>> good afternoon. welcome to the cato institute for another of our continuing series of books. this particular one i have been eager and look forward to it for many months because i knew that this book for some time now, knew about the podcast. this is jacob mchangama's "free speech" subnine which is ouavailable now and it has been available for couple of weeks

and is getting a very strong and appreciative audience i would say in the united states and its in europe also. we think it's great and we have known jacob for quite a while. and who better to have just a conversation amongst like-minded people with some differences then john ralph from bookings. what i'm going to do is give a brief bio. you bio. you main know both of these people from your work. orboth of them are good people d by the way i am john samples the vice president here at cato. you all know me. i thought jacob would tell us something about the book and we talk about the issues and turned a queue in a little while. jacob mchangama is the founder and executive director of -- and the host of the podcast "clear

and present danger" a history of free speech and not surprisingly a highly recommend that to you. it's a very interestingng podcat series and available still. his writings that they disappeared in the economist the "washington post"'s foreign-policy and other outlets around the world. he was in copenhagen denmark. john is a senior fellow in the government studies program and has written eight books and one that really made me feel bad. and many articles and public policy. his1 mini-perking publications include the 2021 book the constitution of knowledge in the sense of truth as well as the 2015 e-book which i think more and more is coming into its own political realism that money and

backroom deals and democracy and the rights all things for the atlantic and received the 2005 magazine award. jacob could get tell us something about the book and what led you to write it in the podcast and some of the things you found that i have to say are striking effort. you really conquered the very demanding very broad set of issues and very hard to work with because it's 2000 years. >> thank you to cato for hosting. i really appreciate the opportunity and it's almost exactly two years since i was in washington and i was speakingg t

the cato. john i think we were having a dinner at a time where in ithindsight may not have been paradise. >> it could have been a super spreader event so what led me to write this book i was in liberal denmark ended my youth free speech was taken for granted. it was the air that we breathe and in the 90s in the early 2000 we didn't even think about it. i think most people didn't. it was part of daily life and then came the epicenter of the relationship between free speech and religion and someone who became a conservative mind the editor of the newspaper published a number of cartoonsph

depicting the prophet mohammed which led to a global crisis and he lives with around-the-clock security because of the threats. i think many in europe and maybe around the world think what is this principle is an enlightenment value and the foundation of democracy and is it really that important? w,allowed people said these cartoons are punching down the volatile minority and that's not what it's supposed to be about. that surprised and shocked me a little bit. what i also saw was generally people on the right were free speech absolutist when it came toto the cartoon and the government then adopted a number of restrictions on religious free speech and everyone knew it

was targeted as extremist muslims and limited free speech. i was thinking the very principals that we held up in the cartoon and a lot of peoplen the right said it's important that in order to safeguard our fundamental values we have to look at these particular extremists and that led me to try to investigate the whole history and what does it mean when society is based on free speech and is this principle worth all the fuss? i foundt that it was. i think looking at persons that have a more attitude about the aculture wars and tainting everything when you look at it through the prism of the past. the book really i locate the

origins of free speech and democracy's 500 years ago where there were two concepts of free speech and the one of it is quality of speech which was exercised were all freeborn male citizens have a voice in debating and passing laws. perhaps even more consequence was the policy which is seared that the speech which allowed a culture of tolerance and free speech so if you were setting up an academy debate basically teach philosophy that was not particularly fond of thehe democracy that allows you to philosophize like aristotle so the tolerance of socrates could

go to the marketplace in athens and he said and athens you are free to criticize the constitution but in spite of the endings you could only place it is an institution and that still the litmus test of free speech when you're able to criticize the system under which he lives. obviously by our standard it was not radically egalitarian but it was very much in egalitarian free speech. i contrast that with the republic where there was a much more immediate top-down approach where you'd have sent -- cato

and cicero who believe in free speech. mostly for the elite and not the roman citizens did not have a right to address it at the way this citizens it. these two concepts have been intentioned throughout the history of free speech. when the public sphere has been expanded to technology or the printing press radio or telegraph or political developments? it could be a democracy of giving the vote to women to the poor and racial minorities. there has been an elitist push back against this idea and the threat that the mob was -- the information that had to be filtered by the elite because otherwise you would go to

basically. that's a very important that the system the book. another one related to that is many today see free speech is iinfringing on equal power relations. it may be the most powerful engine of human equality and every single press group or minority has relied on free speech and principle to further their cause for equality. in this country i spend a bit of time on how southern states in the 1830s adopted the most draconian censorship laws in american history in order to counter appalacian system. so take virginia declaration of

rights. it was the bulwark of liberty but in 1836 the law says something like it's a crime to deny that the masses have a right to property and it's a crime to inculcate resistance to among the whole laundry list of ways to try to counter abolitionist ideas and on the other hand you had frederick douglass was born as a. had the universalist idea of free speech which he said would basically destroy and he added free speech does not depend on the color of your skin or the size of your wallet and the writer freese. >> she's a precious one especially to the oppressed. i will say that is another theme that runs through the book. i'm staying in a hotel in

lafayette square are very close to it and in 1917 and number of women activists were burning an effigy of woodrow wilson and they were arrested and fined the were arguing for the right to vote. i remember thinking about that in 2018 when i was living on the upper west side with my family and i took my son to the museum. we went outside and tens of thousands of people were protesting most of them women shouting obscenities at the president of the time and the nypd was there to safeguard their right to criticizecr the president in terms that were probably more crust of than those that went before them. i thought that was really at the time of free speech had furthered the rights of groups who were previously persecuted.

