legs, and you do the whole thing, and you have to be correct; right? well, when you get old, you can meditate in a chair. [laughter] i get to medicate in a chair or against a wall with my legs stretched out. that's really bad news if you go to meditation center. oh. even in bed. they really don't think that's good, but when you get old, you can do that. i get to see maybe half of what i'm looking at. ..

counting the hours by how many times we get up to pee. i get to spend time with myself whenever i want. i get to eat 0 chocolate with my salad or a first course. i get to forget. i get to paint with colors i mix. my colors i've never seen before. get to sleep with my dogs and pray never to outlive my cat. i get to play music without reading a note. i against to spend time with myself whenever i want. i get to sleep in a hammock under the same stars wherever i am. i get to spend time with myself whenever i want. i get to laugh at all the things i don't know and cannot find. -- [laughter]

>> i get to greet people i don't remember as if i know them very well. [laughter] ha, ha, ha, after all, how different can they be? i get to grow my entire garden in a few pots. i get to spend time with myself whenever i want. i get to see and feel the suffering of the whole world and to take a nap when i feel like it anyway. i get to spend time with myself whenever i want. i get to feel more love than i they ever thought existed. everything appears to be made of the stuff. i feel this especially for you, though i may not remember exactly which you, you are. how clueless. still, i get to spend time with

myself whenever i want, and that is just a taste of the old people used to say down in georgia when i was a child, what you get for getting old. reminding us as they witnessed our curiosity about them, that no matter the losses, there's something fabulous going on at every stage of life. something to let go of maybe. but for darn sure, something to get. [applause] >> okay. the last one. this is a poem about recognizing that sin is actually a part of the discipline mat that makes us who we become. there's no such thing as living

without it. and we might as well accept that and work with it. and by doing that, we can grow a lot. so, this is called "hope to sin only in the service of waking up." hope never to believe it is your duty or right to harm another simply because you mistakenly believe they are not you. hope to understand suffering as the hard assignment, even in school, even in school, you wish to avoid. but could not. hope to be imperfect. hope to be imperfect. in all the ways that keep you growing. hope never to see another, not even a blade of grass, that is beyond your joy.

hope not to be a snob on the very day love shows up in love's work clothes. hope to see your own skin in the wood grains of your house. hope to talk to trees and at last tell them everything you've always thought. hope at the end, at the end, to enter the unknown, knowing yourself. forgetting yourself also. hope to be consumed. hope to be consumed. to disappear. into your own love. hope to know where you are. paradise. if nobody else does. hope that every failure, every

failure, is an arrow pointing toward enlightenment. and hope to sin, hope to sin. only in the service of waking up. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> hi, ladies and gentlemen, i'm andy, the director and the designated bad guy this evening. we have ten or 15 minutes to take some questions if you have a question, please raise your

hand and we will get a microphone to you. there's a gentleman in the back on the left with his hand up. kim? yes, sir. >> yes. i recently read a book, one day in december, by nancy stout. you wrote the introduction for the book. it's a biography of celia sanchez, and in reading the book i felt that her biography has a special relevance, especially to women in this country. briefly just to say that her life shows that it's possible for women to become leaders in a struggle to guarantee that everyone has top quality medical

care as well as education. as well as an attempt to eliminate poverty. so i wonder if you could just give a few words about why you decided to write the introduction of this book. >> i'd by happy to celia sanchez was really the equal partner with fidel castro in forming the cuban revolution, but nobody in this country hardly has heard of her. and so i get a lot of manuscripts and people asking me to read them, absorb them, write introductions, and i picked this one up and i started reading. it's about 400 pages long. it's so astonishing. this life of this woman who made the revolution with fidel and che and camilo and the people that you -- many of you in this

audience are somewhat familiar with. she was a society young woman. her father was a doctor. and she -- i think it was because he was a doctor, she got to see some of what was going on to the people in her country. for instance, cuba at that time was a place where a lot of pedophilia brought in -- the people who did it were brought in from the united states often, and were members of the mob, and so they would come to cuba and gamble and avail themselves of prostitutes and of very small children, very young children. one of these children was a child that celia had known because of her work with her doctor/father, and this child has been raped to death, and this was a turning point for her and for many of the women.

