[inaudible conversations]. >> this is booktv on c-span2, we want know what is on your summer reading list. send us your choices @booktv our twitter handle. post it on our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. send an email to booktv@cspan.org. what is on your summer reading list booktv wants to know. >> next on booktv after words. "usa today" columnist and fox news contributor kirsten powers while liberals were once champions of tolerance and free speech they are just the opposite today. she center viewed by sharyl attkisson, author of

stonewalled, and a former cbn news correspondent. >> kirsten so great to be speaking with you. welcome. >> thanks, great to be talking to you too. >> start with a couple of definitions right off the top here. what would you say is a liberal and what would you say is a conservative? >> well, just to be clear, my book isn't a liberal versus conservative book but i would just say liberal, when i use those terms i mean liberal is somebody who is left of center and conserve it is somebody who is right of center. i think you can, there is not, every conservative doesn't believe the same things every liberal doesn't the believe the same things. but they will share some basic ideas about, i think the role of government in the world. i think liberals tend to see the role of government being more positive force for booed. i think conservatives see it being more of the problem. >> and so your book talks about what you called the illiberal

left. i will just read part of one paragraph. you said with no sense of irony or shame, the illiberal left will enguide racist, misogynist of homophobic attacks of their own to delegitimatize people who dissent from already decided world view. that seems to be basic theme behind the book. can you elaborate on that a little bit? the. >> right, i called them the illiberal left to distinguish them from liberals, i consider myself a liberal. i think there are most liberals are very principled and do still value the idea of free speech and dissent and debate and aren't seeking to silence people and illiberal left on other hand while they may, i probably share a lot of, if not most of their policy goals and, policy positions, when it comes to tactics and tolerance for differing ideas that is where we part ways. and what they do is very

illiberal in the sense they try to shut down debate and they try to silence people. and is the point of the book, that they use differing tactics to silence people. one of them is what you just talked about they will while at the same time be complaining about misogyny, they and calling people who they disagree with misogynists, pro-life people for example are misogynists. not that they care for the unborn but at the same time they will turn around and launch a misogynist attack against a conservative woman because they want to delegitimatize her. they don't want her to be seen as somebody should be listened to in the public square. >> when this sort of realization as you describe yourself pretty much, a life-long liberal when did this realization what you view as separation between sort of the truer traditional left and illiberal left come about in your mind? or was it sort of a gradual thing? >> i think it was gradual. then all of a sudden.

it was one of those things that was happening and then something happened in the last couple of years i think a lot of people started to notice there is this level of intolerance that is pretty unprecedented and i started to notice it. i moan the first time i noticed it actually, i wouldn't have been able to put it in the paradigm i have it in now, this silencing now this so-called war on fox news. i have a whole chap other in the book about that where the obama administration came out pretty quickly after the president obama was elected, announced fox news was not a legitimate news organization and went on, you had white house chief of staff and anita dunne, communications person in the white house, all the various senior white house administration firms going on news shows and telling reporters and anchors fox news was not legitimate. they were not going to treat it as legitimate and neither should other media. that really struck me as a very

unusual thing to be happening for a white house to be doing for the government to be doing, to be deciding what is legitimate news out let and not a legitimate news outlet. it was obvious if george bush had done this it would be a authoritarian. and when obama did it there were people in the media who pushed back against it, but for the most part, you know, they got away with it. >> it is interesting to hear you describe silencing what you sort of have seen in the last couple years, as journalist i work for cbs used same language describing to colleagues and family what we talked about it, a trend wanting both side or many sides of a story to be discussed which is understandable to this increasing idea certain stories should be censored entirely or silenced entirely. and you talk about it in the beginning of the book start with

