>> cable or talk her memoir

everything happens for a reason one being diagnosed with stage iv colon cancer 35 . keys will learn sunday at 8 pm on june day. listen and to all our podcasts on our free. >> often means tossing, last time i saw you was real fastin in memphis in july . people wondering why were residents of the aclu was a carrying invention. why were you there? >> all i do not only preach to the choir. he wasted my time. i speak just about anybody

that is anybody who is interested in open-minded to hear my civil libertarian perspective. emphasis on that phrase because there's a lot of pain civil libertarians if people think that they are antisocial liberties i would love to have the opportunity to persuade them that's not the case. >> you are also a board member of the foundation for individual rights and expression . . >> i am a senior fellow of fire which until recently the princeton for the foundation for individual rights in education but a little bit one year ago fire recognizing the speech's oppressive atmosphere that unfortunately was becoming too pervasive on college campuses was heading for a larger society received

a lot of support and encouragement to expand its activities beyond the campus so it the same but now it stands for foundation for individual rights and expression and i became one of his first two senior fellows . >> how to free speech and thatin our constitution ? >> the history of free speech predates not only the constitution but the evolution and a wonderful history has been by james solomon about how the very vigorous experience of this tends through all forms of expression, not only each and publications but famously the boston tea party aand demonstrations, that was embedded in the whole concept of rebelling and becoming an

independent country. even before there was a constitution or bill of rights that protected these freedoms they were completely integrated in our national culture, national sense of selfidentity . the united states would not have existed without the most robust freedom of speech and this class at one point in your career it's free speech, thework of your book , both the aclu, etc. etc. >> long before i had to write i had an idea of the importance of individual expression and the more i the more i see this as being in a in humans. just to accessible throughout the world it starts i think is our sense of self exploration. i is the essence of my

beliefs of my identity. i know that i started asking those questions when i was just a educational career. basically teachers and parents so i was very real i learned that there are actual legal protections for what seemed to me to basically be in to be a fundamental human right. >> the most recent of free speech, everyone needs to know you look at free speech at the supreme court you have five criteria that you talk about. confidence,, on the ice , speaker and type of regulation. walk us through some of these legal issues resulting from speech? >> the united states supreme court is important to note that court did not become

protective of free speech until the second half of the 20th century . for most of our history they the first amendment with its wonderful radical defense of free speech was on her as a tactical reality especially people who were dissenting, who were protesting government policy were regularly subject to censorship. that continued through the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century and no coincidence, the famous warren court which was very protective of civil rights also can 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 that so our free speechjurisprudence is relatively new . very specific because the first amendment contains a

general center, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. as the absolute because not every restriction is abridgment. not every overseas is unjustified so the courts have about five criteria that it really takes into account whether any particular speech research and is constitutionally justified or not. i boss, is really stress that strong as our free speech protections are it is not absolute. so many contractors of freedom of speech including many college politicians and many in the media and many students and faculty members have this caricature version of free speech when they say

it's ridiculously absolute and no exceptions for me and you free speech champions speech can cause our. the jurisprudence sensibly says that the speech is the most dangerous may and should be respected. but the censorship is the most dangerous should also be respected and so the criteria you mentioned ones are readily taken into account, the appropriateness of these particular restrictions. media you mentioned this is important because the constitution itself only refers to freedom of speech of the press, the press was the only other medium that existed at that time. since then there's been a new medium the supreme court examine whether it should be subject to the same speech

protections at the press additionally has received. most recently were going through debates about online restrictions in general and we have many important cases before the supreme court about social media in particular. >> when do you expect those cases to come before the supreme court were to be heard. >> the supreme court already heard a couple of arguments the first day of its current session. these are hard cases so they are not likely to be decided on so close to the end of the court's term . >> why is the speaker importantwhen it comes to free speech hein the court ? >> it cannot be taken for granted whoever is speaking as a free speech right although the way the jurisprudence has told the supreme court has told that regardless of who you are and regardless of what route" for your group is organizing in

you have a free speech right. this is very controversial on the republic with respect to corporations in particular a lot of anger about supreme courts decisions recognizing that for-profit as well as not-for-profit corporations free speech rights, that's one of the reasons why people are so irritated by the supreme court's controversial decision the citizens united case. but i have decided to along those composition was not controversial all. a disagreed about aspects of the case in particular whether the regulations were justified all of them agree that we people mowho have not only the freedom of speech individually of freedom of association and the right to form organizations that will amplify our individuals each for more than 100 years have

agreed that corporations do have free speech rights. >> so nadine strossen you are a supporter of the citizens united ruling. >> i agree, some of the details i might disagree with the two points that receive the most controversy court will accept, number one we people have the right to organize in corporate form for purposes of engaging in speech. number two, sending money to for political causes or to advocate for just the election of and is a form of expression or more precisely a restriction on the amounts of money you can stand m to advance those messages is a restriction on free speech rights. >> nadine strossen, it was back in late 19th and early

oliver wendell holmes used the phrase you can't yell fire in a crowded theater of course the supreme court told us that at the time. >> actually smiling because you give me a great opportunity and paraphrasing. you do what 99 percent of people who wishes to miss price it because you left out parts. once i was on a panel with dan justice stephen breyer and he did the same thing so you are in good company. but what holmes said is you may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater that gets to the justification for free speech because if the beer is on fire you want people to it.ut

