>> thank you very much good evening everyone. i send apologies. did he tabled in new york. and empowered me to speak on

his behalf. most of you went to the school in the times when we is he sticks and stones may break my bones and words will never hurt me. murdered by a neo-nazi that is evil. violent. delusions were kept a live-in the online community. tell that to the that live in fear of being raped because of the online threats that they see all of the time. to the cyber bully kids that stay home from school because they are traumatized by the taunts that they have anonymously online. tyler clementi the rutgers student that committed suicide because avenue tweet that ridiculed him for being day. the saying is not true. in the world of websites. twitter. youtube. and facebook. 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 the people and to society. we wrote it continuing the internet. degrading and violence inspiring content are not the necessary by products of freedom of expression. we believe freedom of expression is as importantly as it is. and it is. does not trump human dignity. attacks on people because they are different. the anti-devleague and the hundred-year-old institution. where i chair the national civil rights committee has a mission to stop the defamation of jewish people and to promote justice and fair treatment for all. as part of league the

epidemic of online hate that without question is harming individuals and society. the problem in general is not high on the consciousness of the internet community. of parents and educators and leaders. we believe that the indeference to the growing and harmful problem will need to change. we care because we have seen the effects of the attacks physical and verbal on minorities. this is a holocaust survivor from the place and the time where propaganda as the police to the death of millions. the holocaust did not begin with off nz but it began with words. with the fourth global word of jerusalem last month.

the virus spreading in way that's hitler and the propaganda experts could not have imagined. the fight of hate against for decades and the involvement of online hate is a natural. you am a happily day man. my husband is in the audience. growing up. i was part of the degrading comments that were widely socially acceptable. it covers a wide range of things and explained in the book the internet is a know, newsing and communications tool for extremists on the right and the left. before the internet. such people would meet down dark alleys and exchange propaganda a now with the push of the the button. click of the mouse they reached billions in seconds.

it gives people the sense that violence is impossible for somebody to commit but online communities of extremists and the proliferation of hate says you are not crazy you are right. also is disturb is the home photocopy rants that some see in the comments sections to mainstream news sites. during the madoff affair the "palm beach post" closed the comments section because the anti-semetic comments of jews and money were rampant. and earlier this week. i was on cnn and cnn post add clip of my appearance on youtube. in most the online solution that gives the impression

that the opinions expressed must be mainstream and acceptable. we are going to be worried about the impact of that on vulnerable children. for dr. martin luther king jr. and that contains racist liees to the online games that are celebrating attacks on minorities and cyber bullying kids are at risk because of online hate. vulnerable children believe what they read. they are misled or worse. they are carefully taught to hate. in the words of that famous south pacific song. also disturb something that many people react to the common appearance of online hate by treating it as the norm. so 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 do not advocate is the use of the law to regulate speech. that is not just because of the a amendment on the strict limits of the regulation of speech. but we have found that even where laws are available to control speech, they are largely ineffective and counterproductive. we understand how in places like germany. it is literally unspeakable to deny the holocaust that resulted in the murder of millions and the important statements that the holocaust denies laws there play. and as a tool to make a difference in the appearance hate speech. it will not work. materials from the united states the first amendment is more over the law cannot deal with the scale of

internet hate. i described that as cockroaches in the kitchen. you will be able to target one on the kitchen counter. there are so many more that would be affected by the isolated targeting and the same are internet and use of combating consider statistics. every minute on the internet. 300,000 tweets every minute. there are 42,000 facebook shares. and 6 of hundred hours of youtube video. online added to the internet. every minute. the scale is overwhelming. so arresting. with muslim statement under the u.k.'s communications law. it did not have very much of an affect.

all of the efforts will do is addressing a mere handful of comment and chill the decent driving haters to the other outlets and there will be less identifiable. critical are more effective. and while the u.k.'s use of the objectionable. places like china and iran have the use of law and democracies to regulate online speech. so the law is not available or appropriate. or effective. what can be done. problem is the scale. and the sol volume of internet this view, this is an excuse for dealing with online hate. when viruses causing disease spread, society responds

when the scale of the problem is daunting and likewise we think that the virus of hate. requires a broad response. counter speech. as described this is a powerful tool. you may recall last week of may. mounting a many campaign against facebook and advertisers on facebook. to protest the content that pictures would be beaten and bound women. calls for raping women. and degrading slogans against women. masquerading as humor and grossly offensive content. that campaign prompted facebook immediately to admit that it would need to do more in terms of service to police the anti-women. violence inspiring could not techblt and facebook commit today do more. women bringing issuees to facebooks the world's attention were not simply willing to accept on as normal.