a anecdote, talk about smith college. sin no size that what it plains in big picture. >> it is telling story. wendy kamner, making a case at smith alumni event. having a panel to talk about, i think it was called idealogical echo chamber. to combat that in academia. she was tackling the idea of trying to ban certain books from colleges that use words are offensive. mark twain using the "n-word". trying to make the point in this context of great literature this is something we should be able to tolerate. not the same thing as using a racial epithet against another person. doing so she said to the audience, we say the "n-word," what do you think of when you hear the "n-word," they said the full word. see, she said the full word and

we're all okay. you know, is that something i would have done? i don't think so. but i understand what she was doing. she was trying to make a point there that was about ability to hear things upsetting and it was good for education to do that. >> that was reported by the newspaper as racialized violence. people were shocked this smith alumni used racist comments just completely cast what she had said, i'm not going to say they misinterpreted it. they took what she said, they know what she said and turned it into an act of violence. and, created this firestorm and really sneered somebody who is, probably aligned with them on most issues and compared her to you know basically having committed a hate crime. and these are the kinds of stories that are throughout my book. that easy to roll your eyes

crazy students of the we can't do that. we have to take things seriously because it is absolutely stifling to free speech. it is absolutely silencing to people. if they are not going to be able to make a very clear argument without having their reputation completely destroyed. >> you introduced me to something new in your book, talking about the smith incident, when the campus paper ran the story transcript of the event, headline backlash follows use of racial slur. then at top it said, trigger content warnings. racism racial slurs, anti-semitic language, islamophobic language, misogynist slurs references to race based violence and references to anti-semitic violence contained in the transcript. talk about trigger content warnings on campus are all about. >> this is a move to basically warn students, if they are going

to encounter something that could possibly quote, unquote trigger them and triggering is a word that is associated with people who have ptsd. so somebody who might perhaps, they were at war, in iraq and hear a loud noise and triggers their ptsd they are literally comparing and encountering a reference to something in literature or conversation to that. that they actually being so triggered by it and they have been demanding that they are put on syllabus so students can opt out of going to certain classes. they should be able to, they shouldn't, professor shouldn't hold it against things. shouldn't read anything in reference to colonialism sexism suicide. they believe they shouldn't have to encounter that. one of the, one of the worst examples of this i talk a professor at yale who teaches

criminal law and she is about how, she, when she teaches rape law, in that section of the course that the women's groups have told these students that they basically have a right to come up and demand trigger warnings before and not have to attend the class. and, it has gotten so bad, that she says, she has heard from criminal law professors all across the country who actually decided to stop teaching rape law because it is becoming so controversial. who does that harm? that harms women who are raped. >> what happens to the little darlings when they graduate from college and life doesn't come with trigger warnings? >> well i'm a little i think we're going to find out you know? i think they have gotten to the point where they believe that they shouldn't have to hear things or confront things that upset them. and this is a one-way street. this does not by the way apply to conservative students. doesn't apply to pro-life student who would be perhaps

triggered by seeing pro-life demonstration. nor should it. not saying it should. one-way street. professor at university of santa barbara, california is triggered by a pro-life demonstration, therefore has to attack a student. but, i'd like to see how that would work out if it was pro-life professor who was triggered about i a pro-choice demonstration and attack ad pro-choice student. i think it would play out very differently. >> we might discuss that further in just a moment but i'm wondering if you sense i didn't get through the whole book before this was scheduled maybe you will address it, but do you sense this is organized effort, for example the trigger warnings on campus because spreading from campus to campus, a grassroots organized effort by student who really feel this way or is there a money effort or national advocacy force behind this, going campus to campus or to the professors and making this happen? do you know? >> i haven't seen anything like

that behind it. i don't think it is orchestrated in some sort of a broad -- there is somebody up above orchestrating it. but there is a sort of a systemic way it is done in every situation. so, the systemic way the silencing is done that they, they delegitimatize the people who are expressing ideas, that they don't like, and they delegitimatize certain ideas not being worthy of debate. we all heard the debate is over on certain things. the way they do that, they demonize people and dehuman eyes them and that is consistent across the board in every instance. that is how it goes down. that it is it is never about the idea. it is never a debate about an idea. it is never treated if there could potentially be two sides that come together to debate it. it is treated that this is illegitimate and we will silence anybody who tries to talk about it. >> so some people listening