all of these revolutionary women who took up arms and were co-instigators of the cuban revolution, who get rid of batista, the ticket tar -- dictator who was in the pocket of the united states. so i read this through. it's amazing. nancy stout, the writer, had access to the archives and letters between celia and fidel, and it is such an eye-opening read because you understand that part of what -- we know so many of the reasons why we're kept in the dark about cuba. but one of the big things that we had no idea about was just how strong the women component was in that revolution, and so because we were always shown just these men that basically

had to be eradicated, and celia herself lived to be 60, and she died of lung cancer. she was a terrible smoker. her father before her was a smoker. he died of lung cancer. but i think she was always so stressed because she was always trying to protect fidel, who was always -- they tried to assassinate fidel 648 times. and in the course of all those attempts, it's amazing -- really amazing people. fidel and celia adopted children. they adopted children of the people -- some of the people who were killed making the revolution, and they raised them, even though half the time they were trying to find a place to hide him so that hoover, or whatever was look, couldn't find him. one of the other fascinating

aspects was that they were a revolutionary partnership. they never married, and cuban society at that time -- i don't know about now but they were very ridge edculturally -- ridge edabout things culturally like being married. if you were going live with a man, you have to be married. so eventually fidel apparently got around to feeling the heat and said, well, you want to get married? and he did it twice. and each time she said, no. and what they ended up doing was she -- what she ended up doing was basically everytime he proposed marriage, she would build another room and fix it up beautifully. and she did this from the virgining. she was the person who made sure that up in the mountains he was comfortable. and he had his own room, and she

had her space. it's a really interesting -- if you can -- anyway, i read through this 400 pages, and it was so astonishing that i went right back to the beginning and read it through a second time because this is how information is kept from us. they put up an embargo, tell you that the people are evil, tell you blah blah blah, why they're killing them. and you just have to find out for yourself. i've been there four times, and i have always had a wonderful time, even in the period when there was practically no food, no gas, no nothing. i still felt that these were some great people, and i'm very happy for them that hey have had so many people in leadership who truly love them, who truly love them. one day we will have somebody. who truly loves us.

[applause] >> karla, right here in the fifth'll fifth row,. >> hell lou, how are you? i'm clara wiley. i'm sorry. i wanted to thank you for writing everything. your short storieds and recovery community when i teach parenting about valuing everyday things and valuing ourselves and hour parents should say no to their children in loving, still life affirming and concerned ways, and i want to thank you for that. >> you're welcome. >> the gentleman right behind. >> thank you very much.

thank you very much. wonderful poems and inspiration. i love the serious dancing. i love the lessons you teach in furious dancing, such as the one about, letting go of resent, and that has been a lesson that i really need to learn. i will admit that -- i highly recommend -- just say, i highly recommend it. that's all. >> thank you. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. or testimony. [laughter] >> the lady all the way in back. >> i thank you for the paper

clip moment. i doubt i'll look at a paper clip again and not value it. >> say thank you to alice walkerment thank you for coming. [applause] >> next, christopher wolf, co-author of "viral hate" discusses attacks on racial, ethnic, and religious minorities on the internet and what can be done about it. he argues that creating new laws to limit speech is not the answer and that responsible citizen need to take action to limit the amount of hate online. he spoke at politics and prose

in washington, dc. [applause] >> bradley, thank you very much and good evening. i do send apologies, he is detained in new york, and empowered me to speak on his behalf. most of us went to school at a time when we heard the saying, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? tell that to the holocaust museum guard who was murdered by a neonazi who's veil violent dilutions were kept alive in his online community. tell that to the women who live in fear of being raped because of mass song is in stick automobile threats. tell that to the cyberbullied kids who stay home from school because they're traumatized by the taunts they receive anonymous low online, and tell that to tyler clemente, he rutgers student who committed'm suicide because of a tweet that ridiculed him for being gay. that old sticks and stones saying is simply not true.