drfs a group to see. look at the people. speaking out. retweeting that rants of others. web hosts and strong media companies. should have staff and procedures to enforce the complaints for online hate are brought to their attention. this is not involved here, the hosts have their own to publish what they choose and if they want a civil corner of internet. we hope they do, that is their right.

facebook and google have joined with the anti-semitism task force. and the working group that includes civil rights. experts and ongoing collaboration on ways to rehate speech. continues for the day. anecdote to hate speech. focus of working group. so we applaud those internet hosts for attention paid to the program as admitted to the case of the anti-women content it. will do more. a leader here by the way. more from the internet community. companies that will have hate filled content that is needed. for starters they need with why the hosted holocaust denial. hate speech. and they will need to put adequate resourcees to respond to complaints of the hate filled posts and to take down the posts promptly. they will promote and

publish counter speech and to help with cyber literacy and anti-hate education. more is needed from parents and educators and teaching kids cyber literacy is a start. and i am going to tell you we do a bad job that have in this country. pushing facebook to change. people that use the internet speak of. when you see something is it say something is not restrict today backpacks and airports. we have a duty to speak out against online hate. and from the preinterneter a would apply. and triumph of the evil thank you very much. [applause] i will be happy take your questions. sir?

microphone please. >> when discussing facebook and all of that. is there a specific problem when much of this originates outside of the united states? a lot of it i think are just websites that are not necessarily coming through facebook so how do you deal with something like that? when you look at the problem, the focus on websites. we promoted a web filth for identify the sites. and though there are 4 to a hundred posted to the internet every day. about the tweets. and social media is where it is at. and using and publish. to ask people to go to the internet host to ask them to create a website. and you would not fine up take there. the focus has changed there

are websites that will continue. websites of the established hate groups. to track them down in places in the united states. they use the law to go after the handful of could not ten.

>> there is something about the medium. we all see the e-mails that we get from our coworkers and families. it is something about the harsh world of e-mail and text were you actually have to engage in the separation of technology which promotes these comments and we find that people who they really horrible things with the things that are set in the comments section, they are often hiding behind that anonymity in the way that they process

things. >> do think that there should be greater efforts to eliminate anemone? should not allow this? >> facebook does not allow this, they have a real name policy rate so you must use your real name. but they do have a section where you can post things and not use your real name and the way that they have dealt with that, there was a recent situation where someone had the name anne frank and they went to the host of that, the moderator and they said that we would like to identify you we will take it down. we would like you to stand behind what you posted and person who did that to get down. with that said, anonymity on the internet is an important tool for free expression and for the

exploration of who we are. think about the gay teenager who has anonymity that is really important. so there has to be a balance. it struck an interesting balance and i think that we do the best we can to make sense of these things. >> a former journalist like myself, i was particularly sensitive and certainly aware of these online comments section on these websites alongside articles are written. it is very well-intentioned as a purpose to promote this discussion of the news and the article, but all too often, in the sections have become venues for renting a lot of these

hateful sentiments and often the comments have nothing to do with the article itself that is being cited we are wondering what you're doing to police these? >> they are given the resources that are available and they can't afford to have the moderators that they would probably like to have and that is why it is really up to us to point out that the comments are not germane and too many people realize that there are tools available providing something but i also think that the all morning host is something that we have to be really up front about it.

if you put it in the search term, we talked about this in the book. one of the first things that comes up, we went to google and said this is not right and google said that it is the algorithm that produces the search and we're not going to change that. but here is what we will do. next to that search result it says the next result is hate speech and if you want to learn about it, here is a link. so i think that the online host including newspapers can provide the opportunity for this and other people can respond just as easily to people posting that's. >> are there any other questions? >> yes? >> i just found out last week

about the sponsors of internet sites have a liability to law. and i know that we were talking about the solution, but can you talk about what is responsible about what is put online? >> it included a provision to immunize online hosts and contents of the users. without that provision we never would've had youtube or facebook or twitter. it allows for this material to appear without a potential liability in the enormous betting that would be required

the national association of the attorney general being read right now we have a panel in which i am appearing to discuss whether it is time to rethink this and i don't think that that is such a good idea. i have a hard time thinking about how you would restructure it. if you have a liability for copyright infringement. but otherwise it would be hard to see how you do that and maybe i will be educated when i go to the panel. but we are even spreading that kind of immunity around the world with a kind of trade negotiations and i think the trend is in favor of granting that community. but part of that privilege is to take voluntary action we hope they understand that they may be

