>> the bottom line, followed up on the judges question is, you don't ban all solicitation. youth and those related to business. you don't than ever voting. you don't ban it for girl scout cookies solicitations. you don't ban somebody soliciting people to come join a

book club. it's just for employment. under those circumstances, is this not a content-based ordinance rather than a content neutral ordinance for constitutional analysis purposes? >> i think that underhill you can go through broad grounds like that. again, you're looking at action that we are regulating, not the content of the. so i believe under hill we are able to do that. when you look at it it's not mere hypothetical situation -- >> it doesn't have to be practical, doesn't it? in berger we indicated that a.c.o.r.n. was to be narrowly construed, right? okay so if you took take that as nearly construed and taken to the point that judge smith pointed out, and judge bybee and others, this is new. it's not part of the a.c.o.r.n. situation and you also added to the a part as well.

that in itself changes the ballgame because you're the employment focus and you deal with the sidewalk issue and the like. i know that in a.c.o.r.n. there was an assumption about the sidewalk but this expressly states the sidewalk and it really cut it changes the ballgame because in a.c.o.r.n. ya people running out to the car right into the middle of traffic and exchanging money, whereas here's only things -- i know about redondo beach. it's a very nice town and people are front and all that sort of thing. a lot of things happen on the sidewalk. nothing to do with what they had in a.c.o.r.n. so i'm puzzled as to why the city is so obdurate in its refusal to take the fact that this is a content-based ordinance. it is a restrictive ordinance. it bans some solicitation but not all solicitation. do you agree to?

>> i don't agree with it. specifically as to the a count. the a section. because of the fact that this court is held content neutral. this court talk to give specifically about the immediate exchange. and in berger, it cited to concurrent from justice kennedy, and it talked about the nature of how that immediate exchange -- >> if the interpretation, if you're going with what was said in a.c.o.r.n. and berger, then isn't the major circumstance you are trying to cover outside of it? in other words, you're trying to do with people are trying to get themselves hired as daily workers. though someone exchange, right? >> it was both. when you look at the original memo -- >> your enforcement that triggered this lawsuit involves people who were not, in fact, exchanging money, is that right?

>> again, this is a facial challenge that this ordinance has been enforced many years, many times over the years. expect it would help if you would answer my question. is that to? >> it's not true because of the fact i don't believe he need exchange necessarily has to be the immediate exchange of money. >> it wasn't berger, it wasn't a.c.o.r.n. they all talk about the fact that physically transferred the money is what makes a contract and not speech, is that right? >> the immediate exchange that is -- because the problem is -- >> what's the exchange? an exchange of words. >> that's exactly, it's a negotiation. it's not that mere, it's why the lease living is perfectly appropriate. it's why you can go to a car and say pulling here, hire me, whatever it is that is protected, it's just the exchange, insurance the weather it be in employment where it's

negotiation, i will pay x. amount for this amount. >> so somebody says here's my cell phone and i want to work for you, that took a? >> yes, it is. it is absolutely okay. again, that goes back to its similar to that similar exchange of money. it's the exchange of negotiations. isn't applying for the solicitation of employment or the solicitation -- >> how many of these transactions know me take place, if you know? so there will be a bunch of guys hanging out, and somebody who needs a day laborer, a member of day laborer swings by and what happens next? >> the normal he would have a group of day laborers congregating around a car that would pull a. it stopped in traffic the day laborers approached the vehicle and solicit employment from the

motor vehicle. and that has been a typical, from the enforcement you would have the solicitation. >> what happens next? do they get in the car in driveway? >> yes. >> this is sort of a pickup place. you strike a deal, and if the deal is mutually satisfactory, one or more people get into the car and you taken to the worksite, right right? >> yes, your honor. >> you heard question, if you didn't give an answer i or i just missed it. why isn't that entire transaction simply cops standing there and saying anytime anybody stops, they give them a ticket to? >> it's very labor intensive. it clearly didn't work. that's what the city first tried for several years.

and even at the lower court when the question came up there was a comment from council that -- >> it must not be any more labor-intensive, or any less on the sidewalk and is to give tickets to people pulling up in cars. my guess is it's easier to get the car than a guy on the sidewalk could run away. it's much harder in a car with a license plate. i'm just not sure what -- >> for years the city did try. >> and redondo beach scofflaws comes to parking? >> it wasn't so much the parking. it just it didn't work to enforce. it was very labor intensive. if you didn't stay there, the people would continue to congregate. you would have employers continue to come to that location. and the city tried several

things. it's not a hypothetical, the other side has posed. it did not work. the city tried several different steps. >> standing on the sidewalk by a legal parking space and having the employers dropping any legal parking space and have someone go up to them, is that a violation? >> that is not a violation of the ordinance. it's never been enforced that way. that has not -- >> so, therefore, all you have is a bunch of people are illegally stopping in their cars? or going out in the middle of the street. how is it different to enforce that to enforce the rule against people asking them to do that? i'm really baffled. >> again, part of it is -- >> standing on the sidewalk is not a problem to?

>> standing on the sidewalk is not a problem. >> so how is this enforcement any different than simply forcing you can't stop in an illegal place to? >> they are different in terms of sentencing, in terms of how they can get probation for the one. you can get stay away orders for the one. you can have a situation where it can be control. the city has no control over the vehicle code issues, notwithstanding being a charter city. >> but you also have an ordinance that prohibits people from standing in the roadway if it interferes with the movement of traffic. so you ought to have an enforcement -- an enforceable ordinance to deal with the employee side, don't you? >> and again in terms of looking at a facial challenge, it's not these restrictive means the city could come up with. it's a question of whether or not this is something that was

narrowly tailored. it is narrowly tailored to promote that significant government issue. as a practical matter given the fact that you have 24 years of history that this was the one ordinance that was successful, it was enforced in terms of complaints from citizens. it would be enforced, the problem would disappear, and then you have a few years later a new round. the only thing different here is in 2004 you ended up with a facial challenge to this ordinance. >> in a 28 j. letter to? >> we wanted to point out the lake forest? that this court has decided and it is virtually identical to this case. >> but you didn't make that argument that is out in the 28 j. letter to the district court, did you? >> we did.

we did object to standing throughout -- >> you objected to stand but i didn't see anyplace reading the record pretty carefully that you argue to the district court or to us before we got that case anything about the fact you shouldn't be allowed to talk about standing on judgment if he didn't put it in your complaint. >> again and that's an issue where the plaintiffs have the burden of proof. >> just a minute. you're not answering the question. i understand they have the burden of proof, but we now are not on standing itself. we are talking about procedures to get to whether you can challenge standing. and i understand that in order to have a procedure to challenge standing, somebody ought to make it to the poor dj having been in his position once before, and he out to be able to rule on it. or somebody ought to get it before us. we have a new case and it may be

great, but if the district judge didn't get a chance to look at it and neither did we before this case comes out, then why should i make that the issue here? that's the question. not whether they have standing or not because they have enough in their declarations for summary judgment to make standing. >> but we did object to standing throughout. they did not plead the type of standing that they proposed to submit to this court, or to the district court in terms of proustian. so, therefore, since the lake forest? says you can't have that later date fix improper pleading by adding -- >> it was a case after what we did that now supports us, we are going to throw the adjective that we could make the argument and the poor dj? >> but we have tried to out to preserve the issue of standing. we have objected -- weekly objected to the district judge

in terms of the issues of standing. standing was not -- >> are you suggesting if i find standing based on the declarations of as the three judge panel, that i really haven't got to address any other questions relating to standing? because the three-judge panel look very good in the declarations. they look at the complaint. based on the declarations and the complaint they found standing. now you're throwing a new curve at us. which it it isn't enough to say in summary judgment. you've got to save in your complaint. but i didn't argue that to anybody else but you should still throw somebody out on standing based on this new idea. >> we fall back on the fact the plaintiff has the burden of proving standing. they have the burden of the complaint, the use of objective

standing throughout this case and preserve the issue. >> rebuttal? >> police spent we will hear from you. >> good afternoon, your honor. i represent the plaintiff in this matter. this actually to redondo beach ordinance that was adopted some 20 for you. as this case went along, redondo beach added a contention that despite the plain language of this ordinance is only effort was to bar that solicitation that resulted in a car stopping in traffic. that concern which they brought up in this litigation could've been easily addressed through existing laws against jaywalking, against obstructing traffic up against illegally stopping. but instead they put together and adopted ordinance --

