>> thank you.

author nadine strossen the last time i sawe you with the in memphis in july and about a people would a people with the wondering when the former president of the aclu was the libertarian convention. why read their? first of all peter that you not only. she to the choir. i think that would be a of my time so i speak to just about anybody that is anybody who's interested in open-minded to hear my civil libertarian perspective. but that emphasis on it because there is a lot of overlap between civil libertarians and libertarians..

if people think they are anti, got to have the opportunity to persuade them that's not the case. >> you are also a board member of the foundation for individual rights and expression. >> i'm a senior fellow. until recently the acronym stood for the foundation for individual rights in education. a little bit more than a year agoan recognizing that they speh suppressive atmosphere that enforcing was becoming pervasive on college campuses was spreading through our larger society and it received a lot of support and encouragement to expand its activities supporting free speech beyond the campus at theh same acronyms but it now standsr for foundation for individual expression and it became one of its first two senior fellas.

>> how did free speech get embedded in ourpe constitution n the history of free speech predates not only the constitution that the revolution and it's a wonderful history written by steve sullivan is a professor at nyu. it's about how the very vigorous experience of dissent through all forms of expression not only publications but also famously the boston tea party and liberty poles and demonstrations. that was embedded in the whole concept of rebelling and becoming an independent country. even before there was a constitutional or bill of rights that expressly protected these freedoms they were completely

arranged in our sense of self identity. indeed the united states of america could not -- without the most robust freedom of speech and dissent. >> at what point in your career or your life did free speech become the work of your books and your work at the aclu etc.. >> certainly long before i had the ability to write ahead and i made sense of individual expression and the more i read the more i see this as being innate and in humans pc example around the world through history that it starts a think as offensive self-exploration. what is the essence of my beliefs and my identity? i started asking those questions when i was ates the very beginng of my educational career.

these are kindergarten teachers and my parents. i was very thrilled when i learned there were legal protections for what seemed to me instinctively and intuitively should be a fundamental human right. >> in her most recent book free speech and mickey cooper. place speaker and type ofpl regulation. walk us through some of these s legal issues involving free speech. >> the united states supreme court first thoughts important to note the court will not become protective of free speech and tell the second half of the 20th century. for most of our history the first amendment with this wonderful theoretical characteristic of free speech

was a practical reality especially for people who are dissenting of protectingy government policy or regular subject to censorship. certainly continue to the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century and no coincidence peter the famous warren court under the leadership of chief justice earl warren which was very protective of civil rights also began to strongly protect free speech because censorship is being used as a tool to suppress not only civil rights demonstrators themselves but the national media which was covering them. our free speech jurisprudence is relatively new. it's very fact specific because the first amendment contained in a pro. only general statement congress shall make no law abridging freedom ofof speech. not every restriction is an abridgment.

and not every abridgment is unjustified. the court has developed five criteria that regularly takes into effect to evaluate whether any particular speech restrictions are constitutionally justified or not. it's really important to stress a strong is their current free speech protection currently is, it is not absolute. so many detractors of freedom of speech including many politicians and sadly many in the media and many students have this distorted caricature version of free speech in their heads when they say oh with ridiculously absolute and no exceptions can ever be made and you free speech champions can't deny the speech has caused harm. no, no and no.

the jurisprudence essentially said the speech that is the most dangerous may and should be restricted. censorship that is the most dangerous should also be restricted. the criteriast you mentioned are ones that are regularly taken into account in the appropriateness of the administration. thely constitution itself only refers to freedom of speech and thean press. since then ever time there's a new medium the supreme court has two decide whether it should be subject to the samesa protectios that the press traditionally has received. most recently regarding on line communications in general we have many important cases before the supremes court now about social media and particular.

>> and when to expect those cases to come before the supreme court were to be heard? to the supreme court actually heard a couple of arguments in these cases the very first day of its current session. these are hard cases so they are likely to take to the coast of the end to the courts trim next summer. >> why speaker import when it comes to free speech? >> it cannot be taken for granted that whoever's speaking in whatever individual or group has the free-speech rights of the way the jurisprudence has developed the supreme court has said regardless of who you are and regardless of what group are organized -- or group is organized and you have a free-speech right. this is very controversial among the public with respect to corporations in particular. there's a lot of anger about supreme court decisions

