.. >> and i know from reading some of the confessions, you get the impression six months, eight months, one

year into indefinite detention people are willing to confess to anything in order to get there case moved into the court system. you see people get to court and want to repudiate their confession. of course, what does the court turned around and do? you can't repudiate. repudiate. i think that it is true that we didn't -- we do tend to assume that people detained are guilty. if you look at the number, in fact, it is not actually true. there is an earlier stage in which they accept the case. they used to give us those numbers in the annual report they have stopped doing it for whatever reason, but in the old days about half of those initially investigated never ended up with an

indictment. what i assume is lot of those people end up getting an administrative punishment because it is determined they have not really committed a major offense. what we don't know is how many of those people get off because they are determined to be not guilty. but i think you are absolutely right. when it hits the inspection website and it is now so and so under investigation for disciplinary violations, my natural assumption is, they are obviously guilty. but it but it is a reflex we probably need to avoid. the most important question. >> two syllables.

we stick with it. the harder it is to pronounce. [laughter] >> why don't we open it up. we have microphones. >> thank you, i have two questions. one for professor professor andrew wedeman and one for professor donald clarke. the no fear act review for federal employees. is there any kind of whistleblower protection within the legal system or any kind of parallel system? professor professor andrew wedeman, are their any corruption prosecution hotspots? more numbers being generated than other provinces, or is this a fairly distributed thing?

>> i am not aware of any formal law that provides protection for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing. wrongdoing. it does appear that the campaign has fallen somewhat unevenly. the problem with trying to say where it is following most heavily, you have two choices. you read the individual cases and start guessing. my sense, it is hit pretty hard. looks like it has gotten a lot. gotten off pretty easy. that is just my impression. we really need to get the annual numbers that we will come out with the work reports which we will be filed in march. i have not looked at the ones from

2,013, but it is uneven. exactly what explains the uneven patterns, patterns, i have not had a chance to analyze. >> yes, sir. >> pipe. you talked about political and principled. do you think it we will be more political or more principled? it has to be principled. if i can ask, robert just mentioned the chinese looking at the k street, former officials lobbying. that was like corruption, why many chinese officials are corrupt before they retire obviously. thank you. >> i agree with you. to sustain the

anticorruption drive over a long amount of time, time, the principal has to take over from the political. at some.the political side can be dangerous, it can generate a backlash. you can push things in directions you might not want to go. my own view is this, the principal part is the bulk of it. you look at the cases that make up the most visible and exciting part of the campaign, the really boring campaign is the day in and day out trench warfare were of christian against mid and low level corruption. that has been going on for a long time. that was escalated in 2,012. i think it we will continue,

but i see at some.the political side would have to begin to fade. i think it will never go away. you will continue to have scandals, but the principal part at the end is what carries you on year in and year out. you slowly move toward a less corrupt system. >> what do you think is the impact of this on the economy of the country? is it insignificant? >> it is not a measurable. the reality is is when you look at the chinese economy and the growth of corruption, over the 30 years china has also had the second largest gain in per

capita income in the world. it is well over double the number three. it is multiple times what we had. if you look at the chinese economy, we are seeing corruption and rising growth does that mean that growth has raised -- i, i mean, that corruption has raised growth? absolutely not. one hundred or 200 million sitting in someone's basement is not a profitable investment. how much is is it shaved off his heart to tell. certainly there has been a cost. as the economy word out at double-digit rates, you could absorb that cost.

the drag of corruption necessarily increases. you are at the.now where perhaps you could look at corruption and say, well, it is problem but it is not killing us. now more and more it needs to be worried about. corruption is going to become a much bigger drag. there is definitely. >> tony, and then we we will go to the back. >> i just wanted to push the conversation about political versus principled a little further because you have not really defined what you mean by principal. i will say what i think, i think, and you can comment. it seems, at, at a macro level, you have heard a lot about how the problem with

corruption is local level officials do not listen to what the party is trying to get them to do. the principal should be reestablishing central power over local power. that that seems to be the driving force behind it. legal scholars often do not like this discussion. is this about rule of law or rule by law? >> there is no question, a big part of the corruption problem is the protective umbrella, the ability of officials at the local level, the inability to actually work its will on the local level. that is chinese political history. i think that the anticorruption campaign seeks to break through that,

but the anticorruption campaign continues to be structured along those very lines. you have not seen a centralization, although, you have had the three or four nationwide inspection campaigns where they literally send people out to bypass the local level to go after local corruption. but but they have done this before in shanghai. they they literally had to send hundreds of investigators down from beijing. beijing said, you cannot trust the locals. if a sustained anticorruption campaign means repeatedly having to send people from beijing to literally attack the local level, that it we will be

hard to sustained. you sustained. you really have to get a systematic solution which gets rid of this problem where the local prosecutor's answer to the local party officials. the the party officials are corrupt. what are you going to do? charge your boss with being corrupt? the other thing is, it is, it is not like the procure your great is corruption free itself. battling corruption within the anticorruption institution is a major challenge. >> i am sort of springing this on you. i you. i don't know whether you have thought about this. i guess the consensus among economists is chinese growth model which up till now has been driven by investment in things like industry and infrastructure needs to

change in order to be more sustainable and changed to something that is more service-oriented and demand driven. what is the relationship of corruption to the type of growth model that china uses? will changing the growth model make correction in the way it is carried out now more difficult? if so, we will so, will we have less corruption or major pushback? >> the corruption is concentrated in things like real estate development, the energy sector with mining concessions, oilfield contracts. my sense is that a lot of it is concentrated in the state sector because they have power structures. if you move and market eyes

the economy and the concentrate those pools of power, areas where you can use political and administrative power to manipulate a result, that should do it. when i look at corruption in the book the argument was that a lot of the corruption that you saw in the 1990s and early 2,000's was basically a fight over windfall. the model the model basically suggests you should see eventual dissipation. you have a piece of real estate. tremendous windfall profits. once it is on the market,, market forces take over. that has not happened. the reason is, the shift from an investment directed

to growth model has not been complete. is that going to be pushed? i don't know how much progress we we will see. you are right. there will be pushback. people pushed back. people do not willingly give away ill-gotten gains. people will fight to keep them. so if you did feed to this through a model you should see reduction in corruption. >> bring tony's question back. if if it is going to be a principled campaign, could it be more principled and less political. where corruption comes from. it seems to be a story about more virtuous, less corrupt. or do you see a a real

attempt to look at the system itself and asked what deficiencies allowed corruption, our real systematic approach to corruption that can be sustained and principled? >> i don't see that, no. there has recently been a proposal to have a sort of special unit set up, and this would be a a governmental unit, not a party disciplinary unit i guess the vice president. so a high-level official, and maybe some kind of attempt to construct something like hong kong independent commission against corruption or something like that. i do not see anything more than that. let's try to get a state

bodies that will investigate corruption and so therefore we will be overcome. but but that does not change the basic nature of the system. it is like, i guess, if you were to worry about, you know, why poor people don't have enough food, you food, you just make them richer. so you make. -- you make poor people not poor. maybe that is a bad metaphor it does not propose to change the system as a whole. i don't see any fundamental changes like that. >> looking at the way the thinking within the chinese system is, it is bad. you

get a set set of charges which are basically about corruption. the moral to generate see, multiple mistresses, so on and so forth. this this person was just not taking advantage of their authority or the fact that the system gave them the ability to extract money in the form of bribe, they were fundamentally,, morally degenerate. when i read that the narrative is, the system is good, the individual is bad. bad. that sounds a lot like denial. >> and it is not just that they were stirring up trouble but that they had mistresses. a question right in the back end and then the side and then ryan. over at the side.