>> it's not adequate. that's what they say. >> but, of course, they put nothing in the record that would indicate what it's not adequate and as you know, one of the test they have to satisfy to render this ordinance constitutional is that it is narrowly tailored. the first test by the supreme court for determining if there is -- >> but nearly terrel it -- narrowly tailored doesn't mean it has to be, or if there isn't some other better way, way. >> that's correct. you have to be able to demonstrate because it is the burden of the city that its aims could not be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. they assert that but i don't think there's anything in the record or anything in logic to explain why if you are concerned about -- >> a try to get away and it didn't work spent i have to say 24 years later there are still day laborers so it appears this ordinance doesn't work either.

since you're comparing the two of them, the question is could they have achieved their objectives without regulating. >> you say that. i don't know what is on redondo beach. >> it's in the record. >> i didn't see anyone when i drove to do this morning. >> there are day laborers there. they are the. they're the ones who brought this case. they are still there. they are there because there's a demand for the services they provide. this is an exchange between both the willing employer and a willing employee. >> mr. saenz, let's say, hypothetically let's say that i think that the case was correctly decided by the three-judge panel if acorn is good law. tell corn isn't good law and why, you know, what with the u.s. supreme court, how would they decide this case? she would take a corn off the table? >> i think that acorn is a

decision that is no longer good law, and i think this court should say that. nonetheless, i think that there are distinction between this ordinance and one in a court that even if acorn remained good law would render this ordinance still unconstitutional. >> as to the facts of acorn, or because the ordinance has brought us -- >> i think the ordinance both in acorn and in this case incoming solicitation of business is broader than what was directed by that camp echo did with the solicitation of money. >> so as to the particular facts of acorn? >> i think there's a supreme court has made clear ago talk about solicitation for any exchange of money, that is due for. >> industry weather was traffic problem. >> that is content neutral. >> what's the different about having some extent into your car? taken to the transaction to. you don't put out cash but

surely cash is not was not key in acorn. immediate exchange your the way these transactions work. is that you have a negotiation and somebody steps into the car. why isn't that relevant? >> the factoid is of course there's no negotiation did you say you need workers, they get in the carpet it's fairly immediate. you get in the car and drive on first of all. >> there it is. so how is that different from pulling out money and hani, having some of the in your car. both of them involve the need of the vehicle stationary long enough for it to occur. both of them acquire substantive communication between the parties. i don't see what the difference is. >> there are two differences. the supreme court has discussed as well as the discussion in acorn itself at exchanging money often is a longer transaction.

[talking over each other] >> i bet you if we had, i could put up a dollar faster than you can load people in your car. it doesn't strike again that much different. >> i would take that bet but i think important second decision -- >> it would be close. the point is -- >> of course with the supreme court described and what was described in acorn is that is not typical. ordinary the person has to decide do i support the cause, to have the right change or die want change back. will i give them a credit card? that is what was described by the supreme court in the solicitation. >> are you discussing this because it's a content neutrality issue is because of a narrow targeting issue? because with regard to the second it seems to me that you

are leaving out the key fact of acorn which is it was in the middle of the traffic flow. >> i discussing it right now with respect to content neutrality. with respect to nero detailing there are specific differences. i think the other critical distinction is that if the city of redondo city of redondo beach in this case our interest in stopping any that involve an exchange, they could have done that more implicitly. because there are solicitations that involve exchanges in the roadway that are not barred by this ordinance. that's because the limited to employment. >> can i just following up on judge berzon's point, and to be the chief point, he asked how these transactions take place. from what i understand, the people in the cars come there for the express purpose of hiring the day laborers, is that correct?

>> correct. >> that's what the be part of the ordinance is for, and that's not part of acorn, right? >> that's right. >> acorn doesn't have -- >> there were two parts that were not in acorn. they be part and the definition of street or highway in a that covered sidewalks, curbs, et cetera. >> at the very least acorn is really distinguishable for the b. part, because here, i mean this is every bit as much the fault of the proposed employer as it is as the proposed employee, if not? >> yes. that's correct. >> what i mean is that these people come to the place for the purpose of hiring. >> yes. there's a willing employer, willing employee. they're both at the site when it occurs. i a great acorn existing which will even afford to remain good law.

largely because of the decisions we have identified. >> it seems to me it cuts against you. >> why is that, your honor? >> it seems to me that makes it much more business transaction. the guy who's providing answers give me a dollar because i'm hungry, you know, really it's just stopping at a stoplight. when you have both sides to engage in a commercial transaction. this suggests this is a marketplace. this suggests this is an activity where there's commercial intent on both sides, and, therefore, regulated by the government is much higher. >> its higher ability to record commercial speech. >> that's what it cuts against you. >> potentially. a couple points first. the city of redondo beach has never attempted to defend it as a regulation of commercial speech. it would be difficult for them to do that because the old law

includes contributions. >> it's a commercial activity. it's a marketplace. which raises all the proms you have when you have an organized marketplace. >> it is a marketplace. >> you have traffic congestion. you have competitive behavior. i don't know what, how the people on the sidewalk decides who gets the next potential client, whether there's any -- i guess there is some of the. >> this case would be and how different if we're talking about a regulation of the marketplace. we are talking about a regulation of speech that covers not on this transaction but also any solicitation of business, any solicitation of contributions we're talking about an attempt by a city that is not trying to read that this marketplace. as they admitted in this litigation. >> has anybody been stopped that wasn't involved in precisely

this kind of transaction? girl scouts, have been a lot of -- is any indication that this has been applied in practice or anything except it is very kind of commercial transactions because there's nothing in the record indicates there's been fortunate as to any other kind of -- >> you have to use the analysis or an analysis to choose just it's okay to us but all these other people are being regulated. that's a very dangerous, precarious position to take. >> of course i think there are strong arguments for why day laborers in this case have we been discussing this regulation is unconstitutional specifically as to that speech. however, it is certainly true that there is a danger -- >> parking lots, right click this could be conducted in a parking lot altogether. >> it could be, if the owner of the parking lot allowed it to

be. >> this is not something that has to be done, it's not like a parade or a demonstration or anything like that where you in nearly have to use a public street or park. this is something that could easily be done, if enough money is thrown at it, done in a stadium, a basketball court when it's not been used for the purpose, you know, one of those outdoor theaters. it all could be done there. >> cerda, and so could demonstration and so could break but they don't occur in parking lots step parades are different because courageous opposed in your face and demonstrations are supposed to be in your face. the point is not to be there. and we have seen when people go about their daily business. there's nothing about this transaction that would diminish in any way if the location of

the transaction were not in the middle of traffic. if you were in a parking lot a couple blocks away where nobody except the participants are present, right? >> with a parade and demonstration and with day laborer is a matter of reaching your intended audience. the folks you want to get you message to. >> what would you have us do with the facts that the actual enforcement patterns seem to be quite limited. although there's no written and demonstration. >> we would have them direct the city of redondo beach to write enforcement. it has been enforcing. >> what about chief judge kozinski's suggestion that you don't have to be overstated and had to do that exactly? why do you argue the standards? doesn't matter?

for purposes they have not actually enforcement of what? >> your honor, it comes with reading with the ordinance has i don't know why girl scouts are not on the streets selling cookies in redondo beach. i don't know why -- >> a may be there and not be enforced or they may not be the. we don't know. they have mothers. that's why. >> that is to also. but i would point out even sidestreets are not very busy. residential street and the like. if you read the ordinance it, it would apply. >> if you're girl scouts selling cookies before going to class, then -- >> i don't know but not in the record that they were there before 1980. >> okay. this is another hypothetical. if the court were to find the language content neutral, but that was not narrowly tailored, with this court have to revisit acorn and berger?

>> with respect to narrow tailoring, i don't believe so. if you look at the standard for narrow tailoring, kansas city's objectives be achieved without regulating speech, the answer is 30 yes. >> wide resolution would require revisiting berger and would create a tension with berger? >> i do see anything in this case that would create a tension with berger. i think with respect to all elements, content neutrality i think that berger is consistent with this case except to the extent that is right i think overread in saying that acorn actually blesses an ordinance that goes beyond what a court itself said by covering sidewalks. but i think with respect to narrow tailoring burger is correct and the standards that articulate there will apply here, what religious ordinance unconstitutional. with respect to alternative avenues of medication that is an independent reason why the

redondo beach ordinance should be held unconstitutional. >> exactly why do you think this is not content neutral? is it because you don't think solicitation is limited the exchange of money? is it the exchange of money? is it because it's limited to business and contributions and that other things? or exactly what? >> it's all of the above, your honor. start with back when you left at it does not cover all of speech, at a certain level all speeches is solicitation to if i'm performing i'm asking for your approval. if i'm asking for your vote on soliciting your vote. if i'm asking for your signature i am soliciting your signature. every kind of speech is a solicitation to with respect to the broad categories of speech, this singles out particular content. that solicitation basics employment, business or contributions. by that test is it content discriminatory. >> what about a case like you'll that said approaching three different categories of speech was content neutral, or at least