in that context the speech is life-saving so it should be protected. we have to look at every restriction and in fact specific way. what is the benefit of allowing the speech and what is the danger of allowing the bispeech and that crucial word makes a big difference. >> should free speech be respected during times of national urgency? >> know, precisely the opposite. came from the district court ruled on the aclu challenge to a puerto rican law that suppressed covid related this information passed at the. the aclu immediately brought a lawsuit to challenge representing two prominent members of your profession, 2 journalists that said especially during a time of national crisis weather

during a terrorist attack or fire it is important for people to have access to information on the floor, the controversy or of precise information and detail what's causing this is important for reporters to be uninhibited in doing their best to pursue the truth but the reporter said unit was conscientious journalists is sometimes going to get it wrong and the charge in granting our request that the law be struck down made that point very strongly. he said it is especially important when we are facinga national security threat , health threat that freedom of speech be published in. people have the right to disagree and to have alternative perspectives but do not be are better of truth.

will the not only for individualmemories but also for public health . >> nadine strossen served as president of the aclu 1995 to 2008 still involved with aclu? >> i want the national advisory board. in contact with his national leaders. >> i'm want to show two examples of the recent press torelease by the aclu same date submitted a motion for leave to file his brief argument overly broad gag were imposed on donald by the judge in one of his core pieces, you were supportive of former president constantlyspeak . we were first in defense of pornography. we are as committed as any other this friday file

discrimination is when we believe that suppressing sexual words and images will not advance these crucial causes. the contrary we are convind that censoring sexual expression would do more harm than good to women's rights and safety and legal) fort to restrict sexual speech not only because by archs first amendment freedoms but also because it would undermine our itquality, our a car. >> second statement was only for me as a floral we indicated it was on the data forms an organization all the is for free expression. we were taking a different perspective from one that was very dominance among feminists at the time in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

the intention there is an inherent conflict between women's rights on the one hand and freedom of speech or sexual expression or pornography on the. assumption was if you support women's cd wednesday, which i do, i've been a lifelong feminist you must also support censorship of sexual expression which is raised by the stigmatizing pornography. the women's rights project which famously was founded by ruth bader ginsburg we are exactly the opposite based on experience. if you get the government the power to answer sexual expression power is particularly going to use this for me with two silence expression that is important for women as of women's rights.

we see that is a year, your timely referring to published in 1995. all is defending pornography, free-speech concepts and the fight for women's rights. a lot of important information in that subtitle. the publisher was trying to be provocative. earlier this year he asked to republish this book as part of the nyu classics series asked me to write a new credit because there had been solely on sexual expression and in particular expression gender identity and sexual orientation. that stigmatizing the term pornography as though our executive officials around the country who are attacking under that rubric attacking books by about lgbt.

plus individuals and remove them fromlibraries . school libraries and school correct so the term piracy has very positions. most people tend to use it for whatever sexual expression but let us not forget his week our three that rubric after sexual expression as unpopular is in danger a lot of expression that is important not only for the purchase of lgbt you write! why would call reproductive freedoms, the right to contraception and gender equality. >> nadine strossen, as social media added a new layer to free speech? >> s ramirez is the start of this every time she vacations median history going back at least as far as the printing

press, both free-speech rights are very excited, this is a wonderful opportunity for people to have more information about this subject purchasing in workplace is a more let's say authoritarian orientation are concerned about getting so much power to individuals that there is a desire for control.on every time we have a new medium responds by trying to suppress that medium b. that definitely opens with online media in the 1990s when the internet first became widely known. immediately congress passed a very suppressive law called communications decency act which was supported by all every member of congress on

both sides of the, fortunately the aclu succeeded our usual law series with the rise of a landmark decision called radio at the real. there was is 80 law and this goes back to the usa is consider whether is concepts of this new medium, the first amendment free-speech rights should be as robustly protected as it has been for the traditional print medium was real 920 the justices favored the aclu online expression should be subject to the highest rule of first amendment protection and this is an opportunity to make a big response to one of your earlier questions. ofa speech is not only the

rights of individuals to choose what to say and what not to say but is also the right of individuals to choose what to listen to what not to listen to. so if we suppress speech on a new medium such as social media that is not only the speech rights of the medium order itself, of the speakers who want access this platform are also all of us who want to hear what that speaker has to say. that's why you mentioned the donald trump case, i am supportive of the aclu's brief reviewing respectfully to the judge that dad were too far because is violating not only the free-speech

rights of adults all who see the presidential candidate whether people like you but this is why this is important for the rest of us to hear what he has to say. to inform our decisions as voters. >> nadine strossen, facebook, ask, google,, you say in your book 818 facebook start a post from the declaration of independence referring to merciless indiansavages . doesn't facebook have that right? >> yes, and what is a important distinction between a legal right something is right as a matter of morality or public policy so for example is is why we should resist it for free speech and

censorship. i propose government suppression of hate speech i urge everybody to exercise self restraint and not engage in a speech and listen to or be supportive of eight messages that other people are showing. i defend the rights of these platforms, and finally decided the rights of newspapers and those to make determinations about how to who should have access should not have access to these very important platforms i also disagree with particular gestures our a in the exercise of that power would like these companies to be morespeech . >> i want to quote from the. nothing strengthens the groups more than censoring them and it turns them into free-speech markers. expression is the foundation of human rights, source of

unity among truth. >> i important de novo rising chinese man one tries announces a. he was from prison. he was in prison for having five exercise their protected free speech rights here. so it is one thing to say absolutely so the more ideas that are hateful or ideas are suppressive of women's quality just like donald trump's ideas to use some of your examples you may think that you are trying, you are suppressing those ideas ei speech but your yourself because history to this day there has been a very widespread phenomenon called the forbidden fruit.

