use interest and influence abroad in that era. at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history market university political science professor on the life and presidency of jimmy carter. at 9:30 a luncheon remembering first ladies pat nixon and betty ford who served back-to-back terms in the white house from 1969-1977 posted by the gerald r. ford posted by the gerald r. ford presidential foundation. speakers include this is nixon son-in-law and mrs. ford's daughter. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history. >> host: author of nadine strossen the last time i i sau was at 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? >> guest: first of all, peter, i do not only preach to the choir. that would be a waste of my time. i speak to just about anybody, that is anybody who's interested and open-minded to hear my civil libertarian perspectives. i i put the emphasis on that phrase because there's aha lot f overlap between civil t libertarians and libertarians. but if people think that there at the civil liberties, i would love have the opportunity to persuade them that's not the case. >> host: you were also a board member of the foundation for individual rights and expression which is what? >> guest: i am a senior fellow of fire, which until recently the acronym stood for the foundation for individual rights in education. but a little bit more than a

year ago fire, recognizing that the speech suppressive atmosphere that unfortunately was becoming too pervasive on college campuses was spreading to our larger society, it received a lot of support and encouragement to expand itsit activities supporting free speech be on the campus. so kept the same acronym but it now stands for as you noted the foundation for individual rights and expression. and i became one of its first two senior fellows. >> host: how did free speech get embedded in our constitution, what's its history? >> guest: the history of free speech is actually predates not only the constitution but the revolution. it's a wonderful history has been written by steve solomon who is a professor at nyu, about how the very vigorous experience

of dissent through all forms of expression, not only speech and publications but also famously the boston tea party and liberty polls and demonstrations, that that was embedded in the whole concept of rebelling and becoming an independent country. so even before the way to constitution or a bill of rights thatat expressly protected these freedoms, peter, they were completely ingrained in our national culture, our national sense of self identity. indeed, the united states could not have existed without the most robust freedom of speech and dissent. >> host: at what pointnt in your career or your life did free speech become the work of your books, the aclu, et cetera, et cetera? >> guest: certainly come a long before i even had ability to write. i really had an innate sense of the importance of individual

expression. and the more i read, peter, the more i see this as being innate in humans. use examples from around the world throughout history. that it starts i think as our sense of self exploration, who am i? what is the essence of my beliefs and of my identity? and i know i started asking those questions when i was just at the very beginning of my educational career these of the kindergarten my parents. so i was very thrilled with the third there are actual legal protections for what seemed to me instinctively, intuitively should be a fundamental human right. >> host: in your most recent book free speech what everyone needs to know, you look at free speech and the supreme court and your five criteria that you talk about. content and topic, medium, place, speaker, and type of

regulation. walk us through some of these legal issues involving free speech. >> guest: short. the united states supreme court, first of all i think it's really important to note the court did that become protective of free speech until the second half of the 20th century. for 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, who were protestingg government policy were regularly subject to censorship. that certainly continue through the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. and no coincidence, peter, the famous warren court under the leadership of chief justice earl warren, which was very protective of, civil rights also begin 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. so our free speech jurisprudence is relatively new. it is very fact specific because the first amendment contained an appropriately general standard, congress are covered, shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech. well, that's not absolute because not every restriction is an abridgment and that every abridgment is unjustified. soso the court has developed abt five criteria that it regularly takes into account to evaluate whether any particular speech restriction is constitutionally justified or not. if i could pause, peter, it's 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 made an immediate and many students and faculty members, and this distorted caricatured version of free speech in their heads when they say oh, it's ridiculously absolute and no the exception never be made, and you free speech champions even denied that speech can cause harm. no, no, no. the jurisprudence sensibly says that the speech that is the most dangerous may and shouldd be restricted. but the censorship that is the most dangerous should also be restricted. youso the criteria mentioned are ones that are regularly taken into account in determining the appropriateness of the particular restriction. medium you mentioned that's 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 athe that time. sense of then comee every time there's been a new medium, the supreme court has examined be subject tould the same speech protection thatt the press tradition has received. most recently we are going through those debates about online communications in general. we've many important cases before the supreme court now about social media ine particu particular. >> host: when du expect this case it to come before the supreme court? or to be heard? >> guest: the supreme court actually already heard a couple arguments in these cases on the very first day of its current session. these are hard cases so they're not likely to be decided until close to the end of the courts term next summer. >> host: speaker, what is speaker important when it comes to free speech and the supreme court? >> guest: it could not be taken for granted a that whoever

is speaking, whatever individual or group, as a free-speech right.ua .. he 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 abou >> the supreme court decisions recognizing that for-profit as well as not for profit corporations have free speech rights and that's one of the reasons why people are so irritated by the supreme court's controversial decision in the citizen's united case, but peter, i have to tell you that decision was not controversial at all. they disagreed about other actions in the case whether

they were justified, but all of them agreed that we people not only who have freedom of speech individually, but freedom of association and the right to form organizations that will amplify our individual speech for more than 100 years, the court has agreed that corporations have free speech rights. >> host: so, nadine, do you agree with the supreme court case? >> i agree with some of it, some of the regulations i might disagree with, the two public points that received the most controversial the court was right. number one, we the people have the right to organize in corporate form for purposes of engaging in speech, and number two, that spending money to advocate for political causes or to advocate for or against the election of a candidate is

a form of expression or more precisely, a restriction on the amount of money that you can spend to advance those messages is a restriction on free speech rights. >> nadine strossen, it was back in the late 1918-- or 1910's, i believe so, that oliver wendell holmes used the phrase, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. of course the supreme court justice at the time. >> guest: peter, i'm frowning because, well, i'm actually smiling because you give me a great opportunity in paraphrasing that statement, you do what 99.99% of people do, which is to misparaphrase it, you left out an important word and once i was on a panel a few years ago with then justice stephen breyer and he did the same thing, you're in good company and he's in good company.

what holmes said you may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater and that really gets to the essence of the justification for restricting speech. because if the theater is on fire, you want people to shout it in that context, the speech is life saving and so it should be protected so that gets to the point that 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 and that crucial word makes a big difference, right. >> host: should speech be more restricted during sometimes of national emergency. >> guest: no, exactly the contrary and let me cite a recent decision on point. it came from a federal district court that ruled favorably on the aclu, the american civil liberties union challenge, a

puerto rican passed during at the beginning of the pandemic. aclu immediately brought a lawsuit challenging it, representing two prominent members of your profession, two investigative journalists who said especially during a time of national crisis, whether it be a terrorism attack or virus attack, it's especially important for people to have access to information in the chaos, the fog of war, the, you know, the controversies and lack of precise information and details about what's causing this virus. it's especially important for reporters to be uninhibited in doing their best to pursue the truth, but as these respective reporters said, even the most conscientious journalists in those circumstances is sometimes going to get it wrong and the judge in granting our request that the law be struck down is violating the first amendment, made that point very strongly. he said, it is especially important when we're facing a