intermediate scrutiny. >> i would be completely candid. i think you'll is a difficult case to hundred i think sometimes it is like a blob and sometimes as you reveal some of that, other parts of the become obscure. but i think he'll deals with the situation with a specific context with a specific timing with a specific parties involved, tells you there's a violation so you don't actually have to look at what is the content to determine that there is a violation. >> we have never held that the officer is a prominent we've never relied on that. this is content neutral. so it's pretty clear on that point. >> what you have said is, and correctly, that that test is evidence but not as to content discrimination. that's what i'm distinction what happened in hill what it is not really closely intending to what

is said. it's not picking one of three categories out of dozens as occurs here. >> it's not? >> it's only one specific kind of speech in a specific context involving specific parties. that's the only way i can explain it? >> you should confine hill to its particular facts in your recommendation of hill. >> if you have out alternate situation where you can tell from the context, from the parties, from the timing, from the place, that there is a violation i suppose that would be an outcome dictated by hill. but other than that i think hill is unique when you look at all of the jurisprudence from the supreme court about content discrimination. >> if we changed just a little bit from the content and go to the narrowly tailored situation, if i look at what the supreme court says on facial challenges, it seems to me that the supreme court is saying that no set of

circumstances exist under which the challenged ordinance would be valid, or that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep. seems to me that your argument is about plainly legitimate sweep your would you agree? >> yes. in the first amendment context that specifically means is it chilling speech that is legitimate? >> so how do i then looked, i look at washington state graham, washington state republican party where it suggests that we generally don't apply the strong medicine of overbreadth analysis where the parties failed to describe the incidence of argument over breath, the contested law. it doesn't seem to me that in this particular situation that whether we're talking about somebody right in the street or on the sidewalk that it differs from that particular situation.

it's just a hypothetical example how the government could theoretically apply it and, therefore, why is it then not absolutely narrowly tailored because i do think it is entirely theoretical first of all. >> what's not theoretical? what examples from this record, evidence, do i have that it wasn't narrowly tailored? >> a day laborer is getting a sidewalk never enters the street, they're in violation of this ordinance. >> no. if they do the same thing transeventy that they are supposed to not be doing, why is that a problem? >> is the day laborer are doing with the city concedes permissible under this ordinance, they still would be violating it. >> the city contends that day labor could stand on the sidewalk, and as long as they somehow indicate, don't pull over illegally, go to a site shakeup coming to the parking lot and i will meet you there,

the city argues that that is not a violation that they would enforce. but under the terms of this ordinance that is a violation. that day labor, regardless of how they indicate, please pull into the parking lot, is still guilty of violating the ordinance as the city has construed it, if the driver stopped in the street and ignores the wishes -- >> i've never seen anybody do that. >> i seen it, your honor. i seem day laborers, pull over to a parking lot, it does occur. >> how do they communicate this to a moving vehicle? >> signaling people into the into the parking lot. they are not always paid attention to but it is sometimes ignored. folks are in a hurry to hire folks. >> let's assume for just a moment that this ordinance is content neutral and that it is narrowly tailored, whether i agree with that. the second issue which is

whether the city has met its burden of showing that there are ample channels fortification of information. that's the thing that troubles me the most about this matter. what is there in the record to indicate that there is an alternative means for these folks to express themselves in the city of redondo city of redondo beach? >> your honor, there's nothing in the record indicate there is an alternative means. >> whose burden is under the constitutional -- >> the city's burden. >> on the facial challenge though, i guess i'm puzzled. do we have to show ample channels for these individuals, this group of day laborers, or do we really have to say are there any ample alternative channels for soliciting business generally on a facial challenge with our job? >> i wish i had a clear answer to that because i had the same question in my mind as i reviewed the record because it seemed both sides focused on alternative channels for day

labor speaker there was no showing as to any kind of speech whatsoever. so that's why we are confined to what was described you, although i think the city would have a burden of this symmetry there are alternatives as well as back but that depends on what we're operating on. if we're only going to look at the day laborer situation and think there's a problem, and for alternatives we will look at the day laborer problem. >> i agree. i think the city ought to be required to show that there are alternatives available spent it will look at overbreadth in general, that the ordinance as written, then one would think that you we get to narrow tailoring before the alternative. >> that's correct. but if you focus only on day laborers i think there's nothing in the record that the city is produced to demonstrate an actual alternative channel. and, in fact, i think the channel that they have relied upon as appropriate, relying on a private property owner to hypothetically provide an alternative channel, i think is not allowed under this

ordinance. >> there are other municipalities that have attempted to create their own alternatives. >> by creating a hiring center for day laborers. >> there are places or phone calls or something. >> that's correct. >> the hiring centers were nowhere near the city of redondo beach, is that correct? >> that's great but i think the city of redondo beach, the burden is visual alternatives within the city it's a. that's why it's inappropriate to own private property owners because that is in essence a difference a. they can no more point to manhattan beach and say there's our alternatives as they can point to a private property owner and say -- >> is for example, it was an ordinance that said certain street corners were off limits, but just certain street corners spent that would leave the alternate of the other street corners, the others in the city and the question would be whether those are realistic alternatives. but there was no demonstration

of that here because this is an ordinance that applies to every part of the city of redondo beach. >> do have a standing? >> yes. we have standing both organizational standing. we have representation or associational standing. >> but you're standing was alleged. >> it was not alleged in the complaint. i think that was a mistake. i think lake forest presents a problem if the distinction here is as you pointed out that decision came out after the district judge acted. in this case unlike in lake forest the district judge your did find that there was organizational standing. >> was like force correctly decided? >> i don't believe it was, your honor. >> you want to tell judge kozinski that? >> i think that if the district judge reads the decorations of summary judgment and concludes there's organizational standing that gets you past a lack of pleading, but i think in this case because like force happened

afterwards spee-2 what difference would that make? spent because of the given indication of the district judge would've allowed an imminent of the complaint. because the district judge did conclude there was organizational standing. >> even if that was not the case with our remedy these descended back to the district to address like force? >> i think that's a proper regulation to let the district judge decide whether she would allow and a member of the complaint to then consider the evidence that she did consider incomplete on summary judgment that there was organizational standing. i think the only argument that has been put forward by the city of redondo beach about the legal right to work is both in a positive wrong on the law. >> is there anything about passionate you are chatting subsection b. as well as subsection eight. how is subsection b. and this is

what judge kozinski was asking, how is that a recent fashion a restriction on this beach? >> it is taking away the audience of the plaintiffs in this case and that as the supreme court has stated essentially kicks away the their right to free speech. section b. applies even to a legally parked vehicle whether that is on major street, a side street, anywhere on the streets of redondo beach. so it therefore takes with all listeners except those potentially who pull into a private lot in order to engage in the solicitation transaction. >> do you think if they just got to hear this person was saying -- >> it says attempts to wipe your nose in section b. and attempts to solicit in section eight. i struggle how either of those would remotely apply given the construction that the city offers up. this is only by those who cause them to stop ministry. i don't how you get an attempt

to solicit if you require an actual stop of a vehicle before you conclude it was a violation of the ordinance. another reason why i think it is too vague and inconsistent with the plain language as this court has repeal he concluded. when you have a narrowing construction -- >> some other of these cases that have been enforcement policies that have been written up. that was consistent with what they are now saying, i.e. in the street, only if you actually have a transaction, only in certain, in these two intersections only with regard to employment, would that be valid? >> i think this would be a different case. i think it would be series concerned about how consistent that is what the actual language of the ordinance. the plain language of the law is a particular concern in the first amendment context because

of the danger of a chilling. what you just described goes will be on the language both excising certain words and adding words, particularly the restriction to particular intersections when the law as written applies throughout the city of redondo beach. i think would be problematic. that would be a different case. is that within to be put into the ordinance itself that also would be a different case. i think we might still be here arguing about narrow tailoring, specifically about whether the city needs to do anything to regulate speech given the fact its concerned could be easily answered by adequately enforcing laws against jaywalking, obstructing traffic or illegally stopping. but we would certainly be here in different context that we are today we have a plainly worded ordinance apply to the entire city of redondo redondo beach that covers sidewalks as well as alleys, meetings and parkways. covered in subsection b. only solicitation of employment, not business or contribution. we have an ordinance that is content discriminatory on its

face by not covering all solicitation, not caring solicitations, all solicitation that would require a car just a. this ordinance would not stop someone soliciting signatures on a petition whether a petition to qualified measure for the ballot or a petition to have the rock 'n roll hall of fame immediately introduced britney spears no matter what the petition is, if you're seeking a signature from a car it's not blocking -- barred by this ordinance but it is the kind of exchange that it indicated to have problems with. they single out a particular solicitation. the britney spears thing doesn't happen very often. >> it doesn't. >> which is understandable. >> it is understandable. [laughter] but i do think people certainly petitions about all kinds of matters but serious and inane. and sometimes they do that in a modern era to drivers. and that's a concern.

