tara. that was a really interesting conversation. and as we're having the uncomfortable conversation about dismantling racism and devising plans for generational equity here in the city of gaithersburg, i just want to go back to something that joseph said that really stood out. we're a very challenging time nd and you can still love your country and criticize it because you know there are better ways to not only govern but navigate towards a more just society. so i really enjoyed this discussion. thank you all so much for being here with us.

>> someday, c-span's serious january 6: views from the house continues. two more members of congress share stories of what they saw, heard and experienced that day including pennsylvaniademocrat susan wilde who recounts what happened during those early moments on the house floor . >> i honestly don't remember

how long we were in that situation between the time they barricaded the door and the time we finally got out . they told me it was somewhere like 20 minutes. it could have been two hours, could have been five minutes. i have no sense of time whatsoever. i remember when i got off the phone with my kids i felt as though my heart was pounding out of my chest and i felt, i actually was worried i was having a heart attack. i've never had a heart attack but my father had a heart attack, we have a family history i was very worried about that. i must have put my hand up to my chest because that photograph shows me lying almost on my back with my hand up to my chest . i don't remember lying on my back . but i do remember jason taking my hand and just stroking it and comforting me and telling me i was going to be okay and being a little perplexed that he was reassuring me the cause i didn't realize i was showing

how upset i was. >> you'll also hear from jim mcgovern. january 6: views from the house sunday at 10 pm eastern on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. >> eric is a writer and journalist and for 20 years practice intellectual property and business law in los angeles. these published widely throughout his career and his writing has appeared in periodicals like the new york times, washington post, economists, "l.a. times", and the weekly. his books include sex punishment and the boundaries of desire. he comes to us from our very own san francisco. in conversation we had judy miller, a peabody award-winning television

correspondent andnational public radio commentator . working for abc in 1990 miller has covered the 1992 rodney king trial and ensuing riots, 1994 earthquake and o.j. simpson criminal and civil trials for which she received an emmyaward . we have excellent guests tonight. thank you for coming out everybody one last time allow me to pass the show off to eric and judy . >> .. especially when it comes to tackling enormous subjects like the history of censorship in the west. i loved this book.

most authors would be intimidated, i think by the huge subject matter but eric has this great talent of taking a big subject and serving it up and delicious morsels of history. he's ais great storyteller and page turning stories full of betrayal and heroism and sex which is always helpful. [laughter] burning at the stake and amazing dramatic things. one reviewer called the book a masterpiece, astounding, comprehensive entertaining historical account of censorship and that was not his mother, that was a real reviewer. [laughter] one of the major takeaways for me, and i look, after reading it seems a major theme is that censorship never really works,

at least in the long run. the how you see it? got all these examples but in the end your thoughts and words and whatever form fails, is not true? >> i think it's almost entirely true because there's a real difference betweenen censoring a book or a picture or even shutting down a demonstration or even killing someone from the idea that embodied in what is said. what we find repeatedly in one form or another is that the effort of authority either the mob or generally a government or the church, they are disturbed by an idea, they feel threatened by the ideas so they run down try to eradicate all copies but

they always survive. even more, thein idea in the copies so when something is, when something is banned, you want to look at. when something is buried, he wanted to get up and often times the most depressing there keeping it for themselves so it's repeatedly fields when an expression is locked down and gets its way through most recently, chinamo has the most comprehensive internet seen in the world, they do everything they can, millions of people lots of money, that includes orders on their way to final use stories through the online game, mine craft recorded stories and

it goes on so examples. >> i'm glad you brought up china because that is china today still struggling to keep dangerous ideas away from their people. >> good luck with that. >> right. begins with china, some of the first emperors in china, what did they do to suppress ideas they thought were changes? >> touch on the anecdote of the book which is what i thought with so many themes of the book, the first emperor of china was going to which it is,he excuse e -- we are back in the third century now and he is more of a warrior and just about anything