right now are probably at point, i'm sure you've been asked this they're saying what makes you not a conservative? you still describe yourself as libral but way you're speaking about criticism against some liberal practices what you see as illiberal practices makes you sound like a conservative but you still identify with liberal ism? >> yeah. people do ask me that. i don't really understand the question, to me a liberal is more about my idealogical or political views. if you go down the line ask me where i fall on immigration or raising taxes on the rich or opposing the iraq war and those issues, i supported obamacare, those, i'm not going to change my position on those things because there are people like this, the illiberal left behaving this way. it is not idealogical what they're doing. it is tactical. it is not they believe something radically different than i do about the policies that the government should be adopting. it is that -- i support same-sex

marriage. i'm on their side on that. so it is not about that. it is about the fact that i don't believe that i have a right to silence people and delegitimatize them for having different views. i think that we, we live in a culture or at least we used to live in a culture we were able to disagree with people and have relationships with them and debate things and have dissent and allow for this very rich diversity in our country and it frightens me frankly i feel we're headed towards a place where we are no longer debating things. >> maybe the idea is born of the things of which you speak in the book. the idea that if you're going to criticize anything about certain liberals that you can't yourself being a liberal. that is what you talk about in the book. >> yeah. absolutely. >> what has been the response that you have gotten so far? i know it is very early?

are you surprised? i don't know what the response has been tell us the response of the book has been and were you prepared for it? >> i obviously when you're writing a book like this and you see what's happening you know i expected to have blowback. i expected character assassinations. seen them do it to other people. seen them do it to you, in fact. you do expect it. i still think when it happens to you for some reason it is still surprising especially because one of the attacks i've gotten i'm actually a homophobe and i don't support same-sex marriage or gay rights because i'm defending people like i talk in the book about brendan who was forced out of his job as ceo because he had given money to an anti-same-sex marriage initiative. and the fact that defend his right to have that view and to make that private donation to something i don't support. i do not support proposition eight. the fact that i do that that

makes me a homophobe. so beyond the pale that i guess i am still surprised by it. even though i said i wrote a book bit. another thing i think is really important to point out is that this is not a book about conservatives being victimized. it is about all kinds of people being victimized. you don't have to be a a conserve to be silenced. what you have to be is somebody who is questioning one of the liberal sacred cow issues or criticizing somebody that they don't want you to criticize. and they don't care if you're a liberal. don't care if you're moderate democrat. they don't care if you have any political views. that doesn't make a difference. what makes a difference you are saying something you they don't want said and don't want to have a debate about the. >> i heard it said in that context people feel the sides have switched. that sort of suppression of thought was associated with conservatives and republicans. now many people associate that instead with liberals i don't think that is partisan thing.

i think positions in minds of many people have switched inexplicably. you talk about mccarthyism. in essence i think mccarthyite impulse has come full circle. what do you mean by that. >> yeah. and i do talk a lot about in the book very rich history of liberalism and free speech in this country. one people say to me, you mean classical liberalism? no. i mean it is class al liberalism but it is american liberalism and our understanding of free speech in this country comes be indisputably directly from very hard work of liberals and leftists at the university of california, at berkeley. the free speech movement. the supreme court justices who were liberal supreme court justices being cited by conservative supreme court justices really helped shape our conception of untrampled free speech, a very, i think a pretty purview.

the aclu did very important work that was opposed by conservatives. they were attacked by conservatives when they were defending nazis being able to walk through a neighborhood with holocaust survivors. then of course, i do talk about joe mccarthy, which frankly a lot of the attacks i'm getting right now remind me of joe mccarthy. guilt by association. the fact that i'm speaking to conservative outlets. the fact that i excerpts that were run in conservative outlets is somehow proof of something. they're not engaging me on the issue. it is more trying to say, you are actually, i've been accused of being paid by the heritage foundation. i have never taken a dime from the heritage foundation. even if i had i'm not sure what it has to do with anything. the these tactics, that they use, just to absolutely try to silence any kind of debate that they don't want to hear. >> what is your affiliation with fox news? are you contributor?