[inaudible question] sorry. the cooperation between china and us on the fight against corruption, how long do we need to wait to see real progress on this aspect? >> i find the question a little vague. identify the the barrier you are waiting for to go away. >> some officials from china that travel to the us, how many years, maybe in the next year can we see some be sent back? >> the problem with that is what i talked about earlier on, i don't i don't think there is any immediate prospect of progress because that gets into extradition issues. there is not an extradition

treaty between the china and the us. for that kind of thing that countries have to have a fundamental faith in the other countries legal system, and i don't think that kind of bilateral faith exists. so i don't i don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. there has there has to be a much greater degree of convergence. and it is not because the us likes corrupt officials. it is just some fundamental disconnect. i just used the example of canada. the canadian government wanted to send him back. they were arguing to get rid of this guy. but he had gotten in. they had other concerns.

they were they were not concerned about whether we want people who bribe officials to be in our country. they have other concerns. >> ryan, and then over to the side. >> thanks very much. i much. i have a question for each of you gentlemen. professor donald clarke? constitutionalism popped up. a couple of years after constitutionalism was a dirty word on the chinese side. i am curious for your thoughts on what inclusion is him of constitutionalism along the rule of law means going forward? professor kayfor, in all the mention of different locations where we have seen corruption cases the one place i i have not heard much about is shanghai. i am curious that you have any thoughts on why we have

not necessarily seen any activity and think about the political versus the practical and if there is any analysis there. >> okay. okay. i guess i am going to have to disagree with your premise because i don't think constitutionalism does appear. they they talk about the constitution, and they always have. but constitutionalism as translated into chinese still remains a for bid and term. >> but in many, many ways you talk about the relationship. to me, you no, it does not have that. >> but those two words together, i deny -- i could

be wrong. if you do a word search you we will not find that term. of course, you will find constitution but costs to socialism with a particular meaning that is not welcome because it is understood by both promoters and detractors to mean things like accountable government, elections, etc. >> they talk about the constitution, absolutely, but very important to see that they do not accept the term constitutionalism. >> we can talk about the irony of a party that proclaims itself to be a marxist party talking about how terrible western ideas are, but let's not talk about that. >> short questions and short answers, we we will have

time after. >> it is hard to explain why something has not happened. there has been a lot of speculation. a lot of that comes out of those who believe that the ultimate goal is the power base in shanghai. i do not have an easy answer because i don't no if shanghai simply is avoiding the blow or if it's term has not yet come. i don't have a good answer to the question. quick. >> quick questions and quick answers. >> left-wing. since they did not target the right wing rivals, why

he target left rival and not write rival? and is the reason political? >> you cannot take on all fronts at once. you have to pick your fights and take on your more immediate enemies while building united fronts with those you might want to go after later. i am not surprised he has concentrated on the left. i think that was the more immediate threat. >> next question. >> the phrasing issues. one of the key terms, the rule of law under the communist party's lead. i mean,, some political science or legal interpretation of that phrase, what does that exactly entail? how large is it comparable

to it. it. quite similar to a constitutional monarchy or something. just some phraseology complications there. >> i i think the distinction between rule of law under the party and constitutional monarchy is in a constitutional monarchy the monarch is under the constitution. constitutional modifies monarchy. whereas in rule of law under the party, party modifies rule of law. i don't want to make word plays. what, i mean, to say is as is made clear not by words but by action, it is not their intention to themselves being governed by law.

i don't want to be unrealistic. humans run society, so there is no society that can be run by the law with no human intervention. i think there is a difference between, you know, political regimes in which the government feels it is meaningfully restrained by a external rules and systems in which it is not. look, for example, at the distinction between, you know, when, you know, and the need to have a legal advisor in the right -- white house who writes legal opinions justifying the action of the white house. they believe that they have to come up with some plausible legal argument. i really don't think that thinking comes into play.

when they are deciding what to do with someone someone says, is this legal? we had better talk to this law professor. no one is discussing it even if we can say the legal opinions of people in the white house, you may think they are disingenuous were forced,, but nevertheless it is a certain discourse. i just do not see that going on at all, and i do not see any ambition to have that go on. >> thank you, professors andrew wedeman and donald clarke. we will have the second annual us china relations. and then on december 12 we

we will have the author of who is afraid of the big bad dragon as well as karen fisher from the chronicle on higher education looking at issues in the united states and chinese educational systems in the way we are increasingly influencing and learning from one another. thank you, and happy thanksgiving. [applauding] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in primetime tonight here on c-span2, cronyism and corruption in the us government. that at 8:00 o'clock eastern and on and on c-span at eight interviews with retiring members of congress tom harkin and howard coble. leaving leaving after more than 35 years in congress. here is some of his interview. >> two things, get rid of the filibuster on legislation as well as nomination.

on the other hand, i have often said, the republicans do have a legitimate argument in that they are not being allowed to offer amendments. it is one of those chicken and egg things. the best way to get rid of it is to get rid of the filibuster that guarantee to the minority and new rules in the senate that the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill on the floor, germane amendments to that legislation with reasonable time limits for debate. if you do that, then we can move legislation, and the minority will have the right the minority does not have the right to prevail, which they are doing now because they can control the filibuster and stop things.

it should be the right of the minority to amend or offer amendments, to have full and vigorous debate and to have votes on those amendments. i think if we do that the senate would begin to operate very well. >> sen. harkin's signature legislation was passage of the americans with disabilities act. and congressman coble was first elected in 1984. you 1984. you can watch tonight starting at eight eastern on c-span. >> a few of the comments we recently received from viewers. >> i just have to tell you that to see these people and person, to here them have the panel discussion or congressional hearing, it is so important to understand the context and to listen to the statement in its entirety.