sometimes it is called the size and there's an example involving barbra streisand that when you try to suppress expression, is paradoxically draws people attention to these expressions leads more of them to listen to it otherwise would have barbra streisand many years ago there were one of our beachfront properties she tried to have suppress suddenly interestingly " address, unfortunately we can look at what's a and a sample of suppression of each. reeach backfired. it was in germany in the from 1918 1933. the wine bar many loss against the speech which is

very strictly enforced including against hitler himself was subject to a gag order for a couple of years, not allowed to make any publicspeeches . there was a publication with horrifying antistatic cartoons, publisher was prosecuted and received no convictions. sadly we know that that did not suppress the rise of nazi ideology. conversely the nazis loved s these files because they came for two unitary flight is in a fashion otherwise not with class to take example). the latter we are individuals no matter which society will belong can and must increase our capacity roto resist her full potential of people

discriminatory words that target us while also becoming more sensitive to such words that others 's call for censorship? >> not at all. this is the goal for that if we have jurisdiction censorship many countries do i ideas are always going to find a way to express themselves. the triple ideas will migrate from one social mediaplatform to another . people also come up with and this is true the internet with aclu, ways of expressing the same a full ideas in different ways. problem armfuls each completely. therefore it's like any provision strategy. you can't many the supplies

so you have to workon the demand side . encourage people to not seek out hateful or this information expression and if they are exposed to it to reject it. not allow it to take them down if it's just a matter of insulting their dignity. it's been especially virulent in the link of the november 7 terrorist attacks andisrael's response . i was commissioned to write a piece for the free press, one of my friends said this must be hard for you as a jewish person who has in her family a holocaust survivor and it's not hard because knowing the history including the history of nazi germany, no how well

intentioned censorship might be it is due to fail. we only hope for resisting a full ideas and a full action because by cagoing after the idea which you can from education going offer for the action which you for enforcement of the law and in the weimar the nazis literally got away with murder. we have many reports of threats against jewish students and others recently have not sufficiently been addressed . >> what do you say to jewish students who are feeling or have been assaulted because of these issues going on in? >> as i said earlier freedom of speech is not. actual assault or a physical attack is completely illegal

and must be punished to the full extent tof the law. but neither expression constitutes one of the courts call a true or genuine stress should be punished, not constitutionally protected and here is how the supreme court has defined a true threat, narrower than the general way we use . when the speaker is targeting particular individuals or a small group of individuals intends to instill a reasonable fear that they are going to be subject to attack , that is a true threat and should be punished. the speaker does not have to intends to carry out the attack. it is enough that the target reasonably fears the attack because already gives that

person freedom of movement and the rented house of an jewish students not only being physically assaulted including one size disturbing account which must be investigated and if these accounts are accurate must be punishment but we have also read many accounts of language that arguably meets that standard of a true threat. for example cornell earlier this week there was an rs made of students may students at issue identified members of the cornell community made using a dining facility which was frequented by jewish students. that i believe and more

importantly the fbi and other law enforcement agencies agreed that standard met the true threat narrative subject to arrest the student will for criminal prosecution. >> another issue, nadine strossen. we've read reports of law school calling offers of students who have signed on to the anti-israel letters. these students were expressing their free-speech and now they are being pushed professionally. >> let's be clear about t this peter. number one is a difficult issue. number two i think thelegal matters are quite clear . on the one hand students certainly have free-speech rights . to express the most obnoxious viewpoints as long as they don't cross the line to targeted threats . number two employers have no

obligation to hire any particular individual. under federal law. that said i should know there are seats and local laws to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of belief so i would advise employers e to make sure they are acting in accordance with local laws but that gets harder question which is it you have a right to do something is it right to do so ? we've had many conversations about the problem of obso-called cancel culture as opposed to a free-speech culture. what that signifies is that essence is that this, that we should exercise 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 it creates a culture where people are so afraid of eadverse ramifications, social influence or that they engage in reverence self censorship, not daring to express their views on certain topics. unfortunately surveys continued to indicate that throughout our society on campus where free-speech sshould be the most robust people are afraid of being subject to cancellation measures but also social stigmatizing and ostracizing that they are not discussing the most important topics. certainly the october 7 at tax and the political

situation in the middle east which are very important topics so i would encourage employers to exercise some self restraint with the goal of fostering a free-speech culture. let me mention one other point which is these young people are not fully developed in terms of portions of their brains that are any loss to make judgments to such an extent that the supreme court has upheld that imposing the death penalty on minors is unconstitutional. evidence indicates many of them otare not yet fully formed thoughtful individuals. i believe in a more merciful, hopeful restorative justice approach. that is for we have heard supported by politicians throughout backgrounds saying

we have been to punitive and that it does not do any good in terms of likely rehabilitation so even people who have committed homicides are now being offered restorativejustice approaches . people advocating violence especially when they are so maybe we should rule in favor of giving them another chance but that's not a matter of first amendment rights. it is a matter of what to do for society as a whole. >> you mentioned cancel culture which is a human address in your book free-speech, but everyone needs to know and good afternoon to you, as you for turning us. 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 date, why we should resisting, and we talked a little bit about her first book defending pornography. sex and the fight for women's rights which came out 1995 and is being reissued next year by nyu press. if you'd like to take part even love to hear from you. 748 8200 if you live in east central time zone, a 201 for those of you in south and time zones if you can't get through trying our text number, 202748 8903. that's for text messages only . include your first name and city if you want. at some point we will scroll