in the world of web sites, twitter, youtube, and facebook. in fact, in the online world, words and pictures and videos and online games are infecting the globe with a virus of hate that is a threat to people, and to society. abe and i wrote "viral hate" because hate-filled, demeaning, degrade, and potentially violence inspying content are not the necessary byproduct of freedom of expression. we believe freedom of expression as important as it is, does not trump human dignity. we wrote our book because we believe people should not sit idly by when we sigh online attacks on people because they're different. the antidefamation league where abe is narl director and i chair the national civility rights

committee has a mission to promote justice and fair treatment for all. as part of this mission, antidefamation league has worked for years that the epidemic of hate online is harming individuals and society. while certain aspects of internet hate have received national and international attention, like cyberbull using, unfortunately the problem in general is not high in the consciousness of the internet community, of parents, educators, and of leaders, and we believe that the indifference to a growing and harmful problem needs to change. we care about these issues not just because we're civil rights activists and have seen the effects of attacks, physical and verbal, on minorities. but this is also personal. abe is a holocaust survivor and is from the place and time were prop gap da was the accomplice to the deaths of millions.

as abe explains it, the holocaust didn't begin with the of ovens, it began with words. last month at a forum abe and i explained the virus of hate is spreading every day in ways that hoyt explore his propaganda experts never could have imagined. abe has been a towering figure in the fight against antisemitism and hate for decades so his involvement for fighting online hate is a natural. and i am now an openly gay man, happily married, my husband is in the audience. but growing up, i endured the epithets and degrades comments that were widely socially acceptable. hate speak on the internet covers a wide range of things, and as we spain 'splain in the book the internet has become an organizing organizing and tool for the extremists on the right and left. before the internet such people would meet down dark alleys and exchange propaganda in plain

brown wrappers and now with the click of a mouse, they reach billions in seconds. so sociologists have concluded that online hate gives some people a sense that violence is not only possible, for somebody to commit, but lauder to. it says to them, you're not crazier, you're right. at the other end of the spectrum but also disturbing are the antiseptember mitt particulars ray sis, homophobic, and other hate-filled rants, some comment sections to main stream news sites, often posted anonymously. during the madoff affair the palm beach post has to close the comment section because of the anti-semitic comments before jews and money were rampant. this week cnn posted a clip of my appearance on youtube, and the comments to that appearance kind of proves our point. for most of us, hate speech is

the equivalent or at most is online pollution. but it's common and you pick quick to us appearance gives some the impression that opinions are acceptable and we are especially worried about the effect of that on vulnerable children. from what we call cloaked web sites, supposedly has historical information about martin luther king but is actually lie is, and online games that attack -- kids are at risk because of online hate. vulnerable children believe what they read and they are misled or worse. they are carefully taught to hate in the words of that famous south pacific song. also disturbing is that many people react to the common appearance of online hate by treating it as the norm. so in viral hate, abe and i do not just show how bad things are

on the internet. we don't stop there. we try to explain how each of us can do something, to stand up against internet hate, and our action plan is in our book. what we don't advocate -- and this may be surprising coming from a lawyer -- what we don't advocate is the use of the law to regulate speech, and that's not just because the first amendment puts limits on the regulation of speech. but we offend even where laws are available that control speech, they're largely ineffective and often counterproductive. we understand how in places like germany it is literally unspeakable to deny the holocaust that resulted in the murder of millions and important statement that they holocaust laws there play but as a tool to make a difference in the appearance of hate speech? just doesn't work. in fact, as we explain in the book, enforcement of laws against hate speech make the defendants martyrs among their followers who celebrate and

republish the material all over internet, often from the united states where it's permitted: can't deal with the scale of internet hate. i describe it as cockroaches in the kitchen. wow might be able to target one on the kitchen counter but there are many more behind the wall that are inaffected, and the same is the use of internet hate. every minute on the internet there are 550 new web sites. there are almost 300,000 tweets every minute. there are 42,000 facebook shares, and over 600 hours of youtube video are added online to the internet every minute. the scale is overwhelming. so when the british police recently stepped up arresting isolated individuals who made anti-muslim statements under the