national security threat, including a public health threat, that freedom of speech be the least inhibited. people have the right, of course, to disagree and to debate and have alternative perspectives, but governor should not be the arbiter of truth. that would be bad not only for individual liberty, but also for public health ultimately. >> host: nadine strossen served as president of the aclu, american civil liberties union '91 to 2001. and still involved with aclu? >> yes, i'm on the nationally advisory board and stay in regular contact with the national leaders. >> host: i think we're going to tick some people off, two examples a recent press reless by the aclu saying they submitted a motion for leave to file an amicus brief arguing that an overly broad gag order imposed on donald trump by the

judge in one of his court cases, you were supportive of former president trump's ability to speak and i'm going to read from your first book in defense of pornography. we are as committed as any other feminists to eradicating violence and discrimination against women, but we believe that suppressing sexual words and images will not advance these crucial causes. tohe contrary, we're convinced that censoring sexual expression will do more harm than gd to women's safety and oppose sexual speech not only becaus it would violate our cherished first amendment freedoms, but because it would undermine our equality, our status, our dignity and own autonomy. >> and not only for me, we, the

plural, on behalf of a group of women formed an organization called feminists for free expression. we were taking a different perspective from one that was very dominant among feminists in the late 1980's and 1990's, the assumption there is an inherent conflict between women's rights or sexual expression or pornography on the other hand. if you support women's safety, dignity and equality, which i certainly do, i've been a lifelong feminist, that somehow you must also support censorship by this stigmatizing term pornography. the women's right project founded by ruth bader ginsburg, we argued the opposite based on

experience. if you give the government power to censor sexual expression, that power is predictbly going to be used disproportionately to silence expression that is especially important for women and advocates are women's rights and we see that to this day, peter. your timely referring to my book that was published in 1995. the full total is "defending pornography, free speech, sex and the fight for women's rights", a lot of important information in the subtitle, the publisher was trying to be provocative with the name there. and earlier this year, nyu got in touch with me and asked me to republish this book as part of the nyu classic series, and asked me to write a new preface because there had been 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 plus individuals, seeking to remove them from public libraries, from school libraries and from curricula. let us not forget if we empower the majority under that rubric to go after sexual expression, that's unpopular, it is really going to include and endanger a lot of expression that's especially important not only for advocates of lgbtq rights, but also i would call right to

freedoms, contraception, gender equality. >> host: and has social media added a new and complex layer to free speech? >> yes, for many reasons, peter. let me start with this. every time there's a communications medium, as far as the printing press. those of us who support free speech and human rights very excited. it's a wonderful opportunity for people to have more information will more subjects and participate in more states, but those who have a more, let's say, authoritarian or communetarian, giving power to individuals and there's more control. every time we have a new medium, government responds by trying to suppress that medium and that definitely happened with the whole online medium back in the 1990's when the

internet first became widely known to the public and politicians and the press and scientists have 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 decision, reno, as in janet reno, bill clinton attorney general, versus aclu and 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, say, for the traditional print medium and i was so thrilled that 9-0, the justices

unanimously agreed with the aclu, that online expression should be subject to the highest level of first amendment protection. and peter, this gives me an opportunity to make a 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's also the right of individuals to choose what to listen to and what not to listen to. so, if we suppress speech on a new medium, such as social media, that's impacting not only the speech rights of the medium owner itself, the platform itself, of the speakers who want access to the platform, but also, all the rest of us who want to hear what that speaker has to say. and that's why you mentioned the donald trump case.

i'm 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's the reality, and that's 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. >> but nadine strossen, facebook, x, google, private companies, you cite an example in your book "hate" that in 2018 facebook blocked a post containing passages of the declaration of independence that referred to merciless indian savages. doesn't facebook have that right? >> yes, what you're talking

about is an important distinction with a legal right and whether something is right as a matter of morality or public policy. my book "hate", the subtitle, why we should resist it with free speech not censorship. i oppose government suppression of hate speech, but i urge everybody to exercise self-restraint and not engage in hate speech themselves, and not listen to or be supportive of hateful messages that other people are issuing. i defend the right of these platforms. by the way, as i defend the right of newspapers and for ma matter, c-span to make determinations how to -- you know, who should have access and who should not have access to very important platforms, but i also disagree with particular judgments that are made in the exercise of that power and would like to

persuade these companies to be more speech friendly. >> one quote from "hate", nothing strengthens hate groups more than censoring them, turns them into free speech martyrs. free speech is the source of humanity and the mother of truth. >> and i'm quoting there, 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 there what would be protected free speech rights here. and so i think it is one thing to say we absolutely deplore ideas that are hateful or ideas that are suppressive of women's equality or we may dislike some of donald trump's ideas, to use some of your examples, but you

may think that you are suppressing those ideas by suppressing speech, but you're kidding yourself because throughout history to this day, there has been a very widespread phenomenon, sometimes called the forbidden fruits phenomenon. sometimes it's called the streisand effect after a famous example involving barbra streisand. when you try to suppress certain expression, it paradoxically draws people's attention to the expression and leaves more of them to view it or to listen to it than otherwise would have happened. barbra streisand, many years ago, there were some online photographs of one of her beach front properties and she tried to have it suppressed and suddenly, interest in viewing the photographs enormously spiked. unfortunately, we can look at what to me is a paradigmatic

example suppression of hateful speech that back fired. it was in germany from 1918 to 1933 when hitler was rising to power, the republic had many laws against hate speech which is very 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 and the virulent publication was horrible, anti-semitic tropes and cartoons. and the publisher of that was prosecuted many times ap received criminal convictions, sadly, we know that this did not suppress the rise of nazi ideology, conversely, the nazis loved these trials because they became propaganda platforms thr them to spew their hateful

attention and sympathy that they never would have. >> host: for tha position, let me quote from "hate." no matter who we ares individuals and no matter to which societal group we belong, we must the capacity of hateful discriminatory words that target us becoming more sensitive to such words that target others. is that a call for censorship? >> not at all, peter. this is a call for recognizing na even if we had very school district censorship as many countries do, ideas are always going to find a way to express themselves. the hateful ideas will migrate from one social media platform to another. people also come up with, and this is very true on the internet, with different memes, more subtle ways of expressing

the very same hateful ideas so you're never going to suppress the controversial, potentially problematic harmful speech completely. therefore, it's like any prohibition strategy, you can't completely eliminate the supply. so you have to work on the demand side. try to encourage people to not seek out that hateful or disinformation expression and if they are exposed to it, to reject it, to not allow it, to tear them down if it's affecting their dignity. i put my money where my mouth is. there's been anti-semitic speech virulent, and i wrote

and one of my friend said it must be very hard for you as a jewish person whose father was a holocaust survivor and many of my relatives were murdered, and it's not hard. knowing the history, i'm convinced no matter how well-intended censoring anti-semitic and hate speech, it's doomed to fail. the only form of resisting the actions is by going after the ideas which you do through education, and going after the action which you do through enforcing the criminal law. in the republic, the nazis literally not away with murder not sufficiently punished for violent attacks and here in the united states, i think we have many reports of assaults and threats against jewish students and others recently that have not sufficiently been punished.

