and their father wanted a summer job. >> you have state listed, i opened this indiana you have the population and some of the stats about the state but at the bottom, it's two locations. children were lifted there at the top. can anyone contribute to the dictionary projectan? >> yes. >> how do they do so? >> we have a website, dictionary project.org and they can call our office, we answer the phones and in any way you want to, you can contribute or participate. there are thousands of people who volunteer their time so we are so proud of the work they

do. this is just one thing they do, very grateful for what they are doing. >> can anybody get a dictionary? >> yes, absolutely. we get phone calls everyday from prisoners, i get letters from prisoners. i sent them dictionaries when i read the letter, they ask for a specific type of dictionary and i have grandmothers who want to give it to their grandchildren. we have all kinds of people who want to give up dictionaries. i'm happy for anyone who wants a dictionary, we will make sure they get one. >> the director of the dictionary project, thank you for your time. thank you for joining us on book to be. >> my pleasure, thank you, peter. ♪♪

>> weekends on c-span2, intellectual peace. every saturday american history tv documents america stories sundays book tv brings the latest nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think it's just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast first with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled lists of students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. ♪♪ >> comcast along with these television companies support c-span2 is a public service. >> erika's provider, lawyer and journalist. his practice intellectual property business litigation in los angeles, he's published privately in his grip as his hwriting appeared in the new yk times, washington post,

economists, los angeles times, l.a. weekly, previous books include texas punishment and boundaries of desire. he comes to us from san francisco. in conversation tonight we have judy miller, a peabody award-winning television correspondent national public radio commentary. working for abc news in 1990, miller has covid, among other stories 1992 rodney king trial, the 1994 north and o.j. simpson criminal trials for which she received an emmy award. we have some excellent guests here tonight. thank you for coming out one last time, allow me to pass it off to eric and judy. >> thanks a lot for that lovely introduction. it's -- but that's okay. you can correct it at the end of the show last i am thrilled to

be talking today with eric. eric is truly one of the finest writers i know especially when ithe comes to tackling enormous subjects like the history of censorship in the west. i loved this book, most authors would be intimidated by the subject matter but eric has this great talent taking a subject and serving it up in delicious morsels of history. he's a great storyteller and these are page turning stories full of betrayal and heroism sex which is always helpful. [laughter] burning at the stake in amazing dramatic things. one reviewer wrote this book a masterpiece, astounding, comprehensive entertaining historical account censorship that was not his mother, that was a real reviewer.

[laughter] don't do spit take. [laughter] one of the major takeaways for me, after reading, it seems that a major thing is censorship never really works at least in the wrong run, is how you see it? you got examples where in the end your thoughts and words and whatever form sale, is not true? >> i think it's almost entirely true because there's a real difference between censoring a book or a picture or even shutting down a demonstration or even killing some. from the idea in body and what we find repeatedly in one form or another is the authorities

either a the mob or th government, they are disturbed by an idea, they feel threatened by the idea so they run down and eradicate all copies but copies always survived. even martha back about the idea in the copy survived so when somethinge. is depressed, even through your life, when something is banned, you want to look at it. when something is buried, you want to dig it up it oftentimes those suppressing or keeping copies for themselves so you see this repeatedly not an expression is locked down and gets its way through. most recently china has the most comprehensive internet in the

world. they do everything they can, millions of people, lots of moneyey. reporters just down the way to final thousands of new games for the online game called mind craft. [laughter] recorded stories and healing modify so the examples are. >> i'm glad you brought up china because that is china today so struggling how to keep these ideas away from their people but this book begins with ancient china, what did they do to suppress ideas that were dangerous? >> touched on the opening at the of the book which is what i

thought with so many themes in the book. the first emperor of china, i'm going to butcher this pronunciation, excuse me -- were now back in the third century and he is more of a warrior just about anything else. unified weight measures when he wants it the history to start with him. he would go travel through the kingdom and it killed him to hear people criticizing him. here's a great achievement but he was hated. particularly using confucius and intellectuals say it was really better than. these are dark times. what he does was realized confucius was probably the source of all thesese so they gather together not just confucius but all books of poetry, philosophy, gather them

from an optimal, he saved some for himself. also philosophers who were leaving them to carry the ideas and bury them alive. one hundred philosophers life. going forward using confucius would get you in with someone so that worked for about three years until he had some mental problems, consumed with his death and died drinking in the elixir of life but the truth is, china's poetry and philosophy lasted.