uk so-called malicious communications law, it didn't have much of an affect. we're against antimuslim statements but all that kind of effort will do is address a mere handful of comments and it will show legitimate dissent while driving the haters to other outlets where they will be less identifiedable. critical retweets are effective. and repressive regimes like china and iran take comfort justification from the use of law and democracy to regulate online speech. so, the law is not available or appropriate or effective. what can be done? again, some people simply shrug off online hate as part of internet freedom and rationalize it as a problem too big to address. the problem of scale, the sheer

volume of internet content in our view is no excuse for not trying to deal with online hate. when virus causing disease spread, society responds even when the scale of the problem is daunting. and likewise, we think the virus of hate requires a broad response. counter-speech, the dis infectant of sunlight is a powerful team. last week in may a coalition of women sad row cats mounted a came pan to protest the appearance of dreadful content. calls for raping women, degrading slogan against million, masquerading at humor. that campaign fronted facebook immediately to admit it needed to do more under its term office service prohibiting hate speech to police the antiwomen and violence inspiring content, and facebook committed to do more.

the the women bringing this to the world residents attention were not willing to accept online misogyny as the norm. when an ehaven't was established called, kill a jew day, even before facebook took it down, a counter-group called, one million strong against kill a jew day, was up. and look at the people speak upping on twitter by retweeting the rants of others with critical commentary. at a minimum we think owes office online content, web hosts and social media companies, should have clear terms of service prohibiting hate speech and should have staff and procedures in place to enforce those terms of service when complaints about online hate are brewing to their attention. -- are brought their attempt care should be taken to allow free expression but when content crosses a line, this should come down, and this is not a first amendment issue. the government is not involved here. the hosts have their own first amendment right to publish what

they choose. and if they want a more civil corner of the internet -- we hope they do -- that is their right. internet hosts like facebook and google have joined with the coalition for combating antisemitism task force that i co-chair the antidefamation league in and a working group that includes civil rights expert on ways to reduce hate speech. our work continues today. terms of service and their enforcement, tools for counter-speeches and antidote to hate speech and education are the current focus of the working group. so way applaud the internet hosts for the attention they're paying to the problem. and facebook has been a leader here, and more from the internet community generally, especially the companies that host hate-filled content is needed. for starters the companies need to learn why some content, like

holocaust denial, is hate speech and need to put adequate resources in place to respond to the complaints of the presence of hate-filled posts and take them down. they can help with cyberliteracy and antihate education. and more is needed from parents and educators. teaching kids about cyberliteracy and online civility is a start, and i'm sorry to tell you that we do a woefully bad job of that in this country. and as demonstrated by women pushing facebook to change, people using the internet need to speak up when you see online hate. when you see something say something is not a slogan restrict it to backpacks and airports. we have a duty to speak out against online hate, and abe and i think that the warning from the preinternet era still applies. the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. thank you very much. [applause]

>> i will be happy to take your questions and try to channel abe when i can. actually, if you can use the microphone, please. >> i was wondering, when you were discussing facebook and all that, there is a specific problem when much of this originates outside of the united states and a lot of it, i think, are just web sites that are not necessarily coming through facebook so how do you deal with something like that? >> when we first started looking at the problem our focus actually was on web sites and we promoted a web filter that would identify the sites, and even though there are 400 or 500 new web sites posts to the internet today. compare that to other statistics about the tweets tweets and the affection postings. social media is where it's at and where most people are going and using to publish. if you ask most people that go

to internet host and get them to host your web site and get a developer to create your web site, i don't think you'd find as much uptake there. so our focus has changed. not that we're not worried about that and there are web sites that really are terribly concerning, like the martin luther king web site and the web sites of established hate groups, but frankly, they're more final. typically we can track them down and in places outside the united states. they can use the law to go after that handful of content. other questions? sir, come to the mic. >> this is perhaps hard to measure but do you think -- there is more hate now than there was long ago or just -- just easier to spread? is this generating hate? has the hate always been there? any research or thoughts on that?