john is spoken very eloquently about how that was also the case for the movement. when you see huge increases in tthe exceptions of marriage tht was putting into jail and one by people using their first amendment right to do activism to appeal. the mass thing -- the last thing i might want to highlight is ultimatelyti b i believe that fe speech the health of free speech in any given nation depends more on a culture free speech so the first amendment was ratified in 1791 and it hasn't changed in wording but in 1798 you could go to jail for criticizing president john adams and that would be supported by people like hamilton and washington in the federalist whereas with mjefferson and madison are on e

other side and then you go to laws prohibiting appalacian -- if you go to world war i supreme court is completely fine with sending people to prison for it 10 or 20 years for opposing american involvement in world war i. and you have to get into the 50s before its consistently protected and reaches the threshold by the end of the 60s with ohio and a high threshold for that viewpoint in that reflects the change in the culture attitudes and norms among americans and you see that in famous works.

he is as concerned about england as he is the censorship of the magistrate. society's tendency to impose its values is a danger to free speech and george orwell said some of the same things. that's why worry for this country because in my view both sides there are probably more than two sides but it's eating away at the culture of our free speech in this hyperpolarized partisan nature ofme american politics which i feel will have a downturn effect and affect how the first amendment is constitutionally protected. so that was unexpected for me. >> very good.

john would you like to comment? >> thank you john and thank you cato even though most of our viewers are on line. the only thing i don't feel good about it in the introduction he didn't mention my work on the subject. new attacks on free thought was published by whom? >> the cato institute. >> that the cato institute and its even than that because there's a second edition john and i because i was a publisher of it for cato. and don't forget the audio book. spectacular. i owe a big debt to cato because at the time i couldn't get a person to publish the book and here we are 30 years later.

it's a classic which is what we call bucks a word nor for 25 years. >> they were so much money fromq chicago so it sold in the second edition sold quite well. >> i'd like to say if few things in the first t is about the book in the second is what we learned from the book t in the third is about the environment we are in right now. the first thing about the book is to get it, buy it and read it and it's not only readable in conference if it's the only thing like it. unbelievably until this book there was nothing to read of the of free speech up to social media. it's all here. medieval times there were occasional outbursts and very adjusting thinking only to be suppressed, the enlightenment a long history of seditious libel which reappeared again and again it's just a fantastic book. i can't say enough aboutno it. it will be a touchstone for you and it's also a lot of fun.

the second thing what i learned from the book are what we learn from it is that the idea that the government should not only allow. actively protect speech and thought which is seditious,, offensive,, or just plain wrong the idea that we should protect that is the most counterintuitive social idea of all time bar none. if you talk about that to someone on the street they'll say what's the matter with you? it's also the single most successful social idea of all time bar none. it gives us the peace that freedom in the knowledge that builds the society.

because it's so d deeply counterintuitive it took 2500 years to build in the form form that denoted as jacob just that the current form in the united states is very young. it's extremely young. the wish of the founders who wrote the first amendment was more than today's thread what i remind people of what i hope they take away from this book is defending and protecting this radical opposition requires getting up every morning and explaining it from scratch to a whole new generation. our kids will have to do that in their kids and their grandkids, every single day and we just need to be -- because as this book shows you where doing incredibly well and i'm not sure jacob would agree with that compared to example my grandfather's time the greatest novel of the 20th century ulysses was banned by the government. it couldn't happen today.

right up to the present however we have a couple of challenges. if the challenge to jacob me and john and to all of us because they are quite unconventional. we used to think of free speech is something that we protect against by sensors primarily the government. free speech in terms of legal protections and harder in america than anywhere in the world. could thats a be said? >> and i think it may be about to get stronger. because thet challenges we face don't support that thought. one is disinformation and the other is what's often called cancel coulter. systematically of social coercion. disinformation is not about 'censorship.

it's about steve bannon trump's former adviser who actively put it putting out so much so many lies and half-truths and conspiracy theories and exaggerations and it turns out platforms like social media tailor-made for this because their business model is to maximize eyeballs for revenue in theim way you maximize eyeballss to look at conspiracy theories in outrage. what we didn't know when the internet got going was we thought it would be an open forum and a place of ideas and we didn't realize how easy it would be to manipulate this environment to make it systemically toxic. now well-known false stuff travels faster and further on line. it's much less fun to click on. that is not above is that you

can tackle it with traditional free speech in fact it does the opposite. it harnesses free speech and weaponized is it and turned it into a weapon of mass confusion and chaos. and i think jacob and i can talk about this particularly the eighth we have the disagreement on it because i think he's kind of the which facebook he sees as a platform to adopt them relative first amendment and i think that's impractical unsustainable and retrace a lot of the rest of the mission which has to a do with being a communy of business so i think there will have to be content moderations and it's a hard problem of getting it right. it's a lot more complicated than just saying free speech on line. the secondary which is of importance so called cancel coulter the weaponization of social coercion. that's a always been around.