>> yeah. i'm a contributor. i've been a contributor at fox for 10 years. >> do you feel though mayed you an outlyer in some respects i think you were providing at the time liberal viewpoints or counter points to things? were you seen in some respects as traitor by illiberal left for even going to fox? >> oh, sure. the book is not about me. i don't have that much in there but there are couple places i recount things that have happened. misogynist attacks by keith olberman when he was at height of his power at msnbc, for me working at fox news. and it is just, this, it is, i think for people who watch fox news it seems very strange because it is quite clear my views are liberal and isn't the idea i'm not supposed to be there i have a different view is kind of nonsensical. but it fits very much in this

silencing idea which is, we don't need to engage with people. we need to delegitimatize them. and so we need to shun them. this is word that they use. we need to shun them an make them not, you know not acceptable to the rest of the society. i just disagree with that i think that we should be debating topics and we should be talking to people that disagree with us. >> you mentioned a moment ago the attack by a professor at university of california upon, i think a 16-year-old carrying a pro-life sign. >> yeah. >> that the professor found offensive. can you recount that incident and again what that tells us about the trends today? >> yeah. so, this was a demonstration of, at the university of california santa barbara. it was the students didn't go to the school. they went to nearby school. the 16-year-old was sister of one of the college students that were there. they had a big sign of a fetus of a bloodied fetus. it was quite graphic.

and they said that they have that sign as a way to, try to start conversations, they want to start having conversations with people and the professor came over and started berating them. i interviewed the girl that was attacked and another one of the demonstrators. it was all in the book. it is very alarming, the story that they tell of being bullied by this professor who ultimately stole the sign from them and when, when the six teen year old went after they are to get the sign back she attacked her and they ended up calling the police. professor was arrested. in the police report she portrays herself as victim. police officer is, keeps say to you, i don't understand what is it that you think they did that would justify you attacking them? and she just, they, i was harmed by them. setting it up she is unsafe because there is something there

that she doesn't want to see, she was triggered. by seeing this. and she was, she even says she was setting good examples for students who are with her. never been publicly censored. she has been defended. i quote a lot of different professors who came to her defense. and, and she still works, she still works there. >> i thought it was to hear your description that people stood up for her and said she was actually a wonderful professor and very kind person though some of her actions have been captured on video that seemed to say otherwise in this particular incident. you said you didn't doubt she functioned very well as long as she was surrounded by like-minded people but not presented with ideas that disagreed with her world view? >> right, yeah. i think people will look at this, if you looked at story, if you didn't read my whole book and saw different examples, would say this woman is

unstable. she is just a crazy person. i don't think that is right. think think person who is very highly functioning. she was successful professor people i quote defending her are very successful professors as well. so i think that the problem is, that they now are construing disagreement as violence. and this happened also recently, not in my book because it happened after my book went to print, christina summers at aei. she went to speak at ober land and georgetown in april. and in both cases she is treated like a terrorist for coming to talk about her views on feminism that are different than the views of the campus feminists. the fact that she has questioned campus rape statis tis i cans. -- statistics. called rape denier. safe space you can go to if you can't handle the fact she is here talking about sexual assault. and, they had an open letter

saying, we can't stop this speech but let's stand together against this violence. again this idea that, somebody coming in and giving a lecture to a republican group, who is invited her is somehow violence against people who disagree with her. this mentality is, it is extremely pervasive. >> you seem like a very independent-minded person and i don't know if you grew up that way. can you, can you give us a thumbnail sketch kind of to the extent you're comfortable into upbringing and personal life? >> yeah. i was raised in fairbanks, alaska. my parents were professor at university of alaska. they're both archeologists. i grew up in very democratic household. quite liberal household. i really spent my whole childhood debating politics. and i, ended up going, going away to college and when i was living right out of college in washington d.c., i started

