where is norm for software and they are clashing in the iot context and that's what we need to resolve. courts are going to struggle with this and that's where rubber is hitting the road and the iot car. >> maybe future discussion, one of the ways i met andrea a couple of years ago was posing the question is software liability the worst possible idea except or all others, specially when it comes to bits and bites meets flesh and blood. you want to post the cost burden and make offset with redidual. iot will set condition. it's better to set for the moment than have a knee-jerk

reaction. let's have some -- >> i just want -- it took a river on fire to really trigger projections on that. it's going to take another fire. someone that has written a lot about air travel, i would love something like the national transportation board for the internet of things where i sleep like a baby on them because i know it's the safest thing i can possibly do given the oversight of it. it'll be interesting having something like that. a plane crash is zero tolerance and also antifragile culture, make sure it never happens again to patch vulnerabilities. i don't know what it would create a cultural shift like that. i think that would be a great think. i don't know what it takes a glitch, a nest that burns down an entire neighborhoods across america, something like that. i don't think it would be a cyber-attack. i don't know if you can blame hackers, but some horrific glitch or property damage might

be what it takes. >> yeah, so kind of drawing on your point a little bit, you said that the manufacturers won't do this out of the goodness of their hearts, not only that, they can't, there's fiduciary responsibility of management to return investment to the shareholders until security becomes a monumental or significant financial issue for organizations, maybe they can't. maybe that's one of the spaces we should start looking at more is how do we make cyber safety a financial issue for organizations with carrots, sticks, market demand, whatever it might take. that might shape and shift the landscape more than some of the other things we might do. >> so my final thought is coordination opportunities. playing on that last point, while some entities will argue our fiduciaries duties require to maximize profits and cut corners on security, different

organizations will argue long-term corporate value instead requires investment and building the product that is will in gender loyalty from the customer base and keep them safe, so coordinateing, rewarding those kinds of behaviors across all parts of our ecosystem. for example, the securities and exchange commission, guidance that strongly encourages/slash requires breaches by companies. they've made some companies that perhaps the disclosure in the 10k's are not quite to the level that they were hoping for but cord nailing information from the marketplace that's coming from the part a from the enterprise with the lawyer generated disclosure and looking at how an entity cares for security and what affirmative measures are they taking

to be the the best version of themselves for consumer to stay safe, engender a sense of trust in the marketplace and energy forward innovation in a way that bolsters our economy as a whole. >> i want to end up in a hope, andrea, bowe and some others in the room were there, andrea told the whole room it was going to take a river on fire before anyone would listen. our stubbornness said we are going to try, we are going to just empathy and we want to be safer sooner together. and sitting right there, right next to susan shorts last year started a pretty intense exchange of education awareness across the industries and when we talked about it, she said it would take proof of harm of medical device to trigger a

corrective action. similar to your point, dead bodies, but the week before -- excuse me, the week before fcon, recall, safety communication of infusion pump with zero proof of harm because through that dialogue they concluded that it was sufficient to trigger corrective action and now guidance, the idea of saving lives and waiting for bad things to happen, we are stubborn enough that we are not going to wait, discussions like this will allow us to be safer sooner together. let's take it to the next stage. thank you for your time and thanks the panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> today a talk on security challenges in the middle east. former president of the american university in cairo lisa anderson delivers remarks at the center for strategic and international studies, that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. former supreme court justice john paul stevens spoke to students about student rights on campus, following remarks he took questions from the audience. this is 45 minutes.

>> thank you very much and good afternoon to everyone. i'm delighted to be here and thank you for this opportunity, this is my first sort of official first official appearance after the inauguration and i couldn't think of a higher honor to do so than to introduce our very distinguished speaker today and also speaking on vitally relevant issue currently unfolding on all of our nation's campuses. born in 1920 in chicago and growing up during the great depression, u.s. supreme court justice john paul stevens overcame early challenges to become the third longest-serving justice in the history of the supreme court. john paul stevens did not allow hardship to slow him down. instead, he excelled in studies at the university of chicago high school. shortly after earning a ba in english at the university of chicago, justice stevens, enlisted as code break, after

work at north western law school and graduated magna cum laud. after completing clerkship with supreme court justice, justice stevens returned to chicago and joined a prominent law enforcement where he specialized on antitrust law. he gained a reputation as antitrust lawyer and left the firm to start his own practice. he was invite today teach at the law schools of north western university and the university of chicago and he also held several important positions as special counsel to the house of representatives and the u.s. attorney's office. in 1970 president nixon appointed stevens for the seventh circuit, as an appellate judge he continued to establish himself as an expert legal thinker.