tokyo came to the u.s. in 1835 and where the biggest threat to liberty in america was not the government that social coercion he called it. madison worried about the same thing. john stuart mill worried about it and it can be tyranny of the minority. relatively small groups of people that are ready to whack you on line and demolish your rereputation and go to the searh engine so you are called a racist and the first thing any employer sees demand that you be fired and even small minority of people can make life for this country and cause ag widespread chilling effect. at that moment two-thirds of america say that they are reluctant to say their true beliefs about policies for fear of social and professional consequences. two-thirds and that's about 60%. that's approximately four times the level and it's hard to compare. four times the level of 1963 at

the height of the mccarthy area could the reason is the mccarthy era there were a couple things you couldn't do and you'd be pretty safe. in the canceling era you don't know when you were safer when you are not and they want to make as their own policeman. we are always afraid to step on a new landmark. this is the widespread chilling problem in a p disinformation problem or their severe stresses on the environment and our ability to associate falsehoods and they are not being considered with the traditional bounds of free speech. this book in a way is a ladder thup to the next conversation. >> i think i want to go back to the disinformation issue and you can respond to it. which is also sometimes called misinformation some kind called

disinformation sometimes called fake news and in general called speech around a wide range of historical backgrounds. what i want to pose as yesterday was a seminar at the university and scholar was talking about youtube. and what he saw were partisan differences related to speech or facts or whatever. sort of an insider outsider perspective.e. most people were scholars i think. at the e end of the seminar he posed the question which was that is the category of disinformation a way for us to basically put on it populist

uprising and if that's true. we consider that? and if it's true is that normative way good and more than normatively good as a possible? and no one really engaged in either one of those. i do think as john talks about about -- and it is a problem. there are differences. suppression of speech is needed for business but is it normatively good and it needs to be discussed and thought through. i had the feeling i might be a engage in putting down an uprising. >> you want to explain what that other role is? >> and directly for facebook oversight. i have to say

[inaudible] >> what i want to say is i don't have any evidence or anyone has said what facebook is doing in content moderations is a political effort to head off a politicall movement. and i should also say that i have inside knowledge that there is no evidence that the book is pursuing a. it's just not fair. however when you think about the big picture and beyond that the scholar it's trying to pose on this is it may not be possible. it may not be possible.

your perspective is an interesting one. >> yes so acknowledging that freeee speech comes with the cot is essential and the idea that free speech is an unmitigated good under all things is not a persuasive idea. i think social media amplified, i don't think it's generated a polarization. it is amplified disinformation and however and i think for instance january 6 for instance that probably could not have happened without the lie. conspiracy theories had been

regurgitated i don't think it would have gone so far pretend the other hand i'm more skeptical about the share of disinformation. number of studies show the share of disinformation which is how you define it and that's a problem in and of itself is a narrative after the 2016th presidential p election where people were manipulated. also those who are the most likely to be persuaded by conspiracy theories are those who are already deeply partisan ideologues. if you're already someone who elhillary clinton and were attracted to trump you are more likely to share his philosophy than someone who's an independent. those are important new wants

his but you know so even if it's not as effective as we initially thought in absolute numbers if you convince to her 3000 people that the election was stolen it helps motivate the transfer of democracy it's a real problem for a state like the u.s.. how do we handle it and this is where thee european approach isa cure than the disease. the irpin approaches to say you have to remove illegal content or content which is then defined within say 24 hours or you will risk being fined up to 50 million-year-olds big effect of that is that basically we have done a number of studies which shows in russia turkey venezuela all the states it's

ththe case and with that approah they do in bad faith but we see the collateral damage to all kinds of other speech is enormous. i think more in terms of technological development. i remember i'm old b enough to remember the blogosphere and the centralized platforms that were the frontier of the digital age and at the time no one cared even if the block had 1 million followers it didn't affect the entire ecosystem on the internet because no single blog can act as a choke point or ms disseminator of false information the way that ocentralized platforms with millions of people can. i think centralization is one potential limit and that's the lesson of history free speech.

free speech in europe one of the key reasons for that was they didn't have have a constitution that didn't have a law protecting free speech but they had ar political center and the dutch republic had a lot of autonomy so if one tried to censor someone they could skip state lines instead of -- set up shop elsewhere in the cultivated a culture of tolerance that was comparatively much more expensive than elsewhere on the continent. another thing is to provide users more control over content. and sort of allowing ngos to develop. for instance take the issue of anti-semitism. some people believe the campaign to boycott israel amounts to anti-semitism wears others say this is legitimate debate. facebook has to make a decision.

should this constitute anti-semitism or not. the adl which tents to promotese an expansion -- the free speech you can develop filters and shield yourself from what you feel is anti-semitism but it would affect anyone else. authors are flooded with misogyny and they may not reach a threshold of illegal speech. nonetheless creates a disincentive to engage on social media. you could f have exposure that took away from misogynist terms. there might be women who say i want to see what these are saying.

