they are so to say she lost a not because of voters suppression. she just did not bring people. people thought she would have a more diverse coalition of different interest groups than obama. she didn't and as a matter of fact she ended up basically polling what polls expected her to within a couple of points of beating trump. it was her fault that she lost that people are searching for reasons to explain her inexplicable loss which is actually kind of understandable when you look at the numbers and the lack of enthusiasm the doctor through the entire process to a point where bernie sanders who is a joke, i mean he's a joke in the cabinet and he had no good ideas. here's a guy that is the final

danish model. >> there you go. >> this is a guy who hadn't had a new thought in 40 years and was able to stay. close to the wire. it was her fault than trump everyone. it wasn't a -- i'm not saying it wasn't a legitimate win. was a totally legitimate win but if you ever go on twitter and make a joke you can't even make a joke that democrats expense with donald trump in it. the other day donald trump was in cincinnati and during the cable shows the people in the stadium he was that comment was a totally white audience in my tweeted i haven't seen an audience this white since prairie home companion came to cincinnati. it was a joke at the expense of garrison healer and the white

mob at ncr and i'm still getting attacked by trump rights saying why do you bring race and everything? there aren't that many of them actually. there were enough to bring them into the white house, good for them, wonderful, we can work with that as libertarians. we have a future oriented philosophy. we are interested in technology and true but diversity, diversity of different peoples in different foods in different genders and different ideas. we are the future. this is going to be a very good time for us as long as we don't get caught up and try to be republicans or democrats. >> one additional point. every time you have that discussion about fake reporting or impolite speech or whatever

it is usually it's free speech. let's ban something and everything will get to that. this is a way out for politicians and four groups and the agenda. doesn't help. that's not the way to do it and i think in this whole discussion about facebook they are here to make money and not to create knowledge or production or to challenge people but they have to make them comfortable so we should ally ourselves about facebook and google are doing. >> and if i can just follow-up on that we have been talking about this a bit before. that is something else that i think trump is really bringing

to the fort. he is not a capitalist. he is not a friedman s.. he's not john mackey with whole foods who are committed libertarians. they are committed businessmen and as well and that's important to google and facebook have already shown that they are more than willing to accommodate autocratic regimes, authoritarian regimes and that is their right and everything but we should not fool ourselves that they will respond to what the market demands ultimately than at this point the market and politics can be pretty close. we need to create i guess to go back to that question of building up this market for enlightenment ideas of tolerance in berlin some and diversity of thought and diversity of lifestyle, we need to make that clear market choice so given the option google will say we are going to go with market forces. we want more discussion and more diversity and more conflict that is deviated in a positive

thoughtful way rather than dealing with speech laws are speech codes. the year. and unions code of conduct for hate speech is insane and you were saying that because facebook and google are getting on their knees fast enough the eu is saying we will follow-up with legislation which will be a thousand times worse. but this is a fight that won't be fought until we die. >> what nick is talking about is the code of conduct that was signed by facebook and google earlier this year with the european commission. in order to fight hate speech. the problem that the code of conduct is there is no definition of what hate speech is and they advised to remove hate speech within 24 hours and the european commission so far is quite dissatisfied and they

had threatened these companies to pass laws. it's not just a code of conduct if they don't go faster in these notifications. >> ride and certainly facebook and google have cracked down significantly and their managerial practices in the time spent in what they will allow you to say or do or what they will do even if you are managing a page for instance. you have to delete those comments are his -- a roster page will take punished for it. >> twitter a month or two deleted a bunch of all right back accounts and again twitters private enterprise. they are a sandbox. they can take anybody off they want but it's fundamentally because the way i think you manage that kind of issue, they kick these people out even as they were expanding the tools by

which they could block or suppress people you did want to hear from which again is both great and there are problems there. we need to be critical and nuanced in our understanding of that but again we need to be in favor of more speech is always better than less speech even if it's really speech and we can ignore it or we can engage it. there are problems. the upside of that is that twitter as a medium has been flat. instagram and snapchat actually have more daily users. nobody wants to buy twitter. >> twitter is interesting because you were talking about this market mechanism and of course they have all these legal repercussions that they are looking at but they are also looking at their stock price tanking at a time when people were saying they were platform for white supremacists or white nationalists. >> it's also partly because they are getting antsy and cutting

more people off who are white supremacists and i'll write back or were never end they suspended the account of glenn reynolds the pundits who is a legal blogger who was one of the main guys on the internet really. that was. i think to the extent the platform is flattening and their stock market prices are tanking because they are seen as being too pc, not that they are not pc enough for suddenly a hot bed for some kind of tribute band or something. >> on that note what is the line when we are talking about government restrictions verses private company restrictions on free expression? we are libertarians and they tend to believe that private companies should be able to run their businesses they will way they want to freedom of