else. what he wanted was history to start with him what infuriated him in the kingdom, it killed him here people criticizing him. his great achiever but here's hated. particularly using confusion and intellectual things, it was really better than, these are dark times. what he did was realize confucius was probably the source of all these o ideas so e gathered together all books of poetry, literature history, philosophy, burn them all. he saved copies for himself so censorship doesn't work and he took two philosophers were leaving and carry the ideas and bury them, buried 400

philosophers alive and going forward even to discuss critically using confucius get yourself killed along with your family so that worked for about three years and he had some mental problems, he was consumed with is that he died drinking and a leech of life but the truth is, chinese poetry and philosophy plastic. he didn't, he's one the army, he was buried with them to make okay, that's interesting to you brought this up, he tried to keep it away from the masses this is another theme i see through your book, censorship is kind of a c class struggle,

perhaps versus riffraff, they don't want to share stuff with, church, pornography and what really blew it apart was the printing press, is that right? >> i can talk about that and we can go into that. when you're doing this book, one censorship doesn't work, there's always the idea, what you do with it? your ruling things which most concerned about channeling knowledge, channeling ideas rather than fully depressing them so when books were written manuscripts, there is not that many to go around. they were difficult. all of a sudden it was the exclusive process the classes became available to everybody instantly.

instantly 16th century time, in a few decades the catholic church indexed, repeatedly, the whole thing was to keep knowledge away from the masses. keep them ignorant and docile and that has been a main preoccupation. >> i was thinking of what they call the streisand effect, i have heard of this and you can explain what comes from the idea that the more you m try to press something, the more appealing it is. >> isn't that the case with you? >> of course, you should read this, you shouldn't look better. why is it it named after barbara

streisand? where did that come from? >> as far as her objective, there were aerial pictures of her place in malibu and she needed to try to solve it, everybody said wait a minute, what is this the forbidden fruit aspect of censorship never really stopped so for example, england was consumed in the 19thns century with the keeping criticism of theng king, keeping the masses criticizing 13 the church in particular so here's one example, there is this guy is a bookseller who wrote some parities, some jokes, a book of humor but taking hard bites at them so what did the british

government do? they put him on trial. no one had heard of his this guy before him, he is just a guy. well, the trial itself brought him in before the trial, there were actually three trials. the trials were done, selling thousands and thousands of copies of his criticisms of the church. >> what happened to him? >> they finally gave f up he actually won the trial. he didn't set out to be a warrior for free speech but that's what he became. >> thinking about the story of tendo. >> perfect. >> talk a little bit about him because he didn't win in the sense that he lost but -- what he was trying to do became fact

so it was a case of actually a boomerang effect. talk about him a little bit. >> let's start with tindell being the british library of the most important writer in the english writer next to shakespeare. the early 60 century, a scholar of a professor at cambridge and he read martin luther's illegal translation of the bible, a big battle back then, hold onto their bible, these people were reading in their own language, tindell thought i'd going to translate this into english. he went to the bishop of london that can i do this? the bishop said of course not. we will kill you if you do that. he went to the conduct, did it, did a brilliant job of it smuggled into england.

thousands and thousands of copieses began to be sold. again, they were forbidden so the bishop was chasing illegal copies, even five copies of the illegal bible, ordered to bring them back to england and burn them so tindell was finally caught and murdered. now what is the epilogue to this? this illegal bible was so brilliant times changed very soon and they broke with the church tindell's version of the bible became the core of the king james bible so this forbidden document became mainstream. [laughter] >> bestseller.