i think that's more of a solution in the centralized approach where government imposes standards on the tech companies although the tech companies themselves will try to navigate through the stakeholder management and what we have to do to avoid being summoned to capitol summoned to capitol hill every other week and that what i call in the book the elite of free speech. ultimately as david hune ultimately did a pessimistic case for free speech is very optimistic in the 70s or the 60s in the uk. you use free speech is a blowtorch to attack everyone and radicalize his supporters.

free speech the radical speech is more dangerous to allow the government to clamp down at the unavoidable cost of free speech so that's how i look at it. i would certainly not say facebook and twitter we shouldn't look to what's going on there but there other solutions that solidify content moderation that we should look at. >> out of response to the point you made and to extend that maybe into question for jacob on what he just said john i think the question about populism versus elitism that the university professor asked would have been more appropriate 15 years ago than now because what we have learned in the last few years is that what we are not

seeing on line for example is the voice of the broad public and what we discovered is out equally manipulable other platforms are by small numbers of dedicated actors and the internet research agencies in st. petersburg and ambassadors are able to use a combination of controls and search engines to make a small number of activists look like a consensus on line weather they are small numbers of ideological left-wing radicals who are able to protect themselves is much bigger. reason we have a constitution and i wrote a book about it is an unstructured marketplace of ideas it turns out instead of giving everyone equal of the conversation and you get manipulation by small groups using tools of information warfare. that's why they go to so much trouble for all button rules and

norms of science mainstream journalism academia law that set upo all these systems that require us to be on better behavior to expose their views and don't agree of those to make it difficult for one faction to take it over is that the expense of others. constitution does the constitution does and the systemic world. it's naic -- they give to think. expanding that to a question for jacob if that's the case that there do need to be a rolls out there they shouldn't be government rules and i agree with you on that. i think that approach is rigid and top-down and fining people for heaven sakes class i don't think that will work and i felt don't think it's desirable. it seems to me what facebook is doing is the right approach. we have had earlier problems like this. the rise of the offset printing in the united states which led to huge amounts of hyperpartisan

fake news in the u.s. media and others and it took a little while to build up institutions and norms by publishers and ethical norms in journalism and journalism school. it seems to me that's what facebook is doing. let's see if we can come up with a framework and rules and will be transparent to tell people what they are. they will be voluntary in the sense that you don't have to be an face. if you are here this is. that seems to me like what has worked in the past. do you disagree with that? >> ti don't think there's a degree of transparency. it would be extremely difficult to find out what's going on and i also think one of the suggestions we have made is that the term that facebook and youtube and others should be

inspired by, the only thing that approach is something at the universal level is what i call the tyranny of american socialism. these are global platforms and what's at stake in the u.s. is not the same as in russia or iran where social media is the only way you can -- the social propaganda and censorship. on issues such as to be inspired by international human rights norms. that's what they tried to reach but when we analyze the content moderation of facebook we find on for instance our delete a comment. it was 1.1% that violated it.

we also found what is being kept up. it was less than 0.006% of comments that have been designated as. i think those types of research looking at it in that way is an important antidote to the message that a lot of you are hearing that the platforms are flooded with identical content. i'm not going to say that our research is exhaustive but but this is not the case. facebook will be tinkering with different models. w we should be experimenting with all kinds of things. otherwise the more distant

allies model would be better because then you have more intention of various platforms. facebook is a huge incentive to government in over powers to say we want you to respect our norms and our values. raand say what is being allowed. said there's certainly a case for decentralization and the question is g not to be a gotcha that just curiosity driven. the world we live in where facebook has a large market share would you rather the facebook oversight board exists or not exist? >> i think it's a a good idea tt the oversight board exists and they do look at all the decisions you point to. the problem is they work at scale. i don't know how many you've made so far but that amounts to

a nanosecond of content and can those content moderation decisions reflect the jurisprudence if you like? >> i want to go back to john's point. firstt of all i'm not defendinga young structure for the first amendment and the public forum isis structured. facebook mentioned in 2016 the police were there to protect the protests. and you also had not a threat otthat was not significant but t was protected by the first amendment and the constitution. the row question is we have

facebook and perhaps more importantly the video. you have the proper platform that is global with about 2 billion people on it every day with 2 billion posts or whatever right? then you have things on it that are false speech. who is to judge? is that facebook? is that maximizing shareholder value's? the facebook answer in part has sent disputed posts to these groups that decide that. the various kinds of tamils that look at the speech and decide

whether it's information or disinformation. you know when mark zuckerberg became concerned s about disinformationor and so on he sd things you don't want a platform is we don't want obvious hoaxes and conspiracy theories. there was an assumption that is very easy to tell what that is. in the american political system it leads to incitement and incitement is very hard to prove. then there's the question of truth for small numbers of better determination of facts but i hasten to add on top of that my impression was that that's not exit the way it works is as john mentioned there's the problem of scale. we have 2 billion people,