volunteering for bill clinton. this was before, he wasn't supposed to win the election. he was you know go to lose to paul tsongas. i was doing it because i really liked him. next thing you know he won. i ended up getting political appointment in the white house and working in democratic politics. that was my life for a long time. my friends were all democrats. and i was very much in a liberal bubble. as i got older, i started being contributor at fox news. that put me in contact with a the lost of conservatives. i became a christian laettner life. that put me in contact with a lot of evangelicals. i was having contact with two groups of people i really knew nothing about. it was hard to sustain a lot of prejudices that i had. it was really hard for me to say, what i honestly really believed before, which was conservatives are anti-intellectual and don't like the poor all these other things. i think, i have had this kind of

development. i still have the same political beliefs i have but i learned a lot about other people who think differently than i do. >> you describe a moment somewhere in the book where you talk about having realization almost of arguments you made in the past that you suddenly discovered to your own disbelief was maybe not were maybe not logical or at least rooted in the kind of liberal that you wanted to be. can you describe that? >> yeah. well, you know, after i started making friends with people who were evangelicals a lot of them were pro-life i would have these conversations, i don't think i knew anybody who was pro-life before that. and they, i just remember stopping and thinking, and i thought, they don't seem like they hate women. these were women. they seem actually really care about this issue and, moments thinking this isn't quite what i've been told about about these people. and, the same way i recount

embarrassingly i'm ashamed of the fact that had a debate with somebody who was a conservative when harriet meyers was chosen by george bush she doesn't they were saying so great he chose a woman. she doesn't really count as woman, she is conservative and evangelical. that is the argument of liberal left. that is argument throughout the book. so i am familiar with where they're coming from. if you don't have relationships with people, it is very easy to stereotype them. and it is very easy to demonize them. i think that is pretty sure that is a liberal idea. i think it is an argument for diversity. >> you having, as you say become a christian laettner life, or evangelical christian you say, what is evangelical versus non-evangelical christian? >> yeah. actually i call myself orthodox christian because i think evangelical, it has become a

loaded term and into the secular, i think it means a right-wing christian. i don't consider myself a right-wing christian. orthodox christian or evangelical christian who, you know, i think the bible is true. i think it is, it is the guiding, you know force in my life. god is the guiding force in my life. think that is not just that i decide what i want to believe. i really try to study things thee logically and understand them from a theological perspective. and so you know, and the church, i to to trite now is non-demom national but it is orthodox christian church. >> that is way to talk about the discussion you have in the book, what you see what i see, what any neutral viewpoint would see as disparate treatment by media and critics and media and pundits often given to christians versus members of the other religions or no religion. >> yeah. i have a lot of examples in the

book of stories about how christians have really been targeted. one of the worst stories is, interview ad woman named tish warren. head of something called inner varsity graduate fellowship of vanderbilt university. this christian fellowship had been on campus for 10 years and the campus administrators derecognized them, basically said they couldn't be campus group because they would not allow to hold doctrinal beliefs for leaders. that is difficult thing for christian group. they run bible studies. i have a long interview with her in the book. she said she was told by the administrators that she couldn't even require her bible study teachers to believe in the trinity. so, how can you how can you have a bible study teacher that doesn't even believe what you believe the bible says? and for her it was really, a

hard experience because she's, she is democrat. she is progressive. she always felt like she kind of fit in. and you know but she is orthodox christian. and you know what she discovered she said there was just this absolute intolerance towards christians and, she made a great point which is, vanderbilt can do this if they want to do it but they need to be honest who they are. if they want to be the liberty university of the left, and what she means by that, if you go to liberty university, they give you a list of things that you have to believe to be there. and you sign on to that. but that is not what vanderbilt does and other campuses who are derecognizing christian groups. they say, we're a bastion of free thought. we believe in diversity. we and she is saying just be honest. don't tell people, put it in a brochure doesn't tell people,

