>> you would look at it and see it that way is one thing. some people look at the cover

and think that it is linen, not john. famed activist from the time. so it all depends on how you look at it. >> my deeper question is, i have attended a number of a financier, and to in this chamber. it seems to me that a lot of this constitutional talk is academic because in practice democracy has been eroding for at least 40, maybe 50 years in this country. and i think the supreme court recently put the last nail in the coffin when they voted we the corporations, rather than we the people when they permitted corporations funding for elections. >> again, how you look at it. i respect your right to dissent from my view. it's a survey not new. it goes back well over a century and i think every member of the supreme court since 1880 at one

time or another has signed off on protections, constitutional protections for corporation. one of the people that helped bring the idea to us was robert carter, the cocounsel for the naacp. the naacp is incorporated, a corporation. i'll be honest it's a nonprofit corporation but it is still a corporation. so the idea of protecting corporations is hardly new. the idea of protecting corporations for first amendment is certainly not new. then the question is are you going to say, for-profit corporations, not protected, nonprofit protected? well then, what about groups with which you disagree, the nra? you can go on and on. reason of people can have differences of view but i think it is important to remember the id is not new. it was pitched as new, and if we take protection away from, first

amendment protection from corporations, we have a lot to lose. in a recent case involved a freedom of information act they said the privacy protections do not pertain, this is for statutory purposes, for corporation. >> just to underscore that point, part of the reason i concentrate my work in schools is to your observation about the gradual erosion of our capacity to really breathe life into these principles. i will also say i think it's impossible to ignore the inherent tensions that exist between democracy and capitalism. and i'm not suggesting that there's a better way. i'm just saying there's an inevitable tension when we get to the very core idea of freedom. i will also say to the point about corporations, really

interesting evolution about how that came to be, between 1890-1910 there are about 300 cases that went before the supreme court that dealt with the rights of corporations because of some very clever lawyers at the turn-of-the-century. what ultimately changed was the definition of the word person in the 14th amendment. and so of the cases that went before the supreme court at the turn-of-the-century, 288 dealt with the rights of corporations, not with the rights of individuals, although i think it's safe to say when the 14th minute was written they meant persons as persons. >> and you think those who preached would be mindful, but we have other questions. >> free seems to be a rather relative term. and i wondered in writing this book if you have a definition of freedom in mind? because a few times, ronald, you

interchanged the term freedom and liberty and i wondered if that meant the same thing to you. and sam, in your introduction, are you part of the democratic school -- movement? >> freedom is just another word for -- you remember that janis joplin line. yeah, i mean, freedom, liberty, i'm comfortable using them at least for now interchangeably. what's important i think is something that sam built on. well, first, i think the two great principles of constitutional government in america, well, three, separation of powers and checks and balances on liberty and equality's. i think those are the great principles, and sometimes liberty and equality i think would be protests at abortion class and elsewhere sometimes

conflict, our race hate speech some would say in the name of equality. it shouldn't be protected. so there's that tension. and i think when you talk about freedom, and sam haiti, you have to talk a responsibility as well. that doesn't mean it's a government impose responsibility but in order to be a free nation we have to be a responsible nation. when people engage in race hate speech we have to encounter it. that we cannot allow certain abuses to take place, that we should cover them as best as we can. i would only say in the interest of time that with that freedom comes in a port responsibility that we assist. >> i would say, i borich on my hand a little bit in the way i would answer the question, what does it mean to be free begins not from the outside in, not from what. that means and what we do for from the inside out in terms of the who. as an individual what does it

mean to be free, i would say what it means to be free is have the opportunity to discover one's worth and unleash one's full potential on the world. and so to answer your question about the democratic schools movement, i have been an easy place in that. briefly i would explain the distinction as this. i think we can all see the problem with teacher centered environment where maybe the teacher -- that's like the old school model. if i'm the teacher, although knowledge is in my head. there's a clear hierarchy. blacks spoke to this end tinker? will be spoke about the old adage children are to be seen and not heard. can we bring that back? a lot of democratic schools but not all react by just when he the pendulum in the other direction where they make student centered environment. there's a distinct unit with the role of the adult, and i think it's one thing to not want to be