100,000 disinformation posts is a very small number. and if you have a panel of an oversight board that has to go through these things and determine the truth of them they are going to get very many. this scale, the one thing about social media is the speed and the scale this scale turns out to be how you manage the system. actually the algorithm at those levels it's inevitable. you have to decide what kinds of mistakes you want to make. i don't think you know i don't think there's an answer and we've been struggling with it. finally the point i would make is this, this is not a point

about the current administration the could be innate administration. you have a president and administration that will be runningt for re-election. those are known. sometimes they want facebook are others to take down posts. and we are going to call the police and make them take that step down. everyone knows that this is on tv asking for regulation and will be considered by congress. the president is important that process. he could defend regulation or he could advance it. the job owning process what is truth in that context and the government is involved in or first amendment doctrines and can act on them.

and if i will mention a couple of things and areas of agreement that are important that could easily get missed and are often missed in conversations. jacob said something which is important and true. i will. >> at a different way. according to the social media and facebookok for example they are not the chief spreaders based on my readings of the literature of misinformation and disinformation. the sniping clear that they are number two. a.m. am radio and especially cable news especially on the right. farnd and away the biggest bettr of disinformation is the oldest politician but they can use all kinds of channels and we saw that in stop the steal. i was accelerated i'm sure by social media. when you have a former president of the united states plus a politicalva party plus conservative media plus dozens of lawsuits all pushing a big lie it's going to get through.

i'm all for focusing on social media but i think it's a moment that there's a tendency to blame technology first. when the principle for disinformation and misinformation apply to every channel, and their there are many channels. kudos to jacob for pointing thab out and i agree. i also agree by the way that the goal of disinformation doesn't succeed primarily in changing people's minds and that's not what it's trying to do. it's primarily interested in polarizing and confusing in its very good at that. the second area of agreement when we did get to social media i think it's important to establish rules and boundaries and norms of conduct and a i recognized this will be hard to enforce but i also think in the long run the solution to this crisis won't be in around of policy design. it's going to be in the realm of product design and figure out systems that may slow people down before they tweet ored like

something. don't you want to read this before you re-tweeted and change the way the algorithms work in terms ofve promoting. there are lots of ideas about that and i think we are looking at systems that were designed for an age in which it was all about getting eyeballs and the price is high. the systems are now looking for ways to integrate more guidelines and guardrails into the news experience. we don't know what that will look like but i think we have the general direction and that's where the bulk of the improvement will come from. >> i'm going to direct this away from america. one of the things i've learned that facebook is hard for me as a person working at cato to get beyond. one thing i've learned and i loved your response to that is

if i wanted to advance free speech arguments the worst thing i could do for my colleagues that didn't come for thehe unitd states to say the word first amendment or the united states because there's this response of parochialism but also people really do go for the content of free speech rather than the american experience. what is your general sense outsides? of europe and the unid states and how is the free-speech story going? >> i agree with john that compared to 50 to 100 years ago we are living in the golden age of free-speech not only in terms of legal protections and outside methe u.s. legal protections may not be as strong as the first

amendment. their constitutional protections and their human rights that are hard to uphold and enforce these norms and unitary and states have to play -- pay lipservice to the idea of free-speech and norms. however i would argue the golden age has probably decline. a piece in foreign affairs week ago about the free-speech if you look of the numbers it suggests that free speech has been declined for more than a decade. although authorities and tape -- authoritarian state-run ours is a surprise because going back the first things authoritarians will do is try to crush democracyy and the government is to go after free-speech. that's how they try to establish authoritarian regime. liberal democracies do you

free-speech is a threat and the foundational valuene and there'a whole wave of repressive laws and democracy and one of them for instance the european commission wants to defy is a crime which would allow the commission to define across all 27 member states and set the minimum rules. that's a big flashing warning sign of democracies are thinking about free speech. and unfortunately i don't think there are a lot of organizations in europe that are pushing back against this. i argue inin the book that thiss based on the term which i

borrowed from a brilliant professor. they use it differently from him and the ideas one i hope will share that we never want to experience totalitarianism and genocide in europe were anywhere again.t you need militant democracy and idea advanced by a german professor went to columbia and a wrote about how democracy had to get tough and couldn't worry about -- and have to clamp down but i try to show on the book the republic even though was very liberal compared to the empire under bismarck it was actually quite to extreme speech and allowed laws and regulations that we never ask us today. let me give you an example. a german state could ban a

newspaper for up to eight weeks if it spread false news or attack public officials aret undermined the government. the newspaper was started to patrol particularly the jewish high-ranking police officer and claimed proudly it was the most frequently advances newspaper in germany. the reason he started with it was banned from speaking in a number of germano states. the most anti-semite in history was the editor who was justly executed by the nuremberg trials because during the war he explicitly incited to genocide

and i don't thinknd anyone would agree that was covered by freeme speech. he did spread these thoughts libels about jewish people and he was convicted of the number of crimes including in 1929 he was sentenced to two months in prison cheered as hundreds of supporters were leaving the courtroom and telephony or later the increase the share of voting occurring in norm berg the hometown. the radio did not allow communist -- and alarmingly i think the used the position in law and the constitution of their public that was supposed to protect democracy and use that to abolish democracy. again that's a flashing warning signy even for all of the good intentions if you adopt laws