>> what do you say to the jewish students who are feeling threatened or have been assaulted because of the issue going on in gaza and israel? >> as i said earlier, peter, freedom of speech is not at all absolute. first of all, an actual assault for a physical attack, it's completely illegal and must be punished to the full extent of the law, but even expression that constitutes what the court call a true threat or a genuine threat should be punished. it's not constitutionally protected and here is how the supreme court has sensibly defined a true threat. it's narrower than the general way we use threat in every day speech. when an individual or a group of individuals intends to instill a reasonable fear subject to attack, that's a

punishable true threat and this is important, peter, the speaker does not have to intend to carry out the attack. it's enough that the target reasonably fears being subject to attack because that already inhibits that person's freedom of movement and we've read many accounts of jewish students not only being physically assaulted, including one such really disturbing account at my alma mater, harvard, which must be investigated and if the accounts are accurate, must be punishment, but we've also read many accounts of language that meets that or at least 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. that, i believe, and more importantly, the fbi, and other law enforcement agencies agreed satisfied the standard for a true threat, sufficient to arrest the student and subject him to criminal prosecution. >> host: another issue, nadine strossen, we've read reports of law schools, pulling offers to student who have signed onto the anti-israel letter. these students were expressing their free speech and now they're being punished professionally. >> 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 free speech right to engage in the most obnoxious controversial viewpoints as long as they don't cross the line to targeted threats or targeted harassment, some other kind of unprotected speech. number two, employers have no obligation to hire any particular individual. under federal law. that said there, i should note that there are some state and local laws that to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of political belief, so i would advise all employees to make sure that they are acting consistent with state and local laws, but 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 and what that is trying to signify, i realize

the term is contested, but the essence of it is this, peter. 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 or employment or academic, that they engage in rampant self-censorship, not daring to express their views on certain hot spot topics. unfortunately, circumstances continue 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 and certainly the october 7th attacks and you know, the political situation in the middle east more generally, are very important topics so i would urge employers to exercise some self-restraint with the goal of fostering a free speech culture and let me mention one other point, which is these young people are not fully developed in terms of the portions of their brain that are -- enable us to make judgments to such an extent that the united states supreme court has actually held that imposing the death penalty and other harsh penalties on minors is unconstitutional. now, college students aren't minors, but evidence indicates that many of them are not yet

fully formed, thoughtful individuals so i believe in a more merciful, hopeful, restorative justice kind of approach. you know, that's a term that we've heard supported by politicians across the ideological spectrum saying we've been too punitive in our society and that does not do any good in terms of likely rehabilitation and constructive reintegration into society. so even people who have committed homicides are not being offered restorative justice approaches. it seems to me that people advocating violence, especially when they're so young, maybe we should earn favor of giving them another chance, but that's not a matter of first amendment rights. >> that's just a matter of what is the right thing to do for society as a whole. >> host: and you mentioned cancel culture, which is a topic that you address in your newest book, free speech, what

everyone needs to know and good afternoon to you, thank you for joining us for this book tv 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", why we should resist it with free speech not censorship came out and we've talked a little about her first book "defending pornography", free speech, sex and the fight for women's rights, which came out in 1995 which is being reissued next year, i believe you said. >> guest: yes. >> host: by nyu prep. 202-748-8200. if you live in the east and central time zones, 748-8201. for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones. if you can't get through, text

202-748-8903, that's for text messages only. please include your first name and your city, if you would. at some point we'll scroll through our social media sites. if you'd like to joinen make a comment that way, you can do so. now, nadine strossen, you mention that your father was captured or taken prisoner during the holocaust. tell us about your parents. >> guest: yes, my father-- i'm so proud of him, peter. he was not just a holocaust survivor, he was an opponent of the nazi regime both before he was imprisoned and after he was liberated by americans. let me say a word about that because-- he was what under the pernicious racist nuremberg law was called a half jew or a jew

of the second degree. his father was quote, aryan and his mother was jewish and i admire my paternal grandfather who has under so much pressure to divorce his wife and bravely stood by her under an enormous amount of economic and political and other pressure. when my father was imprisoned it was not only for the crime of being a half jew, but also because of his anti-nazi political activities and for that, double discriminatory factor, he was slated to be sterilized, the nazis had a program not only of genocide, but of u. eugenocide. one day before he would have been sterilized he was liberated by americans. and by the way, i recently learned from one of my uncle

the individual member of the military who dug my father out, apparently there was a position, was black and that gives me chills, and thank god we didn't have death camps, but we had jim crow, and this brave man who liberated my father was subjected to enormous discrimination back home. so all of this feeds into my passion for human rights, as does the story on my mother's side. her family, her father in particular, was an immigrant to the united states from what is now croatia in the earlier 20th century. he was a passivist and conscientious objective for world war i, for the crime of objecting to the united states war policy and refusing to serve himself, he was sentenced

by a court in hudson county, new jersey where he lived, to stand outside the courthouse with his hands and feet splayed against the courthouse wall so passersby could spit on him. >> free speech was an issue during world war i, wasn't it? >> 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 and the prime focus defending free speech rights of thousands of individuals who were imprisoned simply for peaceful opposition of the war. unfortunately didn't get this in time in assist my grandfather, but wonderful poetic justice i've been active in that organization all my

life. >> host: and law school, harvard. new york professor to this day? >> i took emeritus status, and despite loving my students, and got feedback from them, but i started to see the illiberal attacks were so rampant, i spent my time writing more broadly about freedom of speech, civil discourse more important than teaching my students other aspects of constitutional law and doing about 200 presentations per year since then and 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 at last month and is on public tv

around the country and also available on youtube, free to speak. >> host: given the topics you've talked about and we've talked about today what is the biggest critique? >> the biggest critique, i've alluded to it, that i would absolutely support free speech to the detriment of other values and thank you for giving me an opportunity to reinforce why that is, with all due respect, 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 international human rights movement. and i remain absolutely convinced, peter, that without the most robust freedom of speech, including freedom to engage in speech that's seen as controversial, harmful and dangerous, without that we are

never going to make progress on any other human rights. 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 policy that seeks to reform and challenge the status quo. and that's why, throughout most of u.s. history, before the supreme court began to strongly enforce free speech, during the civil rights movement, not coincidentally, in 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 anti-war speech, passivist speech, socialist speech, lgbtq

speech, basically all speech advocating for, in my view, bringing to reality the ideals that were set forth in the declaration of independence, that free and full and equal rights for all of us. >> host: and i believe, and tell me if i'm wrong, margaret sanger's original brochure or pamphlet was outlawed advocating abortion rights? >> even at that point she was advocating information to women about reproduction, and contraceptive methodology and she was subject to prosecution and imprisonment, one of the aclu's original clients and she was also prevented from speaking on campus, which is very interesting because today, it would be somebody probably who's opposing what i would call reproductive freedom, but they would call murder on