association but the same time we are talking about how closely intertwined all of this is. >> i think you have to make that distinction and if you don't like the restrictions of a private company than you can leave and don't work there and don't buy the product but i think media if they insist that it's the fourth estate that has a right and obligation to control the judiciary and legal powers than they need to be transparent and look in board to an extent that other businesses don't necessarily have to. they can make decisions because they are here to make money and

that's fine but if you insist on that kind of power status than then i think it goes with certain obligations as well also it comes to free speech. >> the united states is odd and unique and may be exceptional in the language of the first amendment which took a wild tube come into being but congress should make that law. we know that it's not at all okay. government doesn't have any role in regulating speech. private businesses, and this is an interesting question about transparency because part of the argument about facebook questions were they using algorithms to trash or keep conservative news down in the election? it's unclear and i don't even think they know necessarily fully what was going on.

>> a lot of it is done by the robots. >> it's not clear what all that means it has also like a lot of the new stories. i'm sorry but breitbart.com is safe powerful force in the media. it is not a news site. there is nothing wrong with that but it's not news. shouldn't be treated the same way an algorithm as something else. by the same token i agree completely you should recognize i don't have any control over facebook. facebook is a little different than say a publication like reason. we are transparent in what we publish and why we publish it. when we control it completely and we should, readers can read it or not and make comments are not as long as the federal government is on us about it. facebook protects the platform. serve little bit different. it's not a publication and they need to be more transparent. they have a right to do whatever they want but then they believe

they will reap the rewards or suffer consequences. every flower looks the same in their walled garden and that's what they are trying to build. they are tried to keep people in facebook so you never want to leave for you never have to leave. if it starts looking like a really dull subdivision or fake cityscape. >> they are always facing this problem. >> they are going to have to be more diverse and they are going to have to put it in the westworld vision of this. they will have to put in that samurai module. >> i am sure everyone in the audience has a lot of questions and we will get to those but i have one more for you. based upon the fact that both hillary clinton and donald trump have called for closing down parts of the web -- the next

within 24 hours of each other. there actually is a difference between a republican and a democratic party when something like that happens. >> a little reminder. we talk about her article was on the web accessible. is there ever a justification for the government to shut down parts of the internet such as the web or a particular web site or message boards are things like that and if so what would it be? >> the parliament passed a law where it becomes a criminal offense to share content. if you are a scholar and you study isis and you want to share

the magazine devices with a colleague you may end up in prison. i think that's very problematic. >> do people get punished here as well. for instance the police department after the shooting that happened earlier this year arrested several people who had tweeted saying that it was good that cops died. >> that is very offensive but i don't think it's a criminal offense. you should react and yell at these people and announce them but i don't think you should criminalize that kind of speech. >> error web sites that are criminal enterprises. there are fraudulent web sites that rip people off. i think something like child photography, the child pornography the production of it is kind of evidence of a crime taking place.

the production of it web sites that produce it should be shut down. consenting adults know that the just -- justice department actually does that from time to time which i think is. i think there are clear cases that are extremely rare and self-evident in a way. the government can shut down certain web sites. i don't think the government can shut down parts of the internet. they could make it more difficult to operate. they can make it attacks in terms of your time or personal outcome but they really don't have that. that was one of the things i was saying about donald trump who i hope will be a very six successful presidents. so far he is good on school choice. why not give people more school choice? i infer that but he doesn't

grasp a lot of the details and when he talks about shutting down the internet he says i'm going to talk to bill gates. bill gates had his lunch eaten by the internet. that was microsoft's downfall to the internet. i'm not expecting a lot of visionary leadership on his part but to the strength of this, he can't shut it down. >> the internet is like a hydra coming to cut off one part of the pops up again. do we have any questions from the audience? i do ask that you keep them short and i will repeat the backs of books on livestream can hear them. we have a microphone coming down actually. >> thank you. carl sullivan. i was on 9/11 responder.

i went in november that year to ground zero to help sift through the rubble. a third building that collapsed that day which there is a tyranny of silence in the media about that. >> are you a truth or about building seven? >> i'm a criminal investigator. >> the collapse was not an inside job. >> an inside job is foolish language. >> what is your question? >> i was interrupted. pardon me. this fall i hand delivered a document by the organization chew that organizes scientific evidence for controlled demolition in all three world. towers. >> what is your question? >> president chavez indicated they will be an investigation on 9/11. what do you think and i do have

copies for each of you. >> i won't speak for you but i think the airplanes that flew into the world trade center twin towers are what caused that to collapse and when you have that kind of event happening other parts of the world. center are likely to collapse as well. i also myrlie deep on whether or not --. >> i like the trump said we should pen boeing's contract for air force one which is 100% over budget. this i think would create waste of taxpayer money. >> a question back there. >> most of my stuff is free

which a lot of people don't like my basic question is this. the terror threat, the islamic terror threat seems to be trying to make ordinary civilians in western countries and the united states the target as if they were combatants as if they were on the hook for anything we do. in other words create a state of war the united states. does that justify more censorship or control of the internet or emergency power? >> that could be particularly relevant at the way i operate in the something i'm concerned about. individual citizens are being made target. >> if we are in a state of war, if we are in a professional state of war comments made on line through citizen journalists should they be treated as if they were made during more power?