>> hi. i have been watching book tv for a few years, and i really think it is the greatest program on tv. how these authors take the time to not only present summaries of what they write , but the moderator always does a great job of stimulating the conversation yet. i think it is fabulous. it fabulous. it is what i look forward to on the weekends. >> i watch c-span all the time when i am home. i think it is absolutely excellent. excellent. i watched all of the debates around the country. thank you for the talks and the history. i like all of it. i am thankful that it is there and use it in my classroom.

thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think. call us. e-mail us. or you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next, a look at free speech rights today compared to 1958 when the supreme court ruled against the u.s. postal service when they banned the distribution of "one" magazine through the mail. the significance of the decision and what it meant for gay rights. this is hosted by the cato institute. it is one hour and 20 minutes.

>> good morning. morning. sound okay? can you here me? welcome to the cato institute. i am a senior fellow at the cato institute center for constitutional studies. some of you are knew, so let me explain, it is a think tank devoted to research on principles of free market, individual liberty and piece we have an active program called the center for constitutional studies which looks at the supreme court and jurisprudence. it was through the work of the center for constitutional studies that i first came to realize just how interconnected issues of individual liberties and civil liberties are. if you read cato's wonderful

annual supreme court review, for example, you find the connections between equal protection law and the right to keep and bear law -- keep and bear arms, search and seizure,, and some of the connections we we will be talking about today. a 1930s case on the right of parents to select a private education for the children. strengthen and support completely different rights. one of the things i have concluded supreme court jurisprudence needs to be taken away from the red versus blue metrics. when you have an important decision usually one side likes it better than the other and they are discovering the other side has reasons to like it. individual individual liberty is an inheritance we

all wind up using. we have a panel on a little-known case from 1956 from the supreme court that ought to be much better known. i will introduce all three speakers. lisa linsky is a partner who litigates cases in product liability, liability, civil rights, and also the partner in case of firm wide diversity and has won a number of awards in that area. previously she was in the westminster district attorneys office where she was chief of the child abuse and sex crimes bureau. speaking second is robert corn-revere. a first amendment scholar as well as an adjunct scholar at the cato institute. he

served as as chief counsel to the federal communications commission,, honored by the american library association to its office of intellectual freedom. finally we will here from jonathan rauch. jonathan is a senior fellow at the brookings institution his writings have appeared especially in the journal but every other periodical you can think of. two of special interest to my gay marriage and his earlier book, timely inquisitors, some say the

best modern book on why we need free speech. let me begin by welcoming lisa linsky. >> good afternoon. oh, yes. if you would, turn off all of your cell phones so that we don't have any interruptions. thank you. the society of los angeles formed in 1951, not to be confused. this was a nonprofit organization formed to educate the public about the scientific, historic, and critical points of sexual variance. one of the things that they chose to do was publish a

magazine first published in 1952. it was called "one: the homosexual magazine." now, it was an attempt to open the eyes of the public at a time when homosexuality or any kind of sexual deviance was not discussed. it was altruistic in purpose, bold, evolved, but we cannot start a discussion of "one" magazine in the case of one, inc. v. olesen without stepping back, going back and taking a historical perspective when what was going on in this country. i'm going to start there. the 1950s. to some of are way too young to know anything, but some

of us are not. the era of leave it to beaver, post-world war ii, ii, when there was an innocence, a belief, a a value system based on the american family. competition between the united states and the former soviet union, and intensification the struggle between capitalism and communism that preoccupied the american government. for the federal government in this country, the 50s was a time of extreme paranoia, political conservativism, referred to as the second red scare, a a time when government officials in this country, fbi director himself

embarked on an anti-communist crusade that encompassed gays and lesbians. it was in 1954 that the postmaster of los angeles declared a ban on the mail ability of "one" magazine, the first serious game magazine of ideas. the band came on the heels of president dwight eisenhower's executive order 10450. the executive order declared homosexual -- homosexuals, homosexuals, and it did not use the word homosexuals but sexual perverts, but it declared sexual perversion and perverts a national security risk based solely on sexual orientation and effectively banned gays and lesbians from employment

with the federal government. what we see from the documents i am about to show you is a ferocity with which hoover and his cohorts brought the full weight of their authority and the authority of the bureau to bear on anyone who dared out him. these documents i am about to show you demonstrate that hoover was willing to bring all of his government authority to interrogate, intimidate, threaten, and punish anyone who dare to suggest that he or anyone else in the federal government, particularly the fbi might be gay. one magazine had the audacity to run an argument suggesting there were homosexuals in the fbi. this meant war.

let's take a look at what the society has discovered so far. this first slide is dated march 1952. an fbi memo to the director. the the subject was a gentleman by the name of john mark and it who worked for the national labor relations board. at the time of this memo he had worked for the nlrb for 11 years. what was his crime that spurred an fbi investigation into his life? he was at a dance with his wife, and at his table was a gentleman by the name of mr. terry who worked at a local bakery. what is significant?

it happened to be across the street from the justice department. what happened was he made an off-the-cuff remark and said , so, is it true that mr. hoover is a queer? with that, the informant reported this to the fbi. the next thing we learn is he is the subject of an fbi investigation. there are a lot of sections, but note the bullying that went on for anyone who dared mention something like this, something so inflammatory of a baseless. that was a joke. [laughter] but in talking about the interrogation, subjected to

a vigorous interrogation to which he appeared to be badly frightened. in the next paragraph basically he gets down on his knees and apologizes for making such a found this comment about the director and gives his assurance that this will never again happen he will never open his mouth and say something about the director or anyone else in the federal government. by the way, while the agents questioned they asked if he was himself a pervert. takes one to no one? director hoover. vigorously set straight and will not engage in this type of gossip in the future. the handwritten note at the

bottom of the document. basically it says, let's report him to his employer, the national labor relations board so that they know about his activities. you cannot see it their, but that is the associate director of the fbi. more recently known as hoover's companion. the yes was mr. hoover himself. let's fast-forward. this was 1952, around the same time that "one" magazine issued its first edition. i'm sorry. i sorry. i cannot see that. that was a joke, too.