subject to removal of their immunity. >> from what you say, one of the most important tools that you think could be utilized by companies like facebook and google and so on, they relate to the terms of usage or the other things that require the subscribers to adhere to this and those are in no way anything that even a large user can negotiate it could be other groups like civil libertarians or advertisers or others that have some input. it basically there is simply something that i will and pose and i've noticed that you really have given the numbers a very

significant example of the kinds of speech, which i think everyone would agree upon falls into the category of hate speech. but in reformulating anything, i would ask you that you would agree, there would have to be a much more concise definition of what hate speeches or what kind of speech is or what activity is prohibited and i'm wondering if you could just in general terms address that beyond the types of examples. >> the response kit, which has a policy is of all the major online services there is enormous power to where that

comes than is in the application and that is why we have this working group that has free speech advocates like jeff rosen and the president of the center for democracy, and harris, as well as civil rights advocates and representatives of online companies, trying to work out what is an acceptable -- what are the acceptable parameters. because sometimes it is hard to define nonspeech. >> so do you think that that has a factor with the pay speech but

think there is a separation between radio and podcasts and a lot of things that really promote the culture of this and i thought that to that extent it is not a good thing. >> sir? >> yes, i would like to argue with that debate in this country coming from another society where you have the debate, both face-to-face, stand up and speak to somebody and get an answer. i think if you suppress all of that. if you put barriers in, then you've got all the technology that goes beyond this. that puts a damper on a healthy

debate. when i say something to the president at the risk of sounding ridiculous, you cannot get anywhere near these people so whatever, the politicians of our nation have forgotten what the debate is. they don't seem to recognize what it is. i think it is a large reason why so much is broken down. >> yes, ma'am? >> this may not be something that you talk about in your book, but you seem to be talking exclusively about hate on the web and the internet. what happens when you comment on

this. i'm wondering if you could address that. >> people are taking a degree of responsibility for saying it face-to-face. one of the things they did some time ago was talk about if you're going to march through the streets of a town through closeout liquidation, you need to take responsibility for that measure. >> i think it is all part of the general stability of which hate on the internet as part. i think that is a sort of continuum.

>> kids are intimidated many times in all aspects so could you please address that? >> as i said at the beginning happily to this extent, cyberbullying has received a lot of attention. the adl has drafted model anti-cyberbullying was and that is one area where i think there has been a degree of interest. when we talk about this, we talk about parents think it's cute

and we don't speak the language quite as well. well, that is a copout. we would never send our kids into bad neighborhoods without some guidance. but we let them do that all the time online. i was with someone from the department of education to confirm confirm to me that there is basically no federal funding for this type of education and very few states authorize it. if they do, it is one or two education segments rather than continuing education it talks about how it can affect them for the rest of their lives, the jobs they get, it reminds me of the movie defending your life where there is a videotape to determine whether they gone into heaven, which it was silent. but that is basically what the internet is becoming for kids.

they also need to know what we have been talking about tonight, that what they say and you can really have impacts with people. and that it can turn themselves into haters and they can become people that they probably don't want to be in their parents don't want to be. you hope that this will inspire further discussion about education. >> father's day is coming. >> there you go. you said something about society. is there an assumption? one of the things that we seem to see if there are people who decide that they do not want to be a part of the society and they deliberately set themselves apart from the norms and they just don't care and some people

would call it evil. others would call it anarchy. so how do you propose a deal with that? >> a lot of people who end up being identified as perpetrators come at a pretty terrible thing that we read about on tv. they had an online community and that was basically it. if it's a better online community, they want to destroy what exists and you know, that is an overly interesting thing that we think we can eliminate. maybe this will contribute to attracting people to a more civil discourse and the lifestyle. >> is wondering how you'll decided to just write this book

and if you have any good stories about sitting around together. >> i know he has so much to offer and so do you. >> he keeps referring to it as a blueberry instead of the blackberry and things like that. as a civil rights leader, he has understood since 1986, their bulletin boards of heat and he has understood and had the resources to devote to this issue and i had the honor back in 1995 to lead the effort, which i have done until now. so was his idea and it was a typical collaborative effort.