college campuses that are likely to be sensored. so, again, if we want to have freedom for the speech that we agree with, we have to be willing to give freedom to speech that we disagree with, or our own speech is going to be endangered. >> i want to quote from an article you wrote for tablet magazine in 2022. because many campus communities skew overwhelmingly liberal or progressive and because progressive views td to disproportionately dominate fields that favor workers with academic agre, lf-censorship is particularly acute among nonprogressives, conservatives, libertians, moderates, the politically indifferent and old style liberals. many left-leaning members of campus communities, explicitly admit or both that they would deny employment or other professional opportunities to academics with conservative

views about public policy issues. >> yes, and this is a pattern that continues to be documented, the most recent in depth survey that i'm familiar with came out a few weeks ago from fire and college pulse, it was a very detailed survey of examination of 248 campuses, which showed that self-censorship is rampant among students and faculty members alike. peter, in every context, including classes, extracurricular activities, conversations between faculty members and students and interestingly enough, the self-censorship does come even on the part of those on the left end of the political spectrum, but not at the extreme left end of the political spectrum. that said, the fire survey also underscored, as have other data, that a lot of censorship efforts are connelling coming

from the right. and those are executive laws and legislation, and some of rationals that 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 and usually that meant a speech about issues of race or gender that were not sufficiently progressive. and conservatives would make fun of that nomenclature, mock liberal or progressive snowflakes and yet we've seen the laws passed by mostly conservative state legislator around the country that outlaw expression about race or gender that makes people uncomfortable or divisive, and they're target the 1619 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 that we agree with, we have to mutually defend the same principles that are also, in some circumstances, going to protect speech that we disagree with. the fact that speech may make you uncomfortable or divisive is not a reason for sensoring the speech either directly through government legislation or censorship through cancel culture, it's a reason for responding to that speech and developing resiliency so it doesn't, in fact, have a negative impact on us, but it's not justification for suppression. >> well, it was in 1988 that the term aclu played on a large stage and became part of america's lexicon. let's listen. >> he is the one that said that, not me and i am the one

that proudly says i am not a card carrying member of the aclu. [cheers and applause] >> i don't want to take away the tax exemption from our churches. i do not believe that child pornography should be legalized at distribution and i do believe that in god we trust ought to stay on our currency, i do believe in one nation under god. [cheers and applause] we believe in free speech. we believe in tolerance, but i have a-- i think i have a right to ask this question does he respect aclu so much, will he take their advice when it comes to appointing justices for the supreme court of the united states. i'd like --. >> nadine strossen, what was the effect of george h.w. bush

using the aclu as a beating, beating post at that time? >> 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 and interestingly enough, that the conclusion of -- there was a movie that was made about this, "the american president" that lionized the candidate who said i am a proud card carrying member of aclu and he actually gave a speech we wish that michael dukakis said in real life, that i am a member of this organization and defends all fundamental freedoms for all people no matter who you are and what you believe. the question is why aren't you a member of the aclu and our membership numbers shot up, but sadly, peter, this shows that 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 that it's always under siege and to quote a phrase from thomas jefferson, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. >> host: have your political views altered in the last couple of decades? you work now with the foundation for individual rights and expression. you were at freedom fest? >> my political views have more or less been centrist liberal throughout my entire 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, peter, where i continue to believe that, again, no matter who you are, no matter what you believe, you're entitled to those freedoms and these basic rights and i will defend them for you. the organizations that i've been active with are

organizations that are neutrally committed to the defense of those principles and have undertaken to actually defend them on behalf of, you know, the immediate beneficiaries, widely vary in terms of their political beliefs, but the ultimate beneficiaries are every single one of us. you know, when freedom of speech is defended for the nazis as a.c.l.u. famously did in 19-- the late 1970's in the case coming out of skokie, illinois which had a large jewish population, many of whom were holocaust survivors. the positions that we took in that case rebounded to the benefit of anti-nazi, pro civil rights demonstrators here in washington d.c. let me stress that the lead aclu counsel in that case was

eleanor holmes norton now the long time representative in the district of columbia, she was a new young staff lawyer in the aclu. and i saw an interview she gave less than a year ago on this topic, saying she's so proud of having defended freedom of speech and the case wasn't the skokie case i'm thinking about, it was a case called brandenburg versus ohio, the same principle involved. brandenburg was a leader of the kkk another racist organization, and she said the particular case would be a nazi, the important beneficiary would be her colleagues in the aclu and other coordinating committees and other civil rights organizations. >> host: let's take some calls and begin with carl in chicago. please go ahead, you're on with author nadine strossen.

>> caller: yes, hello. what is your take on the -- how polarization and the social media and the intervention of moneyed interest in political dialog are undermining free speech, in the recent book short life and death of free speech. >> host: before she answers that, carl. what's your take? >> oh, i've been a-- over 65-year member of the aclu. i'm a big free speech advocate. i agree with it. >> host: thank you, sir, for calling in. nadine strossen. >> guest: carl, thank you for that. elliss is a colleague and friend of mine. the first, i think so far the only writer in residence at the aclu and he's very prolific shortly before the book that you cite, he wrote a book the history of the aclu. the point that elliss makes, i

think, is a very important one which is that freedom of speech depends on a robust speech protected 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 and so, beyond the legal protection, we need to do other things, which is to make sure that everybody has the necessary educational, financial, and technological resources to meaningfully exercise free speech. and this is one of the reasons why 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 expensive broadcast media to disseminate your political message. and we look at movement such as the black lives matter movement or the #metoo movement. and social media came along and made it faster to reach a larger audience. >> host: jim is in california. good afternoon. >> caller: hello, thank you very much. a terrific discussion, really wonderful discussion on free speech. >> guest: thank you, jim. >> caller: my question is a little off what is talked about, 14th amendment cases saying former president trump should not be allowed to be on the ballot because of the insurrection or rebellion clause in section three and four of the amendment. and as i read that, it seems to

me very clear that what they're talking about in the use of those words, is the civil war not anything that has happened subsequently or would happen subsequently. but they didn't use the term civil war because that was not a word in use or a term in use in 1868, but that if you put in the term civil war instead of insurrection, the whole argument would fail. i'm a retired attorney and seems to me absurd argument. i'd be interested in your position and the aclu position. >> host: thank you, jim, for calling in. >> guest: thank you so much, jim. i don't know if the aclu has a position on this. i'm not involved in its day-to-day activities anymore. i can tell you that i do not have a firm position because i recognize that i have been so focused on just a huge and proliferating number of free speech issues it's all that i can do to try to keep on top of