let's look at these next few dealing with senator alexander wiley from wisconsin. he happened to pay a a visit in april of 1954 to new york city. he walked by and newsstand and saw a publication called "one" published for and by homosexuals, and he was appalled. dumbfounded was the word he used when he realized such a magazine was out for public sale and being sent through the us mail. he took it upon himself and decided to write to the postmaster general about the use of the mail system to disseminate such vile trash. this is a document from the u.s. senate which is sent to

a member of the fbi. fbi. a copy of the magazine as well as the letter that was written by sen. wiley post master gen. summerfield. it's kind of a long letter, but i want to direct your attention where he says the purposed of my -- to transmit a so-called magazine devoted to the advancement of sexual perversion. now, if you look at the next page, he appeals to his keen sense of moral principle to give this matter his prompt attention. some six months later what happened? it was october of 1954. the october 1954 edition was

banned from mail ability by the los angeles postmaster otto olson, thus infringing on the first amendment protected right of free speech by the members of "one" magazine. the government conspiracy that was brought to bear against this tiny publication that was not about obscenity but rather about the federal government's government's attempt to silence than emerging gay and lesbian subculture, a new movement in our country. let me quickly flashed through because my timekeeper keeps sending me these messages. this one in particular. a couple of years later, but it shows the fbi investigation of "one"

magazine. in 1953, you will see here that the bureau opened an investigation because of the possibility that the group was communist controlled or infiltrated. by the way, a closing report was later submitted because they could not find any evidence of subversion. what i want to.your attention to is this handwritten note. we should we should take this crowd on, meaning the homosexuals, and make them put up or shut up. also, the comment, i concur, by mr. hoover. what did they do? they brought in william lambert and accused him of

having written the article in which members of the fbi were accused of being gay. what. what do they say? strictly no good,, and they talked about the society as well and said that they were all know good. this next document from february 1956 confirms the handwriting on that document i showed you a moment ago was from mr. tolson and the director himself. this also says how they closed the society investigation because there was no evidence of any communist infiltration. the the last slide with some

historic value is this one. what is significant is that mr. hoover himself wrote to the department of justice, assistant attorney general and says to him, here is copy of "one" magazine, and here is the october 1954 copy. look look at it. tell us. is this obscene? for the director of the fbi to get down in the weeds and try to influence the mail ability of "one" magazine really tells you the extent to which the federal government was hell-bent on making sure homosexuals did not have the exercise of free speech, would not be able to read about homosexuality and be educated.

what's more, the federal government made sure that the public would not be educated about homosexuals and homosexuality. i will show you these next few documents quickly. responses from some of the freedom of information society requests in an effort to get historic documents that we believe the postal service has either destroyed or is not being forthcoming with. as a result, we see the postal service says things like, that was a long long time ago, 61 years ago. we don't no. when we went back and appealed this decision which we thought was a denial, they came back and said, we don't have them. in august we subsequently learned that the national

archives did a search for documents pertaining to "one" and they did not find postal service documents but they found 250 pages of department of justice documents. they are out there. we're not going to stop until we do. let me very quickly, something that that i hope we will discuss a little bit later. let me just talk to you briefly about why we are doing this work. some people have said, this is this is interesting, but it was a long time ago. we are on to different issues, marriage equality, parenting rights. and to that i say to you, ladies and gentlemen, the work of the society is a testament to history itself,

a testament to uncovering deleted histories of lg bt americans, a americans, a way of giving voice to individuals who did not have the opportunity to stand up for themselves, people like doctor frank hamm and he who was fired from his job with the federal government just about the same time eric jewell berg filed his writ for petition. never able to to get another paying job for the rest of his career but kept fighting. there are a lot of reasons why the work is particularly relevant. for those of you who followed the windsor case, you may recall that justice roberts made a remark in his dissent,, and he said that

their were snippets of history, snippets, and snippets do not add up to animus and discrimination and bigotry. i am here to tell you that these are not snippets previously are uncovering critical evidence that shows a very lengthy and robust paper trail of animus and discrimination by the federal government to lg bt americans going as far back as the 1940s and 50s. with that i will stop, thank you for the courtesy, courtesy, and turn it over to my colleagues. [applauding] >> i'm going to step in for a minute to change from one powerpoint presentation to the other, thinking as i do

about how lucky we are to no longer live under an american government capable of retaliating against its critics through the use of law enforcement. enforcement. we sure got them with that one, didn't we? [laughter] and i think i think it is all set up. >> thank you for the invitation to speak. it is very nice to meet you. joining you for the panel. ..

this was the anniversary of all sin which i was surprised i i hadn't heard of that and there was a little bit gratified to find out that actually the issue that was determined to be on mail a ball and censored was issued them a bite was born, so i thought i'd better look into this. what i find as interesting though and i saw it in the blog entry is the idea that younger people and maybe there are a few out there in the 1950s not that many it would be hard for anyone under 40 to understand what life was like for americans

-- gay americans. censorship, people have no idea how pervasive it was. and it affected all aspects of american culture. they are subject to the censorship today because we are still having that and it's busy at work that used to be even more active, for example in 1938 the fcc issued an admin a -- admonition of a program of charlie as a guest star they were doing a skit called adam and eve and they said there wasn't anything improper about the language but the inclinations were suggested.

this happened in a variety of different areas and for different reasons. the producer was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for making this movie about the american revolution because it showed british soldiers commit atrocities during the american revolution and this was seen as damaging to the war effort when the british were our allies in 1917. in the cinema it wasn't until 1952 the second court decided the cinema was protected by other media and it wasn't until

1965 with the existence of the state censorship boards that would review films in advance. as a matter of fact the last censorship board that board existed and doubtless continue to exist until 1993. poetry was the subject of censorship as a matter of fact allen ginsberg was the subject to a prosecution in san francisco and of all places in 1957 fortunately it was to be not guilty of obscenity. ironically 50 years later you still could not read on the radio because the fcc regulations. it was prosecuted over the country san francisco, los angeles, chicago and new york

for the bluest cities in america but in the late 50s and early 1960s congress act was beyond the pale. he was actually convicted in chicago and new york. in chicago the conviction was overturned on the appeal to you and in new york it wasn't because he died of a morphine overdose because the governor of new york issued a posthumous pardon. and the books have always been subject to censorship. it was just straight sex. there was a long unfortunately rich history of books in america and magazines and it's hard to imagine how pervasive it was. you heard about some of these classics to the celebrated cases there was one literary magazine that was determined to be

unavailable because one article in the magazine used the word breasts. in 1928 to customs officials the customs officials got together in the conference to determine which publications. they came up with a list of 700 titles and that was 1928 alone. now the reason for this is because of the history of censorship that goes back to the 1870s. thanks to anthony he was a driving force in the first serious federal regulation of obscenity and he was a former clerk who first became vigilante and then created the new york society for the suppression of vice. you might be able to see if sealed down here in the corner. i don't know if you can make it out in the back of the room but it is a remarkable bit of work. it shows one man at pretending and miscreant in another burning

books. that is how the society for the discretion wanted to be known. it was of the obscene literature and use. this was a very broad law. and any comstock was appears in both in mind and the practice he not only wrote the law he was appointed a special agent of the post office to enforce it. he would actually make arrests. he would break down doors and this is when they banned books they they did it just prohibits the bucs, they burned them and they melted down. you will notice when you read the text of the law it isn't limited to just obscenity as people think of it today. it also talks about any information about the prevention of contraception and also any information of abortion. i placed along the books today

this was a product of victorian morality. this was in 1842 she looks okay. time wasn't very good to her but it represents the mindset of the times and also the legal standard that was imported to the united states. this is a british case involving the 1850s of an obscenity law that basically said anything that was obscene was something that would corrupt the minds of our open to such influences and regardless of any merit of the work for the most susceptible person with the standard of the united states adopted in the wake of the common stock law so that it could be used to suppress anything involving sex.