>> also still part of the court bible. >> there is a boomerang effect, and sometimes i think we don't know the full story. i'm thinking of rushdie here if you ask most people they say yes, i remember he wrote a book that offended islamic who put up, kill him ecm and he had to go into hiding in england and that looks bad but he was up here in the mountains where i live not long ago having dinner, a year ago and i saw him near m. [laughter] he looks as though rushdie came out just fine, he still writing and all of that but isn't there a lingering effect of something

like that? a kind of censorship underneath that people start watching themselves whether they are going to publish them? is there a lingering effect censorship like that has on an author or reading public? >> it certainly does and there is an accumulative effect in a step-by-step process. there's a writer to give a shout out to england who's spent a lot of time on this and he was using a wonderful phrase which i wish i could claim, we internalize these thoughts, the, rushdie produced a book called satanic verses. it was offensive to some in islam and ofns death sentence pt on him. the british a government had a t

of pressure to shut him down they stood by him so his book was never fully centered, he survived but we have internalized the fact in the sense we are much more concerned that and he covid a lot of plays that were produced, art exhibits that were staged, concerts that were put on because of our fear that perhaps not necessarily violent but we've internalized this notion, and we could talk about this, but free speech is fine so long as it doesn't bother anybody or offend anybody that's not the free speech we care about. larry flynn, the rushdie's, screamers, in that case down the street protecting your speech.

not you and me, we just live our lives so would come to believe for at least many have come to believe free speech itself is a risk, source of harm rather than a reward of a free society. i think the lesson of lingering conscience from satanic verses danish cartoons, in a diverse society, offense is no longer the price we pay for freedom, it's a belief and shut down. i personallye believe that is incompatible with real notion of free speech. >> since we are on this, have everersonally self-centered or felt a need to?

>> yes, i know where you're going. i have self censored its book itself. a very painful way. you taught me when you are my professor,or a reporter should never be historical, the writer is never thehe story but in this case i was. i was writing about this, is published in the u.s. and in the uk. by uk publishers run by an extremely brave woman who was with me the whole time, tell the truth, be bold. okay. i was writing about this whole issue you and i were just talking about and there was a recent decision by the european, which i criticized very heavily. i'll give you a part of this, this woman had given a seminar in austria and she called the

prophet mohammed a pedophile because he had a young wife. a very young life and he was prosecuted in the environment for inciting hatred in the european human rights said well, the rules of discourse say you shouldn't be gratuitously offensive. i wastu astounded at the highes, protecting human rights in europe, freedom of expression, unless you offend people and i said something to the effect of its horrible internalized this for all of europe. my publisher, a very bold woman called me said i can't do it. >> really? >> i cannot write that line, i cannot say we've internalized this, we've had death threats,

bricks through the window, i got a child from my employees have children. you've got to rewrite it. for a minute i thought i'm going to pull the book, i'm not doing this. i'm a hypocrite. then i realized from my hyper privileged perch in san francisco where nobody turns for anything, and absolutist and then i self censored and that i unwrote around it. for those who want to read the american addition, it's all there. the uk addition, for the safety of others has been amended. >> and yet in afghanistan just last week, 50 young girls were killed at a school, clearly an attempt to stop the education of young women, and extreme islamic law kind of idea and that

obviously will have an effect in the same way you have an effect on you and saying i'm in danger if you write this. not even subtle but it does have a censoring effect all over the world. >> the difference between afghanistan, afghanistan is much less diverse society than the one we live in. i think what we are paying a price on, i'm not sure right, i'm not defending them or affect either. i am easily offended, i've got my soft spots and when i hear things that hit myself, i feel pain. that doesn't mean i necessarily want to shut it down but to acknowledge a lot of speech causes hate, that's not to say it should be but we are in a diverse society and universities for white men, it's a lot different a lot of people are saying the price of a diverse

society is we have to be a little bit more careful, i'm not sure i agree with that. that's what it comes down here. what happened in afghanistan is hideous by any prospective. >> i want to get to academia in a minute but i think that most americans would say yes, we believe in the speech, we are proud of the first amendment and yet there are signs that they'd like to tinker with it little bit. it's may be gone too far for some t people, is there any evidence that americans are torn on this issue? >> we are not a little bit, we are cut into pieces, and fragments around the floor. we are proudud of our tradition, fairy proud of our free speech but at the same time surveys show at least half americans and