>> we cite a few sociologyist -- we're lawyers and civil rights at slow cat who obviously think the internet plays a big role in stirring up hate, that already exists. now, hate has been with us for millenia, antisemitism has been around since year 1a.d. so hate has always been with us. now we have a tool that allows people to spread it and make it appear more acceptable, and there is something about the medium. we all probably see it in e-mails we get from our coworkers and family. there's something about the harsh word of e-mails and text that is different than a face-to-face encounter where you have to engage with someone. so that separation and the use of technology does seem to promote intemperate and hateful comments and people who say horrible things in the comment section to news stories i mentioned, often they're your friends and neighbors but hiding behind the mask of anonymity and

feel empowered to vent in the way they do. >> i want to ask, do you think there should be greater efforts to eliminate anonymity? should web site or google sites or facebook not allow anonymous -- >> facebook doesn't allow anonymity. they have a real name policy. so you have to use your real name to host your page. what they do have, though, is a section where you can post things and not use your real name, and the way they've dealt with that, a recent ann frank meeting and they went to the host of that, the moderator, and said, we'd like to identify you. or we'll take it down. we'd like you to stand behind what you posted and the person who did that said, never mind. go ahead and take it down. i think in 95% of the cases that is so. with that said, anonymity on the internet is an incredibly

important tool for free expression and the exploration of ideas. think about the gay teenager who is not sure about things and is doing research. his anonymity is really important. and so there has to be a balance. "the new york times" struck an interesting balance. they give priority to people who use their registered names for comments and people who want to have comments anonymous, go down, down the queue and probably don't get read. sir? >> a former journalist myself, i was particularly sensitive, certainly aware of these online comments sections that have sprung up on these media web sites alongside articles that are written. there was a very well intentioned purpose to promote discussion of the news and of articles, but all too often

these sections have become venues for venting a lot of these hateful sentiments and often the comments have nothing to do with the article that is being cited. i just wondered how much attention you have paid to them, how problematic you see these are, whether you think media organizations are doing enough to police these comment sections? >> they are given the resources that are available. newspapers are in pretty tough financial shape and can't afford to have the moderators to moderate the comments, and that's why it's up to to us point out to our fellow commenters their comments aren't germane or not nice. too many people slough them off and there are tools available, simply reporting abuse or flagging something for attention can play a role. but i also think that the online host can do more to promote

civility by being really up front about it. so a great example, we went to google from the antidefamation league self years ago. if you put in the search term. >> one of the first cites that came up was jew watch, which is a antisemitic group, and went to google and said, this isn't right, and goggle said, think appropriately, look, it's an algorithm that produces a result, our secret sauce weeks in going to change that but we'll put a free sponsored link next to the search result that says the search result you're looking at is a link to hate speech and if you want to learn about hate speech hires a link to the adl. so the online hosts including newspapers can provide counter-speech or the opportunity for counter-speech, and other commenters can respond just as easily as the people posting the intemperate comment.

other questions? >> i just found out last week that the internet sites are immune from liability, unlike newspapers and so forth. and i know you said you were interested in legal solutions but like chicken soup, couldn't hurt, making them responsible for what they put online? >> in 1996, the communications decency act was passed and included a provision, i think the result of lobbying from aol to immunize online hosts for the contents of their users, and without that provision we would never head had youtube or facebook or twitter. it allows for this material to appear without potential liability and the enormous staff that would be required for the normal vetting that would be required as it occurs in a