that are restrictive of free speech they might very well be used by enemies of democracy against power and they may not even be efficient at countering the rise of these. .. access to publication. it's access to attention, which you can swap. so on the international front. i'm not i think you'd agree with this jacob, but tell me a development that seems to me to be global very much happening in the in europe very much in the us and the thing that breaks my heart most about th sweetheart is the widespread belief the free speech harms minorities you see them gather together in college campuses in the u.s. and justified minority

traumatized,ing and being made felt second-class citizens until they don't belong on the planet is a minute was morning very different world 1960 and we could not have donee speech any said earlier, i bang on this again again, frederick douglass senate tomaselli, mandela senate only all said without free speech of the civil rights movement would've been a bird without wings i think the messages being lost in the court losing the battle internationally to mckay well maybe initially bureaucracy unfortunately i i think that a t of states where they face censorship and repression, theyt intuitively get free speech restrictions will harm the

powerless more than anyone else but i think this idea is prominent unfortunately and i do know the best way to handwritten historical approach what was before as part of the solution but i would also know that free speech restrictions in hungary and in poland, actually being used against the lgbtq plus community initiative you something and so, look at the history and the uk, when they first adoptedis this law to tryo protect minorities from hatred in fact the hatred the very first one convicted was a black prisoner who had said something about why people in a powerful white policy and not persecuted so it created more but you see

also more and more categories of the protected and what you will see is those groups will then use it as a weapon against each other and they could be lgbtq plus community pretty is hate speech against religious conservatives and vice a versa and that i thank you so really dangerous because that's way to the gutter and were entrance community now is very - tactics in the britain and u.s. in a recent o heart. >> before we go to q&a let me ask you a follow-up in one of your points, and so is international civil and political rights of the united states they find about 30 years - in 1992, the icc pr, human rights law and we document contains two interesting parts and relates to freedom of speech and a relates to the global

elements have free speech now and article 19 very much like the firstme amendment somewhat like the first amendment on the one hand and article 20, section two, includes a part that requires them to essentially man hate speech and mandates if they agree to do so and that is also speech, more aggressive warfare and clearly all the debate about this in the 60s but clearly can see article 22 came out of trying too not repeat the national social conspiracy in germany and so on and yes, there it is l an international law, fr the strong statement of freedom of speech and requirement preventing which by the way, facebook has and others have a strong community standards about hate speech and so looking back

some of your research company you think what side of the international law sort of went out. >> is a good question and the interesting thing about this ♪ ♪ down the rabbit hole that basically, advanced by the soviets and tried to get a similar declaration of human rights and roosevelt, fought vigorously againstes it and whether they succeeded initially but then they losttl the metal with theal international covenat of civil and political rights. and so basically was based on ov1936 soviet union and article 123, of the constitution an obligation to free speech which should tell you something about the country, solid was not above using that and so, that is or

has been it dangerous sentiment but i would say that in the past ten years or so, this provision has been very narrowly by number of someone like david k was the u.s. special from torque of freedom of expression and opinion and even the human rights committee, the sort of tried to narrow it and i thank you so becausen in the human system is so obvious the number of states aresy trying to gain e system and expand the interpretationli to prohibit hae speech and basically allow them to prohibit dissent which is exactly what eleanor roosevelt warned about in the 50s sort of more hopeful now, but the loophole o has been somewhat cle i think the obama administration played a crucial role that in 2011 when the body gives the

campaign by putting states to adopt and more limited interpretation of that but it's interesting for me as someone is vigorously opposed p to that thy often rely onts international human rights is s a say, for instance when it comes to the least that option, and then sort of having to reapply on a provision basically, proposed by the soviet. >> so we have microfilm's here and want to come down and show everyone until here and online, so they can hear your question, please do so and when you come down, before you offer the question, choice of whether revealing who you are or not, we preserve immunity here and

however if you david bowes,. [inaudible]. >> let me put my mask back on i want to go back to something that jacob said early on which was free speech is more important than first amendment i sort of agree with that in on the other hand, seems to me that seen numerous incidents of the past few years in the past few months where distinguished writers are public intellectual have said something going on in canada or britain or continental europe, that would happen youir because we have first amendment and maybe there's a question, what is the relationship when the first minute and free speech and if somehow we give canada a first minute rightig now, doesnt change their culture.

>> i think you're actually right, i think that the relationship between my point is that the culture of free speech and tolerance that underpins the legal protections deterrent is likely to follow behind that but that is not mean that the first amendment is of no consequence and i thank you so very much apposite was i think that you know, vertically this point in timen in america, without a strong protection of the first amendment, i think you would see speech restrictions being weapon eyes and a very stage that would use them these restrictions to pound away at those they deemed iod logical sound i think that against the so-called critical race theory, that you see among the republican states in education and i think it would

probably be adopted in a much broader level and you can actually see them when you asked them a question republicans about the degree of tolerance for the difference kind of speech, the process in the republicanan say of and extendig up into misinformation the democrats are much less so and so i think the first amendment ismp really important i just see that at the level of protection but he rode of the underlying culture of the free speech is eroding housing to a member this is something is a paraphrase given thetw choice between strog speech laws and weak free-speech culture and strong culture he would take a strong culture as being more important thing.