fife years later he was elevated to the supreme court when justice williams douglas stepped down. judge stevenned retired at age 90 and has since written two books. he's redefining retirement, because he even in this quote retirement, remains a very active participant in the formation of supreme court decisions. and very relevant to today's position, he has written numerous opinions of free speech and students' right, please welcome a great public servant, scholar and educator judge paul stevens. [applause]

>> president jordan, i'm sorry, judge jordan and president frank, thank you for that very kind introduction and for that nice welcome. it's always a pleasure to address an audience in this forum. i've been here before and i've always enjoyed and i hope i will enjoy it today. as i understand it we are celebrating the miami law schools program. the topic for discussion at this point symposium is quote the constitution on campus that students shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates, because

the questions perrots in the student speech case des moines community school district, i infer that among the principle rights at issue are those protected by the first amendment. mr. justice florida's opinion for the court provided a categorical answer to the question. he wrote, quote, first amendment rights applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment are available to teachers and students. it can hardly be argued that either students or -- neither students -- i'm sorry, that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech -- i'm having trouble with my speech here.

expression at the schoolhouse gate, but then rather surprisingly instead of citing cases interpreting the first amendment, he continued, quote, this is has been the unmistakenable holding of this court for almost 50 years. in meyer against nebraska in 1923, this court in opinions by mr. justice reynolds held that the due process clause of the 14th amendment prevented states from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students, statute to this effect, the court said unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student and parent. thus the thinker case that pointed first amendment rights actually suggests that our topic should be more encompassing.

the answer to the question was students have shed their constitutional -- shed their rights necessarily depends on what rights the students seeks to exercise in the setting in which he does so. clearly, no student has the right during a mathematics class to argue at length and without interruption about the importance of minimizing global warming, but it is equally clear that you cannot be punished for expressing our views about that issue in response to a question in the science class. and even assuming that five members of the supreme court correctly held does the second amendment protects the citizens' right to possess a handgun in his home. it does not follow that the right has been shed if the court concludes that it does not extend to carrying the weapon in public places such as a college campus. in short, it is necessary to

determine the stroke of a given right before deciding whether the right has been shed or burdened in a school setting. presumably students have the same fundamental rights as those enjoyed by other members of the public. on at least two occasions, however, the majority of the court has grown that principle into question at least as it pertains to high school students. in both cases, i dissented from the majority's discussion decision limiting the constitutional rights of public schools -- school students. in 1986i descended from chief justice's berger's opinion in 403 against frazer. in that case a washington high school student, had given a speech at a school assembly

dominating a classmate for student elected office. frazier speech contained sexual innuendo and suggestive conduct. i need -- is there water some where? here we are. the school suspended him for violating a rule prohibiting the use of obscene language on campus. thank you. i'm trying not to spill it. [laughter] >> a majority of the supreme court upheld the disciplinary action, although i agreed that frazer did not necessarily have

a constitutional right to deliver his suggestive speech at a school assembly, i thought it clear that he had not received adequate notice that he might be punished for doing so. the school agreed that frazer had violated the rule against, quote, disruptive conduct, unquote, but in my view the general prohibition was insufficient to notify frazer that his speech would list disciplinary consequences particularly as there was no evidence that speech has caused any material disruption to school educational's activities. in light of free expression protected by the first amendment and the interest in fair procedure protected by the 14th amendment, i would have held that the constitution barred the schools punitive response to frazer's speech. in 2007i dissented from chief

justice roberts' opinion for the court in morse against fredrik n that case alaska high school student joseph fredrik was disciplined for displaying a 14-foot banner bearing the puzzling phrase, quote, bong hits for jesus. [laughter] you have to pause to reflect on the meaning of that. [laughter] >> that case was quite remarkable because the majority first concluded that fredrik ambiguous message could reasonable be construed as advocating the use of illegal drugs and then held that his message could be censored for that very reason. contrary to a mountain resident, the majorities determined that the first amendment did not

