

we've been talking about, under one of the recent articles on that topic, but the title was so fascinating. i ordered the book, so inspiring as an educator, it is about a young woman from finland who grew up in a tiny little town on an island, it is the opposite experience, has challenges that many musicians here do. she uses music as a way to reach out to students have all kinds of economic and educational and sociological challenges, she instructs them in gospel music, they became a

gospel choir. it is an inspiration to lift the students up, lifting them to soaring heights in terms of individual potential, and creative potential. i haven't finished the book. she's going to take him on our field trip to finland but as an educator myself, somebody who loves music, especially concerned about making sure education and freedom of speech through music among other vehicles is equally available to all. i love this book. it would make a great movie. >> host: the other book i wanted to ask about was nothing sacred, outspoken voices in contemporary fiction by pharisee press which i'm not really with. >> guest: an advanced reader copy, i recently purchased, now available for sale with a different cover.

it is something that is so important. it was formed earlier this year as a response to the thought censorship going on in the publishing industry where there are certain topics, that appropriately address the topic, not speaking on behalf of somebody that your character does not mirror your characteristics et c. etc. . the founders who are friends and colleagues of mine had this idea. bernard was complaining about this, a literature professor, she said stop complaining, start your own press, actually

did and enlisted a lot of authors. and on the back. a collection of 12 short stories, because of controversial subject matters, many of the story so far, and for political incorrect comedy. he writes from the perspective of a gay man, he links it to a willow catheter story. and all the stories are delightful, more enthusiastically. >> free-speech, what everybody

needs to know. oxford university press is where you need to go. the code, you thc 4. what is that, trying to figure that out. ala you thc 4 is the code to use to get the discount. dan in bridgewater, new jersey, thanks for holding, please go ahead. >> has a refugee from communism i took great -- they were allowed to speak freely and debate them and it was a very productive encounter especially in the 50s but i'm very concerned now that they declared anti-zionism, anti-semitism, very confusing statement. i would like to know what you think of that and what you

think of the fate of the president of the student body. >> host: where are you from originally? >> guest: romania. >> host: thank you for calling in. >> guest: so many of my colleagues who were active in the campus free-speech movement and academic freedom movement are like you, refugees from repressive governments, they believe too many americans take free-speech for granted, they never had the experience of censorship. i do very strongly support. the views that are anti-zionist or, critical particular israeli

policies, to engage in anti-semitic speech as well as other hate speech. until or unless it crosses over to unprotected threats or unprotected targeted harassment. with respect to the employers not to hire certain students, this goes back to that very complicated issue of so-called cancel culture. i believe employers have the right to choose not to hire people because of their viewpoint although with the caveat they have to make sure it is not violating particular state and local laws. and is this the right thing to do in any particular circumstance.

in conversation with individual student. some of the students say they were simply members of an organization. that petitioned that they don't know that the petition was being signed on their behalf. they didn't read it and didn't approve it. to penalize them for that relatively attenuated connection to problematic speech starts to lead to guilt by association. i want, since you mentioned communism, i want to raise the specter of the mccarthy accesses of the anti-communism they have on campuses in the country during the cold war but when people are suspected of

being supportive of communism in any way. they were blacklisted and being denied employment opportunities. i think we want especially when dealing with young people at the outset of their careers. i would air in favor of giving them a second chance, an opportunity to explain, rather than automatically, categorically, with the professional death penalty upon them. >> host: please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to ask about a case i briefly read about in the news that right-wing religious fanatics, republican supreme court is going to take up. >> host: do you feel strongly about this?

>> caller: the first amendment, there's an intersection alabi, that case in new york but i also want to preface it by saying the older i get, i am a heretic because i give more credence to the caveat of free-speech is fine but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. also, also one of my favorite quotes is attributed to samuel johnson, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. i give that width of the first amendment, i feel a lot of times the first amendment is

the last refuge of scoundrels. >> host: we are going to leave it. are you familiar with the case she's talking about, the intersection alabi between the first and second amendment? >> caller: not specifically but if i could pick up on the last point. the point that you asked earlier, why am i constantly defending the most controversial speech? pornography, hate speech, citizens united. it is because, precisely because it is the speech that is the most unpopular, the most despised, the most controversial that people try to censor, the government tries to censor and if you want to support a robust freedom of speech that will be there even for speech like that, you have to defend those principles in the context, even speech you like, you have to defend those principles in the context where they are going to arise and be challenged, namely when it is

scoundrels and pornographers and hateful speakers. rich corporations are exercising that free-speech. they don't have the same free-speech rights, though we are not going to have those free-speech rights either. >> host: mike in north arlington, new jersey. i am going to have 2 by you. got to turn off of the volume. dan in tacoma, washington. >> caller: i don't know if you covered the idea that when the government tells social media companies that they need to or suggest to them that they censor or tag as misinformation this or that, does nadine strossman see that is a violation of the first amendment? >> guest: great question that we've not covered even though we covered a lot of ground.

the first amendment with its free-speech guarantee only constrains the government. i made the point social media platforms, c-span and other private sector platforms don't have a first amendment obligation but the government would have, to post every speaker in every idea. however, if the government is, in fact, putting pressure on, or conspiring with a private sector actor, what appears to be a voluntary speech suppression by the private sector actor, but is really the government putting undue pressure on that private sector actor, that does raise first amendment problems. .... amendment problems. the government should not be allowed to deal indirectly by pressuring social media platforms what it would not be

allowed to do directly through government censorship. the kinds of disinformatio and the kinds of disinformation, they are completely protected constitutionally. so that government could not directly require the social media platforms to take down the so-called disinformation andow e issue that is now going to be before the u.s. supreme court, lower courts have decided, is that in many cases the government has crossed that line between permitted encouragement, come is like to try to encourage social media companies to not publish certain information but they consider to be dangerous and misleading. but when it crosses a line from permitted encouragement to prohibited collusion, that creates a first amendment problem. >> host: 2023, nadine

strossen, what danger level which you put at for free speech? >> guest: i would say it's in severe danger, but i have to qualify that i would've said that throughout my entire adult life time. that's of the reasons whyfe i he advocated freedom of speech and oppose censorship throughout my entire adult career. >> host: nadine strossen has been our guest for the past two hours.na we want to thank her. also want to thank the viewers for a really interesting, engaged conversation. so thank you very much as well. >> and you've been watching the booktv every sunday on c-span2, watch a nonfiction authors discuss their books. television for serious readers. and watch them all online anytime@booktv.org. you could also find us on twitter, facebook and youtube at booktv.

>> weekends on c-span2 on intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents american stories, and on sundays booktvrings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes on these television companies and more including comcast. >> are you thinking this is just a community center? it's way more than that. comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled lift zones so students from low-income families can get the tools they need t be ready for anything. >> comcast, along with these televisionompanies, supports c-span2 as a public service. >> starting out it's an extra 24 hours of american history tv this holiday weekend. here are some of the programs you will see today. we will show you a discussion on the white house and presidency in the context of popular culture.