an authoritarian adult presence in the classroom, which i think is the right impulse, but we can sometimes make the mistake of airing too far on the side and abdicate our responsibility to be authoritative. so to me the ideal environment for learning is the subject centered, whatever that subject is. whether it is solving a math problem, a science laboratory, a core question for the student council. but that brings with it a different set of skills and responsibilities. and i think one of the biggest problems, generally speaking in a democratic schools, is there isn't clarity about that distinction. >> of the questions? >> bashing other questions? >> i just want to ask you on the boys and girls in school, they get harassed and people giving up on them.

is there honor -- not honor, but is there, are they being harassed to the point that it is really hard for them to be there? >> be, i'm a christian and jesus believes homosexuality is a sin. is that bowling? some places it is believed that. on the one hand, went to make sure that first amendment freedoms are protected on the other hand know what has arrived to intimidate and threaten

someone else. >> the thing i would add is i think there's a very clear distinction that is essential that school leaders see it between the fact that their primary responsibility is to maintain a safe learning environment for all kids so kids cannot, must not be bullied while they are at school. and there's a distinction, depending on the facts, between that which is clearly not allowed and a student ringing in an ideal more generally that is unpopular. and that being censored under the guise of bowling. one is clearly inappropriate, the other is a wolf in sheep's clothing. >> i was struck before, i think it was by ronald collins comment about the wife in the case and how would she feel about it. it seems to me when i read about this, these kind of cases, it's kind of a cinderella like

quality, which is the glass slipper, the person who brought the case probably lived happily ever after, or it may become although we don't did you know, it's the early part of the cinderella pushes scrubbing the floor. do your stories -- but the human part of what that cost people like the example you gave. my question is, do your stories tell us what happened to the protagonist after the event a? >> yes. >> we think so but you'll have to tell us. >> no, no. they do -- >> sort of a human issue as we well. >> when we discussed at the politics and prose bookstore, a wonderful independent bookstore, i shout out for independent bookstores several weeks ago, i talked about that case and i said how many spouses out there would have agreed with george --

disagree with george, and my wife raised her hand, you know eric. [laughter] there's a sacrifice and is one thing to say i will make a sacrifice for myself. a convenient case of was the raffaella case they're basically the same thing out of california. his wife never ever do the best of my recollection, i could be wrong, never quite forgave him for what he did. and again, there's a price. and at some point we all pay the price. and the sacrifice would make. but the answer to question to as best we can we do tell how the story is ultimately played out, yes. >> what's the difference between protected free speech and hate speech? what are the rules for making that call? >> basically in very short, the court had a cross burning case out of virginia --

>> we have a chapter on this. spent we have a chapter on this, first of all, you can't trust so if i burned a cross on your front yard, you know, that active trust passing you cannot threaten somebody. you cannot exercise a clear site. if i say, you know, if you'll allow me, i'm guessing hypothetically, you're a crazed republican and may you rot, that may be protected. but if i say you're a crazed republican and the next that i see i'm going to exercise my second amendment rights and to a little further than that. then if that would put you in reasonable fear, then that sort of thing is protected. so hate speech, the idea that something that one hates a group or something like that, that alone standing alone is not enough. there has to be some threat related to it. >> one thing i would add to that, i think this is right,

that every hate speech laws in this country, the chapter would talk about there's a way that came out in the '80s. i was 40 because i was at the university of wisconsin. those hates beach loss, and in my own journey i come and see the folly, the well attended folly of trying to craft a hate speech law because it doesn't work that would. i did everything one has been struck down. there's something now, penalty enhancements to be more specific, so i can be arrested for assault if i end about the friends beat somebody up. that's pretty clear-cut. if it can be proven that the person we targeted, we targeted because of their race or their ethnicity or their sexual orientation, there can be an enhancement to the punishment. but there's an enhancement because of the fact it was motivated. that seems to be the unsteady alliance. spent we have time for one more question.