merely permit censorship based on the content of the student's message but more proversly that it permitted ken sorryship based on disagreement with the speaker's viewpoint. the majority's opinion in morse limited protection of student of speech in the manner that was wholly unsupported by the court's first amendment. moore had adopted a rule that the speech should be censored any time a public school official reasonably proceeds as advocating illegal drug use. as an initial matter, i doubt whether fredrik machine sense phrase, quote, bong hits for jesus, unquote, could be reasonably understood as advocating anything. [laughter] >> in any event, the principle

of fredrik's high school interpreted the words as promoting marijuana use, a message with which the -- with which he disagreed. under first amendment doctrine, viewpoint based speech is unconstitutional and advocacy of illegal conduct may be punished only when the advocacy is like lie to incite lawless action. yet the majority ignored those basic principles and upheld fredrik's punishment based on school -- school officials opposition to his message or one possible interpretation of the message. before morris wrote third, never dictated which messages amount to prescribable advocacy. that's from my descent. i see no reason why the views of

state officials should control the extent of first amendment protection on campus when listeners perceptions do not determine the scope of first amendment rights in other contexts. even if fredrik had intended to promote marijuana use mover, there was no indication that his speech could have -- would have any persuasive influence on his class mates. most students do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate and no students know dumb when they see it. the notion that the message on this banner would actually purr said the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her view -- his or her behavior is most implausible. the majority opinion in morris is particularly troublesome that the thinker decision had

established the basic first-amendment protections apply in public schools. in thinker several public schools in des moines, iowa planned to wear black arm forward express opposition to vietnam war. the nine public school district adopted a policy calling for the suspension of any student who refused to remove the armband. the students challenged the policy on first amendment grounds and the court determine that had the policy violated the constitution. the school district had argued that if censorship was justified because it feared that the student's discretion of controversial would generate disturbances but the court held that the disturb disturbance wit more cannot justify the sis presentation of student speech,

rather the court explained in order for public school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, they must be able to shoe that their action, quote, was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that would company an unpopular viewpoint. where there's no showing that the ford biden conduct infringe on the rights of others or disrupt the school's educational programs, the censorship cannot be sustained. cannot be band merely because it expresses a viewpoint that's unpopular on contrary to the school's preferred message. i would have applied this rule in morris case that fredrik not be punished for displaying his banner. the tinker is not only

consistent with first amendment document but has the important benefit of protecting students intellectual openness and exchange. when the tinker students wore armbands in 1965, mainstream public opinion regarded opposition as unpatriotic if not treason. as i noted, it was not on school -- was not unreasonable for fearing that the armbands might start an argument or cause a disturbance. nevertheless, the tinker court insisted that under the constitution we must take that risk. it is this sort of hazardous freedom, this kind of openness and of the independence and vigour of american who is grew up and live in this relatively

permissive society. [laughter] >> i've lost something here. i don't know why. [laughter] >> you may not remember what i say but you'll remember the event. [laughter] >> it seems to me that protecting this openness is no less important on campus than elsewhere in society for even in high school a rule that permits only one pointed view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than open discussion of countervialing views. ironically on the same day that the chief justice announced the decision upholding

viewpoint-based regulation of student speech in morris, he also announced the judgment of the court in federal election commission versus wisconsin right to life. that case was a 5-4 decision that later paveed the way for the court's most unfortunate decision in citizens united. in wisconsin right to life, the court declared that when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as unprotected advocacy, quote, we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship, unquote. students of the first amendment might wonder why that rule applies to corporate entities that wish to contribute unlimited sums to influence elections for a public office but not to students who wish to express an unpopular point of view inside the school. thank you very much.