moreth millennial's leave the first amendment is outdated. >> really? >> it's getting more and more. there's a group, the fire that attracts a lot of ivy league students who thought you could shut people down if they beat too much. or touchy or becoming increasingly touchier. we can't bear the idea of an idea that doesn't hours. we want it stopped such really interesting. in my opinion, one of the signature achievements of the country in the last 65 years, free speech environment the world has ever known by a large margin. we have a supreme court that says the noise of free speech is possible medicine, it makes us

responsible for ourselves and for taking care of a free society. now i think a lot of people are turning to the government saying censor us, protect me. stop that person, stop that person from saying things when you ask whether we are torn, that is absolutely part of it. we are looking to social media, allow me to say what i want but stop him. >> and social media, facebook twitter, they've almost westernized the kind of hate speech and probably wise that used to be censored and there are those who say facebook, excuse me has become the biggest

sensor now and our country. how do you feel about us falling out, there oversight council, banning trump for another six months because of his insightful speech nobody has life more on facebook or twitter and the former president but yet, somebody who's written about censorship, you must be horrified at the idea that we would be censoring andy kind of speech is a country. now facebook, a private company and they are allowed to do that but give me your thoughts on that whole issue. >> do you remember that disney cartoon when we were kids, the sorcerer's apprentice? >> yes. >> i think where you start something and it looks good and then you be careful what you

wish for, that's the subtitle of what i talked to about in the internet. a bit of background the way our country was set up is that the government has almost no power center must it's a direct incitement to violence, copyright infringement, very limited exceptions where the private sector, we think about restaurants, cafés, schools and things like that, it's almost complete sensor speech. don't tread on meat. so because the normal model of censorship has been people versus the government, we have a sorcerer's apprentice where the private world has expanded to encompass the world, facebook and twitter and the t others,

private companies. they don't have to sensor anything. so in this country, hate speech and offense and things like that, the government has no power so what we want is people are increasingly, and i think in many ways frightfully what's going on on social media, particularly when we have a president himself and his minions shoving hatred and lies into the system, not just facebook, we want social media companies to do the dirty work that the government can't and he might look concerned when he shows up in the senate every few weeks but there's no happy about

this chaos then zuckerberg jack dorsey because every dispute makes them money. they set up the system to foster conflict because that keeps us on the platform keeps us targeted for ads so effectively the censorship was shut up on this first amendment but then as facebook went into europe and they had to absorb more restrictive rules in europe, we have reimported hate speech laws back into this country and we can badger facebook all we want but they are going to do what they want facebook, backboard affairs is a white watch wash. something bright over there, stay away from us. >> i want to remind up those of you listening and tuning in, you can ask questions, put them up

on the chat board and if we have time, we're going to try to make time, we will be sure to ask eric questions are put on the chat and i'll keep an eye on it. so while we are on social media, you see a role, any kind of push for government regulation of the internet and social media companies? doesn't scare you? >> it scares me terribly and thoughts not to say i'm not made crazy by the terrible things i've seen. there's two words that arrive when i think about government regulation of the internet and that donald trump, just think about the first amendment effectively saves us from him. he was an absolute enemy of speech ready to jail anybody who

spoke out against him and he called the press the enemy of the people 5000 times. it wasn't hyperbole, he actually believes that. we talk about government regulations and the culture the government for censorship, this is one of the lessons of my book reaching back two or 3000 years, you have to look at who is in the regulations so if we think that government can regulate hate speech or fake news or other terrible things to benefit us, we always have to think what donald trump had that power? what if jeff sessions how about power? what if holly had that power? etc. as i, as much as anyone want the credit and dirt off the internet. i'm very concerned about it being far worse than the problem, the solution. >> people talk a lot about

cancel culture, political correctness, and c for a reactin to a movement that's understandably worried about hate speech. >> they are all woven together. >> what you think of that term, cancel culture and political correctness and the impact a having on it academia? >> the latest example of cancel culture i've seen came out yesterday out of the kentucky derby, that horse, medina spirits want a drug test so the owner of the horse is pretty mad so he said cancel culture. canceling out my course. i got the tweet. >> what is that -- what? >> nothing. cancel culture is one of these terms that poetically correct or