they have singled out solicitation of a particular kind, a solicitation that is an equal chance to lead to a car stopping illegally in traffic. the narrow tailoring problem, indicates that this court should concluded the district court was right that the redondo beach ordinance is unconstitutional as a violation of the first amendment. thank you, your honor's. >> mr. webb, i want to ask you about the alternative channels. i hope you can answer the question before me. do you agree the burden is on the city to show -- assuming contracted out and assume for a minute and narrow tailoring is close enough we don't have to worry about that. what real, ample alternative channels for fumigation any

information exists under this ordinance for these day laborers? >> all the ones that this court identified in a corn. the exact same ones. the terms that you can hold up a sign that all the things that this court addressed in a.c.o.r.n. in holding that there were proper alternative channels of fumigation are in effect in this case because again, the a section is exactly based on that a.c.o.r.n., that phoenix statute. >> so you get to import a.c.o.r.n. into your record? >> in terms of that passion the record shows we've always enforce a consistent with a.c.o.r.n. in fact, the record shows it was specifically identified that we were seeking to copy this law by the use of addressing our problems. >> a corn whiskey with conjugations to a charity as to which the audience is ran and are trying to reach essentially a random audience.

and here you are dealing with wanted to deal with those people wanted to hire day laborers. >> in this case some of the alternatives i recognize are still appropriate. the leaflets in the car. pull over your. anything that they want to get fumigation -- >> it would be okay to give them a little principle over your? >> i'm saying this ordinance does a private this court instructed us before we adopted it to i think one of the things the council mention talk about first amendment law in terms of being a blob on top of a skeletal system, the city tried to do exactly what this court said was okay. >> the ordinance literally applies to some extent on the sidewalk holding a sign. >> a.c.o.r.n., this court said that in a.c.o.r.n. and it said

in a jacking the overbreadth analysis. so i'm putting it in there did not change whether or not applied to a sidewalk. it did apply to the sidewalk in a.c.o.r.n. and it applies in our case. the only difference is we took a fitness challenge away by giving additional notice. the city shouldn't be punished for giving additional notice for something that was specifically in a.c.o.r.n. >> thank you. we will be adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> in a few moments a discussion of women's social media and the arab world.

>> next, a forum on women's social media and the arab world. from a conference hosted by the international women's media forum, this is a little less than an hour. >> i am liza gross executive

director of the international women's media foundation. [applause] >> and we are coming to the end of our wonderful congress of the meet leaders here in washington, d.c.. this is something that would never happen in our convention attended only by males, but someone lost in a ring. [laughter] >> if you want to claim that i have it here. j., i am so sorry. we can address that later. excellent. i also want to recognize briefly a couple of guests that joined us just a few minutes ago. from the embassy of the republic of angola. and the doctor, the present of the women's ambassador foundation. [applause]

>> i hope you all enjoyed your lunch and your conversations, and we're going to be staying this afternoon with the topic of leadership and focusing on leadership by women in the global media industry. it is now my pleasure to introduce to you ms. pat mitchell. >> pat mitchell is president and ceo of the daley center for media headquartered in new york and los angeles. the daily said as the largest public archive up television and radio programs. but pat is so much more than the current deals in her current position purchase work for 20 years as a broadcast journalist, producer, reporter and news anchor with nbc, cbs and abc. she was also the first woman and the first journalist to serve as president and ceo of the public broadcasting system of the united states. [applause]

>> she has been a tad a lifetime advocate for women's issues and advancement of women in the media industry. please join me in welcoming pat mitchell. [applause] >> that would not happen either in an all-male conference. >> that is too. exchanging such passionate kisses as we have the last few days. if union my story, you would care -- if you knew my story, you would care. if you knew mine and i knew yours, we would recognize what connects us and respect more deeply what divides us. those were the words that a young woman said to me just last month as we danced together at the opening of the city of joy,

a new heating and training center that was referred in opening remarks. will to provide a place for the thousands of rape survivors, and that incredibly beautiful country. that has been ravaged for so many years by a civil conflict that has led to rape, violence, death for hundreds of thousands of women. until recently, the story unreported by the world press. many did not know this story. so many did not care. in spite of the heroic efforts of a woman who has joined us for lunch today, a woman i admire so deeply for her courage, her bravery, her voice, ambassador.

[applause] >> that same beautiful woman who had pulled me into the circle of answers later took the stage at this very auspicious opening ceremony where the ambassador and other government officials from around the world spoke. she told her story in an articulate voice the story of being abducted from her village, repeatedly raped, and left for dead on the side of the road. her family gone and no one to help. gratefully, this young woman found a hospital. and its saintlike physician. she was healed. and at the new city of joy, funded by the movement and unicef, she has found her voice. and she is telling her story. and in doing so, she is turning

her pain to power. i know her story now, and i care. deeply. for her and for all the other women whose stories like this, need to be told about the story -- so the world will know and care. care about the realization of their rights to reach their full potential, their rights as individuals to live with safety and security, their rights to bring positive change to their communities, their countries, to the world. we know women fully empowered can do that. study after study has confirmed this. analysis and research from government do oral bank, they you income and other organizations confirms this over and over again, fully educated girls and empowered women change

the societies and communities in which they live and work. they are without question our greatest hope for the solution to the world's crises and the greatest potential for this world to reach a more sustainable, more prosperous people. i believe that. yet, today as we are gathered here, that young congolese woman's story is still the story of so many of the women, many in the country he represents, women everywhere still being physically abused, politically invisible, struggling to find their voice to the challenges that many of us can't even imagine. that's the story i wanted to share, and to move us to think of our power to change that

story, to turn back pain into power. we hold that power, because we are journalists, we are media leaders, we are in the organizations with the reach and impact. how do we fully optimize the power that is in our hands, the power of media to be the agent of positive change that we know and it has proven that it can be. our time together has been focused, as it should have been, on the challenges of how we go forward as women in media. we spent time so we could gather together the very best tools, have the very latest information so that we could go back and reach our fullest potential as individuals in media businesses. we know now how to create greater networks and support

among ourselves, so critical during his transformative time to reach across borders and cultures, and help each other. respect each other's differences and know the strategy that can unite us. and we have heard over and over again how today, working as we that is changing every minute and new technologies is rewriting our lives, creating new opportunities, and yes, new challenges, that what we do for a living, what we want to do as journalists has its own set of challenges were effort it is we live and work at that's why we came together for this forum, to inform ourselves to give us a chance to learn from each other, hear from the experts, and then to work as you have so very well through these days to adapt to plans of action. and no doubt those plans of

actions will become reality. some of those challenges, the strategy address for tomorrow's technology are as old as media itself. all this is why we need idea map and i want to express my personal gratitude to liza and her remarkable thing for bringing this together for this really great gathering. [applause] >> i know that i will share the story i've heard, the things i've learned, the people i have met, and i know i will be a better media leader when i leave this conference today. because of the time that we have spent together. so i want to spend just a few minutes of my time to talk to you as women journalists and all of us as women leaders, about why what we do matters so much, maybe more than ever.

and understanding that have to do this and tell those stories that must be told, especially those that will not be told unless we tell them, is also why we are here. .. >> for change. the change that we want to see in the world, the change we believe is needed in the world,

yes, is in our power to bring about. i hope you believe it and feel it as i have felt it being among you these few days, because the evidence is everywhere i go in the world. there are so many examples of stories that you have written, blogged, tweeted or read that have changed your communities and your countries. i, regrettably, can't go through them all, but i know and you know that when those stories are told, we unleash a kind of impact that cannot be felt and cannot be impacted any other way. and when we don't report them, we leave women like that woman in the congo alone and uncared for. so i believe we have the power, and i know we have the responsibility. we must pass on what we know to the aspiring journalists who work for us, yes.