[applause] >> okay. thank you. it's a pleasure to be here with all of you and with justice stevens. i had the pleasure to meet him for the first time when i set foot in the supreme court as a clerk, although i didn't have the honor of clerking for him, i clerked for somebody just as good. but i always thought of him as one of the most deep independent thinkers on the court. every time you saw the voting blocks go one way or another on very difficult cases, justice

stevens would have his own sort of individual way of telling one side or the other why they had gotten things badly wrong. and i think that sort of independence, i think endeared him to the hearts of many who clerked on that court even though they didn't clerk for him. so he had been gracious enough to take questions, friendly ones only, of course. [laughter] >> so if anybody has questions about the topic that justice stevens made his remarks about or maybe about something a little bit less related, we will be happy to try to get those questions to him and get them going in some way, but we need volunteers first. yes. >> i always loved your defense in morris versus fredrik

majority. i was curious that the opinion in the case that was most, i don't know, different but interesting was justice thomas' dissent that inch -- everyone in high school has no amendment rights ever and the schoolhouse is for teachers to control and as law professor is really nice to think about, but i was curious, you know, you were there for all the tinker, frazer and morris case, why everyone specially at the lower education level seemed pretty okay with the idea that students do have these free speech rights in general and only justice thomas was sort of on the other side all alone that teachers should be able to control the law school -- i'm sorry, not law school, that was floridan there,

control their classroom with compete impunity. i just wondered why students do have the free speech rights. >> well, of course, justice thomas is pretty unique, i think, in his approach to this issue. but he is very independent thinker. he has his own ideas on a number of issues and he's pretty consistent in his views and he expresses them in a very intelligent way. and the question is why -- why does everybody else on the court disagree with him, well, on the morris case there was disagreement among the justice and it was strongest and the side of prohibiting that particular banner. and i always thought that -- i always wondered exactly what that banner meant.

i never could figure it out and i must say that i was sort of troubled by the notion that you construe the banner in a way that it's most likely to support discipline. it doesn't seem to me the normal rule that he kept in the other direction. but that -- of course, not the only time i was a little unhappy about the way a case came out. yeah. >> you've always talked a lot about context mattering, no matter what area of law you're dealing with, and to take up on that question, do you think that the first amendment rights of students differ whether up or down depending on what grade they're in? like, would you have a different view of the fourth amendment rights of fourth or fifth graders than high school students or college students? >> well, i don't really know. that's a very interesting question. it's kind of hard to imagine

some fourth grader having a first amendment right to make an objection to curriculum or something like that, but i suppose they might. >> they are posting on social media these days left and right, so you never know. >> you have to understand what they're saying before you respond with discipline. >> yes. >> thank you so much for speaking with us today and for your remarks specifically jumping -- jumping off the point of oh so many students posting on social media. the student who createed this named banner delivered his speech, content just off campus. one of the more common types of offcampus speech these days are cyber speech, cyber harassment where students may not be used -- may not be using a school computer, they may be at home but they may use that computer

to target students they know from school. based on these series of opinions that the court has offered, some of us here in the dissent, what do you think -- what do you think is the extent of the school's power to regulate offcampus cyber thatfects the campus, nonetheless? >> well, that's a very interesting question that i haven't considered, but i suppose off-campus speech would be pretty much like the speech of the member of the general public and if it did some harm, i suppose there should be situations where one could respond effectively or try to suppress the speech, but i don't see why the person's status as a student or a nonstudent would affect the analysis.

yeah. switch over to the other side. >> thank you. at universities these days, both private and public, the issue is often not the ability to speak but rather the university's desire or needs to manage the company of the speech and the notion of fairness to the speech of others, the controversies we have seen over speech codes, how far do you think universities' management rights and needs should extend over the manner and extent of conflictual speech on a campus? >> you're talking about content-based management or procedural management? >> it's sometimes hard to separate those, of course, but

it is -- i'm not in the administration of the university, but the universities do have to confront both groups that are -- can be hostile toward each other or demand a kind of safety and comfort and security that other students may find trenches on their abilities to speak. these are difficulties that universities public and private seem to be facing today more than the kind of high school level issues of administrative control over students but rather student-student relations involving speech on campuses. >> well, i think you've given an adequate answer to that may take a little time, but it seems to me you to know what the particular dispute is that the students are talking about in any city. you have to determine where the