this changed as it began to develop. this is the landmark case the united states decided in 1957 into the timing is critical for the issues that we are discussing today. it is the case that many people in the go to law school where the supreme court held that obscenity is a protected by the first amendment and its true it does hold that that also was a information of obscenity law and one that was very speech protected. it would be like saying "new york times" versus sullivan dance for the proposition that sets a very high constitutional bar before you can punish someone for defamation. in the same way it was a revolution in the obscenity law in the united states. one thing before i even get into this test that was established as to read this statement from justice brennan where he wrote

they are not synonymous. sex is a motive force and is indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the agents and it's one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern. quite a contrast from anthony comstock. it's actually a very positive attitude even though it recognizes there recognizes there is still an area of law beyond the pale. the standard the case established was also a revolution in thinking about these issues. first because it overruled the test which had been the victorian era that american courts have used before this time. it also said instead of looking at the most susceptible person you look at the average person in the community to determine other something could be considered obscene. you look at the work as a whole not isolated passages and you also look at whether or not you

were dealing fairly with the period of interest which is a shameful interest and whether or not something is utterly without redeeming social importance. the piece of work had to meet all of those elements before it could be declared obscene. by the way the test is pretty much what the fcc still uses for its decency rules without the different presentation. now when this change happened in 1957 it was at a critical time for the case bringing us back to today's topic. one was decided by the ninth circuit in early 1957. this was a couple months before the supreme court decided the decision and it relied on the test basically you see here is a tendency for that matter issued the morals of those that are open to such influence and into whose hands the publication of this sort of a may fall.

exactly the test that was overruled. so when one comes back to the supreme court or is reaching in the supreme court in 1958 it really just one line. the court court reversed it without opinion and simply said it is granted and the ninth circuit is reversed. you really didn't have to say anything more. so was this unique? not really because at this time you had a whole series of cases that were reaching the supreme court under the previous test that were affected by what was happening under the new standards. there were 13 different obscenity cases that produced 55 opinions. needless to say the court with having to figure out in this nebulous law how it was going to interpret what obscenity means.

and there was a range of opinions. they believed there should be no obscenity law that the first amendment was absolute. the justice stewart be legally hard-core pornography should be prohibited and of course the justice was famous for his quote in 1964 when he said i might not be able to be fined but i know it when i see it. as it turned out he didn't know but when he saw it later on because he agreed with the justices in 1974 but there really shouldn't be any or. the chief justice believed that material short of hard-core obscenity could be banned but only so long as it had the social value. again he later reconsidered his position along with justice stewart and ben finally it should be limited to our states and they should be given more

latitude. given this range of opinion on the court they were facing a quandary when they have these opinions coming up to decide what to do with the cases. so every case at least five justices could agree but they couldn't agree on the reason that they wouldn't issue an opinion and that is what happened. there were 31 reversals and cases without opinion. here's another example decided without an obscenity opinion from the court. critically important but again we don't have a decision to point to. this was involving the publication of the topic of cancer which was first published in 1934 and there have been attempts to imported in the united states and to publish it

in 1940. this led to a prison sentence to three years for the publisher and finally in 1961 and was published by the press which lead led to 60 different cases in 21 states. again this was all after the decision this was reversed without opinion in 1964. the opinion was actually issued on the same day and all the justices referred to the separate opinions saying this is why we are reversing this case. how did the courts deal with the love that dare not speak its name just because they didn't issue an opinion didn't mean they didn't want to talk about the issue and it did, then a case in 1962 and was invoked the prosecution of three magazines, beefcake magazines one called

manual, one caught a tram and this one the quarrel. here again it was a post-rock decision where the court had a fragmented series of opinions and couldn't agree that the justice rather magazines in question taken as a whole cannot under any constitutional standard be deemed to be beyond the pale of the notions of rudimentary decency. so even though you're talking about these skin magazines you have the court finally saying whatever else you might say that these magazines they are not offensive. but he probably couldn't resist adding that they are not to my taste. the justice also wrote the independent examination leads us to conclude that the most that can be said is that they are unpleasant and that that is not enough to make them obscene.

so that was one opinion on the court representing two of the justices. the chief justice brennan and i forget who the third was that it took the opinion post office simply shouldn't have the power to declare the magazines to be a mailable. so that's sort of the underlining history of where these traditions come together about the restriction on rights as well as censorship. i think because we have recognized greater freedom for both be of greater human liberty overall. even though we've attempted to use rowdy as an excuse to justify repression in the past whether you are talking about speech or human relationships. freedom is the true morality. [applause]

stack my job is easy today and as henry viii said, we won't be keeping you long. folks in the audience today are in x. ordinary group and i wish i could call out and introduce all of you but i would like to dedicate my next five minutes of comments to two people who cannot be here today. one is frank. more about him and i did. he died in 2011 and the other is eric. he is the attorney who took on the one versus olson case in 1954, to get to the supreme court on behalf of the one magazine. he was a heterosexual man and he turns out is alive and well. he's living in southern california i think in a nursing home is that right and charles francis was here today has gone out to speak to him and thank him for his work on this case. so when we think about this as ancient history it is actually

not. the principle is alive and well. we may be about to get a sitting court decision saying that it is a federal constitutional right. if that happens it will be the most important case in history. but until that happens or unless it happens there is no doubt in my mind that one from the point of view is the most important civil rights case that we have ever had. i would argue that the most important civil rights case you've never heard of, period because no one knows about it yet what happened in 1958 is actually put people in the path to freedom. all we had in 1954 when the society of los angeles began publishing one magazine all we

had was our voices. we had no money, no votes from an organization. our people were deep in the closet, the powers against us were mind-boggling league huge, powerful and intent. you hurt two people show you just what was against the sexual americans. like all minorities in that situation in the society we had one and only one thing. our ideas and ability to transmit those ideas and our ability to step forward and proclaim those ideas admittedly is a great personal risk. one magazine did so. it turns out to have been, and this blows my mind come in the early 50s it published a case for marriage unbelievable.