he's the one who has the terra-cotta army. >> oh, okay. that's interesting. so you bring up a good subject, he tried to keep it away from the masses, this is another thing i've see through your book, censorship is kind of a class struggle k, the haves vers the riffraff, people didn't want to share stuff with. church, pornography, what really blew it apart was the printing press. is that right? >> absolutely. we could go into the. one, censorship doesn't work. so then what do you do? if you're moving things, what you are most concerned about is channeling knowledge and ideas rather than suppressing them. when books were written

manuscripts, there weren't that many books to go around they were difficult. all of a sudden in the ruling classes, it became available to everybody. in a few decades, the catholic church index, censorship laws repeatedly and the whole thing was keep knowledge away from the masses, keep them ignorant, keep them docile and that has been a main preoccupation. >> i'm thinking what they call a streisand affect, i have heard of best and can explain but the idea that the more you try to

suppress something, the more appealing it is. >> is not the case with you? >> of course. you should read this, you -- why't look there isn't it named after barbra streisand? >> barbara streisand expected, there were somee aerial pictures of her place infallible and she made us think trying to stop it, everybody says what is this place? the forbidden fruit aspect of censorship never really stopped so for example, england was consumed in the 19th century keeping criticism of the king down, keeping the masses from criticizing the king and the church in particular so here's

just one example, a bookseller who wrote some parities and jokes, as book of humor but taking hard bites so what did the british government do? they put him on trial. no one had heard of this, he was just a guy. the trial itself brought him and before the trial, there were actually three trial. he was selling thousands of copies his criticisms of the church. that's repeated in 100 different want. >> what happened to him? >> they finally gave up, he won the trial that he didn't set out to be a warrior for free speech

about a support he became. >> thinking about this story also, talk about him because he didn't win in the sense, but what he was trying to do became fact so it was a case of a boomerang effect. talk about him a little bit. >> let's start with tyndale turned by the british library is the most important writer in the english language. >> given the. >> early 16thas century. he is a scholar, a professor at cambridge that heox read martin luther's illegal translation of the bible, there is a big battle, hold on to the bible

keep people from reading it in their own language. tyndale thought i was d going to translate this into english. we went to the bishop ofhe londn and set of course not, if you do that. they did a brilliant job and smuggled into england. thousands of copies began to get sold because they were forbidden so the bishop was chasing illegal copies, five copies of illegal bibles to bring back to england and burned him so tyndale was finally caught and murdered. now what is the epilogue? the illegal bible was separately times change very soon and bicker up with the church

tyndale's version of the bible became the core of the king james bible so this ultra forbidden document became mainstream and now fasting for five or six session. >> there is a boomerang of an sometimes i think we don't know the full story. i think if you ask most people say i remember he y wrote aboutn offended islamic who put out one on him which is kill him if you see him and he had to go into hiding and england and it looked bad and now he was appear where i live and i saw him near me and

my first thought should i move? it looks as though it came out just fine, he still writing and all that is there a lingering effect of something like that? a censorship underneath that people start watching themselves whether they publish him, is there a lingering effect censorship like that has on offer for reading public? >> it certainly does there is a cumulative effect of it, a step-by-step process. as a writer i want to give a shout out to in england please check a lot of time on it and he used a wonderful phrase, which i wish i could find out we've internalized thoughts, a book

called satanic versus, it was offensive to islam and the british government had a lot of pressure to shut hishi on they should so his book was never fully censored, he in the sense that we are much more concerned and covid a lot of plays that were, concerts that weren't put on because of our fear that perhaps, not necessarily climate we have internalized this notion, and we could talk about this if you want, free speech is

fine so long as it doesn't bother anyone or offend anyone. that's not the free speech we care about. it's larry, it's screamers, the nutcase down the street protecting your speech. not you and me. we just live our lives so we come to believe crime, atfr leat comfortably free speech itself is a risk, a source of harm rather than the award of free society and i think the lessons of pulling punches from satanic versus and the cartoons and a diverse society offense is no longer the price we pay for freedom, able to shut down.