we've learned a lot of that. but we must also pass on what we believe about the power that is in our hands to use the media to fully optimize and leverage it power to tell the stories that perhaps only we will tell. and why? why do we do this? not just because it's the right thing to do. we do this because we know again from study after study that when these stories are told and the results are women more fully empowered and girls more fully educated and all better protected and free, we know there are societies -- their societies and their communities change. look at the latest world economic report from the world economic forum that is so clearly evident that where poverty is the most entrenched and women and violence is the most tolerated, these are also

the countries that have the least amount of women voices in the media. there's a direct correlation, and it's proven again and again between women's empowerment and a country's prosperity and security. and one of the most significant paths to their empowerment is through media and technology. not only in the stories that we use media and technology to tell, but media and technology in the hands of women desperately looking and needing change. and those are the results that are so inspiring to witness around the world. i just want to share a couple. in iraq and kenya i saw 100 women go to the village and purchase radio licenses for $100 each. small radios are broadcast. and someone said, what good will

that do? i mean, who's going to hear you outside your own village? and they said, exactly. and they went into their homes, and they created a network, a radio network that goes village to village to village to village. and guess who changed the election results in their area? the women broadcasting to each other, here's where you go, here's how you register. they also read to each other. they share health information. they are reducing the amount of women dying in problematic childbirth. they are changing their community through one of the oldest technologies; radio. you may have read recently that very courageous liberian president took the national public radio license away from the men who had been running it throughout the last 50 years and ghei it to a -- and gave it to a group of seven women journalists. and everybody said, how will

this go on? well, it's not only going on, it is prospering, and it is becoming a powerful tool for the full empowerment that president sirleaf has so committed herself to doing. the challenge? there are only seven trained journalists in liberia. we need to change that. we can change that. maybe you read the stories of how in these brothels and ghettos of sex traffic victims in india and cambodia that cell phones in the hands of these women are now being used to give them directions out. to safety. we also know that where the congolese women are fighting the struggle i mentioned earlier, they, too -- some of them -- have cell phones now. and when they're forced to go out into the forest which they are to gather food and wood for

their families, they have an alert system through the cell phones where they can alert each other when there are rebels or guerrillas or danger nearby. these are just a few of the stories. there are so many, many more where we know we have the evidence, we see the results of media and technology in the hands of women being used as tools for safety, security and prosperity as they use these same tools to improve their access to information and markets. but the gaps are still there. between those who have that access to information and technology and, therefore, media's power and those who don't. and between those who have it and don't is the power gap that you and i can fill. because those gaps start to close when women's stories are told and when women become the

decision makers in media. and that's the other gap that i want us to think about as we leave here today. we're newly empowered, we have new networks of support. let's make sure that as decision makers we are not only optimizing our power, but recognizing our responsibility. how many of you know about this global monitoring report? i see a couple of hands. the title of the report says who makes the news? this report is done every five years, monitoring the news and information sources of more than 100 news and information -- 100 countries around the world. and what it shows, not surprisingly, is that in the five years since they started doing this monitoring -- in the 20 years, i beg your pardon, they do it every five years --

the numbers have not gotten any better. want to take a guess at what the representation of women's stories and women's voices and global news and information is? 17%. and often less country by country, more in some others. but it has never been higher than 24%. so if media is our mirror, as it clearly is of the world that we live in be, then we are still projecting a distorted mirror that is leaving out so many stories. now, we hear the excuses from the organizations, we know them, you've heard them all before. hard to find a woman expert. just couldn't find a woman nuclear scientist to talk on that subject. oh, and, you know, that woman story really might appeal to women, but it's really not newsworthy. and so on. and so on.

we've heard all of the excuses and, prankly, some of -- frankly, some of us have probably even used them ourselves. but the time for excuses has to be over because the time for actions and careerties -- priorities to change this picture of who makes the news is now. that's why we came together. we've heard a lot of talk these days about objectivity and the need to have it in order to have authentic, trustworthy journalism. i want to go on the record saying i do not accept that advocating for women's stories or insisting that women are present in the news, in every forum, on every panel, at every table where discussions and decisions are made is not a loss of objectivity.

advocacy for gender-sensitive issues in the place we work, enforcing them in the organizations we support, the companies we lead is our responsibility. pote as individuals -- both as individuals, as journalists, and, yes, as women leaders. because that mirror we are projecting by the media we produce, we distribute, we edit, we write, we read, in every forum in which we also participate, it must reflect the real world we live in and work in. again, not because it's the right thing to do, but because we have the power to do it, to change the picture. many people say, so, does this mean quotas? does this mean we have to legislate, regulate? it has worked in some places. as a matter of fact, i am

standing here today as a woman in media because in this country in 1969 and '70 there was regular rah story -- regulatory action called the equal employment opportunity commission that said to every media company in this country you will hire women and minorities, and you will report the names of those you have hired or the numbers every year. so that we can consider whether to renew your license as a media company. now, the media landscape has changed, and companies no longer have to go through quite that process, but the eeoc is the reason that women's voices started to appear in be newsrooms and on television, and women writers and directors and reporters and journalists started to get jobs. yes, it was difficult because they usually hired one, and that

was the quota. it was hard to find allies, it was hard to find mentors. as a matter of fact, it was hard to find a women's room. my first job at nbc news i had to leave my high heels outside the door so the men would know there was a woman inside. [laughter] so much has changed, but we have regulatory action to think -- to thank for what was a beginning. so maybe it's time that we look at the models that the scandinavian countries have set for us, the success of norway with its 40% representation of women on boards and the success of sweden with its mandated family leave. we need to find solutions to work life balance to the access women have to full empowerment and the top jobs, to salaries and all the other issues we've discussed. we need to have those answers. if it's not media -- if it's not

regulatory action, it is certainly this. taking our power and using it for ourselves. if not us, who? and if not now, when? be -- there are so many examples, as i said, of power being misused and abused in the world today. we witness it now almost daily, and we see the results of this finally coming to a different kind of fulfillment with the stories coming out of libya, bahrain, yemen and so many other places. where media is being used to challenge the power and the abuse of power, and media is reshaping the future. so when it is challenged and that power shifts from one to many, there is a huge opportunity for the kinds of change to be evidenced again

that media can, as a single factor, affect. information is our key to unlocking personal and political power, and it really is our key to caring deeply enough to act. our guest for our final interview of this session is someone who knows the story politically and personally. i'd like to welcome mona el sa haw by to the stage, and as she comes and i join her for a conversation, a few words about why mona is such an ideal person in which to have a conversation about the power of media as an agent of change. mona came to this country ten years ago, as you heard, and immediately embraced her skills as a writer, a blogger, a journalist, someone whose voice was going to be heard.

she was courageous and be brave as so many of you are in telling the stories that no one else wanted to hear, of being personal and brave about sharing her own personal journey and story. and recently, now, emerging as a voice of great authority and authenticity and, might i add, advocacy for women's voices as the revolution in egypt and around the world has gone forward. please, join me in welcoming mona. [applause] thank you, it's so great to have you here. mona told me last night, she came in the, and she had dinner in washington in the what she considers the new revolutionary council. there were representatives from libya, from syria, from egypt, right? and i can only imagine the tweets and the blogs that were

going out throughout that dinner. and you can share whatever you can about that later. but let's, let's go back to a few weeks ago when you were here, egyptian-born muslim, watching what's happening in egypt and seeing on the front lines of that revolution women with their cell phones, their cameras and the blogs that launched it. what were you thinking? >> well, this is the happiest time of my life, pat. i mean, hands down, this is the time that everybody i know has been waiting for. and the most amazing of it all was to watch television coverage of the protests and the demonstrations not only in this tahrir square, but the streets around tahrir square. in 2005 i returned to egypt for four months to take part in the street protests that were happening then. 2005 was a feeling of great political cement in egypt, there was a protest that grew against

the mubarak regime. and i was so excited to discover it through the blogs and through what was happening online, i decided to move back to egypt to join it for a while and also to coffer the presidential and parliamentary elections that year. and at the height of those demonstrations, i think the largest number we had was maybe 3,000 in tahrir square. but mostly those demonstrations were, if we were lucky, 200 people. and there would be men and women chanting, and we'd be marching through the streets of downtown cairo, just 200 of us, and we try today persuade fellow egyptians to join us. and they would look at us as if we were insane. and you could see in their eyes a come by nation of fear -- combination of fear that was well grounded because you could disappear for protesting, but for many egyptians, they had to have two or three jobs just to survive. so they didn't want to lose their jobs by joining these mad people marching through downtown cairo saying, down, down, with

hosni mubarak. so i thought, wow, the entire country of egypt has gone insane because it's not just 100 people who are crazy now, but everybody had gone crazy and determined to get rid of mubarak. >> but you make the point which has been reported but perhaps such an important part of this story is the media story. this revolutionary use of media had begun five years ago, and is these young people whose blogs and tweets and the support networks they had built had been growing over these last several years. so it wasn't this instantaneous let's take to the streets and overthrow the government. and would it have been possible without social media? >> the way i like to place social media into the whole prism of how best to look at the revolutions and uprisings in the region, i think, is to consider social media the latest tool that is enabled young people especially, but everybody in

those countries that have been so controlled by the state. it's the latest tool that helped people get their voice across. i like to say that social networking, especially being on blogs or lately on facebook and twitter, has created this seismic shift in consciousness that has allowed young people, men and women, to say i count. and once you say i count in an autocratic state, you're essentially telling the regime, you're telling this one man and in the case of young people in the region who are the majority, the only ruler they've known, you're telling that ruler now that you will not be silenced anymore. it's a tool. it's really important to remember that courage and activism have long existed in those parts of the world. and i think for the sake of simplicity the media will treat something as if it happened yesterday. and it's very important to remember that this has been a long time coming. libya, where ghadafi has been in power for 42 years, he was hanging people on live television in the early '80s who were trying to overthrow him.