those. on this issue i do know enough to know it's extremely complicated, that it has been subject to enormous debate and disagreement, including among people who often disagree with each other and that some experts have recently reexamined and revised their positions on what the pieces that i have read about it, one that was intuitively appealing to me and again, i'm not saying i've reached a final conclusion, but written by michael mcconnell, who is a very respected conservative law professor at stanford, and he said we should go easy here, recognizing that the impact of the interpretation that would disqualify somebody from the ballot is deeply threatening to democratic values, at least potentially, that we should perhaps err in favor when there's a debatable

interpretation of interpreting the disqualification narrowly because what is involved is, again, this goes back to a point i made about free speech, it's not only the right of the speaker, but the audience. not only would that mean that donald trump would be deprived the opportunity to run for president and 50% of the public that seems to support him would be disenfranchised, deprived of the opportunity to vote for him. again, i haven't -- i don't have the expertise to give you a definitive conclusion, but that would be a big question and a big concern that i would have. >> host: nadine strossen was born in jersey city. how did you end up raised in the twin city area. >> guest: my father was working for a company. >> host: 3m? >> originally for

archer-daniels-midland company and in minneapolis. they transferred him to minneapolis and they were overtaken or that division was overtaken to ash land doyle and he was transferred and i have midwestern roots as we say there. >> host: the next caller. >> caller: i missed that part, that's interesting. and i have two things that i have thought, one is i think they're both relevant to the subject of your book and free speech. my first is my favorite tag line these days that euphemism is the enemy of the people. we cannot talk freely about things openly, directly, and i think this is kind of along what you're saying about

self-censorship, that we are inclined to use nice words rather than direct, true words. the other thing that i think about with regard to free speech and communications, between people who particularly disagree i don't understand is i think hate speech is almost all --. >> host: hate speech is what. >> caller: fear. >> host: fear speech. >> caller: yeah. so if you agree or disagree with that notion in my head, but if you have any agreement with it, how does the perspective that we take, readers of are your book, the general public, how does the perspective, well, they're talking hate speech versus they're talking fear speech, you know, coming from hate, they're coming from fear. how does that perspective

influence response and the opportunity forwards communication. >> host: julie, thank you for calling in. >> guest: julie, those are great points. so let me start with the first one, 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 that is more likely to make them receptive to our ideas. as a lawyer i would say that that is 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's a horse of a different color. we should never censor ideas not only as a matter of self-expression, but also, because that's the life blood of democratic discourse. i think so much of george orwell's dystopian novel, "1984" and remember the language new speak which was eliminating words that conveyed controversial ideas, with the specific goal of suppressing the idea. and the united states supreme court said, in a famous case involving a four-letter word that i still-- i'm not allowed to say on broadcast tv, i probably can on c-span, well, no, i can't. >> host: you can but-- >> i won't. >> host: thank you. we are on the radio right now. >> guest: okay, protection. the supreme court said make no mistake about it, you cannot

eliminate a particular word without also altering or eliminating the particular idea. hear that. so, your second point-- >> fear speech. >> guest: fear speech is hate speech. i think you're getting to one of the reasons where i say if what you're trying to eliminate, and i believe it is, is not the speech itself, but the underlying attitude, you're very astutely trying to figure out what is the attitude, what is causing that person to voice, to harbor and then voice hateful ideas and a lot of historical anthropological, cultural, psychological, sociological evidence does indicate that what is most likely to lead people to other, other groups of people, to discriminate against them, 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 the right 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. so, if we are effectively to deamplify 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're 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: nadine strossen, julie's call reminded me about barnhard professor jonathan rider. what's the case. >> guest: yes, 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 even going to use the euphemism for that epithet because a law professor has been punished for even using the euphemism. so, i have a right to say it, but i'm not going to be foolhardy and endanger my career and my status as an accepted human being, but even when you have a strong

pedigogical person, he was teaching about rap and this is a common aspect of the lyrics and culture indicates when it's used by those performers from their communities, it doesn't have the stigmatiing impact that it can if it's used by a racist sheriff against a black person. but there is just such a -- and let me say, i do not at all defend the use ever any epithet in any stigmatizing or insulting way, but i just wish that we could be a little bit more discriminating. so, for example, in my field, martin luther king wrote a historic letter from the birmingham jail i considered to be one of the most clarion calls for full and equal human rights for everybody, including

black americans, in that he 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. ... r to their students because of the use of that word. i think that, you know, to decontextualized what was the speaker intending -- decontextualize what was the speaker intending? huckleberry finn, another great example where i think that was one of the most powerful indictments of slavery powerful indictment of slavery and of racism that has ever been written. and the use of that term was to underscore the antiracism, anti-slavery message and yet it's treated as if is coming out of the mouth of the what's the premises. i think 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's good for human rights and equal

rights for blacks andan other racial minorities. >> host: next call broward county, florida. >> caller: hello. you mentioned education few times. i wonder this could be talked even in kindergarten. these are basic human issues. you mentioned education and if you are not educated then you don't have the freedom of thought. you don't even have the ability to think like you said. i think your exact phrase was meaningful exercise. the ability to meaningful exercise free speech. you need biology to be traumatized. you need culture. well think of that guy who didn't do the nazi salute who stood in the sea of others who were doing the sleep you to mention the great example of that, in god we trust on all of our money which significantly affects our freedom to think in

ways we are not aware of. even better example as far as truth and relativism is the fact our entire education system, all the think tanks, our economy is based on a false perception of evolution. so there is a here. evolution very clear he says it's not a synonym for competition. and yet and education is a good example, we make it a competition where we guarantee 30% are going to be able to instead what we do in our homes. the kid takes up the garbage we don't give him a b for taking 80%. we have an expectation of 100%. i expect every kid to get 100% on every test. all my kids got a's in science class. here's an example of where were not even -- >> host: we have to leave it there. let's get a response from our guest. >> guest: you have made many points. let me start with the first one

which has been a theme for your other comments, if thatou is the importances of rigorous educatn that is not indoctrinating but from the earliest educational levels is stimulating critical inquiry, special important insights this where you taught but also incredibly important in the literature, in humanities and social sciences that we have to educate our students to ask questions, to do research, to be exposed to and be able to articulate different perspectives. let me tell you the mantra that it used my law students but i don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply all the way down k-12 as well. and that is, i wanted my students to be able to understand, articulate and advocate all possiblela perspectives on all issues.