newspaper. so i think section 230 is an enormous tool toward free expression. now some think it's been expanded too broadly, and in fact the national association of attorneys general that is being led right now by maryland's attorney general, at their summer meeting next monday, is having a panel on which i'm appearing to discuss whether it's time to think of -- rethink section 230 and impose some liability on the intermediaries. i don't think that's a good idea and i have a hard time thinking about how you would restructure it. they do have liability for copyright infringement and truly illegal content, but for libel or hate speech, hard to see how you do that. maybe i'll be educated when i go to the panel. but there are even proposals that spread that kind of immunity around the world as part of tread negotiations the trend is in favor of granting immunity. but part of the privilege is to

take voluntary action as many of them are doing, in our working group. so we hope they understand, if they don't do that kind of voluntary thing, they may be subject to more calls for removal of their immunity. sir? >> from what you say, one of the most important tools you think that could be utilized by companies like facebook and google and so on relate to the terms of usage or the other things that they require their subscribers to adhere, and those literally are -- they are in no way -- to use a legal term, they are in no way anything that even a large user can negotiate. there may be some ability in formulating them for other groups like civil libertarians or advertisers or others to have some input. but basicthg that are imposed ai

notice you have given a number of very obvious -- i shouldn't say obvious -- very significant examples of the kind of speech which i think virtually everyone would agree falls into the category of hate speech. but in formulating anything to be put into a contract, i would think, and i would ask you if you would agree -- there would have to be a much more precise and clear definition of what hate speech is or what kind of speech is, what activity is prohibited and i wonder if you could just at least in general terms address that beyond the types of examples you have given. >> sure. if you -- the adl just released yesterday -- if you go to adl.org, a cyberhate response kit which has the hate speech policies of all the major online services and what you'll fine is there's an enormous similarity. even they may be unilaterally

imposed, the definition of hate speech is pretty similar. speech that attacks people because of their status as a minority or perceived status as a minority and where the tough part comes in is not in the drafting, it's in the application. that's why we have this working group that has free speech advocates like jeff rosen, and the president of the center for democracy and technology, leslie harris, and as well as civil rights advocates and representatives of the online companies, try to work out what is an acceptable -- what are the acceptable parameters, because sometimes at the margins it's hard to define hate speech. yes, ma'am? >> do you think that the rise of talk radio -- conservative talk radio which somewhat predates web usage do you think that has been a factor in encouraging the

growth of hate speech and perhaps continuing to spur it on? >> i think there's separation with radio and broadcast, too, and a lot of the things said are intemperate and promote a culture of extreme thought, and to that extent it's not a good thing. for sure. sir? >> i would like to argue that the spirit of debate in this country is all but dead. coming from another society where you heard debate, where people were face-to-face, come up and -- or stand up and speak to somebody and get an answer. i think if you suppress all that, if you put barriers in -- i mean one of the initial barrier may be avenue. then you have something called a glare screen with all the technology that goes behind the

glare screen. that puts a damper on all healthy debate, and when i want to say something to the president, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, i mean, and many politicians in this country, you cannot get anywhere near to these people unless it happens to be a week that mr. jones is speaking in new mexico, whatever. the politicians of our nation have forgotten what debate is, -- not forgotten but don't seem to recognize what it is, and i think it's a large reason why so much is broken down. thanks. >> thank you for the comment. yes, ma'am? >> this may not be something that you talk about in your book, but -- okay, you seem to be talk egg mostly exclusively about viral hate on the

internet. what happens -- would you comment on what happens -- this happens face-to-face. i've had this happen face-to-face and i'm wondering if you can address that. >> at least on face-to-face you know who is saying it to you and people are taking a degree of responsibility for saying it to you face-to-face. one of the things the adl did sometime ago was get passed in georgia an antimask law that if you go into march through the streets of a town to promote -- to protest integration you need to take responsibility for that message. you can't terrorist people with masks on -- terroreyes -- terrorize people with matchingses on. >> where i was working, i couldn't say anything because they're clined of the company. >> i think it's all part of the general civility in society, or incivility in society, of which hate on the internet is part, and discourtesy on the internet