also published an issue in which an article that was a short story that appeared that attracted the attention of the postmaster who ended from the mail in 1953 being banned from the the the mills meant to be silent if you were a magazine. there is no internet or fax machines. there's nothing you could do. you had been shut down. what an interesting point about that particular issue of the magazine wasn't remembered, it was the cover story. the cover article was called you can't say that and it was an article criticizing the united states government censorship. that's right i'm not making it up. it couldn't be a more perfect for with the federal government was in fact censoring as

criticism of the federal censorship. what could be more classic than that. the author of the article that was censored by the way was one eric. yes, the same. in the context of the 50s and in the context today of africa and eastern europe which my colleague has covered admirably and he is here today, we see again and again the first thing you do to is to silence it. you make it impossible for them to speak and then of course it is very easy to demonize this. and that's cicely was done in those years data that is true of all minorities. it's even more true for people because the fundamental purpose used against homosexuals from time immemorial is what we call the closet. we were not harassed.

some of the time if we would agree to pretend that we were straight and was completely out of the public view. in other words, if we lived a life of shame, the nile and shadow. the only way out was to challenge and that means by definition of a few brave people to come forward and that is what the one position out loud. that one sentence from the supreme court. they should do a much more of that lot more of that by the way. [laughter] >> that's also another talk. that's one sentence set us free and if you need confirmation of that it so happens by one of these wonderful to store coincidences that right at the same time and i think the same month in fact the supreme court issued its decision another man received the letter from the u.s. civil service commission announcing that that he'd not only been fired from his

government job but was banned from government employment because he was a pervert. he was on user will, unlike other people in the today he was not intimidated. he appealed the decision through federal bureaucracy. he lost. he then filed the first major brief before the u.s. supreme court. the supreme court denied. he went on to challenge the ban and his inner planet and other people's employment for congress. he became the first openly gay person to run in congress in 1970. he challenged, again, using words as great weapon he challenged psychedelia for psychiatric banned, the psychiatric combination of sexuality is a disease in 1972. i could go on and on. this man who unfortunately can't be with us live long enough to

receive the formal apology of the u.s. government from the agency that hired him whose head by that point was openly gay. but i want to remember frank specifically for a few words in his supreme court brief. 1961 he is representing himself because no one else would do it and the society in washington. and notice what he tells the supreme supreme court in that crucial passages. he's arguing that his loss of employment on grounds of being homosexual are unconstitutional. he doesn't in this passage talk about the 14th amendment. and of course there were no antidiscrimination laws and the federal civil rights statute on the books. what does he talk about? two quotations. in world war ii he writes the petitioner didn't hesitate to fight the germans with bullets

in order to help preserve his rights and freedoms and liberties and those of others. in 1968 is ironically necessary that he fight the americans with words in order to preserve against a tyrannical government, some of the same rights, freedoms and liberties for himself and others. notice the key to words there. with words. he knows that this is his weapon. he knows that it is his only weapon. he wields it very effectively. and what are the grounds, what is the fundamental denial of the right to attend with his happened with his firing? isn't his job, his livelihood, his income, it is all of those things that he goes somewhere that is unexpected and profound, something deeper. the commission's regulation as it stands is unconstitutional,

he tells the court come in but by establishing a tyranny over the mind of its citizens it is inconsistent and violates the provisions of the conditions and the spirit and intent to the federal constitution. i read that the first time and i did a double take. establishing a tierney over the mind. this is not just about expression and it's certainly not just about making a living. this is about whether we can be free as human beings to live our lives as we really are and these and to be sovereign which also means over our own love. as you can hear i still get a bit choked up when i think about what he knew and understood.

and i hate to think what would have happened if one had gone the other way. if the supreme court had denied that she might well have done if he hadn't come down the year before. he would have been in jail for his advocacy and the people who came after him would have taken, what, another generation to get to where we are today? and i could now be married in a the state of virginia recognized by the federal government and by the state of virginia to a man and that the supreme court was not only here us today that a rule in our favor. this i believe dates to that decision position in 1958 and that is why i am so happy to be here with this amazing group,

not just those that are here with me but all of you and especially charles francis whose work has done so much. i'm happy to be celebrated with you today. this is a case i believe which after languishing for 60 years since its inception will never be forgotten again. thank you. [applause] >> we are moving now to general discussion. and you will all be coming up with excellent questions. but while you take those up let me first ask charles francis to step up since he's been mentioned in many ways. [applause] into efforts to document this case with the help of lisa and her law firm and before we turn to general questions i would like to ask the panel to react if they would like to each other's presentations. why don't you start.

>> i was very moved to hear such a scholarly discussion of the standard that was informative and hopeful because it doesn't show how things change even when we are at our most desperate and we think that the waiting for the government and the courts are not getting it it is helpful to remember things do change. it takes work and advocacy and it takes unstoppable force like the society of dc and so many others but we can make change happen. he's right this is a very significant case that frankly has not had its due. it hasn't had its place in history and we are all very grateful to walter and the cato

institute for shining a spotlight on this very important case. and at this time when it's been 60 years since the postal service band on the october, 1954 edition. >> i was just briefly add that it's fascinating to hear the broad perspectives of the history with documents unearthed with the freedom of information act requests, the context that jonathan brings to it as well. when you read the cases you often miss the important context but they focus on a slice of history. but when you broaden out to see what else was going on at the time it gives you a better sense of what kind of social change is taking place. the other thing that i would add at this point is a plug because jonathan was too modest to say anything but if you haven't gotten his book kindly inquisitors, please do that. it's one of the best reads you

will have on the freedom of expression issues in his presentation today was just a small slice of what you could expect. >> i have to disagree. it's not one of the best things you will read. [laughter] a few ground rules on the question and answer period. raise your hand and wait for me to call on you. when i do, don't start right away. wait for one of the helpful people to bring a microphone. and when you get the microphone, then go ahead and announce your name and affiliation if you feel like it. remember that we have a broadcast audience, so be clear and also be brief. make it a real question at the end. yes in the back we have a question to start off. >> my name is [inaudible]

my question is to implement the tradition in the policy given that the style is very prevalent in the indian army and the pakistani army in afghanistan as a whole society where it is known for the status. we are fighting for these values in afghanistan to be think that obama has every right? >> jonathan may have written a little bit about the emphasis in the foreign policy to try to reach out on the issues that persecute minorities like this. do you have a comment on the program lacks i don't know the

facts about the cases that you described but i do know that secretary clinton working for president obama has been far and away the most aggressive advocate for same-sex rights and qualities around the world and that's something very new. it's an amazingly recent change until fairly recently the u.s. state department used to drum out people who were homosexual. we have some distance to go in our country but yes the administration has changed postures and i think that it will make a difference. with that said, one of the big surprises to me is the predicted backlash in the united states has been much smaller than one might have thought. on the other hand the backlash has occurred overseas. africa, eastern europe, russia and part of that is justified in the name of anti-colonialism and has resistance to an overly named united states trying to impose its values on others. so we do have a lot of work to

do there overseas. and that i think is going to be one of the next big jobs of work here and elsewhere. >> this question one of the memos that you showed said that the fbi finished an investigation in 1953 of the society and found no security threat. does it say something about the competence of the fbi investigators that they didn't notice that they were in fact communist? >> i haven't come across that in any of our documents. >> we will hear later on the tv show. more questions. yes in the very back wait for

the microphone. i was impressed with your presentation. now i have a more fundamental question about the government of the united states and our people who control this country the right and the left together. the kind of activities that we are engaged in it this time, spying on american citizens, the entire war crimes that we are committing all over the world, 20 or 30 years from now we will be very ashamed as we are the things of the things that are being done in the 50s and 60s by those who control our government. how do we change this? we are continuously doing such tremendous amount of activities.