that means anything that can be supported by evidence, by analysis, by reason. no unsubstantiated conclusory remarks, certainly no ad hominem arguments that are based on liking or disliking particular people. ultimately that is going to get down i went to individual freedom but also to our democracy, a healthy democracy. >> host: nadine strossen, let's follow up that question with this text message from eric in warren michigan. what does the dean think about the rightss of parents in their children's elementary schools, especially concerning drag queens, pornography and reading material? >> guest: let me start with the general question first, eric, and that is that the public schools are a microcosm of our democracy. local government in action when we basically give it our

democratic republic majorities have the right and any community have the power to elect government officials who are to them.le and that the school board, the local school board, the board of education is certainly a paradigm of local grassroots democracy in action. that said, the bill of rights was added to the constitution to make it especially clear that we are not a pure democracy. our framers widely recognized that there are some rights that are so important that no majority should have the power to take them away from any minority to matter how small or despise that minority might be. the u.s. supreme court has said balancing these concerns on one hand most decisions get to be made by the local school board but on the other hand, if a decision about a curricular matter or school library matter sharply and directly implicates

freedom of speech, then freedom of speech trump's that. so, for example, examples of the supreme court case let's assume a school board said we're going to ban all books from the library, the curriculum that are written by members of the democratic party or that are written by blackte people or tht 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 boardho but i would urge as the supreme courtha has that those decisions should be made on the basis of consideration such as educational sustainability -- 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 inaj mind, the lal

pornography has been used for a wide range of very educationally suitable material, including we'll talk about the holocaust, the award-winning graphic novel mouse, because one about the holocaust which one frame shows a woman whoam was partially nude with her breaths exposed. now, i think the book might not be age appropriate for other reasons until you get into later grades but i think to say that that is pornographic and should be banned on background, is not justifiable. >> host: your first book was called defending pornography, free-s speech, sex and the fight for women's rights. it is being reissued as a classic by nyu press next year. stephen indiana texas, i understand certain types of pornography can be restricted if

it relates to living persons. can pornography that does not relate to living persons but which is generated by artificial intelligence be restricted? interesting take. >> guest: steve, i assume that what you are referring to is what is sometimes referred to as revenge pornography, which is when any sexually explicit image or naked image of a person is disseminated without that persons express permission.ha that that is a violation of individual privacy. i am not an expert in this area but i would 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 though i think it should nots, be an absolute prohibition.

we would have to look at countervailing considerations. so i can think of many artistic nude representations that have occurred in film, famous films. i don't think that that should be presumably, that was subject to consentnt so that's not a god example. let's consider on by fact basis, and i would not categorically draw a distinction on basis of living or dead. >> host: artificial intelligence is and will be a major part of our life, and communications professor dwight ellis of louis state university as you know professor aldis. >> guest: yes, his question to you, what challenges do you see in the regulation or management ofof free speech during this age of artificial intelligence where counter speech may bee a difficult defense to harmful hate speech? >> guest: artificial

intelligence is deathly going to 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 that julie for minneapolis questioned about. it can help us to identify people who have hateful ideas that are based in fear and to craft messages, educational and persuasive messages, that are likely to dissuade them from this attitudes much more than censorship is. let's look at the potential and emphasize the potential positive and do our best to harness that. >> host: mike in berkeley, california, thanks are holding. you are on with author nadine strossen. >> caller: i'm interested in the intersection of academic freedom andnd the first amendme,

and morei specifically i would like to have your opinion on the imposition of required dei statements of academic appointment and promotion. >> host: are usually with the university of berkeley? comic i am an emeritus with the university. >> host: idols are a couple of in the last couple of years i think both ben shapiro and ann coulter have been prevented and/or protested from speaking at uc berkeley. what's your take on that? >> caller: are you asking mine or hers? >> host: i'm asking you, i was very embarrassed being an alumni. i used to be a lawyer so i have an interest and concern about what's going on there. there are a lot, there is a lot of self-censorship and do a lot ofp issues of impositions of

students try to keep t other students from speaking, son pretty much in favor of a full panoply of first amendment rights on campus and so some what's going on there i think it's very embarrassing. >> host: thank you for calling in. >> guest: thank you so much for your support for free speech and academic freedom and for your excellent question, which gives ment never to did make an important point i haven't yet had amp chance to make, which is first amendment freedoms include not only the right to say something that we do want to say but the right not to say something that we don't want to say. that freedom again compelled speech goes all the way back to a very f famous case in the eary 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 to salute the american fight because the supreme court saidus that violad

the freedom of conscious. interestingly enough, the supreme court said that the freedom against being forced to say something that violates your beliefs is even greater than the freedom to say something that is consistent with your abilities because it's more intrusive into individual dignity and freedom of choice or the government to force you to mouth a certain a script. that is the problem with these dei statements that are now mandatory on so many campuses for applying for jobs, for applying for promotions and so forth. and mindd you, i'm not saying i oppose dei goals. that's beside the point. i oppose a mandatory statement on an issue that is subject to deep debates andnd disagreement. to me this is again to the

loyalty oath which we also saw on the university of california and other campuses during the mccarthy cold war era. and now are universally discredited. i think a future generations will look back on these mandatory dei statements and say they are equally repugnant to first amendment freedoms. by theua way, fire has brought a lawsuit challenging the mandatory dei statements at the university of california community college and we brought that on the avenue of the very diverse array of faculty members, many of whom support dei goals but oppose the compulsory statement. >> host: over your shoulder unfortunately is your middle book which is called hate, why we should resist it with free speech not censorship but it sure right over your shoulder and you see the big very dramatic hate in the title there. it was endorsed by both cornel

west and former republican tennessee senator lamar alexander. so you must have been doing something right to get those two voices in that book. >> guest: unfortunately, you know, as i said the l liberal attacks on free speech are coming from both ends of the ideological spectrum, but so support for free speech also comes from all ends of the ideological spectrum. >> host: in your most recent book, free speech, first of all the format. >> guest: the format ish: prescribed by oxford university press, part of the series that oup has been publishing for about 20 years,es the name is trademarked, whatever needs to know. orand the format is russian and answer which was completely congenial to me, peter, because for the last half-dozen or so years i've been giving about 200 public presentations per year, and they are all in this question and answer format such

as we are x simplify today. here the same questions over and over because people have the same concerns. so i've spurred much able to sit down at my laptop and just relive some of the in person q&a experiences i i have had. >> host: you o sent us a code for a discount on this book if people want to buy it, is that correct? >> guest: yes. and i don't know the code. i hope someone can flash it up but it means anybody who buys a book in connection with this author event received a discount of 50%, and that makes the book cost about $13. it's a 30% discount i think, about $13. >> host: i'm guessing we have it on the screen at this point. e

phone line and still want to make a comment, try our text number. we will also scroll through our social media sites in case you want to make a comment that way as well. please go ahead. caller: good day. 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 equality of free speech? host: i think we got your opinion with that second statement so thank you, sir, for calling in. we touched on this at the beginning of the show. guest: it's a really important point and it gives me an opportunity to reinforce something i said earlier which