woke, they are terms we use have the wrong meaning, even the word unconstitutional. that's unconstitutional. w we use these terms to label things and develop develop its we don't like. >> on the other hand is a renewed concern about the n-word and words that offend people, transgender attacks and that kind of thing but i have seen ar overreaction in academia, buzzers being fired. during a zoom meeting with a couple of students, one student asked to read aea case study and in reading it, the end board reading from the case study and it created, it got leaked and it was a huge thing in both the

professor and student apologized and sounds like something out of culturalul revolution where they are ordered to apologize or else and he was reading and quoting certain words now have become. >> radioactiveve. >> pardon me? >> radioactive.io >> radioactive. they are words, is intention important? what kind of intentions do you say something with? take thehe word -- if you say it angry against a woman, a that's sexist anday awful but if you sy it's a female dog, just an expression and there's a town in

france and with e. it's removed from facebook because facebook was a set that this word was in there title on their facebook page. isn't there some power here with intention? have we lost our minds is one of asking? >> yes, we have lost our minds. facebook facing massive fines, gargantuan fines with hate speech, billions and billions every hour. human contact moderators they hire from i just filed a class-action suit because the working conditions are terrible so what facebook uses human contact moderators our programs. so no human thought and going to off that town in france, they

just saw the term and there was gone. the town renamed itself. [laughter] so there is lack of intention on social media platforms trying to keep up with regulation and they over removed, it's a real problem for they are talking cancel culture talking about the n-word, i mean yes, that word like a swastika and a number of other things are simply radioactive. last year in germany, it will get cleaned out. it won't happen.n. they have words beyond what they signify. the case you were talking about, the n-word case, caps off law school and a student was quoting from a judge's opinion that included that word so hurt

intention was to discuss the case but there is a time where that can't be allowed. talking about cancel culture, i want to get a little more subtle than that because i was making fun of it in reference to the horse. a lot of people use cancel culture with the revenge of the power that those who don't have power can get together and call out or makeon somebody accountae for the for having something idiot for saying something wrong this is a waste for people to use social media and gather the people power and bring people down when power structures alone. it sounds good in theory but what emerges is the good old-fashioned mop and there's a lot of lives ruined. some lives should be ruined by a lot more are not.

professors are getting cleaned up, students are because administrations are terrified of the malt. >> but is censorship, is it not? by political correctness, i'm just making this argument because so many people do, i'm not saying that's my opinion it really is so you can't escape censorship in one way or another excuse to clean exclusively actions by the government against people. but what censorship typically means, a judge or a cop. in this case, i guess the better with his losing it real meaning,

maybe silencing. >> okay question on the chat that i want to get in, i want to get away from social media right away. you have an opinion on whether section 230 of the communication act needs to be modified or eliminated explain what section 230 is first. >> i've spent a lot of time thinking about this. section 230 is a statute that is no longer obscure. it's been called 26 words that made the internet. what it basically says is that the platforms, everything from facebook all trail and yelp and wikipedia, anything involving user content, contributions, the platforms themselves, the people host, they are not liable, they

just let it a happen. it was typically, it basically allows interactive internet communicationsnd and it blew up. section 230 has taken heat from being blamed for the crowd on the internet and pervasiveness and hatred, the answer to the question shouldn't be modified, i guess my feeling was be no, i qualified no.fi it can't be modified very well because the government starts to tinker what platforms can do in respect to speech, we still have

a strong first amendment like it or not. companies such as facebook have speech rights. if they want something or they want to not amplify something, that is their right to do it. there's a lot that can be done to be cleaning up the internet. we can talk about that at some., maybe now is the time. i personally think we should stop the targeted advertising model. you but people have weight loss ads. [laughter] >> in the phone at all times saying facebook knows you are pregnant before you are before you do and they target ads. the targeted cap model must the model that follows someone around up next ads to them, in many ways, fetters theis culprit because you could be targeted