so this has been happening for a long time. but people just started to pay attention lately. and it's been building up, building up, and it's this seismic shift of i count, i think, that helps so many young people galvanize the people. >> and it's the seismic shift in the power balance that media or new technologies certainly have provided. i mean, the question that keeps being asked over and over is even when mubarak shut down the internet to try and cut off the communication, but, of course, social media doesn't rely on that. so could it have happened without social media? >> i think social media helped it reach the tipping point that it needed to go to because, you know, there was a very interesting two or three days leading up to january the 25th, exactly two months ago today, when the protests started in egypt to coincide with police day. because he were to protest police brutality, and there were tweets that i was seeing being

sent around where a lot of young people were saying, okay, listen, guys, everyone who said attend on the facebook page for this protest, you better attend. everybody who said like to the facebook page, you better like. because there's this idea that the slacktavist which is someone who sits in front of their computer and clicks like makes them an activist. there were all these messages saying, people, we need you on the street. they were being criticized. you can't arrange an uprising on facebook and twitter, but they did. you need the critical mass. my point about social networking is it helped connect the activists whose activism had been linked to twitter and facebook with the activists on the street in egypt who for years had been trying to get all those people who said, you're crazy. and once you manage to combine the two together because once thousands of people were on the street two months ago exactly

today, all those egyptians who had been terrified to protest, something clicked inside, and they said, wow, everybody's out there. i have got to get out there. and that's how they managed to get over it. so i think it's that tool that helped people get over that barrier of fear. >> how did you find out about it, tweeting, blogging? what was your source of information when it first happened. >> >> it was twitter. i had been living on twitter 24 hours a day. [laughter] and i have a twitter friend right who can testify to that because we met on twitter, first time we're meeting in the real world today. >> wow, i didn't realize that. >> my friend right there, laura. >> oh, my goodness. so everybody join mona's network. >> she'll get you invited to lunches everywhere. [laughter] twitter was the most immediate source of information for me because i was literally reading tweets from young men and women i knew. one of the young men whose name on twitter is sand monkey, so he's taken this very prerogative term or pejorative, sorry, term,

that people will often use to insult arabs, essentially, and he's co-opted that term, and he calls himself sand monkey on twitter and on his blog. and i was reading tweets by him on january 25th saying, oh, my god, we've been called in by police. i'm the biggest guy i know, that's it, i'm going to charge the police line. here we go, and i'll see you in a bit. and he disappears off twitter for a little bit, and i'm like, where's mahmoud? because that's his real name. and then he comes on 25 minutes later and says, man, that was tough, but i gave it to them. and then there was another woman i have not met yet, her name is also mona. and i would see her tweets when she'd wake up in tahrir square, she's, like, good morning to the world. and i would follow her for the full day. and the first time i heard her voice was in this very moving interview with al-jazeera that

rachel maddow played on her show. this was a day in which the mubarak thugs tried to break everything up, and the interviewer said to her, why are you still there? and mona was kind of half crying, half composing herself, and she said, if we leave, they will kill every single one of us. and if we leave today, then all the martyrs who died will have died for nothing. and i'm sitting there crying listening to this woman whose tweets became my companion for the entire day. so i formed these deeply compassionate and connected relationships with people i have never met but who are my revolutionary heros in egypt. that's what twitter did. >> one of the bloggers who emerged very -- and, certainly, her tweets were being read and reported -- made an interesting statement about social media beyond the ones that we have already mentioned. and that is the first gender-free media, that she can

blog and tweet and incite and lead and no the one has to even -- no one has to even know she's a woman. >> absolutely. obviously; if you use your real name, they will know, but i think the best scenario to really appreciate what a powerful medium the internet is in saudi arabia which is often held up as the most extreme form of ultra conservativism because saudi arabia practices gender segregation. so there are spaces for women and spaces for men, but on the internet there is no segregation. everybody's on the internet, and everybody on the internet will speak as equals. so you seesawty women who are -- see saudi women who are issuing manifestos, and you can go and read that and discuss that. a saudi woman i got to know lately online is the daughter of one of the 42 saudi women who were revolutionaries back in 1990 when they broke the ban on driving and were arrested and were banned for traveling for two years.

the daughter of one of those women now is involved in another online campaign, again the internet being used to level the playing field, and they're creating these amazing videos that they upload to youtube for women's citizenship rights. and here's this daughter of this revolutionary, and she's continuing her mother's battle using both the real world and the virtual world. so it really has leveled things. >> yeah. in fact, she posted videos on youtube of herself driving a car. >> that was another woman, actually. >> oh. >> yeah. >> but, again, using these tools that are possible. and be, of course, it has given women a different place in the revolution. it did in egypt, for the first time through social media -- facebook and other ways -- the saudi women organized and had their first women's march on international women's day which was a very big accomplishment for a group to get together and to take to the streets.

and now we're reading that these same women who were at the forefront of the revolution, particularly in egypt, are being pushed to the back and once again are invisible, in many cases arrested, abused, beaten because of their role. tell us what you sense about this development. >> well, the march on international women's day in egypt had been planned as a martha they wanted, the organizers wanted a million people. it was ambitious, but it was much more for the symbolism of, you know, we want a million women and men march. and, unfortunately, not a lot of people came out for the march, but even worse than that was the men who came out to counter the march. and a lot of them shouted very abusive remarks at the women. the women, some of the women were groped, some of the women were pushed away, and they faced very ugly hostility. and i think it was a reminder to many of us that this incredible

spirit that has come about in tahrir square where men and women side by side and in other cities across egypt -- because the revolution could not have happened if it had just been a revolution of tahrir square. this was a revolution of villages and cities and towns across egypt from my own family's town in the south of egypt to towns in the north of egypt across the entire country. but what happened in tahrir square was you had men and women together, many women defying their families because egypt is, after all, quite a conservative country. defying their families to spend night after night in tahrir square. so that spirit of, you know, egalitarianism and women and men together, a lot of them took on international women's day, but what they were met with was people who didn't care about the revolution and weren't in tahrir square every day. we have to remember that there are people still like that in egypt because egypt is a country of 18 million. and that hostility we have to meet with the spirit that we had in tahrir square. so a lot of those women are

saying, don't be discouraged. what we saw on that day is a reminder of how much work we have to do. but as i like to remind, you know, american friends, egypt has a history of feminism that goes back to 1923. feminism is not new to egypt, and it's not something we need to introduce or export into egypt. you'll find many countries in the region have a long history with women's rights. how we've dealt with women's rights in egypt or saudi arabia perhaps differs from way other countries do, but the challenges are to get women involved in a future government in if egypt, to allow for women's greater participation, allow for the participation of christians. you were mentioning women and minorities. definitely allow for greater participation for everyone, but no one is under the illusion that just because we've had a revolution in egypt that overnight our problems with sexual harassment and discrimination are over. >> so that's the story, and that's where this group of people who are telling the story

just to stay we egypt for a moment or two longer. what often happens is tahrir square's on the front page, and we're all following it in every possible way we can, and then we know that the women are disappearing from the pictures, and they are, as you say, facing other struggles. have we dropped the story because women are not of the constitution committee, so it's very likely they will not have the role in the new government that i'm sure those young revolutionaries envisioned and that people hoped would be a change. so what now? what can -- where is the story for the press now i to be telling? >> i think the press, media generally should be focusing on what young people are doing in egypt. because we're in a situation now where, you're right, that constitutional committee that was formed to come up with changes, they're only kind of cosmetic changes really that were approved by referendum last week. this was, basically, a way of

kind of moving on with the political process in egypt. but now the big question is what will happen when we have parliamentary elections possibly in june and presidential elections in august? and what's really important to note here is that the old political entities like mubarak's party, the national democratic party, and like the muslim brotherhood, they are the best prepared right now because of their on-the-ground networking they've had for years. the youth element now is what we should be focusing on because they were the ones who, like, kick started the revolution. and during the revolution they formed the youth revolutionary coalition. that comes from various political backgrounds in the egypt, and on wednesday to insure that young people in egypt have a say in the future elections, they formed what they call the tahrir square council to prepare young egyptians to run for parliament. they want kind of the top age that they will feel to be 40. and that would be groundbreaking for egypt because we're, basically, a country that's been