is, for me, 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 have already talked about including through technological resources such as the online media and social media that mean that you don't have to be a wealthy person to reach potentially every other person in the entire world. that is 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 a 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 did not matter if you were a tiny corporation. it didn't matter if you were a poor corporation. if your goal is to make sure that equal access to speech is available regardless of how many resources the speaker has, that would require a completely different law. as a result -- by the way, 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 that are making disproportionate contributions to elections. i happen to agree with a 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. so i am much more interested, whether we are talking about corporations or whether we are talking about wealthy individuals, my concern is how do we level up to make sure that everybody, you know, every individual and every corporation has an equally meaningful opportunity to participate in the debate. host: today's capacious concept of hate speech is often understood as encompassing the expression of any idea that some students consider objectionable. our safe spaces are good idea -- are safe spaces a good idea? caller: if we are -- guest: if we are talking about safety against physical assaults or true threats, to go back to the topic 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'm going to quote a former president of the university of california who said our job is not to make students -- is to make students safe for ideas, not safe from ideas. in other words, we are going to give students the critical inquiry, habits of mind, the resilience psychologically that they can deal with unpleasant, shocking, offensive, or insulting speech and not let it undermined their sense of dignity and not be persuaded by to adopt persuaded by it. >> lorie smith is a graphic designer. should she have to design a

website promoting grain -- gay marriage? plexus goes back to the question about compelled speech. i think the very same principle applies there as applied to the mandatory di statements. i will say this. if there were a type of service or product that is only available from a few suppliers, than the right of individuals to have equal access to that service should be protected. in the case that you are about, peter, the evidence was uncontested. there were multiple, countless providers of that service, that they did not have to use.

if i could say one other thing, she was making selections, not on the basis of who was seeking the service, but on the basis of what message they wanted to communicate. she does not discriminate on gender identity. she just said, there are certain messages i want to 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. host: but should those websites be allowed to be online and accessible? those pro-nazi, etc. examples? guest: yes. the fact that you have not ideology is the basis for government requiring that social

media platforms remove it. social media platforms have their own first amendment rights in their own editorial capacity to decide that they are not going to host particular messages or speakers. the same way that i have no first amendment right to be an honored cast on this program, no one has a right -- even donald trump did not have the right to be on twitter, even though she was the duly elected president of the u.s., but making that distinction between the law and what is good public policy, given how important these platforms are for political discourse, i would urge those in charge of them to exercise their editorial discretion, in favor of posting platforms and speakers that comply with

principles, even though they do not have to do that, i think it would be very healthy for our democratic discourse to do that. host: steve, from jacksonville, florida, hello. caller: the inequality of voices -- secondly is my point about anonymity of a lot of hate speech. on the internet and i do not think your message really addresses that. generally, what you advocate, while admirable, it ignores the disproportionality of the mass media and it offers no social remedy to the propagation of people and false ideas, other than a hope that even more free speech will lead to good, in the end.

lastly, an economics, the increase of supply of something usually does not lead to counterintuitive, happy result that people will reject it. that is all. have a good day. guest: you make so many excellent points that it is hard to know where to start. let me take what was i think is your most credible point. i look up not because i am always trying to change my ideas. i think that holding that freedom of each is ultimately going to lead to truth is naive. i will also say this. i think it is a matter that censorship is not going to lead to the discovery and establishment of truth. even the concept to which you

allude is so inherently subjective, just the concept of hate speech and pornography is so inherently subjective. one person's hateful speech, one person's misinformation is someone else's cherished and truthful speech. i think what we can predict, not only as a matter of past experience but as a matter of 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 subjected -- subjective determinations in relation to their own judgments with powerful constituencies in their community. therefore, we see the patterns that we continue to see to this

day and around the world, and throughout history, that it is the minority voices, the questioning and critical voices that are the ones that are disproportionately going to be censored that includes those who are economically, relatively well off. it goes to a number of questions that we have received, precisely because i immediately support equality and access to priests each and to other resources. i think that those who are economically disadvantaged also have the most to lose from censorship and the most to gain from free speech. host: one of the things that we do on in-depth is we ask our author what some of their favorite books are and what they are currently reading.

favorite books, les miserables by victor hugo. dr. zhivago, the fountainhead, on liberty by john stuart mill, and she included aote that said, arguably co-thored by harriet taylor. we will geto that in just a second. and bleak house by charles dickens. is there a theme in these books? guest: they were books that i've read at quite a young age, which is why 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. they deeply resonated with me at a young age and continue to inspire me. i know to say that one continues

to appreciate the fountainhead by -- even beyond adolescence, it is quite controversial. i know a lot of people, especially on the liberal end of the drum say, i like her when i was a teenager, but i have outgrown her, but i continue to find themes of individual creativity, individual self-determination, on the part of a strong female protagonist, as well as a male lead character -- i continue to find it very inspiring. i will admit that. host: what you say to those of us who read the first 10 pages, got confused and ran away from the fountainhead? guest: that could well be. i felt that way about moby dick. to each their own.

this is very subjective. but to me, what all of those books have in common is very strong themes that go beyond the particular characters or plot point that transcend the historical context. but also very memorable characters and stories. as i traveled throughout my lifetime, what i am adhering to might be a minor aspect of the overall book, but it continues to exercise influence on my personality, of my quest to do what i can, to urge other people to realize their unique individuality and to apply whatever their talents and abilities are, to advance their

own concept of justice, whatever it might be. host: who was jon stewart and who was harriet taylor? guest: he was a famous utilitarian philosopher where on liberty really stands the test time as the most powerful defense of individual freedom of speech, including against some of the very same, important recurring questions and arguments that some astute viewers have in composing to me. he has a dedication in the book to his wife, harriet taylor, who had died a year before the book was published. it is such an over-the-top acknowledgment, that it reads as if she were a co-authored. he talks about how every word is infused with her influence and

he delayed publishing edit because she was basic and he hoped she would recover enough to review it one more time. i started being curious. with such a strong credit for her, and producing this classic work, why wasn't she treated as a co-author? it turns out that other people have asked that question and some scientists at a university in england have done some algorithmic research. professor ellis had asked about artificial intelligence and this is one of the positive uses of it, that they can analyze language patterns, in order to attribute authorship. the conclusion was, she is, at least a co-author of central aspects of the book. since there are so few female philosophers that have had such a historic role, i think it is

important to at least raise her potential coauthorship, every time i refer to this classic work. host: in just a minute, in case you did not get on the screen, i will meet out the code for a discount on her most recent book , free speech, what everyone needs to know. i will read that in just a minute. we also ask our authors but they are currently reading. here is the list. mr. texas by lawrence tried, seven da o psibilities, one teacher, 24 kids and the music that changed their lives forever . and nothing sacred, outspoken voices in contemporary fiction. let's start with seven days of possibilities.

guest: that is such an amazing book. every time i have an interesting book, i follow it up. this, a reporter for the new york times has written excellent for some of the subjects we have been talking about that canvas free speech. i was reading under one of her recent articles and it mentioned this book. i have the title and it sounded so fascinating, so i ordered the book and it is so inspiring, as an educator. it is about a young woman from finland who grew up in a tiny town and coming off to new york is like the opposite experience. she wants to be a jazz singer that has challenges to that dream come as musicians do. she takes a job as a teacher in

a difficult public school in the bronx, where she uses music as a way to reach out to students who have all kinds of economic and educational and sociological challenges. she instructs them in gospel music and they become a gospel choir. it is an inspiration to lift the students up and to lift them to soaring heights, in terms of individual potential and creative potential. i have not yet finished the book, but i know that she takes a field trip back to finland. as someone who loves music, as someone who is especially concerned with making sure that education, freedom of speech and self-expression through music and other vehicles is equally available to all, i just love this book.