>> so, at what point would each of you draw the line? is there a point at which you would fear a first amendment issue? >> there are probably many points. there are many points that i say as a parent of all the first a minute doesn't apply to me with my relationship and my son. there've been many times where i had no qualms about it. i would say i'm not a government. which is something to keep in mind. the first women only restricts the government. but there are any number of places i think where i would have some reservations, but i think the toughest one for me, and it's one my wife speak so easily about, is when it involves my family. it is when stepping forward in exercising their first amendment right, trying to defend that first amendment principle.

when the case for started i got a phone call from them asking me if i would assist them. and i said no, i can't for a variety of reasons. one of which is where i was working wouldn't allow me to, to litigate any case, not just their case. but i will say this as a shadow to the thomas jefferson center. i couldn't find a law firm that would be willing to defend them, even firms that they first amendment were. i couldn't find anyone. when it came to the thomas jefferson center, i think to their credit and consistent with the united states supporting court just ruled eight-one, they step back. when you ask the question cannot think of any examples where somebody represented a cause that they absolutely loath, i think the thomas jefferson center is a good one, good example. and i think with all due respect i think, ladies and gentlemen, we're all better for it. >> thank you.

>> i think in some respects the fact of the phelps case, as close as any that i've seen to put into line. but i think, i think black and others before him got it right when they said you don't kind of speech and punish action. the greatest extent possible i feel like that's my line, we will see. but it's what's so powerful about the question is making sure that all of us continually ask it of ourselves. if i can just end on a positive note. this is the last line, the last paragraph of our book, clearly, change is not always better. and yet we can afford to take a few more chances in order to live in a world where, to the greatest extent, reasonably possible, first amendment freedom is our collective default position. it is a risk worthy of a free people. in that spirit then, and without

sentiment at heart, we enthusiastically echo willa cather them borracho americano. spent perfect point on which to end. [applause] >> you're watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2's book tv. >> called "eye of the hurricane my path from darkness to freedom" with a forward by nelson mandela, and your co-author tim. but let me read to you, you said your my main purpose in writing this book is to share with you that i have discovered the truth. >> to be the truth. >> yes. given where i was or how long i was there, this is incredible. i have no business at all being here now. >> absolutely correct.

>> you say you in jail 40 something years. what you mean by that? >> i was in jail 47 years. the fact that we are born into a prison actually. when we are born, we are born as perfect been. perfect means complete with all of our possibilities in that. but we are also born into a world, the level of unconscious human would hate and war and death and destruction and inequality reigns supreme. so we are actually born into a prison. so i was in that prison for the first four years of my life until i was able to wake up and get out of that prison and realize who i really am. >> let's come to you really are in a second but for the pure sake say that you're actually incarcerated in prison for about

20 years, 1964 or five? >> 1966-1985. >> and the charge was having murdered three people and wounded one in a bar. >> yes. just not having murdered somebody. two of the murders is bad enough, but to be accused of being a triple racist murderer is double bed. that's what i was accused of being, a triple rate is -- triple racist murderer spent and h.r. semi your targeted them because of their race? >> because of their race. because i'm black and had been killed by a white man and a part that night. they thought it was a racially of ancient motive. but you also have to realize those times come at that time, 1966, the early '60s when the country was still segregated,

you know, when black folks weren't allowed to eat in restaurants or go to school or ride on certain parts of buses or drink out of a water fountain or even have equal voting rights at the time. that was what was going on in this country at that time, which is a terrible thing. and so that is what i was accused of being, a triple racist murderer. >> and in the book he writes about growing up in a household that really was violent and difficult, facing her father across the living room with shotguns. >> you. my family life was not violent. violence was outside every night but you've got to realize that in me, this was me -- this may i will be 74 years old. my mother and father jump from a generation where they thought if a child put his hands on his parent or even threatened his

parent, since they brought you into this world and they will take you out of this world as well. that was the type of society that i grew up in. >> described to the people who are watching who might want to read the book why you'd be facing her father with a shotgun, and he was a shotgun facing you. >> well, because i was a very angry young man at the time. very angry. and i confronted my brother, my brother james, who was a highly successful person that he was going to harvard. he was one of the youngest residence at harvard university. he later became a superintendent of schools of boston, you know? and i was in and out of reformatory schools during my youth.