is part as well. i think it's a continuum. but we take your point. >> how are you doing? >> i'm well. nice to see you. >> i wanted to ask a question about the kids. the kids are intimidated, they are intimidated and n all -- in all aspects so could you please -- >> is a said at the beginning, happily to the extent we're paying attention it to -- cyberbull using has received a lot of attention. the family online safety institute does a fabulous job. adl has drafted model, anticyberbull using laws. so that is one area where there has been a degree of attention. more can be done. when we talk in the book about kids, we talk about providing cyberliteracy education. there was a point where parents thought it was cute their kids

knew more about the internet than they did and we refer to them as digital natives and we're digital immigrants. we don't speak the language quite as well. that's copout. and we would never send our kids into bad neighborhoods without some guidance. wouldn't let them go interest the bad neighborhood but we let them do that all the time online, and i was with someone from the department of education recently who confirm for me there's virtually no federal funding for cyberliteracy education and very few states authorize it, much less fund it, and if they do it's one or two segments of the education rather than a continuing education that will teach them, first of all, what they say and do online can affect enemy for the rest of their lives. it can affect what schools they get into, what jobs they get. reminds me of the albert brooks and meryl streep movie defending your life and watched a videotape'm of their life that

determined whether they got into heaven. that's basically what the internet is becoming for kids and they need to know at least that and they also need to know that what they say and do can have impact on people, including leading people to commit suicide, and can turn themselves into haters. they can become people they really probably don't want to be and they're parents don't want them to be. we hope this will inspire further discussion about cyberliteracy education. >> hi. i haven't read the book. >> father's day is coming.>> the you go. >> you mentioned something about society -- i'm thinking, is that a assumption here that everyone you want to talk to believes in society? because one of the things i see is that there are people who decide they do not want to be part of the society and they

deliberately set themselves apart from what we could consider norms even at the extreme, and they just don't care. i mean, some people would call it evil, some people call it anarchy. how does what you're proposing deal with that? >> a lot of them are people who end up being identified as the perpetrator moves pretty terrible acts that we read about and hear about on tv. they were a loner. they had an online community. and that was basically it. well, all they have is online community? if it's a better online community -- [inaudible] >> they want to destroy what exists. >> i think that -- that's an overly ambitious goal on our part if we think we can eliminate that, but maybe this will contribute to attracting people to a more civil discourse and lifestyle. >> i know that you and abe

foxman are good friends and i wondered how you decided -- whose idea was it to write this book and any good stories about sitting around together? talking about-i know he has so much to offer and show do you. >> i said in the book that abe has enormous talented but being an early adopter is not one of them. and he keeps referring to it as a blueberry instead of a black berry. as a civil rights leader he has understood since 1986 the adl published a report called bulletin boards of hate where you put the phone in a cradle. so he has understood and had the forsythe to devote the resource office the throwing the issue, and i had the honor of being tapped back in 1995 to lead our effort, and i've done up until now. when i became national sift rights chair. so it was his idea to do the book. he recruited me. i was honored he would share the

byline with me and it was the typical collaborative effort. we yelled at each other aload and we agreed a lot and we were proud of what turned out. we were recount in the book that 1,995th, the adl met in chicago, on the day that rabin was assassinated and i was at the podium when someone passed a note to abe and he got up and announced this, and being cool, i thought i would find out the latest news online so i got the jerusalem post which had yesterday's newspaper with at line at the top, rabin was shot. that was it for hours and hours and hours. there was no news. and last november we were in chicago again for the 100th 100th everywhere of the adl when there were attacks from gaza on israel.