with that, they keep you on platform. i think we could monkey without more safely than the first amendment and then would get after five years of litigation telling facebook, a laugh this, don't allow that, do this, don't do that. that's going to lose in court. >> i think you're right, it's all about the money, all about appealing to our worst self. whenever i get somebody like you my opinion, that goes to an endorphin in my brain. >> or when you hear that your enemy is worse than you thought. i actually asked my publisher, how did you put mike on social media? they told me personality characteristics.ur the stupid book. [laughter] so no one thought is my, someone

who might agree with me in this book. >> so nobody who marched in charlottesville is probably going to buy your book, is that what you are saying? >> , they are not going to know it exists, that's terrible thing because i would love to share with you have a great story about that. one of those marching with white supremacists in charlottesville, he's alive to say whatever he wants, that's free speech. then what happened? >> he was more than allowed to say what he wants, is protected by police to say what he want caring that tiki torch and. [screaming] ridiculous hideous things. this lowlife was absolutely protected as much as you or i work and then he goes to our dock restaurantth where he works and the doors shut and he doesn't have a job anymore. >> agatha. >> it illustrates why we have

what we have. i want to add one more thing. he goes back to the free-speech university, berkeley and finds his free speech isn't respected there. the owner of the hot dog place safely respect our workers rights, but they must accept responsibility, that is no more job. that same week hapless chinese tourists go to berlin standing in front and they raise a salute and ten seconds they are arrested so it perfectly illustrates how various countries and you can't do that .in germany. >> almost every day we are hearing examples, these stories are everywhere.ar censorship doesn't have to be about books or movies, there

were two young package sent off to school, trying to remember the state. i will -- >> oklahoma. >> wearing black lives matter t-shirts. this will set outrageous, they can't wear this propaganda. but what the boys are saying, they were like seven and nine, very young. it was thank my wife matters. so offensive about that? that's one example. the move got book publishers think we don't want to rewrite history, we don't want to include any of that stuff. we don't want to teach this 1619 product the new york times has about black history because it revises what we thought we knew. what you think about? that censorship, is it not? telling people what they can wear, telling people they can't

read that? the same thing. >> absolutely. you andha i chatted about this a couple of days ago, it was extremely sad to me, that's the only word. a 5-year-old kid, telling him he can't wear a shirt think that his life matters. that's an overaggressive school board, a scoreboard responding pressure equates black lives matter with terrorism, scared of african-american identity, i suppose. 1619 project is more than telling people they can't read, there is now inflation from other states thing you can't teach this, you can't teach our viewers this massive make this event piece of research talking about a fundamental slavery in the fabric of the country.

well, there is now bills in a number of states forbidding, hoping to permit the teaching about project, they lose, that will happen but what it means, every regime seeks to rewrite history to bolster itself. democratic societies as well as authoritarian. we're just seeing the latest manifestation of it. >> we do have a question, karen foley asked, do you have any suggestions for what citizens can do? the topic of fighting censorship. what do we do, how do we, in this country reporting to respect free-speech, we speak up when we see a get sent home from

school? is it down to that? that small of a place, is it about refusing to be on facebooe if theyin continue to use algorithms for marketing desires? >> this is going to be a very good a answer, i really held bak in the book and appearances from trying to fashion myself, judge and jury and for how society is going to raise itself. society is chaotic and we are full of a lot of conflict and it didn't start with facebook. we went into a war in iraq based on a fundamental lie saddam hussein, amplified by the new york times. there were decades where we thought it was taught african-americans have a different shape.