run by old men. so they want to prepare young men and women who are younger than 40 to run for parliament. they want to lower the age for parliamentarians from 30 to 25 because so many of them are in their 20s, and they want to lower the age of the president from 40 to 35. again, this is going to take a while, but what they realize is they must use social networking, but also on-the-street networking in the same way these old political entities are doing, and they're starting right now because there's no time to waste. and that's where women must be involved. >> and are there any guidelines, regulatory -- any issues on the table now to insure that women will be on those parliamentary tickets? >> there had been talk of a quota for women, and the youth revolutionary coalition have been talking to the military council that currently runs egypt about insuring the fair representation of everyone. because the focus in egypt right now is fair representation of women and christians, as i said. because especially after the --

what we've had over the past 30 years in egypt is growing conservativism. as the mubarak regime fought its political islamic opponents with a very conservative version of islam, and the groups in egypt that suffered the most were women and egypt's christian community. so it was women and egypt's christians after the revolution who were the ones saying, okay, we will not be forgotten now that we've gotten rid of mubarak. so that's what the coalition is insisting the revolutionary council insure. we will write a new constitution, we must have a woman. and we have a wonderful woman who's actually on the constitutional judiciary committee. so she's ideally suited. so what these young men and women are pushing for is the representation of women. you know, as you said, people keep saying we don't have any women who are qualified. that's nonsense. >> yeah. >> she's right there, but they totally overlooked her when they were choosing those ten men for the interim constitutional amendment. >> so i can imagine if this

entire room wrote about that story and that woman, that might bring a little bit of attention to. -- [laughter] you look at these ore places where, again, media is so significantly playing a role in the changes in the country, wherever those changes might be right now, and how do you yourself assess? is it, are we giving media too much power, or do you really feel that what media technology has done by giving, as you said, changing the power shift one to many, is it a significant force? >> it's important to remember that social networking are, social networking generally is a tool. but i think it's also important not to just say it's -- don't say a twitter revolution, a facebook revolution because it takes away from the agency and the courage of the people who are out on the street. but also don't forget mainstream media because social networking and these new forms of media have been our eyes and ears on

the ground. as i said, i was rivetted to these tweets. but you can't discount something like tv networks because al-jazeera took a lot of the footage that citizen journalists were shooting on the ground and transmitting it to, you know, 50 million people in the region. and that, too, is powerful. but at the end of the day, also, it's important to remember political -- and there are politics involved in every media. so what you're seeing is a lot of frustration with the way libya has been covered in the so-called western media because a lot of high-profile journalists have gone and interviewed ghadafi who has rambled on insanely about how his people love him and there's nothing happening in tripoli when we know he's slaughtering people. and yet the same media outlets do not have access to libyans so they, too, get a platform to represent themself. this is where you see kind of the cracks where one form of media has to replace another form of media.

neither can replace the other. i think they need to basically dance with each other and learn when one goes forward and one goes back because they need each other. especially in countries where access to people is controlled by dictators like ghadafi. if you can't get on the ground, you can find citizen journalists who can get on the ground for you and connect you to people who someone like ghadafi is preventing you from reaching. >> it's also critical to remember that this is why independent media is so absolutely critical in a place like yemen to have nadia running a newspaper that is, you know, prix of government -- prix of government influence -- free of government influence and restrictions, and many of the women in this room are either working for independent sources or are an independent source of news and information themselves. you, too, practice journalism. it's been your way of sharing stories and telling stories. what story, what are you

thinking about what you will do in your own life and use media to empower yourself and, also, to continue to speak as you have for the empowerment of women throughout the rest of the world and in particular the region that you come from? >> well, you know, before i moved to the u.s. this in the 2000, i was a news reporter for various news outlets. but 9/11 really created the big shift for me because as a muslim and as a feminist who lives in this country, 9/11 was so horrific for me on many levels, but the level that frustrated me the most was that i was not seeing a voice like mine in the mainstream media. so i left news reporting altogether and took up column writing, opinion writing because i was done with objectivity. 9/11 killed objectivity for me. and i think this notion of objective as we move on, as social networking and citizen journalism do work with mainstream media, this notion of objectivity will be looked at again and again in order to

examine exactly what it means and is it helping anyone to say that we're objective? so i began, i took on opinion writing after 9/11 because i wanted to get a voice like mine into the mainstream media, and it has been incredibly frustrating and hard. but t something that i find very enriching because i'm very passionate about challenging the kind of stereotypes that are everywhere about muslims, about muslim women, about muslim women who are feminists, about all the ands that represent me. and now the revolutions and uprisings, you know, take off in so many parts of the region it's especially exciting for me to continue to leave object oivity behind and try to connect my excitement to what's happening. because one of the biggest frustrations i had when i started to appear on u.s. media outlets especially when the revolution started in egypt was how people kept wanting to talk about the looting and the violence and all the negative things that were happening. and they were missing that this is the most exciting time of our lives, and the violence that

you're seeing was coming from a regime that for such a long time had been telling the u.s. administration without me, chaos. and so that narrative of chaos was what was kind of, you know, in every network. and they were not catching on to the fact that people are willing to die for freedom. it's not about chaos. it's about people willing to die for freedom because finally they see a light at the the end of this very long tunnel that we've been digging for so long to get the freedom and dignity that they've so long been denied that these political coalitions, you know, the fact that five u.s. presidents had been the best friend of mubarak for 30 years knowing he's a dictator. so when i appear on u.s. the and i'm told what do you think of the violence and chaos, i don't want to talk about the violence and chaos. i want to talk about this is the most exciting time of my life, and this is what i'm using my opinion pieces to get across. and what i tried to get across on my tweets, because sometimes i barely sleep. so i'm trying to use my twitter

network, and i have something like 43,000 people who follow me, as a kind of conveyor belt of, you know, the syrians i know, the yemenis i know, the bahrainis, the libyans just to get their voices out and connect them with people who wouldn't hear them because it's such a great time that we're all experiencing, and i want to share this excitement. >> well, there's no doubt you're not objective. >> no, i don't want to be. [laughter] >> and you don't want to be. i think you probably add another 100 -- added another 100 or so followers to your tweeting. and in sharing your story, mona, you have reminded us yet again that we are, all of us, wherever we are and whatever media we are currently engaged in using or reporting or editing or being a part of that there is something so powerful about what we can do, and the results we're seeing now playing out. they won't be easy, they won't end well in this all cases.

it's messy going through change, and it's always somewhat scary to be the people telling the stories that lead to change. so i want to thank you for your courage and for sharing the story today with us. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> i, i didn't see that we did. i was asked to say good-bye, but perhaps you can ask her when she steps off the stage. thank you all very much, and it's been a real delight sharing this experience with you. and let's go tell the stories that need to be told. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> as protests continue in the middle east and as nato starts to take control of military operations in libya, find the latest from the u.n. security council, administration officials and reaction from world leaders on the c-span video library. all searchable on your computer anytime. watch what you want, when you want. >> many a few moments, iowa ree palin congressman steve king hosts a panel discussion on conservatives and the media and efforts to repeal the year-old federal health care law. >> a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. the senate energy and natural resources committee looks into the japanese nuclear plant crisis on c-span at 10:00. members will hear from representatives of the nuclear regulatory commission, the nuclear energy institute, and the union of concerned scientists. also at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3, a senate judiciary

committee hearing on civil rights for american muslims. witnesses will include the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division and cardinal theodore mccarek. >> throughout the month of april, we'll feature the top winners of this year's c-span's student cam competition. near 1500 students submitted documentaries on the theme, "washington, d.c. through my lends." watch the winning videos every morning at 6:50 a.m. eastern just before "washington journal." and during the program, meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos anytime online at studentcam.org. >> over the weekend iowa republican congressman steve king's conservative principles political action committee hosted several possible presidential candidates in panel discussions in des moines, iowa. one panel was on conservatives and the media. this is 40 minutes.