>> this is an argument against perpetual state of war. wars that don't have clear objectives for clear endpoints are moments where we don't even know what we want, those are bad for us to wage whether it's a war out pot or a war on poverty or a war on radical jihad. i would leave that more to the person who is the actual object of the governmental censorship, corporate censorship and personal attacks. >> i didn't understand the question. >> i was asking if you are in a conflict of war does that change how people should be censored on line? >> i think the evidence speaks to the fact that in times of war governments can act. and it's very easy to turn up the heat on free speech and

censorship. it's very difficult -- to reverse it. >> i think the tendency is that governments do overreact and if you are in a state of war you like enemies and you are tolerant of speech and quite often afterwards when people look at that they say why didn't they explain that kind of speech but it's a natural reaction. people tend to overreact and you saw after 9/11. the state would get the kinds of flaws that were passed in the kinds of powers that were given to the citizens. how can that happen?

>> to tie it into fake universe and fake news in the ongoing arguments that journalism into the pretty request of individual citizen journalists i don't know any journalists, they are citizens of some country. there is a constant push among the professional class that say we need to certify who is a real journalist in who is a blogger and get the same constitutional protection for as somebody at "the new york times." of course they do. there is no distinction to be drawn in that one of the ways i think we need to talk over this reaction is to make sure journalist shield laws. you get to hide your sources because you work for the times or something. these are always of licensing and regulating the press. one of the great things about america is we dealt with that in the colonial era essentially and we shouldn't go down that road again. >> right, definitely. and a question from julio farkas

on twitter asking is the -- under threat with the rise of social media? >> it's what i said, this enforcement of confirmation bias goes against production and it's kind of built-in to the business model of facebook and other social media. i don't think you can control that as a clear-cut conclusion. we will have to work on it. >> one of the things that i think is good, knowledge production is something we should always be guarding in favor. we should be making it easier. i think a lot about justin amash the congress from michigan. he talked about when he was at the university of michigan law

school which by the way is a well-regarded law school but a terrible football schools. he was told by somebody -- he thought of himself as a conservative republican is what he said you are a libertarian. he went, and google libertarian and he recognized who he was. in that sense i think social media, i think the internet or broadly and i think this whole idea of social media is more important. it's definitely true you can live in a better more well furnished bubble than ever before but you can also find more stuff all over the place than ever before. we were talking about this. if you are my age, i'm in my early 50's and i wanted to get reason magazine or a cato publication i would mail away and it would take months and i wouldn't get it right or it wouldn't show up. it's just very hard and so much easier as the millennial to get

more information at your fingertips about something, you are watching the history channel and you have your laptop or your tablet out and your wikipedia is the show is going on. it's a much richer environment for that base. >> i discovered the cato institute on the internet because someone sent me the political and i started reading about it. >> just to follow a point on the knowledge presumption. i think a problem is the value they put into notions. if you fear something it's right and it's very difficult to argue with somebody who insists that's what i feel. i think social media with liking and sharing instead of arguments

for one position or another often create this status of emotions. i think that's undermining knowledge production. that's what's going on on campuses. >> it's a way of saying please shut up. it's a very powerful argument and it feels are intimidating. you want to be nice. >> the difference between denmark and my home state of new jersey, nobody wants to be nice in new jersey but yeah the emphasis is on feelings and emotional responses is strong. i think it's always been that way and i say this to some of you who added the print magazine i work for an organization called the reason. when i became editor of the

magazine i was like can i change the name to limits to reason because that's more in keeping with my sense of things. i agree but it's hard but again we have more platforms by which to host debates and conversations and to be persuasive. if i can put all my libertarian that are my liberal liberal movement that's one of the things that we need to think about, especially in an era where the old dogmas are dying and people are looking, young people, old people are looking for something new. we often need to think about being persuasive not simply expressive. a basic libertarian solution is private sidewalks and private air. you come on my property and i will shoot you. whatever but we are also trying to persuade people by engendering or imagining a world that people want to live in because it's interesting and prosperous and fair and moral.