epistemic relief incompatible with what real free speech is. >> since we are on this, have you personally self-centered or felt the need to? >> , yes, i think i know where you're going. very painful way, you taught me when you are my journalism professor, a reporter should never be the story but in this case it was writing about this honey but these publishers led by extremely brave women going. but don't full time, tell the truth, be okay and i was writing

about it in this whole issue you and i were talking about and there was a decision by the european court of human life's which i criticize very heavily, i will give you a part on back about this woman had given a seminar where she called prophet mohammed a pedophile because he had a young wife, a very young wife and he was prosecuted in this environment for inciting hatred. the european human rights said well, the roles of discourse say you shouldn't be gratuitously offensive. i was a static at the highest protecting human rights inpr europe and freedom of expression said freedom of expression unless you find them. i said, something to the effect of now that we have internalized

for talking and said i can't do it. >> really? >> i can't write that line. i cannot say we've internalized them. we've had death c threats, we tt first of november, i've t got a child, my children, you got to rewrite it. for a minute, i thought i'm going to pull the book. i'm not doing this, i am a hypocrite. then i realize my hyper privileged perch in san francisco where no one is threatening me for anything, first amendment was looted. then i wrote around it. for those who want to read the american addition, its author. the safety of others has been amended. >> here in afghanistan last

week, 50 young girls were killed. clearly an attempt to stop the education of young women in the extreme islamic law kind of deal. that obviously is going to have an effect in the same way had an effect on you, i'd be in danger if you write does. not even subtle but it does have a sensory. the difference between afghanistan, afghanistan is a much less diverse society than the one we are living in. i think we are paying the price on, i'm not sure it's right, i am not defending them, i'm not defending offense either. i've got my spot.

that doesn't mean i want to shut it down is not to say it should be barred but wouldn't, universities are set up basically for white men, it's a lot different now the price of a diverse society, we have to be more careful not sure i agree with church when it comes down to what happened in afghanistan in any prospective. >> arctic and academia a minute but i think most americans would say yes, we believe in free speech, part of the first amendment and get their are signs they would like to tinker with a little bit. maybe it's gone too far for some people. is there any evidence americans

are torn on this, schizoid on this issue? >> we are not a little bit, we are cut into pieces. we are in fragments along the floor. we are proud of our traditions, very proud of free speech, showing half americans and more millennial's believe the first amendment is outdated and it's getting more and more. the fire that attract ivy league students without euclid forcefully shut people down. it was coupons notably we can't bear the idea for today so it's interesting, in my opinion the

signature of this country is last 65 years, free-speech environment in the world by large margin. we have as a that said the noise of free speech powerful medicine, it makes us responsible for ourselves and for taking care of the free society but now i think a lot of people are turning to the government and think protect me, stuff that person. stop that person from saying things and when you asked whether we are torn from that is part of it. if you're looking to social media. allow me to say what i want but stop him. >> and social media, facebook, twitter, they've almost

recognized the kind of hate speech and propaganda and lies that used to be censored and there are those who say, facebook, excuse me -- has become the biggest sensore now n our country. how do you feel how that is coming out with their counsel, banning trump for another six months because of his insightful speech? nobody has lied more on facebook or twitter from a former president but yet i'm somebody who's written about censorship, must be horrified at the idea that we would be censoring any kind of speech of the country.