we were really proud of with what turned out. in 1995 on the day that an assassination occurred, i was at the podium when he got up and announced it in you know, being cool i thought that i would find out later about it with a little line at the top and that was it for hours and hours. so last november we were in chicago again when there were attacks on israel. and immediately everyone went to their blackberries and blueberries or whatever they are

and we had access and there's a lot of change between 1995 in 2013. what happened as we now have a large staff who deals with this we have people who deals with this. thank god they are devoted to this issue. so it's not a very habit type of thing. so they have computers and they keep track of the major stuff that is going on. this is truly a leader. >> i am an artist and i have seen our work when they go after politicians on either side of the aisle or religion, i would call it hate speech, but it's not speech, it's an image. you have any comments about

images? >> absolutely. you know, drawing the line doesn't make a lot of sense to me. facebook has a policy right now to human has been excluded from its policy. the veto something up, that is not right. the politicians are in a special category and it's interesting to compare our society with others and there is a town town council that actually perfected this in superior court in california someone who tweeted something eventful. anyone try to do that here you would laugh at them. but in brittany have these speech codes that even politicians are immune from. here i think that the criticism

is part of this. >> any other questions? >> this is a well formed thought, but i'm just taking your ideas and wondering you want comment on how they will be extrapolated and i was in silicon valley last week and had my first pair of google classes and was surprised that surprisingly easy. but it was very light weight and easier to learn to use. surprisingly it was convenient. but i'm just wondering how that may play out if we get to the point where we are wearing the internet and it's very alarming. all you have to say is we are going to turn on the video very quietly.

>> that is where we talked about that. that is on your internet starts to cursor you. >> there is a wretched fellow and i'm not sure his name. legal within certain boundaries. so i'm wondering if in general how you would feel about fuzzy lines are so dreadful to so many of us. have the fuzzy lines changed? have they moved in terms of all of us?

>> okay, so the baptist church, because of some contorted logic there was a connection, the supreme court said that that would not be punishable in such action. it would be allowed with restrictions and again we are talking about laws that regulate speech and i don't think this would be upheld. the congress has tried with online protection act and there have been other examples and section 230 has been a part because it is almost impossible

without that making them inaccessible. that is the price that we pay for a society that values free expression and i talk about this, you know we'd have people speaking up against this in the world. as you are. >> in the context of supporting israel, there were horrendous ads, anti-muslim and in the number of us were standing there with a response to it and other cities did other things to it. so there was a lot of people. >> right, their anti-israel adds that they were talking about as well. the transit authorities are making decisions about that and lots of different cities. are there other questions?

>> okay, i think we are ready to sell some books. thank you. >> is there a nonfiction author or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> in writing this book as a scientist, given these realities, the impact that drugs have on social policy and race and on our culture is often times distorted by lack of evidence-based thinking. instead people rely upon anecdotes were fears rather than on the facts. so is that the heart and soul of this book? the amount that is the heart and soul of it. drugs have been used as

scapegoats whenever there are social problems and so forth. but the problem is that people like me, that is very disturbing who for someone like me. >> let's stop for a second and try to understand something that is race related in this regard, which you say is just an outrage, which is the fact that when you look at something, you say that people identify this as a community problem. but in fact more whites used crack than black people. and theoretically more of them went to jail and were arrested for crack use even though more whites were using the drugs.

how do you explain that? >> it is kind of simple. the short answer is racism. this is not new. when i say racism, we do is we put our police resources, primarily black communities, and you can easily catch people doing something illegal. no matter what, that is some illegal activity at times greater than one, they can give me a ticket. but that hasn't happened. i hang out at the upper west side at times. but if you want to catch people doing crime, you put that in your community and that's what happened. it is important to note that in the early 19 hundreds cocaine was used by a wide number of

americans. it was in the number of products. and then there was concern when black people started to use it. black folks being the new southern manners, but them being the new southern manners. and the way that it was talked about, black people being under the influence, it caused them to be more murderous, they said, it because them to rape white women would be unaffected, all of this absolute nonsense. this is going on and it's going on now a little language has been tempered. but most of the populations don't use drugs. you can't say these things about alcohol even though alcohol is pharmacologically active just

like any other job or the rest of these. but you can't say these crazy things about it because many people drink alcohol and they know the effects of alcohol. so you really need to be able to tell these incredible stories about it. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> next, michael levi argues that between clean and renewable energy, americans should figure out a way to use both and use the latter is a funding source for the former. he spoke at an event hosted by the world affairs council of houston and this is about one hour. >> okay. a couple of weeks ago i did something that shocked my friends and family. i actually read a