through our social media site so if you'd like to make a comment that way you can do so. nadine strossen, you have mentioned that your father was captured or taken prisoner during the holocaust. tellus about your parents . >> my father, i am so proud of him. he is not just a holocaust survivor, he was an opening of the nazi regime both before and after he was liberated by americans and let me say a word about that because he was under the pernicious room for loss was called a half jew or a jew of thesecond degree . his mother was jewish and i also admire my paternal grandfather jwho was under so much pressure to divorce his wife and greatly stood by her under and enormous amounts of economic political pressure.

when my father was in prison n was not only for the crime of being a jew but also because of his anti-nazi political activities and before that a double disc three factor, he was scheduled to be sterilized. he literally a date scheduled one day before you have been sterilized he was liberated by americans. by the way i recently learned from one of my uncles one of the individual members of the american military.my father out was black. that still gives me chills because unfortunately thank god we didn't have spot we had jim crow.

this brave man who liberated my father was subject to discrimination back home . all this leads to my passion for human rights does the story on my mothers side. her father in particular was and to the united states from croatia in the early part of the 20th century. usa exists, a marxist and conscientious objector in world war i for the crime of objecting to the united states or policy. he was sentenced in new jersey to stand outside the courthouse with two paint i just the courthouse walls so passerby could spend on.

>> free-speech was anissue during world war i . >> interestingly enough that was the issue that gave rise to the aclu. it was the civil liberties bureau of organization called americans against militarism and is defended free-speech rights of the thousands of individuals in prison or prosecuted simply for expressing opposition to the war. unfortunately they didn't get to my grandfather but it's wonderful justice. >> undergrad harvard law school. new york law school professor still tothis day . >> rddespite loving my students good feedback from them to was starting to see fthat the

real level attacks against freedom of speech from both ends of the political spectrum are becoming so rampant i decided it was more for me to spend my time writing and speaking more broadly those issues. freedom of speech, civil discourse, even more important than teaching my students other aspects of constitutional law . i've been doing 200 presentations per year and i did mention i am the most of a newly issued three-part public tv series all free-speech shared starting last month it's on public tv around the country is available onyoutube . >> given the topics you talk about what's the latest critique? >> that is critique, i want to wish is that i would absolutely support free-speech to the detriment

of other values. thank you for giving me an opportunity to reinforce why is a misplaced critique. 's translation. >> .. . >> 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, disproportionately government not surprisingly

considers speech to be dangerous that is critical of government policies, that speaks to reform and challenge the status quo and that is why throughout most of u.s. history, before the supreme court began the strongly enforce free speech, during the civil rights movement, not coincidently and in the second half of the 20th century, suppressed abolition movement, the movement for women suffrage, labor rights and unionization, antiwar speech, passivist speech, socialist speech, lgbtq right 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. 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 communities skew liberal or progressive and because progressive views te to disproportionately dominate fields that favor workers with academic degrees, self-censorship is particularly acute among non-progressis, conservatives, liberrians, moderates, the politically indifferent, and even old-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 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. 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. you no longer need to use the really expensive broadcast media to disseminate your political message. we look at movements such as the black lives matter movement or the #metoo movement which existed for a long time but never really got traction until

social media came along making it much cheaper, easier, and faster to reach a larger audience. peter: jim is in california. good afternoon. caller: hello. thank you very much. wonderful discussion on free speech. my question is a little off topic. 14th amendment cases saying president trump should not be allowed to be on the ballot because of the rebellion because -- clause in sections three and four of the amendment. as i read that, it seems clear what they are talking about in the use of those words is the civil war, not anything that is happened subsequently or would happen subsequently. but they did not use the word civil war because it was not a term in use in 1868.

if you put in the word civil war instead of insurrection, the argument fails. i am a retired attorney. it seems an absurd argument. i'm interested in your position in the aclu position. peter: thank you for calling in. nadine: thank you so much, jim. i don't know if the aclu has a position on this. i'm not involved in the day-to-day activities anymore. i can tell you i do not have a firm position because i recognize i have been so focused on just the huge and proliferating number of free speech issues it is all i can do to try to keep on top of those. on this issue, i do know enough to know it is extreme and complicated. it has been subject to enormous debate and disagreement, including among people who often agree with each other. and that some experts have recently re-examined and revised

their positions. the pieces i have read about it, one that was intuitively appealing to me, and i'm not saying i have reached a final conclusion, but it was written by michael mcconnell, a very respected conservative law professor at stanford. he said we should go easy here, recognizing the impact of the interpretation that would disqualify somebody from the ballot is deeply threatening to democratic values potentially. that we should perhaps err in favor when there is 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 is the right not only of the speaker but the audience.