dispute is being -- the disagreement occurs, not just what they have to say, and, of course, there are limits on what one can say in class that would not apply to -- in the public arena. so i think it's difficult for me to isolate the precise issue where the disagreements arises. but it's like any other large institution, you certainly have to have rules to control behavior and you can't say anything you want in any area, but i'm not quite sure how i can make that more specific than that. >> the back. >> justice stevens, thank you very much for coming to our university and giving us this opportunity and judge jordan, great to see you again. there's a case called the

american insurance association versus garmindi, a 2003 decision where justice souter wrote a 5-4 decision holding that the state of california did not have the authority to require global insurance companies like alliance who defrauded holocaust victims out of billions of dollars in insurance pollsies. he held that the state of california did not have the pow tore require those companies to produce records about their treatment of holocaust victims during that period of time and what was unusual about the decision it was the first time he decided no precedent preempting a state law based upon the so-called policy of the executive branch, there was no statute, there was no constitutional provision, there was no treaty and there were four dissents in that case, the

decent was written by justice ginburg, justice scalia and justice thomas, so this was a case that despite the lack of precedent, it seem today me that the majority went out of its way despite the context to put holocaust victims at a disadvantaged after elected governments had done what they could within regulatory authority to hold these international companies accountable based upon no precedent whatsoever infringing traditional notions of federalism as well as separation of powers and it always struck me that the four dissenters who weren't on the same side on the dissent very often. and i've always since i've been representing the holocaust survivor community and this decision was a devastating blow to help people whose rights had been enflinged and elected

officials were trying to do what they could to try to level playing field in today's world and to see a majority of the supreme court with devastating blow to that class of people and given the nature of how that went, i wanted to ask you if you had any recollection of that particular case, how many other times there had been yourself and the other three together? and again, if you can comment on it having dealt with the victims of of decision, i want to extent. >> i haven't thought about that case for a long time but i do remember it was a close case because it was a 5-4 vote. and the author was a very fine judge with whom i happened to disagree on that particular case, but i really have trouble

recalling the -- the specific issues in the case that turned the tide on that. but i do remember that i was unhappy about the case, was incorrectly decided but i'm not sure i remember as well as you do right now. >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> hi, getting back to student's speech. tinker said there were two that could limit student speech, one much more developed than the other that disrupt it is educational process but they also gave another reason that it interfered with the rights of other students. >> interfood with the -- >> the rights of other students, so schools could discipline students if their speech interfered with the rights of other students. and i was just wondering how you would develop that particular line of tinker, what kinds of

speech would you think would fall under that, and particular what would cover sort of degrading, demeaning, sort of hateful speech targeting people based on a protective characteristic based on sexual or notation or race? >> i may not get thrust of the question but i have difficulty understanding allowing the students to wear armedbands interfere with the rights of other students. >> i think what she's trying to ask -- >> clearly tinker -- the armbands did not what kind of speech might interfere -- in your mind, what would you include under speech that could be regulated because it interfered with the rights of other students? >> in other words, is there some student speech that could interfere with the rights of

other students, and on that basis could be curtailed, disciplined, et cetera? >> of course, as in any context if the speaker makes too much noise and uses all the time for himself and doesn't allow other speakers an adequate opportunity to express their own views, speech can interfere with the other speech. but apart from just the physical interference with expressing other points of view, i don't think the mere fact that the people that wearing the armband would actually frustrate the opposition speech in that case. >> i think part of it also depends on how you define the rights of those who are sort of bothered or infringed upon by the speech. i mean, is it a right to not hear something, or does it go deeper than that? you know, how far can the school

administration decide that it can make policy choices about that sort of language? >> certainly, they would have to allow those who disagree with the speech to express their own points of view, but equally. >> thank you, your honor, for taking my question. in your dissent in morris you note that had the majority should be cautious against creating special circumstances limiting speech regarding just drugs and alcohol in general and in support of that turning to our national experience with prohibition where alcohol was once something that was completely illegal and then made legal. since morris, the state of colorado and washington, many other states have legalized marijuana for recreational

purpose, and i was just curious that if the nation were to say that lift the band on its categorization of marijuana as elicit substance, how would that effect the way that morris is applied in a broader sense? >> i will try. [laughter] >> his question is, i think, you can correct me if i'm wrong, if the country as a whole shifts its views about marijuana being illegal and marijuana use decriminalized in some way shape or form, how do you think morris would be applied in that sort of world n that sort of circumstances? >> well, first you're asking me how the chief justice -- i didn't agree with the chief justice. [laughter] >> but i suppose it would depend