this has been living with us for a very long time. you got to do things that scare you. you've got to put yourself in harm's way a little bit, when a school youn your don't agree with, whose views you find abhorrent is getting canceled or fired or put under review, you've got to speak out in favor ofd that person, you have to argue against your own interest because i deeply believe that without a robust speech environment in which we heard, and which we get a little bit dizzy, we are not going to expose the lies. every day i would wake up and what fresh hell is trump giving me? i would reject we can say get him off. i am so these he's off but i

also know like he did on twitter, exposed what a maniac he was in was a great reason why we got rid of him. >> i love the phrase you have to work against your own interest because i remember when kathy's marched, 60s? the aclu backed their right to do that. they were caring flags. >> a lot. >> i know they did. i thought wow, that is true to your principles. that's true to free-speech. >> think of marshall, head of the naacp voting with the majority to protect the rights ku klux klan men for his own murder, calling for the murder of african-americans. marshall can see, i hate this.

this scares me i'm not going to take the role of shutting down another person speech. what can we do? absolutely week speak out against silence and against this but not to echo what we are to believe. to do what sometimes feels, if it doesn't hurt, it doesn't count. >> i think the first amendment is so misunderstood and the hardest thing, yes i have a right to speech but another thing have a right to speak even though i hate what you are saying. when the foundingin fathers put the first amendment in the constitution, it wasn't a snap deal, it wasn't the first thing i thought of, and also, it wasn't entirely free-speech at that time.

>> ben franklin, of all people, said when they passed the first amendment, no one had real idea what they were doing. i forgot how he put it but he put it beautifully. there was no debate during the constitutional convention, someone brought it up they went with it. the idea of what free-speech was in the idea of what it is now is extremely difficult. i'm not saying what we call absolutist in the present moment we have now, i don't want a free history but we also have to appreciate our achievement that the founding fathers, seven years after the first amendment was passed, we passed a sedition act outline all of this so the

first amendment has evolved, it was passed as intention and it's taken shape. i'm just worried the fact that we are living in a highly partisan environment, people are hurting. i acknowledge that. i am as well that we don't simply say let's just rewrite it, we should move a little more slowly and careful. >> i noticed you said it. [laughter]ou we do have a good question, we do have time to ask, do you have an opinion about mark twain's and the n-word exercising huckleberry finn. a publisher didn't want to use the word and print butbl it's historical and represents the time in which he lived and

without it, it's not the same book. this encapsulates the free-speech censorship, time moves on historical perspective, what was the intention? it's all there in that particular thing. and all across the country, are banningucation huckleberry finn, it's a classic. what you. think? who met as we were seeing that word, a word form in hatred, born of everything wrong and is radioactive.po >> i should say who those who may not have read it, the character of jim, the n-word is used in front of his name all the time because that was the style of speech at h the time. >> if we went through huckleberry finn that word is probably used 1500 times in that

book, but just say we took our sharpie to it. cone that would only call furtr attention to the existence of the word, when you race something, you simply e highlig. getting back to this beginning, if we set jim, it would only make the word that much more loud in our head so the idea isn't going away, to get to what he said, yes,o i agree with you entirely. that book not only is a great literary achievement, it's a great example of a mindset during that time, i think twain was actively using that word in the sense to highlight injustices and he was not using it in a way to call for violence or hatred.

your comment about intention matters a lot here. in short, you could take a sharpie to the word and the word is still dark and we need to deal hate behind the word, not the word itself. >> that is an important place to wrap this up and that was a tigreat question. it's a debate that's going to rage on for centuries because as you have shown, it never goes away. we try to censor and it never works here we go round and round and now we've got social media to weaponize the whole debate. we shall see.e. time to tell. so i see that nick has rejoined us. i want to thank you, eric for

writing this book, it's wonderful. i cannot emphasize how many stories we were able to get to but they are there and they are wonderful and it reminds you that history is full of heroes who stood up against real oppression to keep freedom of speech going in for me, that is the great take away. >> a really great billing. [laughter] >> henry the eighth stands out. >> henry the eighth. >> bearing people all life. anyway, good stories. thank you for writing it and thank you for being with us today. nick. >> everybody, the book is dangerous ideas and other eric, thank you again for being in conversation tonight, it was a a lovely conversation. we have excellent questions in check. thank you to everybody who showed up,s and interesting discussion in there, very entertaining.