not only would donald trump be deprived of the opportunity to run for president, but about 50% of the public that seems to support him would be >> you a definitive conclusion -- i don't have the expertise but that would be a concern i have. peter: how did you end up being raised in the twin city area? nadine: my father was working for the ashland oil company. he was initially working for the archer daniels midland company which was based in minneapolis. we talked about our common minnesota origins. they transferred him to minneapolis. they were subsequently overtaken or that division was overtaken which was transferred to ohio. i have minnesota and midwestern roots, as we say there. host: our next call is from

julian minneapolis. caller: hi, i had missed that so that's interesting. i have two things that i have thought. one is i think that one is relevant to the subject of your book and speech. my first is my favorite tagline is 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 are 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 peoples particularly who disagree or don't understand is i think hate speech is almost

always fear speech. host: is what? caller: fear. host: fear speech. caller: yup. so if you agree or disagree with that notion in my head, but if you have any agreement with that, how does the perspective that we take, readers of your book, the perspective -- they are talking hate speech versus fear speech. they are coming from hate, they are coming from fear. how does that influence response and the opportunities for true communication? host: thank you for calling in. guest: 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. we tried 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 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 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. i think so much of george

orwell's dystopian novel 1984 and remember the language 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 am not allowed to say on broadcast tv but i probably cannot c-span -- i can't. but i won't. ok. so talk about different media having different levels of free speech. the supreme court said, make no mistake about it, you cannot eliminate a particular word without also altering or eliminating the particular idea. so your second point, julie is --is hate speech fear speech?

you are getting to one of the reasons i say if what you are trying to eliminate, 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 -- to harbor and then to voice hate: ideas --hateful ideas? a lot of 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, they unite the right demonstrators. "you will not replace us."

"jews will not replace us." i get chills when i say that. 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 de-amplify the hate and reduce it, 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 about bernard professor jonathan ryder, who you have written about. what is the case here?

caller: -- guest: 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 in danger 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 rap and other music where this is a very common, essential aspect of the lyrics, where culture indicates that when it is used by those performers in

their communities, it doesn't have the stigmatizing intent or impact that it can if it is used by a racist sheriff against a black person. but there is just such -- let me say, i do not at all defend the use of any epithet in any stigmatizing or insulting way but i just wish we could be a little bit more discriminating. for example, in my field, martin luther king wrote a historical letter from the birmingham jail that i consider to be one of the most clarion calls for full and equal human rights for everybody including black americans. in that racial but that two times and professors have been sanctioned for even assigning that wonderful letter 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 and of racism that has ever been written in the use of that term was to underscore the antiracism , antislavery message, and yet it is treated as if it was coming out of the mouth of a white supremacist. 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 and other racial minorities. host: next call, michael. broward county, florida. caller: hi. hello. you mentioned education a few times. this could be taught even in

kindergarten. these are basic human issues. you mentioned education. if you are not educated, then you do not have the freedom of thought. you don't even have the ability to think, like you said. you have the ability to meaningful exercise free speech -- meaningfully exercise free speech. we all think of that guy who did not do the nazi salute as he stood in the sea of others who were doing it and you mentioned a great example of that, in god we trust, which is on all of our money which significantly affects our freedom to think in ways we are not aware of. and even better example as far as truth and relativism is the fact that our entire education system, all the think tanks is based on a false perception of evolution so there is a truth here. evolution clearly says that it is not a synonym for competition

yet we make it a competition when we guarantee 30% instead of doing what we do in our homes. if the garbage, we don't give him a b for taking out 80%. i expected every kid to get 100 percent on every test. all my kids got a's in science class. here is an example of where we are not even -- host: we are going to have to leave it there. let's get a response from our guest. guest: you made many points. let me start with the first one which has been a theme through 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 which is especially important in

the sciences and where you talk but it is also incredibly important in literature and 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 i use for my law students but i don't see any reason why it should not 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 plausible perspectives on all issues. that means anything that can be supported by evidence, by analysis, by reason. no unsubstantiated conclusory remarks and certainly no ad hominem arguments that are based on liking or disliking particular people. i think ultimately, that is

going down 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 michigan. what does she think about the rights of parents in their children's elementary schools, especially concerning drug queens, pornography, and reading material? guest: 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 majorities have the right and any community have the power to elect government officials who are accountable to them. and that the school board, the local school board, 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 expressly clear that we are not a pure democracy. our framers wisely recognized that there are some rights that 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 might be in the u.s. supreme court has said balancing these two concerns of most decisions get to be made by the local school board but on the other hand, if a decision about a curricular matter or a school library matter sharply and directly implicates freedom of speech, then freedom of speech trump's that -- trumps that. let's assume a school board said we are going to ban all books that are written by members of the democratic party or that are

written by black people or that 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 incisions should be made on the basis of consideration 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. with that in mind, the way pornography has been used for a wide range of very educationally suitable material including the holocaust, the award-winning graphic novel maus, about the

holocaust, in which one frame shows a woman who is partially new with her breasts exposed. i think the book might not be age-appropriate for other reasons until you get into later grades but to say that that is pornographic and should be banned on the ground, i think that is not justifiable. host: her first book was called defending pornography, free-speech, sex, and the fight for women's rights. it is being reissued as a classic by nyu press year. steve in indiana -- 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: 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 person's express permission, that that is a violation of individual privacy. i am not an expert in this area but i would assume that 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 so i can think of many artistic new representations that have occurred in film, famous films. i don't think that that should be -- presumably, that was subject to consent to so that is not a good example but let's

consider on a fact by fact basis and i would not categorically draw a distinction on the basis of living or dead. host: artificial intelligence is and will be a major part of our life and communications professor dwight ellis, do you know professor ellis? peter: i am -- guest: i am familiar with his scholarship, yes. host: 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 is definitely going to complicate the equation, but in multiple directions. artificial intelligence, along with all communications tools, can be used very effectively to counter hateful attitudes