on how he interpreted, what's the new banner said. if the banner said opposed some other drug, i suppose they can also say that's prohibited too. if it continued to be contrary to school policy. for the majority in morris, i think that was school policy a favor or disfavor and if you agree with the school policy, you can see whatever you want to. if you disagree with a school policy, you better be careful. i think that's what it boils down. >> and flipping the legality of marijuana may not solve any problems because if marijuana is a cash crop in the state, then opposing it may be against the views of those who bear some benefits from the state. >> good afternoon. i just we wanted to get your

opinion on political correctness and the wave that's coming about in everything that it's not the way it was supposed to be meant. thank you. >> any general thoughts on political correctness and the topic of free speech, whether we've become to attuned to what might offend someone else in public discourse? >> well, i do not get the impression that people are terribly afraid of offending with some of their speeches, which is okay. [laughter] >> but it's okay, they should say what they say. but the big omission is that occurs to me, i see secondhand that i don't watch many of them, is the omission of any discussion about global warming, you wouldn't know it's an important matter to us and the

debates that going on the now. >> yes. >> just wait. >> my question is about speech with regards to college campus specifically, so college campuses are a little different from high school and as you alluded to earlier fourth graders and elementary school and middle school, so it seems more that we are more of a community on college campuses. so if a student says something, for instance, the two situations in the missouri situation with the football team or at yale where administration put on sombreros and there was a huge protest, do the students have the right -- have student speech gone too far with the student

speech has affected the employment of administration or faculty where faculty hasn't necessarily done anything wrong specifically? >> i guess his concern is if individuals on a college campus feel that they are offended, grieved, attacked by certain types of speech, whether or not the institution's failure or the failure of certain administrators to take action to prevent that from continuing allow it is university to take punitive actions, so if a set of students do something that's offensive to another set and an administration is seen as being relax to it, whether or not you think those are proper grounds

to take administrative action against those individuals? >> i think i should defer the answer -- the question to the president of the university. [laughter] >> and he would graciously pass. [laughter] >> yes. >> such an honor to hear from you today so thank you so much. i wish you were teaching a class that we could all take for a semester or year. so my question picks up on the person's question from the front and some other comments that were made. but if we analyze speech and threat by students against other students individually and as members of a gender or a class, in the context of title 9, title

9 to opportunities and look at how a sexual threat, so like at yale when paternity members surrounded the old dorm where freshmen girls live no means no, yes means anal at night, i mean, this was a very serious thing taken seriously by yale students who perceived that as a threat. that question might welcome up certainly during this conference, but really thinking about when students with power make statements that really might be infringing on the equal access to educational opportunities to other students specially men making sexual threats against women. >> in the context of title 9 or

constitution? >> all of it, that's what we are talking about today. >> right, but those two things are different in the way that at least courts deal with them. >> of course, so in the context of title 9 and as -- as schools and campuses import constitutional values so they won't be directly applicable but we import the values of the constitution in our campuses. >> i think what she's trying to ask is a very deep and difficult question about how far title 9 should go in protecting individuals on campus and give them the promise of an equal education when speech by others, specially speech by others who might be seen in the position of power or authority prevents the victims for lack of a better term, from having an equal

educational opportunity. >> i have to confess, i haven't thought that through. that's not something that i can easily come up with a simple answer, but the question is if the -- if some students prevent other students of having adequate opportunity of getting an education because of what they said, well, there should be some way to impose sort of a moratorium allowing all people to have a chance -- to get an education. that's certainly true and you should not let somebody drawn out opposing points of view, but i'm not sure i'm actually answering any specific controversy that you're concerned with. and i guess the best advice i could give that you have to

understand the facts very thoroughly before you try to answer of what goes on and both sides should have an opportunity to explain why they're saying what they are and what they're trying to do and you should not suppress all of the speech because it may cause disagreement or friction as you know all. >> i think we are out of time. i want to thank on behalf of the whole university community all of you for coming here and justice stevens for giving of his time and gracing us with his remarks. we really do appreciate it. >> thank you very much. [applause]

..