>> itself things in chapter omthree measure. >> yes sometimes asked, honey feel about holocaust and germann and i tell people as i don't really get my underwear and not about it because germany is a special case worry more about is the culture of the country of the environment for free speech and if they do, and a few i think i probably won't do a great deal of harm and probably will be accuse all that much as really the culture, every speech is the first thing we have to have the situation. >> yes, unfortunately, germany has a culture of free speech but what about my book is that the german culture free-speech is very much just one we will go down that roadd a whole really

concerned about the marketing access but a way that perhaps they leave ammunition for the forces with their approach to speech. so make a h report mark but some of your earlier remarks. >> you can probably use it for the free-speech and friends who global situation and the problem with it is that he said that enough liberty this only applies to civilized countries and barbarians cannot do it so is important when we can rescue for the purposes and is important to note they were off-base there and really because otherwise, think about if you or someone else other than europe or the united states and you come across that and are you and

advocate of free speech after that. [inaudible]. your no reason to remember. >> i do. [inaudible]. >> this organization, and congratulations. he also mentioned mutual friend and we said was that he's also kenny still there. [inaudible]. and my question is, where was i. ny gifted do that thing about the cartoons in every story seems that publishing because

they're very upset with her forget to tell that actually, muslims cannot innocent danish liquid publish the educational children's book and, within muslims were that they were coming in and they did not know what it was. [inaudible]. and teddy roosevelt, when say that had withdrawn himself from making drawings involve kind of books for children and then in the interest on any settlement gosh, do we really have these problems in denmark will find out in the story was that went

out to this organization and went to denmark and he said no, okay no this anti- muslim propaganda and the ones that did, just try to improve and we will not have visited to denmark, rest is historye really liked not the one who threw the first punch beennk a no i don't think of the would throw punches. [laughter] and audit old and what is often he wrote very eloquent piece accompany this, and he argues free-speech intolerance and no individual or group claim special protection and effective sort of bigotry of sensation to

say that special rule would apply for they were to be part of the society intolerance would have to apply and yet you have someone like the german famous author was comparing cartoons to - which i thought was despicable in many ways and of course the cartoon, pardon the pun, one of the very few scene showed solidarity and publishing cartoons. >> so theue question, so be calling on facebook who work on the obama work at the united nations as you talk about heresy and so on, and he and i were talking one day about things and she said youou know, we were gog

into those here in arguing free-speech, the one group that you could always count on and have at your side the danes have to say i keep contesting us and sunday i will find an intolerant pain aer liberal dana cut he cod betroth to keep your eye out and as you come across a danish person, probably sure you videos and censorship. did not goel so well the guy who did it, the king was executed we headed and had his hands cut off in public read. >> peokay. >> that was free-speech.. >> so you want to get to some online questions here, many of them for many people are concerned about section 230 and

is essentially why facebook has the right to all of this coming also the walls of liable and someone but there's a couple cases thank you so too complicated to get into given our comments about these would be very interesting for the sole question of culture, one person points out these are anonymous questioners you know, this information and so on, and the problem, if they did not have people who wanted it, come to me, it would not exist in second then, traditional over the last few years anyway, in response to what about the education to what extent can education actually free-speech doctrine is based in the ideas and ultimately can exchange views suppress views to create distortion and ultimately

will be better, maybe not perfect but itt would be better than it was going to be otherwise let's of the ability to critically think about these questions is important and so. >> i would be interested to hear more about that no comeback. >> them too think about woke education and the other one was demand. >> is a demand question in a way. >> yes, there is very large important element and demand conspiracy theories and disinformation people wanted it often gives him insider knowledge and purpose mission and about reason we have a constitution is because there are so many ways to manipulate us, intelligence provides no protection at all, there are dozens of cognitive and social biases and takes a lot of discipline to keep us away from those things collectivee action

problem may be good or fun for an individual to consume spent conspiracy theories but it doesn't take much to despoil the epistemic environment that's where we have rules and r structures throughout society, and not just that room. the second point was education seem to have benefits because that does not sound like a controversial statement when you put it that way but what i have in mind is that a lot of the problems run social media how to do just with the design of social media per se but the environment which they find themselves which is a population could never been - as a tool is at systemically naïve about doctor t professor produces a lt of people doing and must be popular. and seems to be helpful and

consider doing it the education on media literacy especially middle school and on into high school and education seems to help mentor preparing ourselves for the pitfalls that we encounter in this environment. so, yes, i am a fan of those kinds of measures coming fro' the united states and personal think they should be just about the government, but i think that we can be better prepare ourselves for encountering the environment that we arere no and we can hardly prepare ourselves for it. >> yes one of the things that i regret not including the book is what i see is a real problem with free-speech is that free-speech you know, do not provide a sense of meaning and purpose does not bind us together in the same way the religion national does or

doesn't particular circumstances and so like free-speech in the opposition to the british and the british attempts limit to sense, would bindog them togethr and were advancing free-speech at the liberty at the british slavery. but when the revolutionary war had been one, free-speech settling became edified in the political and philosophical differences and suddenly have sort of the on-site civil war between the greatest generation of americans you have sort of hamilton arguing that we should be rigorously enforced against anyone slandering malicious propaganda against any government officials they should be prosecuted those responsible should thrown out in the u.s.