[applause] [laughter] >> outstanding. okay. now, we're going to take a look at our conservative principles from a little bit of a different angle. to discuss the role and responsibility of the media, especially during this caucus season mind you, we're going to bring some gentlemen out to discuss their perspective of our conservative principles. our first speaker i'd like to welcome back our friend from who, jan mickelson. [applause]

our next gentleman comes from l.a., so there's a perspective that'll be unique. [laughter] the tony katz radio spectacular extols the virtues of freedom and capitalism. broadcast on the all patriots media network, and you can listen at 5 p.m. on monday through friday on am radio or online at allpatriotsmedia.com focusing on right versus wrong rather than right versus left. tony works his way through current events and pop culture. he is also a los angeles tea party founder and is the host of conversation with tony katz on pj tv. american, capitalist, believer. ladies and gentlemen, tony katz. [applause] all right, most of you know

our next gentleman. he's been through the campaign cycles local to presidential from ground game to fundraising, but there's a new perspective, a new media that didn't exist during the last caucus, and that is the iowa republican.com. and craig robinson, its editor. [applause] so, again, i think we'll have jan mickelson come up and just say a few words, you do it from there too, on media role and responsibility. >> here in iowa we take the role of sort of the screener of the next generation of political leadership very, very carefully. whether you're in print or in broadcast or in television journalism, i've learned really quickly when i came back home to iowa that we're part of the

process and that iowa, people in general, love to be engaged. they pretend not to pay attention, but they really do. and it begins as we get closer to the caucuses to start to flex their political muscles. and i love to be part of the conduit of that and get a chance to be in the process. and i'm happy at who to be in a place where i can share that experience with so many of you folks. and i yet all kinds of feed -- i get all kinds of feedback, and now with craig doing so much with other forms of media, things have changed so drastically in just the last couple of years. there are many be more observers in the process than ever possibly imagined. imaginable, rather. and that we keep adding new voices, the country gets smaller, the communication process is speeded up. you've got, you've got -- i've

gotten three or four e-mails and twitters in a few minutes just from people all over the country who are sharing this experience. c-span has made local politics national politics, and the whole world, the whole country, that is, is paying attention to what we do and say here. that elevates our responsibility even higher. and as this panel and this conversation progresses, i think we'll be able to demonstrate that. go ahead. >> first of all, my name is tony cat, and it's a pleasure to be here. i saw the woman up front here crying when she realized there were conservatives in los angeles. [laughter] and trust me when i say, i am not the only one. there are a tremendous amount of conservatives in los angeles. you have absolutely, positively no idea. take hollywood and step on it like it should be stepped on, and the rest of los angeles is with you, iowa. it's a pleasure to be here, have

no fear. [applause] my mother's going to be so proud i got applause in iowa. [laughter] i also, and i look forward to getting into the conversation with people who are so much of the iowa scene and how strongly you look at iowa first. because that's really the basis of the conversation. but a couple of things i just with, i wanted to get out two things that happened over the course of the 29 hours i've been in iowa. my first trip ever to iowa. first of all, if you didn't know, congressman mccotter, michigan s outside, and he has this wonderful book. and he's not paying me to say that. and i tell you that you should buy this book if for no other reason that if you have a wobbly coffee table, it will straighten it out. [laughter] it is fantastic. you should absolutely do that. and he's selling it, the book,

and he signs it -- if you want him to -- but i wanted it to be valuable, so i also had it signed by congressman steve king. [laughter] [applause] so that'll teach congressman mccotter for making fun of me on twitter. i am a radio talk show host. while i am based in los angeles, my show is on in texas, arkansas and florida. i do host something called the conversation with tony katz on pj-tv which is part of pajamas media which i also blog for. i am also the featured blogger at a little site called obama must not win.com. [applause] you're welcome. and you have been making that noise, that whoo all day, that's you, and a heck of a job you're doing. like you didn't notice. [laughter] but when i got, when i got here, and i'll wrap up quickly so we can move forward, i got to iowa, i found out where there was a local cigar bar so i could have

a cigar. i found out where the best steak was, 801 chophouse. and i realized that if iowa has a board of tourism which i'm assuming iowa does, they should be fired and horse whipped. and if you think that's too extreme, they should at least be fired. because there's a lot of interesting things going on here. there is legalized gambling, there are some incredible steaks. it's not flat. no one told me this. it wasn't in the brochure. [laughter] and it is with that same kind of thing, some things i didn't know about iowa, that i come to you on this panel with a conversation of why iowa first. it's the conversation that i'd like to have with these gentlemen and with all of you. because i think that iowa, which takes it extremely seriously, does a very poor job of explaining to the rest of the nation why it should be first here. and i think that when you see the fights from florida and other states about moving up

their primaries, it is because of, as jan said, we talk about messaging and moving message and media and new media. what is the message of why iowa first? what have you done to make the rest of us believe that the responsibility should be yours and that you're the only ones capable, up to and deserving of the task? so i'm looking forward to the conversation, thank you for indulging me. [applause] >> well, that's a can of worms i could go on for an hour. [laughter] yes. my name's craig robinson. i'm the editor in the chief of the iowa republican.com. if you haven't been to the site, i hope you'll check it out. [applause] to describe my role, when tony points out someone whooping over in the corner, my role is to know and to tell the media and everyone else that that's joni

scotter from cedar rapids. i mean, everyone knows joni. everyone should know joni. [applause] [laughter] we love you, joni. but, you know, i guess i want to go into this conversation about why iowa since you want to have that conversation. and i think that the one thing that i think that -- and i agree, i think sometimes we don't do a good job as iowans about telling people why we should be first in the nation. but let's first start off with i think there's only one thing in this state, or one thing overall that iowa democrats and iowa republicans will agree on; we work together very hard to keep our first in the nation status. and as the political directer of the republican party during the last caucuses, i'll tell you that we had a great relationship with the guys across the street in preserving this process. and i think for me real quick,

and i want to hear other people's input on this, is the reason why it's necessary for iowa to go first is because only in a state like iowa -- small, rural -- is it about you. it's not about how much money a candidate can raise. how much the media will obsess about a candidate. how the focus on the media attention of just one particular or two particular candidates it is. and so i think that's what -- everyone has a chance here. and i know we were, we were prepped with some questions about, you know, who do you take seriously, you know, do you have to treat every presidential candidate equally? and i'll answer that question, no, you don't. because i'm going to take the candidate seriously that you take seriously. those are the ones who deserve coverage. you know, if we remember back to this time four years ago, everyone laughed that a guy named huckabee was going to run

for president. well, they weren't laughing on january 3rd. he won it. and i think that, you know, some of us, i guess from my perch at the party of the time, it was clear as day. but, you know, here the national media was trying to catch up to what i think most iowans realized was taking place. and so for me when i look at what candidate i'm going to, what candidates i'm going to take seriously, i look to you. what candidates are you interested in? there hasn't been a candidate that's running for president on this stage today that i don't think you're not interested in. now, there are some who are running who might not be interested in you, and in turn you're not interested. well, that will affect my coverage. but the one thing we need to also remember about new media and the new times is, is just was you're not here campaigning

and asking for our vote doesn't mean we don't know what you're up to, and can we don't know what you're about. and so try as they may, they might want to run to the comforts of new hampshire and try to start their campaign there, but we're following them, and i'm pretty sure they're going to show up when we have already three scheduled national debates. so they can't totally ignore us. and when they come to a state like iowa and participate in one of these early debates, what do you think they're going to be asked? well, why don't you want the vote of an iowan? and i think there's a lot of misconceptions out there about iowans, and through my role at the web site and in addition to interviews i do with other members of the media, you know, i try to dispel some of those myths. oh, all we care about is social issues. i disagree. i think we care about an awful lot of issues, and if you ever went to a campaign event, you would realize that. and, you know, do we want to make sure that the candidates

we're looking at are pro-life and pro-marriage? absolutely. and then we start looking at, you know, where they rank on other issues. or maybe the intensity of their support on those issues matters to us. but this notion that that's all we care about and that's the end of the conversation, i think, is totally incorrect. but with that, i think we want to leave as many minutes available to interact with you, the audience, because it is about you. and anything that we can do in terms to answer questions or any topics that you'd like to delve into, i think we would entertain that and do a good job with it. >> what you said earlier, craig, is about the -- is it your responsibility to give equal access to the candidates, all the candidates running for office? in the print or in the electronic media, you don't have any responsibility at all. [laughter] i, on the other hand, have to at least pretend to give equal access, and i try to do that. i usually hate that process because it's a lower-level political office that i hate --

you probably already know this -- candidates at some of the lower-level offices are not that dynamic, especially some of the county officers from obscure counties here in iowa. and if i had to interview every one from an obscure senate district or house district, i don't think i would last very long as radio talk show host because my audience would be gone, and then we'd need a bailout, and then we'd have to call, we'd have to change the call letters to npr. [laughter] [applause] so i agree, though, this process is fun. but the good news is by the time a politician gets to the idea where he or she thinks they are ready for presidential prime time, they are world-class personalities. they by nature draw people to themselves. there is not a non-a-type

personality -- at least in my memory. well, maybe jimmy carter. [laughter] >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> but now for the most part, most of the political candidates are not only fun to talk to, they're just good radio. >> i agree. [laughter] i wanted to see if you wanted to start with questions or dig in. >> yeah. let's start and get lined up with the questions. i just want to add to something that craig touched on we covered from being at the party through the last cycle a lot of people don't know. and for those on our national audience, a little bit of an education here. we were inundated with dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of candidates that were demanding to be put on the iowa caucus ballot. and as you iowa caucus goers in