host: the other book, i am not familiar with this one. guest: i actually have an advanced reader copy with me. i recently purchased -- is now available-for-sale is a different cover, but it is something that is so important. this year, as a response to the so-called soft censorship that has been going on in the publishing industry, where there are certain topics that are considered too controversial to deal with. there are certain authors who are not supposed to be the one who appropriately address certain topics because there is cultural appropriation or is -- you are not speaking on behalf of of somebody who -- the character does not mirror your characteristics.

etc. the founders, who are friends and colleagues of mine had this idea. bernard was complaining about this to his wife who was a literature professor -- professor. she said stop complaining. start your own press, and he actually did. the stories, it is a collection of 12 short stories that were published by mainstream presses because of controversial subject matters and perspectives. i've read several stories defined that started by a comedian who had some trouble politically -- for coming -- politically incorrect comedy. he has the audacity to write from the perspective of a gay

man, which he is not. he thinks it to an old story. there was a -- it is absolutely brilliant. all the other stories are delightful, so i cannot recommend that more enthusiastically. host: oxford university press is when you need to go, and the code, in case you did not see it on the screen. what does that stand for? that is the code to use. thank you for molding. please go ahead. caller: i took great comfort in the fact that they are allowed to speak freely and we are allowed to debate them.

it was a very productive encounter, but i am concerned now that they have declared anti-zionism and anti-semitism. it is very confusing, the statement. i would like to know what you think about that and what you think about the fate of the law student body at nyu, who took the palestinian position. host: where you from, originally, can i ask? caller: armenia. guest: it is so interesting. 70 of my colleagues were part of the academic freedom movement and are refugees from repressive governments. they believe that too many americans take free speech for granted because we have never had the experience of censorship.

with respect to zionism, anti-zionism and anti-semitism, i strongly support the freedom of anybody to express views that were anti-zionist wire critical of israeli governmental policies. i defend freedom of speech through an engaging anti-semitic speech, as well as other hate speech. i think we should resist with speech, not censorship. with respect to 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 viewpoints, although they have to make sure it is not violating particular state or local laws. again, i would ask employers, is this the right thing to do in any particular circumstance? i would really air in favor of having the employer -- rather than making a categorical judgment, engage in conversation with each individual student. some of the students say that they were simply members of an organization that signed on to a petition that they did not know that the petition was being signed on their behalf. they did not read or approve it. to penalize them for that relatively needed connections to problematic speech, i think it starts to lead to guilt by association.

you mentioned communism. i will not raise the specter of the mccarthy excess of anti-communism that we had on campuses during the cold war, when people who were even suspected of even being supported of communism in any way were blacklisted and being denied employment opportunities. i think we want, even when we are dealing with young people in the outset of their career, i would air in favor of giving them a second chance and an opportunity to explain, rather than automatically, categorically imposing the equivalent of the professional death penalty on them. host: margaret, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i have a question about a case that i briefly met about in the news about right-wing, religious fanatic, republican supreme court is going to take up. it is -- guest: do you feel strongly about this margaret? >> caller: that said, the first amendment which, you know, there's an intersectionality between the first and second amendment in that case in new york. but i also want to preface this by saying the older i get, i guess i'm 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. >> guest: i'll say. >> caller: also, when my favorite quote is attributed to

samuel johnson, , patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. i kind of give that, i sent with the first amendment, too. i feel a lot of times the first amendment is the last refuge of scoundrels. >> host: we're going to leave it there. we are running out of time. our youth a with a k she's talking about, the intersectionality between the first and second amendment in new york? >> guest: not specifically i'm sorry to say but if i can pick up on the last point, that ties into a point a question you asked earlier, peter. when you look at all of my writings, why am i constantly defending the most controversial speech? pornography and hate speech and 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 center.

and, therefore, if you want to support a robust freedom of speech that's going to be there, even for speech or dislike, you have to defend those principles in the context, even for speech you like, you have to defend those principles in the context where they're going to arise and be challenged, namely when it is scoundrels and pornographers anl hateful speakers, and powerful politicians and rich corporations that are exercising that free speech. if they don't have the same free-speech rights that we have, then we're not going to have those free-speech rights either. >> host: mike, new jersey. [inaudible] >> mike, i'm going to have to hit by you. got to turn down that volume. you can listen to the phone. dan from tacoma, washington, please go ahead. >> caller: so i tuned in lights i don't know if you

covered the idea that when the government tell social media companies that they need to suggest to them that they censor or tag as misinformation this or that, does nadine strossen see that as a violation of the first amendment? >> guest: ray question and one we have not come even though we have covered a lot of ground. as you clearly know but that everybody does the first amendment with its free-speech guarantee only constrains the government. so i have made the point that social media platforms, along with c-span and of the private sector platforms don't have a first amendment obligation that the government would have to post every expression, , every speaker and every idea. however, if the government is, in fact, putting pressure on or conspiring with a private sector actor such that 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. 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. and the kinds of disinformation you're talking about, i put the truman quotes, are completely protected constitutionally so that government cannot directly require the social media platforms to take down that so-called disinformation. an issuerm that is now going toe before the supreme court, lower courts have decided, is that in many cases the government has crossed that line between permitted encouragement, the government is allowed to try to

encourage social media companies to not publish certain information that they consider to be dangerous and misleading, but when it crosses a line from permitted encouragement to prohibited coercion, that creates a first amendment problem. >> host: 2023 nadine strossen, what danger level would you put at for free-speech? >> guest: i would say it's in severe danger, but i have to qualify, peter, i would've said that throughout my entire adult lifetime. that's one of the reasons why i have advocated freedom of speech and oppose censorship throughout my entire adult career. >> host: nadine strossen, our guest for the past two hours. we want to thank her. also what you think the viewers for a really interesting, engage conversation. so thank you very much as well.

>> weekends on c-span2 on intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's stories, and on sundays booktv brings y the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes on the television companies and more including midco. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> midco, along with these television companies, supports c-span2 as a public service. >> today, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates

are traveling across the country and what they're saying to voters. this along with first and accounts of political reporters, updated poll numbers come data and campaign. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail today at seven eastern on c-span online at c-span.org or download as a podcast on c-span are free mobile app or whatever you get your podcast. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> weeknights at nine eastern c-span's encore presentation of our ten part series "books that shaped america." c-span part of with the library of congress which explored key piece of the literature that if a without impact our country. we will feature the common log written by oliver wendell holmes, jr. in 1881. the series of lectures he is given on a criminal and civiw and other legal issues.