there about to do. give me your thoughts on that you remember the sorcerer's apprentice?le >> yes. >> i think when you start something and it looks good and you be careful what you wish for. that is the subtitle that i talked about. little bit of background, the way our country was set up that the government at least atas ths time is almost no power must it's a direct incitement of violence, copyright infringement, very, very limited whereas the private sector we think about restaurants, cafés that, mostlike complete center speech. don't tread on me so because the

normal model of censorship has been people versus the government, there's an apprentice where private world has encompass the world, their private companies so they don't have to center anybody. or they can censor everything if they want. each offense, the government has no power so what we want, in many ways they are rightfully seeing what's going on on social media particularly when we have a president himself and his minions shoving hatred and buys into the system, not just on facebook, who want social media

companies to do the dirty dirty work and there's no one happy about this. he might look concerned when he shows up in the sun every few weeks. nobody is happy about this than zuckerberg or jack dorsey because every dispute makes the money. they set up the system to foster conflict because that keeps us on the platform and targeting for ads. the censorship was set up on this principle but then was facebook went into europe and had to absorb more restrictive rules of europe, he's reimported back into his country and i think we can batter facebook all we want but they are going to do what they want and is just

whitewash basically saying look, something bright, look over there, we are taking care of it. stay away from it. >> i want to remind those of you listening, you can ask questions, put them up on the track and if we have time, you want to try to make time from we will be sure to ask erica your question so thought on theus cht and i'll keep an eye on it. while we are on social media, you see your role, any kind of push for government regulation of the internet social media companies, doesn't scare you? >> it scares me terribly and that's not to say i made crazy but a lot of the things i see on the internet.

there's two words that arise and that's donald trump, it was the first amendment that effectively saved us fromth him. he is an absolute enemy of speech and ready to jail anybody who spoke against him. he called the press thend enemyf the people 5000 times. it wasn't hyperbole, he actually believed that so as we talk about government regulation, this is oness lesson of my book, always look at who's doing the regulation so if we think government can regulate hate speech or fakeness or other terrible things, to benefit us we always hyperlink what if donald trump had the power? what if jeff sessions have the power?

what if josh hawley have that power? rose on the crud and dirt off the internet, i'm very concerned about the solution being far worse than the problem. >> there are people who talk a relot about cancer culture, political correctness and this is a reaction to movement worried about hate speech -- it's altogether but what you think about term, cancel culture and political correctness and the impact of academia? >> the latest example of court cancel culture i've seen payment yesterday where kentucky derby, that horse, what's the horse --

medina spirit once a drug test. the owner of the horse is mad so he said cancel culture. quit canceling out my horse. i got the tweet here -- >> what does that have to do with -- what? >> nothing. politically correct or woke, there are terms we use that are bleached of all meeting, even the word unconstitutional. that's unconstitutional. we use these terms to label things are something we don't like. >> on the other hand, there's a renewed concern about the n-word and reports that offend people, transgender attacks but i've also seen an overreaction in academia, professors being fired, a records professor recently during a zoo meeting

with a couple of students, one student asked to read a key study. reading the case study, the n-word in the study, it created a huge, it was leaked, a huge thing. both of them apologized and sounds like something out of cultural revolution but they are ordered to apologize or else. he was reading and quoting certain words have become -- >> radioactive. >> radioactive and fair words. isn't intention important? take the word -- if you say it

in anger against a woman, that is sexist and awful but if you say it's a female dog, just an expression and there is a town in france with an e at the end, which as you know, removed its name from facebook because facebook was set the workers and their, a title on their facebook page. isn't there some power here? >> yes, we have lost our minds. facing massive fines, gargantuan fines, billions and billions every hour. their human contact moderators they hire bob class action suit

because they are made because the working conditions are terrible. the human contactac moderators e programs. so no human thought i'm going to off the town they saw a term and it was gone so the town renamed itself but there is lack of intention trying to keep up with regulation and over removed, that's a real problem and also cancel culture talking about the n-word, yes, that word like swastika like a number of other things are simply radioactive. it will be cleaned out, it won't

happen. they have forced beyond what they have signified. arthat was a law school, they we quoting from a judge's opinion including that word so her intention was simply to discuss the case but we have a touchiness where that can't be allowed. talking about cancer culture, i want to get more subtle than that because i was making fun of it, in reference to the horse. a lot of people use cancel culture as the revenge of the power, those who don't have power can get together and call out or make some accountable for doing something hideous for having done something hideous or same saying something wrong it it's a way for people to use social media, gather the power and bring people down.

it sounds good in theory but what emerges is the good old-fashioned mob there's a lot going on and a lot of lives ruined. maybe some wives should be ruined but a lot more or not and yes, professors are getting cleaned out, students and expelled because administrations are terrified of getting cancel by the mob. >> it is censorship by mob, is it not? i'm just making the argument because so many do, i'm not saying it's my opinion. you can't have some censorship in one way or another.