including the fearful attitudes that julie from 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 those 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 for joining us. you are on with author nadine. caller: i'm interested in the intersection of academic freedom and the first amendment. i would like to have your opinion on the imposition of required statements for the purposes of academic appointment at promotion. host: are you affiliated with the university of berkeley? caller: i am emeritus. host: i know there are, in the

last couple years, both ben schapiro and ann coulter have been prevented and/or protested from speaking at uc berkeley. what is your take on that? caller: are you asking mine or nadine's? host: you. caller: i was very embarrassed being an alumni. i used to be a lawyer so i have an interest and concern about what is going on there. there is a lot of self-censorship and there was a lot of issues of impositions of students trying to keep other students from speaking, so i am very much in favor of a panoply on campus paid what is going on there and i think is very embarrassing. host: thank you for calling in. guest: thank you so much for

your support of free speech and for your excellent question which gives me the opportunity to make an important point i have not yet had a chance to make witches is that 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. and that freedom against compelled speech goes all the way back to a very famous case in the early i'm in favor and so some of what's going on there i think it's very embarrassing. >> thank you, sir, for calling in. >> mike, thank you for your support for free speech and academic freedom and excellent question which gives me an opportunity to make an important point i haven't had to make which is first amendment freedoms include not only right toha say something but right not to say something.

it's more intrusive for the government to force you and that's the problem with the dei statements. applying to jobs and applying to promotions and so forth. mind you, i'm not saying i oppose dei goals, that's beside the point. i oppose a mandatory statement on an subject that's deep debates and disagreements. 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 now universally discredited. i think a a future generation wl look back on mandatory dei statements an say they are equallyst repugnant to the first

amendment freedoms. by the way, fire has brought a lawsuit camping the mandatory dei statements at the university of california community college system. >> right over your shoulder unfortunately is your middle book called hate, why we should resist it with free speech and not censorship. you see the very dramatic hate in the title there. it was endorsed by cornell west and former republican senator lam aeroalexander. you must have been doing something right to get both voices in the book. >> unfortunately as i said the liberal attacks from free speech are coming from both sides of

the spectrum but support for free speech also comes from all ends of the ideological spectrum. >> what everyone needs to know. first of all, the format. >> eethe format by oxford university press. part of series that oup has publishing and the format is question and answer which was completely continuual to me, peter, for the last half or so dozen years i've been given 200 public presentations per year. i was pretty much be able to sit in the laptop and relive q&a

experiences we had. i don't know the code. i hope somebody can flash it up here. it means that anybody who buys the bookk in connection with ths author event w receives a discot of 50% and makes the book cost -- 30% discount and $13. >> i can't see either. i'm guessing we have it at the screen at this point. 202 is the area. 748-8200 if you live in east and central time zones. and if you can't get through on the phoneline and still want to make a comment text number (202)748-8903 will also scroll through social media sites in case you want to make a comment

there as well. >> i was going to ask you, mark, what your opinion was but i think we got it with the second statement, thank you, sir for calling in and we touched on this at the beginning of the show. >> mark had a really important point and reinforce something that i saidd earlier.

you you don't have to be a wealthy person to reach anybody in the entire world. beyond that the, citizens united dealt with a law that had nothing to do with how wealthy or nonwealthy the speakers were. out law that restricted political messages if you were a corporation and a labor union. it didn't matter if you were a tinny corporation, it didn't matter if you were a poor corporation. so 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 e finance laws are the ones that are make -- disproportionate contributions to the election if we think that some people are speaking too much, disproportionate to others the result is not the 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 o about wealthy individuals. my concern is how do we level up to make sure that everybody, you

know, every individual and every odcorporation has an equal meaningful opportunity to participate in the debate. >> to quote from hate again, today's concept of hate speech is often understood as income to encompassing expression, are safe spaces a good idea? >> so safe spaces are a good idea if we are talking about safety against physical assaults or true threats to go back to the topics that we talked about earlier but safe space means safety from an safety that you might consider to be offensive or insulting, that is, in fact, dangers. i'm going to quote former president of the university of california who said our job is

not to make -- it's to make students safe for ideas and in the safe from ideas so in other words, we are going to give students the critical inquiry habits of mine, the resilience psychologically that they can deal with unpleasant, shocking, offensive or insulting speech or not undermine their sense of dignity any and not be persuaded by it to adopt hateful ideologies. >> lori smith, graphic designer designing websites, should she have to design a website promoting gay marriage? >> well, this gets back to that excellent question that mike from burkely asked about compelled speech. i think the very same principle applies there to jehova witness students and mandatory dei statements. i would say this as a caveat

thatat if there were a type of service or product that is only available from a few suppliers and in particular geographical area then 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 but in the case that you're talking about, peter, it waste uncontested that there wee multiple, multiple countless providers of that service that they didn't have to use this particular one. if i can say one other thing about lori smith, 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 completely did not discriminate on basis of sexual orientation

or gender identity. there are certain messages that i won't provide and i will say the same thing jewish website designer should not have to provide pronazi, prowhite supremacy messages regardless of the identity of who was asking for those messages. >> but nadine, should those website that is you just mentioned, should they be allowed to be online and accessible? ,those pronazi, et cetera, examples? >> yes, the fact that you have a discrimgnattory ideology is no basis for government requiring that the -- the social media forms remove you. peter, the samee way that i have

no first amendment right to be 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 dually elected president of the united states but again making the distinction with the law and public policy given how important social media forms are for platforms 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 i think it would be very healthy for our democratic discourse for them to do that. >> steve jacksonville, florida, good afternoon. >> hello, a couple of my points have been covered regarding the predominance of mass media and the tin equality of voices,

secondly is my point about anonymity of hate speech on the -- on the internet and i don't think your message really addresses that increase of supply is something usually does not lead to the counter -- the counterintuitive result and would reject it. it leads to more. thank you, have a gad day.