and immediately everybody went to their black black berry0s bluebers and ipad and we had access. a lot changed between 1995 and 2013. and what happened at the adl, we now have a large staff that deal with is, and we have people whose sorry job is -- thank god for them -- they monitor the internet all the time, 24/7, or jim would say 24/6 in a jewish organization. and it's not a very happy -- it's sort of like the people who monitor kiddy porn. they keep -- they've got computers and they keep track of -- to the extent they can of the major stuff going on. so the adl is a leader in this expert it's a really great effort to be part of that. >> hi. >> hi. >> i'm an artist and i have seen some artworks which, when they go after politicians on either side of the aisle or religions i

would call it hate speech but it's not see. it's an image. do you have any comment about image? >> images absolutely can constitute hate peach, and drawing lines between content doesn't make a lot of sense to me. facebook has a policy that humor is excluded from it hate speech policy. so if you address somebody up as humor, like the anne frank meeting, that's should not be exempt. they're in a special category where they're expected to take it a little more, politicians, and it's interesting to compare our society with others in britain there was a town council that actually filed suit, served a subpoena, got it perfected in superior court in california to identify someone who treated something offensive to the politicians on the town council. if anybody fried to do that here you would laugh at them. but that is acceptable -- in

britain they have she's speech codes that even politicians are immune from criticism. here i think criticism of politicians is our national sport. any other questions? >> this is a pretty ill-formed thought but i'm just taking your ideas and wondering-want to comment on how they would be extrapolated into a world where a large portion of us would be wearing google glass. i wore my first pair last week. >> how was it? >> surprisingly easity. was expecting it to be extremely distracting and it was very lightweight and probably easier to learn to use than buy -- bi-focals and surprisingly convenient. i'm just wondering how they may play out if we get to the point where we're wearing the internet and we're wearing video cameras and it's really alarming to

think how ease it is. just say turn on video very quietly and you might be recording all of this. >> if you buy viral hate volume 2, that is where we talk about that. that's in the internet when you're refrigerator starts cursing at you. yes, ma'am. >> that wretched which fellow that pickets funerals -- >> the baptist church. >> i don't even -- gladly forget that fellow's name. and anyway, i -- legal within certain boundaries. >> so says the supreme court. >> so i'm wonder if in general how you would feel about all these fuzzy lines that are so dreadful' and right at the edge to so many of us, have the fuzzy lines gotten fuzzier?

has it changed? or moved in terms of all of this? >> so, whatever you might think of the supreme court case that said you -- that phelps and the ban which is church could protest funeral servicemen by making antigay statements because of some cop torted logic there was a connection between military deaths and society that permits gay people. the supreme court said that was not speech punishable. the supreme court would allow a certain separation, time, place, manner restrictions but we're talking about laws that regulate speech. i don't think you'll see a time, place or manner restriction of speech uphead on internet. the other examples, communications, decency act, section 230 is a part, was

struck down except for section 230 because it's almost impossible to craft a law that gets at the brad -- bad speech without sweeping in good speech and that's the price we pay for a society that values free expression, and i talk about counter-speech. we need to have people speaking up against the westboro ban which is churches of the world, as you are. >> in the context of supporting israel there were tremendous ads on the metro, antimuslim ads and a number of us were standing there with a response it to and then other groups went along in other cities did things with it. so there are pockets of people but they can't be there 24/7 or 6 either. >> they're anti-israel ads that were responding. sides of bus is not a great place to have a political debate but the transit authorities are

making the decisions about that in lot office different cities. other questions? all right. i think we're ready to sell some books. [applause] >> right now i'm reading, where do you go, bernadette. a november that is told in the form of largely e-mails, as a daughter tries to piece together clues about why her mother disappeared. the mother is quite eccentric and the story is set in seattle with some really interesting quirky characters. it's a lot of fun. i don't know where it's going but i'm looking forward to finishing it. after that i'm going to be doing

something of a book club with my son, miles, who is 16. this is something we did a couple of summers ago. we picked a couple of books and would read them and then would go to our local diner to excuse them and have breakfast, and this summer we picked two books so far. we're reading a biography of bruce spring steen, which should be a lot of fun. we're both springsteen fans, an interested to learn a little bit more about his background in new jersey and how he got to be who he is, and we're also going to read dan brown's "inferno" the ultimate summer beach book. i read the other dan brown books and i think miles will enjoy this one. he has a real knack for ending his chapters with cliffhangers that make you turn the page, and so i think miles will enjoy that a lot, and i think we'll have lots to talk about.

so, should be a fun summer of reading.

...