>> censorship used to mean exclusively actions by the government against people, that's what censorship typically names. a judge or a cop or something else. a lot of real meaning. >> i don't want to get away from social media rightt away, do yu have an opinion whether section 230 needs to be modified or eliminated? explain what section 230 is first. >> i spent a lot of time here about this. it's called 26 words that made the internet, what it basically says is everything from facebook

to all trail and yelp and wikipedia, anything involving content, the people who host are not liable, they just let happen. it was typically the old world that wasn't always the case by any stretch but it basically allowed interactive internet and it blew up. section 236 being blamed for all the crud on the internet and pervasiveness of hatred and uncomfortable yes, on some level no. the answer to the question shouldn't be modified, i guess

my feeling will be overqualified no. you can't be modified very well. we still have a strong first amendment like it or not and companies such as facebook have a and if they want to amplify something or not amplify something, that is their right to do it. i personally think we should get where they brief stop a targeted advertising model, cannot you but women have weight loss ads. [laughter]

facebook knows you are pregnant before you are. [laughter] in the targeted ad model, the target ads for them and i think that's the corporate in many ways. we can add more safety under the first amendment and we forget after five years of litigation telling facebook of me others to allow this, don't allow that, do this or don't do that, that will who's in court. >> i think are right. it's all about appealing to our worst selves never i get somebody like you my opinion, it's an endorphin in my brain. >> or when you hear your enemy

is worse than you ever thought. i asked my publisher, how did you target my book on social media? they told me, personality characteristics, my stupid book. [laughter] >> that is funny. >> no one out of my, someone out of that might agree with me will see it. >> so nobody march with a white supremacist books with valuable? >> they wouldn't even know it ever exist and that's terrible because i would love that they would. >> you have a great story about that. a fellow marching with them in charlottesville, allowed to say whatever he wants, that's free speech. then what happened? >> he was more than allowed to say what he wants, who's protected by police, protecting

from caring back to you torch. this lowlife was protected as much as you or i are and the hot dog restaurant where he worked, he doesn't have a job anymore. one more thing, free speech isn't so respected by. the owner of the hot dog place, we respect our employees, most expect responsibility. go to berlin, standing in front of it and they raise a poop and

with intent ten seconds, they are arrested short perfectly illustrates how various countriess are. >> almost every day, these stories are everywhere. it doesn't have to be about movies, there were two gum buckets sent home from school -- oklahoma wearing black lives matter t-shirts and the schools that it's outrageous, they can't wear this propaganda and the mother t said the boys were like seven or nine, they are saying my life matters. what so offensive about that? that's one example. book publisher say we don't want to rewriteub history for include the ugly stuff, we don't want to

teach 1619 product the new york times has because it revises what we thought we knew. what you think of that? that censorship, is it not? telling people what they canan wear, telling people they can't read that, it's the same thing. >> absolutely. you and i chatted about this a couple of days ago, extremely sad to me and overaggressive scoreboard, the school board responding to pressure, black lives matter with terrorism as scared of african-american identity, i suppose. and there is now legislation,

you can't teach for our viewers is massive magnificent piece of research and presentation talking about fundamental slavery. there are now bills forbidding, hoping to forbid that project, they will who's on first limit. in democratic societies, as well as authoritarian and we are just seeing the latest manifestation. >> we have a question, somebody is watching, karen asked, do you have any suggestions for what citizens canan do on the topic

abiding censorship? what we do, how do we as individuals in this country to respect free speech, we speak up when we see a kid sent home from school? is a down to that, that small of a place? is refusing to be on facebook as they continue to use algorithms to track marketing desires? >> this isn't a good answer, i held back in with both from trying to fashion myself judge and jury for how society can arrange itself from a we are filled with a lot of conflict and it didn't start with facebook.