>> steve, you make excellent points. it's hard to know where to start but let me take your most mitt corral point and i welcome that because i'm always trying to challenge my ideasm but i do think, hoping that freedom of speech is ultimately going to leadh to truth is you call it naive. i would say it's a matter of faith but i will also say this, i think it is a matter of demonstrated fact that censorship is not going to lead to the discover cannery and establishment of truth, even the concept disinformation to which you allude is so inherently subjective just the way the concept of hate speech and other type of pornography is so inherently subjective, one person's hateful speech, one person's disinformation is somebody else's cherished and

truthful speech and i think what we can predict not only as a matter of past experience but also as a matter of logic is that whoever has the power to make the determination is predictably going to make those inevitable subjective determinations in accordance either with their own value judgment or in accordance with the valued judgment of powerful constituencies in the community and we continue to see the patternsat that we see throughot the world and the descending voices, the voices of the status quo are the ones that are disproportionately going to be censored and that in my mind

includes those who are economically relatively poorly off. this goes to the a number but excellent questions i received precisely because i do really support equality of access to free speech and to other resources. i think that those who are economically disadvantaged also have the most to lose from censorship and the most to get robust free speech. >> one of the things that we do on in-depth, we ask the authors what the favorite books are and what they are currently reading and here is the response that we got from the dean, favorite books, víctor hugo, the fountain head by ian ramn. on liberty by steward mill. arguably coauthored by harriet

taylor and bleak house by charles dickens, is there a theme in these books? >> those are books that i read at a young age. they have been influential throughout my life and 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 today inspire me and i know that one continues to appreciate the fountain head by iron ram even beyond adolescence is quite controversial. i know people especially on the liberal political spectrum where i am, i liked her when i was a

teenager but i've outgrown her but i continued to find the themes of individual creativity, individual self-determination on the part of a strong female protagonist as well as as a male lead character. i continue to find very inspiring. i will admit that. >> well, what do you say to those of us who read the first ten pages and got confused and ran away from the fountain head? >> i thought that way about moby dick and i keep hearing to each his own. this is very subjective, but, you know, 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 to me memorable characters and stories and as i travel throughout my lifetime maybe what i'm adhering to might be a minor aspect of the overall book but it continues to exercise some -- some influence on my personality and 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 concepts of justice whatever those might be. >> on liberty by john steward mill, who was he and who was harriet taylor? >> john steward mill was a famous philosopher in the middle of the 20th century. liberty stands the time as

the most powerful defense of individual freedom of speech including again some of the very important recurring questions and arguments that some of your astute viewers have been posing to me. he has a dedication in the book to his wife harriet taylor who had died a year before the book was published a year or so ago in which it is such an over the top acknowledgment that it reads as if she were a coauthor. she talks about how every word is infused with her influence and that he delayed publishing it because she was very sick and he wanted her to -- hoped that he would recover enough to review it yet one more time and i started being curious, well, with that such a strong credit for her enormous role in producing this the classic work, why wasn't she treated as a

coauthor and it turns out that other people have asked that question and from scientists at a universitynd in england have done from algorithmic researching profess forker asked about artificial intelligence, this is one of the positive uses of it that they can analyze language patterns in order to attribute authorship and the conclusion was that she is the -- at least a coauthor of central aspects of the book. so since there are few female philosophers that have had such a historic role i think it's the important to at least raise her potential coauthorship every time i refer to this classic work. >> and in just a minute in case you did not see it on the screen i'm going to read out the code for a discount on nanide

strossen's book, free speech. .. .. .. let's start with seven days of possibilities. >> that is such an amazing book i and such and never rest reader at any time there is a read before i follow it up. he's a reporter for the ne

york times who has excellent pieces that you and i were talking about, campus free speech and i was reading a bio on that topic and it mentioned this book and i thought the title sounds so fascinating so i book and it is indeed so inspiring as an educator . it's about a young woman who grew up in a tiny little town in england so coming off to new york she is like the opposite experience. she wants to be a process, fulfilling that dream as all musicians do so 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 all social challenges she

imparts them in gospel music. they become a gospel choir and it's an inspiration to get them to soaring heights in terms of their individual potential and very creative potential. i know that she takes them on a field trip to finland as somebody who loved music, as somebody newho is concerned about making sure education and freedom of speech and self-expression through music is will all i just love this book. i think it would make agreat movie you ? >> the next thing i want is nothing sacred in fiction by heresy press. >> i have an advanced reader copy with me. i recently purchased and is now available for sale with a

different t cover but heresy press is something that is something it was formed as response to the soft censorship going on in the publishing industry where there are certain topics that are considered detoo controversial to deal with or certain authors are not the ones that are supposed to address certain topics because there is cultural appropriation or they're not speaking on behalf of somebody that a character does not mirror your demographic character, etc. etc. jericho the founders of this press is the. heas a literature professor