christians we love you here because it is not true. >> i just don't think you will sigh a campus, that requires for example, a muslim student group to accept among its leadership a christian. i think it is more of a one-way street. >> right exactly. the. >> what happens, gay rights groups, one goes home, born-again christian says, i no longer believe in, you know, i think home sexuality is sin but i want i want to be a sin. i still believe in your organization. i would defend the gay rights group kicking that person out of leadership. what the university says this isn't targeted at christians. this is not all-comers policy and we are quiet equally. we all know that is ridiculous. no way on earth anybody would defend what i said leadership role in gay rights organization that opposes gay rights.

who is liberal himself. i interview a lost liberals who interview, runs an organization free speech. you in education. group. fire and, he says this is, this is an atheist. this is targeting christians. no question, say it is not about christians. trying to get them off of the campuses and finally figured out how. . .

>> >> and you have to protect

the worst speech with marginalized groups from being insulted. >> host: the tactics and the techniques that you describe that they are censored from certain types of thoughts and opinions opinions, why do you think that is so often accepted especially in the last couple of years in a country like america? outcome networks? >> i think people for the most part once to be left alone and raise their kids can spend time with their families and live a full life they're not interested to give the middle of a national cultural debates of they're not interested to be a part of a controversy or to have their reputations smeared or the possibility to lose their job. i know that i interfered so many people that would not go on the record that they

are afraid because they see what is happening to other people. some things people have been saying that they don't like the book is free speech is about the first amendment if you aren't infringing then you're not harming free speech and this is completely wrong. , don't know where they got this idea but it is true only the government can infringe on first amendment rights all the way do talk about the government infringing with public universities that are doing constitutional speech police and that is a big concern but we have to always err on the side of letting people say what they think because if we don't we will never have knowledge. i'' stephen tinker who is a harvard psychologist here

talks at length about this as a free speech supporter he is very alarmed. uses the word authoritarian and he talks about the philosopher who says in order to have knowledge you have to have conjecture and that is completely predicated on free speech but not the government that people can say what they think no matter how crazy or sensitive it is or wrong the leaking of back-and-forth and that is how we get knowledge so to take that out of the equation we have no knowledge but a bunch of propaganda. so anybody who says the debate is over, it is not an people have to be able to persuade and convince people of all they can come up with his name calling they probably don't have a of very good argument. >> is somebody has to tell

you the debate is over the means they are trying to stop you. [laughter] >> few people are treated as harshly as african-american conservatives, minority conservatives or those who are expected to be on the other side and if they're really dufay's the wrath it is not harsh treatment but the republican presidential field so far when i saw pictures on the screen of who had declared to hispanics, a woman, a black, minority candidates and if the tables were turned in a democratic field the republican field was all white male we would be talking about that but i have not heard people talk about that with the republican field to be so diverse because many view that there really isn't

because the hispanics don't count in the woman doesn't count in the black doesn't because he is conservative. >> guest: yes. i give a lot of examples of that's how women conservatives are african-americans or latin or hispanic or all treated routinely they are not real. they're not a real woman or they are suffocating their traders michael steele tells the story of oreos were thrown at him by liberals black, white on the inside but if you are the african-american conservative watching this you are paying attention to one to be that person that

is ostracize? a lot of people don't very few people want to to have that type of feedback gore treatment. it is very effective when you treat people that way and the liberals always talk about racist but then people who calling people who disagree with them are racist but then they have no problem to do this all in the name of i don't know. justice or something. >> you talk about a of a group in the book, most americans have never heard of but yet has influence among people to give the impression it is media matters which is a left-wing organization but they put out a lot of propaganda or