and medicine rights and eloquent sense of the first amendment but then what happens when jefferson wins presidential election, you know in his inaugural address, gives a great unifying speech instead of owning it he sort of says you know, we should not prosecute each other 71903, his name is drying through the mud by the press and here is a private letter suggesting might be a good idea to prosecute some of these federalist papers in the course and some of them actually are shows that even if jefferson is liable to run in the i called milton's her basically, the unprincipled elected defensese free-speech ad that is something that all human beings are very vulnerable to and so we come sort of our original sauce that we've been thinvolved in his intolerance ad we voted sort of dispatch on top

tof the switches free-speech that's constantly having to be updated to build a firewall around it and or default will overwrite it in effect intolerance and then i think the circumstances, nationalism or religion will provide a sense of meaning and social creation and no circumstance free-speech will then suddenly be to that sense of social creation that binds us together this critically dangerous in times of uncertainty of political organization and some more or less the time living right now. >> i do not speak up on on behalf of my friend come i don't thank you so probably disagrees pretty closely with what john thinks about these matters but he thought there was good to

suppress political movement essentially that you needed that argument g and john gives you oe in his book but beyond that, he raises the question of is even possible to commit this kind of suppression and essentially enpolitical movement and i would say that's an interesting question because remember, he may be that you can suppress speech as scale but the problem with that is that you also inevitably suppress a lot of speech that is protected and this is facebook problem not going around and seeing something to say oh that's bad there's 2 million people, you cannot do that. there's a process. >> and i think it's a strong command question and just no one believes i don't think anybody seriously believes you can

suppress speech in the current environment and the question now come the reason that i he wrote the constitution of knowledge think the reason jacob is doing the work is book, is figuring out where the guidelines and card roles going to go and we can incentivize in such ways and humanity has been doing that forever is not about suppression or rewiring some particular political sense and is figuring out how to be our better self. >> i think you have interesting places to look like taiwan for instance, you basically have some flow movement which is sort of hackers basically squatted parmesan one of them now technology and they basically are working on sort of updating institutions to the digital age and trying to build the institutions that will increase

rather decrease the decrease trust which will the corporation and local level especially quite useful if youou want to decide n a neighborhood should be no bike path this platform can people come together and decide in these issues and basically areas where people beat rather than looking at disagreement or rewarding that. >> another field called cognitive immunology which is clooking at creating parables d communities to slow the viral spread of misinformation lots of interesting thinking but i will correct something place in earlier, nobody things that you can really suppress theli political movements in this environment is what he does ina think it is china and we have not got it to china yet but talk about a challenge in the

paradigm. >> you can suppress speech, it is just thates you get lots of false positives as well. >> and i think that you know, chinaa is probably i would say, the soviet union during stalin was probably the most state at least in 20th century china is probably current china is probably winning that because the technology is being used as a a way but the worrying thing is that china is creating these digital states supporting his technology and also, you know, the quote is that the catalyst will send us the rope in which they will hang and that's a little bit trueue with some western companies reno going into china and billing the great firewall google working secretly to try a to build a search engie that incorporates the dictator

of the chinese communist party in their mission is they will be able to control it almost every detail and i think that the positional censorship is really really astounding but they have more devious ways from flooding online community with propaganda to having around-the-clock details surveillance which is much more probably effectively to control what people say if you're being watch in real time all of the time and would you be not be afraid to speak out and have social consequences if you lose the right to travel we lose the ability to get a promotion.

... speak to themes here. so, please don't take offense if i didn't get quite to your question as always there were more questions and kiddo is a private institution so we can censors we wish that's happened here before it is the auditorium, but i think we got to the issues that were raised in many cases and it does show the importance of the social media and the free speech i think and the book is free should we have free speech. the book is a free speech for the author is jacob. he has been here at cato today. hope he comes again many times. our friend john rauch has also commented today. you should look for his book the constitution of knowledge. and thank you very much both hear the auditorium. it's great to see people again. i grouped on that.

[applause] and lunch is upstairs. and you can buy books outside too. a co- book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern former republican south carolina governor yuan in bassett or nikki haley shares her book if you want something done. she talks about the women she has drawn inspiration from throughout her life. then at 10:00 p.m. eastern university professor chris miller traces the history of microchip technology and how it has become the most critically needed technology globally in his book chip or represented by democratic congressman jim hein. watch a book tv every sunday on cspan2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.

♪ expanded and now it's a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up that is because of its with live string of four proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span tv networks and a c-span radio. plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> there are a lot of places that political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network