>> because of a separate discussion of how bad conduct of one or another american government is at any given time but this is one of the things we bring out from today is if you can speak freely about it and you can document can't document it and you wind up wondering, decades later he wind up wondering how bad was the governments conduct but they won't let you into the documents to let you find out. now we found out some unpleasant things about how the fbi operated it also exonerates other things we thought they might have been doing that, so we have gone down a long road of openness and a government. it's benefited the fiscal interest of avoiding waste but it's been tremendously beneficial to correct the mistakes both domestic and foreign policy. spec i would just add it

illustrates the need for eternal vigilance but these fights never end, that you have to continue to look at where the rights are being restricted in one way or another. and also since you mentioned it indicates why it is so critically important that we have access to information about what the government is doing. before we request what they were doing in the 50s we bring that information to light as critical he brought to light that the government is doing many things that we are not aware of. now it's comforting i supposed to hear the national security officials say it's very good we have this debate. it's better to look at things before the government starts getting them to you but at least we are having that debate now. >> and i would add i think that is a great point you raised. it really underscores the work that the managing society of dc are doing together.

the librarian of the digital projects at the clemons library said the following and i think that's relevant to your point in preserving documents and records archivists have been able to document and reinterpreted as each history reshapes the collective memory. now she was talking about the term of japanese-americans during world war ii. but that statement is so relevant to all chapters of our history. certainly with respect to the history we will and we are revisiting it and we interpret it through the years particularly as our our civil rights continuing to evil. human beings take time to evolve. when you look back at the era of the 50s and all that was going on, we think we've progress so much. and we have in many ways. the fact that we are even having this public discourse.

it is tremendous progress and at the same time look what is happening elsewhere in the world. people that are being killed in uganda because they are suspected of being gay. it's -- we have a long way to go i couldn't help but think okay that was 1957 when he was terminated from his job in the federal government. but a lot of people can still be terminated from their jobs. we don't have a federal end so we are not there yet either. >> for the other side of the viewpoint, to check my article i wanted to use the moderators prerogative of filling out a question because we promised in some of the announcement materials on the relationship in the freedom revision to the freedom of expression and the historical marginalized group

not a day goes by that you don't see arguments both here and in britain that free expression is the interest because it allows a thefloridachannel hateful forces to organize and propagandize. two examples from england. there is the extremist disruption orders the government would be able to go in and forbid the extremists from using facebook, twitter or other social media and they intend to use this against the extremists from the militant islamists and people who preach. the debate was shut down in oxford about abortion and one of the students who helped to shut it down for one of the leading

newspaper articles explaining why she was proud of doing the ideas put put into free society. absolutely everything should be open to debate and it has a determined will affect them as a detriment will affect on the marginalized groups. if she were here what would you tell her? >> if we haven't plugged it enough it is a life issue right now and the argument gained traction especially in europe and not so much in america but if enough people start saying enough things that are hateful or just wrongheaded or just bigoted, that creates a hostile environment for the minorities and they cannot participate fully as citizens of the state as they become repressed and therefore they need protections at the various sort and i reject that entirely.

there are a lot of reasons for that which you can read about in the book. but the first is we have a whole lot of history that shows the minority rights are not safely entrusted to the enforcers in and a political society. it doesn't work. and again and again we see this and again and again we see the laws against obscenity and hate and three of the justification used against the groups that inconvenience inconvenience governments or authorities into college sensors or whatever. they have these kind of blogs that can be used against us and by the time you have a consensus to have to hate crime of course you don't need it because the minorities involved generally have social protection. second, and more important in going back to the point of gentleman in the back row need how to get out of this stuff the answer is we make moral progress.

we have in the positive direction generally towards the freedom and human dignity and we do that through the system of debate and discourse and we don't do that by starting with the right answer and then even eating the wrong ones. of course we do that by putting the prejudice against each other treating them as a social resource including the nasty oppressive and hateful ones, putting them against each other and trusting as overtime it almost always does as the superior opinion and that is what worked into the last thing that i would ever like to do is to see that shut down by the well-meaning people who claim to speak for me but in fact do not have my best interest at heart. [applause] >> i have very little to after that, just to see that whether or not you are using the government to enforce good ideas are bad ideas i go back to the words of frank cannon and jonathan quoted that the government shouldn't have power over the mind and that is precisely why the first

amendment exists. and from just a practical standpoint, hate crime laws in europe have done nothing to stop the growth of the right-wing nationalist movements. and yet in the united states when the supreme court has held that even the rantings of the westboro baptist church and the humble protests are protected under the first amendment that has done nothing to slow the growth of the progress towards same-sex marriage and general social acceptability in the united states. >> this is something i wish we could put across. first protections further and confirm the stereotype of those that need help and to defend ourselves a second letting them have their say takes us look good by comparison. that's how we got here. so please, spare us.

at one of the best ways we can fight this kind of thing is to be held, stand up and be out. i realize for some people it is scary to do that but i say do it anyway. for a person that claims to hate gay people gets to know you they may just change their minds. >> you are doing a lot of document requests from a love of presidential libraries and archives. what kind of attitudes are you finding 60 years later when you go after this stuff? are you getting stonewalled reluctance and acceptance or what? >> all of the above i would say. it's about anti-lgb t. sentiment

it's through the large organizational organizations to sign the documents. i don't know that for example someone that sends a foia request that has nothing to do with lgbt issues are having a better time at it and we are. >> i do think that you are onto something both in the federal government ended the presidential where the foia requests are seen as something to do and meanwhile you have some projects that you want to do doubles your own idea and he would always rather give priority to carrying out your own ideas. yes. >> in the third row. >> when you talk about the government controlling ideas because if we look at florence,

it was action and if you look at marriage at his actions and it's about the action of two men or women getting married. was there ever an attempt by the federal government to define in a way to take it outside of just the controlling of ideas because it seems like otherwise it is a purely mental concept once you take the action out of it. >> we deny the distinction is meaningful. the point of the law and practice is targeting a behavior, i'm sorry in principle it's targeting the behavior and in practice as we all knew it's targeted anyone we knew who was gay and seen as advocating what was on scene is a crime and of the crime and soliciting what was on scene is a crime. and of course you can't be what you are and think your thoughts and go about life if you are under the threat of a political

persecution. so it's like saying okay you can be okay be leaving in the tenets of judaism but you can't go to synagogue and you can't practice. that's where they draw the line. no one would say that is a meaningful jurisdiction. so i would say that it is all or nothing. >> front row. >> log cabin republicans. you are correct, i will agree with you. we haven't experienced that much in the wake of all of these rulings in the passage legislatively but what we have seen if anything is all these years after this case, people who are christians who are claiming similar freedom of speech protections when it comes to photography, baking the wedding cake.