false information and you say when you were supportive of them and found some research helpful but it became apparent there was a left wing propaganda machine masquerading as a media monitoring operation. but it is clear their purpose, sometimes it is treated as if it is a legitimate watchdog news organization with the advocacy it has done for obama and very specific partisan groups. >> guest: writes. it's is quoted from an internal memo from "politico" where they talk about, and they're obsessed

with fox news they want to delegitimize that is where the original idea came from that the obama administration check-up but to consider plans to gather information on fox news employees. they talked about perhaps they should shame democrats to go on fox news to put their names on the internet. what is interesting on the one hand they say it is too conservative so it is not legitimate but if a democrat goes on we will shamed them. which is it? you want more democrats? of course, not the whole point they want to delegitimize anybody they cannot control or who will not be intimidated to cover things the way they want it covered. they don't only harass fox news but many reporters and that should be a badge of honor if you frequently find

yourself in their cross heart -- cross hairs you will probably lose your job because they're main problem is somebody is being fair and balanced reporting on republicans and democrats instead of just criticizing republicans. >> host: clearly they would not bark at a parked car cms be getting close to something that hurts the agenda than the more incredible -- credible so i agree the louder they squawked the closer you are to an important story. >> guest. >> host: i call of bill maher incident in your book a very noted liberal committee and -- comedian you give him a good example of extreme far left and makes his case about those

very well but yet has crossed paths on certain key issues with his side and has dealt of wrath of the liberal left. >> he is a good example of how in tolerant this group is of dissent because he is a liberal icon and there is no way you could claim he is not a liberal he is an advocate for their world view and when he got into a debate slash argument with an athletic about islam and specifically he was talking about for the behavior of a practice of behavior so when it was a liberal argument he was called a racist and a big hit bill whole left machine came against and

then there was an attempt to i invite him to speak to berkeley the birthplace of free speech erotically and they called him islamophobia. the students actually had a vote but administration said no. we will have him speak. is an example it does not matter how good of a liberal you are. if you cross them on something. a former reporter on cnn and nbc started a school reform organization and was a classic textbook attack not to take her on come on her ideas but going after her extreme teachers' unions to make sense -- 60 attacks

that she was a closet republican even though she was the independent she voted republican and democratic primaries based on her issue of school reform and they said she is up puppet for her husband and again she is not conservative. she has a bunch of democrats working for her so even those on the obama administration rather than tackle the topic they tried to silence the person who makes the argument they don't want in the public domain. >> host: you also talk about a congresswoman the whiz haitian and american the pleasure to be a black woman but is a republican so for that she also has suffered for she was portrayed in the "huffington post" as window dressing in

a useful idiot to use blacks to further white interests she could not possibly describe her own feelings. following her august 2012 appearance at the rnc, for which the previous page was vandalized with racist slurs by the very people who i think have spent decades reviling that behavior that they felt they have been a victim to but then put it upon her to be on the wrong side politically. >> guest: to them the end justifies the means that they don't want her to be representing views they don't like so they have to silence her that they think that they can and to make racist attacks and dehumanize her to not be legitimate person in the public domain and it is a clear message to other

people who are watching who do not want that same fate. with good reason nor should they have to go. people want to be left to lung dash left alone in a live their life peaceful to have an open debate without fear. >> host: tell us about the story everybody is probably familiar with chick-fil-a to support the family but not a gay marriage to say the liberal left as a vicious smear campaign against the restaurant hand him and i don't think you're suggesting people don't have far right not to patronize that restaurant if they disagree with the beliefs but the restaurant itself was doing nothing other than welcoming people matter who

they are or what they believed but you tell the story that the ceo or the accountant? >> yes. a man going through the drive through at chick-fil-a recording himself he was getting more and more worked up i am here to protest this hateful chick-fil-a m looking at the people on line to get their hateful chicken sandwich then he gets to the drive through and he proceeds to ruth yell at a young woman how can you work here how can you sleep a night and treats her horribly she is very nice to him throughout the video and very kind i am here to serve you and he tries to engage her on the topic she says