my father had to sort choose between which one is going to support. and i confronted my brother because when i came home from the military in 1956, i heard that my brother was hanging out with homosexuals. you know, that he had known when we were children growing up. now, when we were children all of these folks would dress up on halloween like women and they look better than the women on the streets, you know. but now he was home from harvard university and they were doing the same thing. so i confronted my brother about that. and we started to fight, and, of course, i beat him. and that's when my father got involved in this. and my father jumped me because of this. and i push my father and children don't put your hands on me, and i would allow no one to put their hands on the in anger anymore. so my father ran and got a

shotgun, and iran and got my shotgun. this is the same thing that happened to marvin j. and his father. that's what marvin gaye's father shot him. killed him. my father would have killed me spit because your mother intervened and said you should go out of your. >> she said get out of here, go away. >> now, what's interesting is you just described yourself as technically having been in jail for 20 years, 66-85, but the violence and the whole world of hatred that you describe to me that's been a jail for you for 40 plus years until you discovered yourself. let me read again for you from the book. this is an interesting mode because you think you'll be 74 years old. you've been in jail, but you also write here i was a prize fighter at one point. i was a soldier of one point. i was a conflict -- conflict at

one point. usage or executive director of a group that was called association of events of the wrongfully convicted at one point. today you are ceo of the innocence international group. >> yes. >> and you say but if i had to choose an epitaph to be carved on my tombstone, remember, this is rubin hurricane carter speaking, they would simply read he was just enough. this thing because somebody in the high school audience, you're speaking to the student asked you what you want your epitaph. you are a man, bob dylan wrote a song about you. nelson mandela has written the forward to this book and spoken about you, i know nelson mandela loves watching. >> he was a boxer himself. >> and he was talking about someone who's like and who was in jail. and has come out. so here's nelson mandela, bob dylan, even tony bennett you say -- >> muhammad ali.

>> and out comes time for you to speak about yourself and you say for death it should be, he was just enough to the current to stay from convictions to matter what problems his action may have cost him, he was just enough to perform a miracle to wake up, to regain the humanity in living hell, he was just enough. just enough. so when people hear this just enough, i'm sure they're going to be thinking to themselves, well, just enough to get off, or just enough to escape or survive? why not to make something bold or? >> universally we're all just enough. that's what that means. we are all universally just enough. we are born with everything that we need to wake up and to become conscious. that is just enough. >> you can watch this and other

programs online at booktv.org. >> next week in booktv will be live in l.a. on saturday april 30 booktv will be broadcasting the "los angeles times" festival of books fly from university of southern california with event coverage, author interviews and collins from 12:45-7:30 p.m. eastern.

>> around the '90s in the first decade of the century, this other paradigm emerged for how to create a channel lock which is basically to journalists onto the internet and have it simply observe what people say to a picket almost imagine i could marshal any on earth and sun comes up to incest high pick in the martian poles of this giant rolodex and says she was often begin conversations by saying hi. interesting. then the martian walks down the street and comes up to someone and says, hi.

and then that person says hey, what's up? humans often say hey, what's up when you say hi. and in this very painstaking process but over the course in many cases decades of just hang out online, waiting for people to cross paths and talk to it, it builds this massive database of real stuff that people say. and you find when you interact with this kind of software, this very uncanny ability to respond to sorts of things council for example, i've attempted to see if that replied to me if i spoke in french. and i found that my french was not well understood but actually corrected. sort of condescendingly, it told me they grammatically correct version of the sense that i had given it. and you often find if you tried

to give it song lyrics it will sync back to you. so i had a conversation where i started typing in lives from bohemian rhapsody. so i said tasha and it replies will you do the fandango? [laughter] >> and there's something truly a read about a program that can do this. but part of what you learn as you interact with the program, it's not so much that you are not talking to the human aspects are not talking to a human. and that turned out to be a really critical distinction. if you ask a question to which there is a correct answer, it was generally have that answer. you say what country is theirs in, and it was a france. how many legs to answer? it was a six. if you start to ask questions about its of you get