i wonder if the supreme court has to consider a similar case about freedom of speech or how that impacts an individual's right to discriminate in those cases and if that could inform the marriage equality ruling if you take up the case in the next session. >> this is something that has been of interest to the institute which has filed for briefings not always successfully on behalf of the photographers for example who have objections to serving the same-sex weddings. psychologically, you could imagine that the supreme court justices might he worried about both issues at once. that doesn't mean that it would present the issues for the resolution at once but the feelings run very high among the

commentators. it's supposed to be as sweeping as possible. it isn't clear to me that the supreme court is ready to stand against what seems to be one third of the age on the discrimination law to get past. i wish it was because i believe that they would be better if they had a greater play for the individual autonomy and choice but that hasn't been a big theme of the courts rulings in recent years. >> i would just add your question focuses on that sort of growing tension between antidiscrimination and freedom of expression. i think that you can ask the question question put an editorial writer could an editorial writer be forced to write an editorial praising homosexuality, of course not. it would be a first amendment violation. i think that you could say could say the same thing of a photographer that is compelled

by law to practice are in favor of a lifestyle of the person that does not want to associate with. again, there is a tension but i don't think you results that by having the government come in and be the referee and decide who's going to be compelled to express themselves in the way that the government decides is the one acceptable way. >> you have been coming in to make such decisions. >> it gets back to that eternal vigilance i was talking about. >> more questions. yes sir. >> member of the board of the stonewall veterans association and former member of the civil liberties union. i waited until the end so i could go through a few points before i ask my question. brief questions please.

>> my question is that there are many people who believe that hate crime statutes implicate the first amendment and it would appear that many in the gay community support with would be called a hurt feelings exception to virtually every provision of the first amendment so i would like to hear the panel speak about those two issues. >> hate crimes and hate speech are two different things. >> first of all we have to start with definitions. hate speech, what is that basically it can be whatever someone finds offensive and that's why there can be significant tension between wanting to have a civil society and forcing people to limit speech. greg is sitting here in the front row and is the president of the individual rights and one of the battles of that organization i'm proud to be able to assist with it is to address the campus speech codes

where you have basically the enforcement of civility on the college campuses and meaning it is what greg calls the offended sweepstakes. people are offended by well, you name it, anything. and then appeal to the sanctions of these very broad and indefinable codes to a clamp on whatever speech they don't like and if you see that in the wave of the commencement speakers who are being disinvited during the disinvited agencies and if they are going to speak on something that is considered to be something completely inconvenient or that the minority from the campus or the majority, it doesn't matter, considers to be wrongheaded there needs to be a greater recognition for protecting the speech that we hate because then you have a true debate and

people can decide for themselves what they want to believe. >> i take the question to be about hate crime laws. >> for those of you that are not on top of this are a bit different because essentially the additional penalties for those that target minorities and are motivated by hate. i think they do implicate the first amendment and i do not think they are as clear-cut and i do not get as worried about them as i do hate speech which in the hate crime laws you're punishing things that are already punishable anyway and debating the length of the sentence. my first, one of my first articles more than 20 years ago was a case against hate crimes laws but more on the grounds of the rotten crime policy i do worry a bit about the first amendment. on the question i think that the premise of your point was that a lot of people favor these

protections. is that it? that is certainly true but here's the thing. my experience has been that they are no less supportive of the first amendment and other americans and the broad issue is my very first managing editor at my newspaper job said if you put the first amendment up to a american public today with blues. so that's the ongoing educational struggle that i do with my gay friends and frenzied street friends just as well which is every generation has to be taught at the very counterintuitive proposition that we should specifically make room in society for the most vile things people can say that has to be taught all over again every year. it's easy for us to forget. in 1791, what's, the bill of rights when james madison puts the speech number one this was a completely radical idea.

no one even thought that you could have a government without some method to control speech and thought. it's still deeply counterintuitive but i don't think that it is among gay restraint people. >> part of the presentation i meant to note at the time was remembered the victorian standard of obscenity which was not as leader changed not whether it would attempt to corrupt the average person but whether it would corrupt what you might call the eggshell, the most susceptible person and if it would even corrupt to that one person, it was obscene to be allowed publicly. we have somehow revived that with the new but with the new law of defense and that there were not a career or someone is about to speak on campus is and what they said would attend the average person but whether they would offend the eggshell.

i don't think that it works in other cases. we are about ready to adjourn for lunch. let me give you some directions on that because i think it's going up two flights from here to the george conference center. you can do it either by crowding into the elevator which may take longer or by walking up fast viral staircase two flights. you are looking for a restroom when you are on the second floor walking towards the conference center you will notice a yellow ball. that is where they are. i was here for lunch in a few minutes. please join me in thanking the wonderful panel. [applause]

two things come to get rid of the filibuster, on the legislation as well as nomination, but on the other hand i've often said republicans do have a legitimate argument here by the way. and that they are not being allowed to offer amendments. while they are not being allowed to offer amendments because the filibuster bills. it is a chicken and egg thing. the best way to get rid of it is just get rid of the filibuster but at the same time, guaranteed to the minority that the new

rules in the senate that the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill that is on the floor, germane amendments to that the legislation. with reasonable time limits for debate. if you do that, then we can move legislation into the minority will have the right. i've often said of that the minority doesn't have the right to prevail, which they are doing now because the minority can control the filibuster and stop things. so the minority actually prevails. so, it is not -- it should be the right of the minority to an end or offer amendments to have full debates and have votes on those amendments. i think if we did that the senate would begin to operate very well. >> senator harkin's signature legislation with the passage of the americans with disabilities act and north carolina congressman was first elected in

1984. you can watch the interview with both retiring members of congress tonight starting at eight eastern on c-span. ..

the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill that is on the floor, germane amendments, to that legislation with reasonable time limits for debate. >> i won't even qualify to say probably the most eloquent order of the congress. i think i remember this correctly. i i am not wild about this impeachment, but having committed perjury how do you justify that and then turned a blind eye to the president?