that '01 to discuss my views please stop recording and then he posts the video online very proudly that somehow he is an icon of tolerance to harass somebody and faster because he is upset about the condition of the owner of the restaurant. it is just so classic he thinks he is tolerant and she is intolerant and rather than say we have a disagreement on a few i support same-sex marriage but this is not how you treat people. i used to say if you don't like something boycott now lies just say i think they are out of control and i

think everybody needs to your take a step back. i grew up ben the world's i don't know what it was like for you a battle long time ago you go in and to a store to buy something i wasn't demanding that they believed all the same things that i believed in something is wrong that now we have this expectation i will not go into a restaurant or in a place unless they line up with all of my ideas. it is divisive. does not foster a country to talk about things to persuade people antedates. i debate all the time and same-sex marriage. i am fine if they don't agree with me weird to have to have people walk in lockstep with you or you

don't associate with them? >> to support irritating and aggravating but you make the argument that is a dangerous trend. can erase plane nor verbalizes the big picture? where things could head if the trend continues? >> i think it is very dangerous because what i said earlier is you cannot have any type of knowledge in a society what people are afraid to say what they think but that authoritarian aspect the especially when i hear people talking in the wake of the family dollar and eight incident to say maybe some speech should be hate speech. and i had just written a book having a the liberal left call a disagreement is hate speech that is frightening.

who decides? you cannot do something that offends muslims but according to the professor at university california's santa barbara that it goes from there then you get to a point where certainly a lot of people think even if you're not saying anything racial it is hate speech. removing into place i consider very dangerous in this is not the right way to think about things we should always err on the side of free speech to tolerate things that will make us uncomfortable. i do support her right to do that and in that situation and she is the victim she did not cause people to come and shoot at her the fact that they see so many people

on the right and left that it is her fault and she provoked it is very alarming to me. >> i come from a certain viewpoint of free press and free speech but i am not sure how precious free speech is as it is taught and passed along the way it could be. maybe that is the problem that kids are not called or it is not explained the rich history my people started the country with the foundation you could see why it is about making every petty think the right waivers is free speech. it is not your job to come up with the answer but i would be remiss if you see solutions that people cannot or should be doing to address these issues? director wrote the book because a lot of people

would say that is one off so a couple crazy people here and there by one to establish it isn't. it is a systematic campaign to silence people it isn't a conspiracy throughout our society in particular and in the media there is a lot of self censorship because people are too afraid of the retribution they will get some wanted to play in one place to establish that there is a problem and this is happening and they have to push back on university campuses it is not that difficult the people who give money to a the alumni need to inform themselves what is happening and

complain to say knockoff. we who you say you are or will stop giving money there's a reason they do not advertise to be groupthink because nobody supports that except of left. if people really informed of saul's of what is going on that is the only way to stem the tide. >> host: as we work to close out the hour how long did it take you to write the book approximately? >> guest: i rode it in about four months. i was locked in a room. [laughter] fans i wanted to write it to get it out right now because it is such an important topic and so tightly. i felt i had to move quickly so we can start engaging in

our culture chair talk about i think people will be surprised and shocked and upset. >> host: how did you get the idea? did you know, it would be great for the book or did somebody approach you? >> from the columns i write columns in "usa today" and the babies are was riding regularly about the topic and i realized i could write to back up the servicing go because there is so much i started to look into it like free speech activist and i realized something was going on here have written the books you should write to what you are passionate about price said there is nothing i am passionate about them would want to lock myself in their room but "this is it" because i care so much raw free-speech and the debate to talk about

ideas so was personal and what i thought was important >> host: is evident and it is a great read kirsten powers i enjoyed talking with you. >> guest: thank you.

>> first of all, things to all of you for being here this evening we are delighted to be here. thank-you to the crew at politics & prose to make us feel welcome. by also run to make sure i give a big thank-you to our publisher doubleday that has been incredibly supportive of this journey. believe it or not they usually start by answering the most common ques