we went to a war in iraq based on the fundamental law saddam hussein was behind 9/11. decades and decades where we thought african-americans, is has been living with us for a long time. the response from you have to put yourself in harm's way a little bit when there is a professor in your school who you don't agree with, whose views you find a.getting canceled or fired for reviewed for something he or shet said, you have to argue against your own interests because i deeply believe this, without a robust environment in which we hurt, in which we get a

little dizzy, we're not going to expose the lies. every day i would wake up and say what fresh hell is trump talking about? i'm so pleased he's off. i also know like he did on twitter, he expose what a maniac he was, ae great reason why we got rid of him. >> i love the praise you have to work against your own interest because i remember not to's marching, in the 60s? the aclu back to their right to do that. they were carrying nasty flags serious i thought wow, that is true to your principles andru fe speech.

you are a lawyer. >> head of the naacp voted with the majority to protect the rights of the ku klux klan calling for his own murder, the murder of african-americans. marshall was able tos. seek i he this, it scares me that i'm not going to take the role of shutting down another person's speech so what can we do? speak out against them but not to echo what we already believe. to do sometimes feels, if it doesn't hurt, it doesn't count. >> i think the first amendment itself is understood and the hardest thing, it's one thing to say have a right to speak but

it's another to say you have a right to speak even though i hate what you are saying. the founding fathers put the first amendment in the constitution, ittu wasn't a snap deal, it wasn't the first thing they thought and also it wasn't entirely free speech of the time. >> ben franklin of all people, said when they pass first amendment, no one has be idea what they were doing. i forgot how heoi put it there s no debate during the convention someone brought up. the idea the late 18th century, it's extremely difficult. this has emerged in the last three years, i don't want to

freeze history but we also have to appreciate our achievement, the founding fathers, seven years after the first amendment was passed, we passed an act which outlawed all of this so the first amendment was passed as tension and it's taking shape. i'm just worried that we are living in a highly partisan environment and people areon hurting. i acknowledge that. i am as well, take it to simply just i was just rewrite it, we should move more slowly and carefully. >> i noticed you said if it here. [laughter] a joke. [laughter] a good question and

we do have time to ask who says do you have an opinion about mark twain and the n-word? is an huckleberry finn. the publisher didn't want to use the word imprint product historical and represents the time in which he lived. without it, it's not the same. this is encapsulating free speech censorship, time moves on historical perspective, what was the attention? it's all there that particular thing hundred, boards of education are banning huckleberry finn. it is a classic, what you think? >> as we see that word, a word born in hatred, born of everything wrong radioactive i should say the character of jim

the n-word is used in front of his name all the time because that was the style of the speech at the time. >> yes so if we went through huckleberry finn, that word is probably used 1600 times in that book, and we, must just say we take a sharpie to it. that would only call further attention to the existence of that word. when you erase something, you simply highlighted. this gets back to what we are talking about in the beginning, if we set -- jim, it would only make the word that much more loud in our head so the idea is not going away. to get what mr. jackson said, i agree with you entirely.

that book not only is a great literary achievement, it's right mindset during that time. i think twain was actively using that word to the extent he was to highlight the injustices. he was not using it to call for violence or hatred. your comment about intention matters a lot here. in short, you can take a sharpie to the word but the word is still that we need to deal with the hate behind the word, not the word itself. >> i think that's the important place to sort of wrap this up and that was a great question in which to do it. this obviously is a debate that's going to rage on for centuries because as you have shown, it never goes away. try to center and it never works in here we go round and round. now we've got media which has weaponize the whole debate and

we shall see. time will tell, all of those latitudes. so i think nick has rejoined us, i want to thank you, eric, dear friend, for writing this book. it's wonderful, i cannot emphasize how many stories we were able to get there but they are there and wonderful and it reminds you that history is full of heroes who stood up against real oppression to keep freedom of speech going andp to me, that's the great take away. >> a really great villain as well. [laughter] >> henry the eighth, the guy who married people alive but anyway, for the good stories. thank you for writing it and thank you for being with us today. nick. >> absolutely. everybody, the book>> is dangers