and she said stop complaing, start your own press so he actually did and enlisted a lot of great authors like joyce carol oates on the front and like junot diaz on the back. the stories, the collection of short stories that apparently would not be published by mainstream press is part of the controversial subject matters and perspectives. i've read several of the stories so far. it started with a comedian who has had some trouble for politically incorrect comedy and he has the audacity to write from the perspective of a gay man which is not and he links it up to a famous old well on her story. she's absolutely brilliant and all the other stories are great so i couldn't recommend that more enthusiastically . >> nadine strossen's newest

book free speech, with everyone needs to know. oxford university press is where you need to go and the code, ala you thc for. what does that stand for? ala you teach see for. is the code to use to get the discount. dan bridgewater newjersey, thanks for holding . >> as a refugee from communism it's a great testimony to the fact that in berkeley, guests are allowed to speak freely and you're allowed to debate them. and it was a productive encounter especially in the 60s. but i'm concerned now that the acl has declared anti-zionism, anti-sentences as a statement and i would like to also note what you

think of the fate of the president of this law student at nyu who took a pro-palestinian position and was deposed. >> where are you from originally can we ask ? thank you for calling in. >> so many of my colleagues who are interested in the campus free speech movement and academic freedom movements are like you refugees from repressive governments and they believe that too many americans take freedom of speech because we have never had the experience of censorship. with respect to zionism, anti-zionism and antisepsis of, i knew very strongly for the freedom of anybody to express themselves, either

anti-zionist or critical of a particularisraeli government policy . i defend freedom of speech to engage in antistatic speech as well as her speech. we should resist it which is not censorship unless and until it crosses over into unprotected threats or targeted harassment. with respect to the employer's deciding not to hire certain students, this goes back to that complicated issue of so-called cancel culture. i believe employers have the right to choose not to hire people because of their viewpoints although with a judiciary is not violating particular speech for loss but again i would add asking employers is this the right thing to do with any particular circumstance and i hear i was really error in

favor of having an employer rather than a categorical judgment engaged in conversation with each individual student. some of these students say that they were simply members of an organization that signed on to a petition that they didn't know that the petition idwas being sign in their behalf. you can read it, they didn't approve it. to penalize them for that relatively attenuated action to speech starts to lead to guilt by association and again i want to raise because we're talking is, i want to raise the specter of the heartiest excesses of anti-communism. we had on campuses in our country during the cold or when people who were suspected of human being

supportive of communism in any way were blacklisted being denied the opportunity so i think we want to especially when we're dealing with young people or as outside of their careers i would urge a robust given them a second chance and opportunity to explain rather than automatically directly composing the equivalent of a professional death penalty on them. >> margaret in houston, go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question about a case that i briefly read about in the news of a right-wing religious fanatic republican. supreme court is going to take up a cut of the internet session . >> --you feel strongly about

this margaret? >> it is the first amendment which there's intersection now he between the christian second amendment and that he's in new york i want to preface this by saying the older i get i guess i give more credence to the caveat of speed free speech is fine but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. but also, that quote of one of my favorite quotes is attributedto samuel johnson , patriotism is the last refuge ofscoundrels . i kind of give back, i say that with the first amendment to. a lot of times the first amendment is the last refuge

of scoundrels. >> we are running on time, are you familiar with the case she's talking about, intersection between thefirst and second amended ? >> not specifically but if i can pick up on cool with you asked earlier when you look at all mywritings , why am i constantly defending the most controversial speech? pornography speech and citizens united is precisely because it is the speech is the most of the most despised that people trying to censor, that government tries to censor and if you want to support robust freedom of speech, even speech you don't like you have to defend those principles . you have to defend those

principles in the context they are going to arise even when it's scoundrels and pornographers and eight. acres and powerful politicians and corporations that are exercising free speech. if they don't have the same rights that we have then we are not going to have those free speech rights either mike, arlington new jersey. i'm going to have to let my guy turned down that volume. and, tacoma washington. >> caller: i tuned in late so i don't know if you cover the idea that when the government tells social media companies or suggest that they censor or tag as misinformation this , does nadine strossen see that as aviolation of the first amendment ?

>> guest: great one and one that we have not covered even though we've covered a lot of ground . first amendment only constrains a so as i have made the point that social media platforms and other private-sector platforms first amendment obligation would have as opposed to every expression and receiver . however, if this 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 is really the government putting undue pressure onthat private-sector actor , that does create first amendment problems. the government should not be allowed to do indirectly by pressuring social media

platforms what it would not be allowed to directly censorship and kinds of this information you're talking about " i completely protected constitutionally. so that government could not directly require the social media platforms to take down that so-called misinformation issue is going to be before the us supreme court, both courts having decided is that in many cases has crossed that line between permitted encouragement, the government has tried to encourage social media companies to not publish certain information that they consider to be dangerous and misleading when it crosses the line from permitted encouragement to okay coercion, that creates a firstamendment problem .

>> 2023 nadine strossen, what danger level which for free speech? >> i would say it's in severe danger i have two qualified i said that throughout my entire adult life time. that's one of the reasons why i have advocated freedom of speech and opposed censorship through my entire career. >> nadine strossen has been our guest for the past two hours i want to thank the viewers for interesting engaged conversation so thank you very much aswell . >> if you're enjoying book tv sign up for our newsletter using the qr code to receive a schedule of author discussions, vessels and more. tv every sunday or anytime

online at booktv.org. television for serious readers. >> funding comes from these television company is and more including mexico. >> along with these television companies supports c-span2 as a public service.