recognizing for-profit as well with not-for-profit corporations have free-speech free-speech rights. that's one of theig reasons peoe are so irritated by the supreme courts controversial decision in the citizens united case but i to tell you among the justices that was not controversial at all. they disagreed about other aspects of the case in particular whether the regulations were justified but all of them have unanimously agreed that we the people who have not only freedom of speech individually. freedom of association and the right to perform organizations that will amplify our individual speech for more than 100 years without controversy and has agreed corporations to have speech rights. >> are you supportive of the case. >> i agree with most of it and some of the details about

particular regulations i might disagree if but the key points that receive the most public controversy i think the court would assess the right.i number one that people have the right to organize for purposes of engaging in speech and member two spending money to advocate for political causes or to advocate or to dance election of the candidate is a form of expression or more precisely a restriction on the amount of money that you can send to those messages is a restriction on free-speech rights. >> nadine strossen in the late 1910s oliver wendell holmes used the phrase you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and enforce the supreme court justice at the time.

>> i'm smiling because he gives me a great opportunity to paraphrase that statement. you do what 99.99% of people do. you left out really important word and once i was a panelist who years ago with stephen breyer and he did the same thing to you are in good company and he's in good company but what he said is you may not falsely shout fire in a crowded room. that gets to the essence of the justification for restricting speech. if the theater is on fire want people too shout it. in that context the speech should be protected and that gets to the point that we to look at every restriction in the very fact specific way. what is the benefit of allowing

the speech and what is the danger of allowing the speech and that crucial word makes a difference. >> should speech be more restricted during times of national. >> exactly the contrary. the hit came from a federal district court that ruled a saber blade on the aclu challenged to a puerto rican law that was covid-related disinformation cast in the dna of the pandemic. the aclu immediately brought a lawsuit to challenge it representing two prominent members of your profession who invested in journalist who said especially during a time of national crisis where there's a terrorism attack or virus attack is especially important for people to have access to information in the chaos, the fog of war the controversies and lack of precise information and

details about what's causing this virus is important for reporters to be uninhibited in doing their best to pursue the truth but as a you respected reporters that even the most conscientious journalists is sometimes going to get it wrong in granting a request that the law be struck down violated the first amendment made that point. he said it's especially important when we are facing a national security threat to public health threat that freedom of speech being least inhibited. people have a right to disagree and to debate and have alternative perspectives that government should not be the arbiter of truth. that will be bad not only for individual liberties but also for public health. >> nadine strossen served as president of the aclu from 1991,

to 2008 and1 still involved with the aclu aclu. >> is on the national advisory board forna the aclu. >> i think we will tick some people off because i'm going to show two examples. here's a recent press release by the aclu saying they submitted a motion for leave to file an amicus brief arguing that an overly broad gag order imposed on donald trump by the judge in one of his court cases you were supportive of former president trump's ability to speak and i'm going to read from your first book in defensive. we are as committed as any other feminist to eradicating violence discrimination against women. we believe suppressing words and images will not advance these crucial causes. to the contrary we are convinced at censoring expression would

do more harm than good with rights and safety. you adamantly opposed any effort to resict speech not only because it would violate their cherished first amendment freedoms but also because it would undermine our equality, our status, our dignity. >> thank you so so much peter. that second statement was not only for me but in the peril we indicated it was on behalf of a group of women in an organization called feminists for free expression. we were taking a different perspective from one that was very common among feminists at the time and the lightning -- late 1980s and earlyrl 1990s the assumption that there was an inherent conflict between women's rights on the one hand and freedomet of speech for expression or on the other hand. if you support women's safety

and women seek equality which i certainly do somehow you must report censorship of expression in the stigmatizing term of. a group including an aclu women's rights project ruth bader ginsburg we are doing exactly the opposite and experience. if you get thehe government powr to censor expression that power is predictably going to be used disproportionately expression is of particular important for advocates and women's rights. you are referring to my book published in 1995. the title is defending, free speech, and the fight for

women's rights a lot of important information thatat subtitle. i think the publisher was slightly provocative. early this year the press got in touch with me and asked to republish this book is part of the nyu class series which is a new preface because there had been so many recent attacks on expression in particular expression about gender identity and orientation. and the term has been wielded by executive officials around the country who are attacking under that rubric attacking the books by lgbtq+ individuals. the term has negative connotations and most people

tend to use it for whatever expressionon they believe is rit that let us not forget if we empower the majority under that rubric to go after oppression that is unpopular it's going to cause danger to a lot of expression especially for advocates of lgb tq writes in what i would call reproductive freedom gender equality. >> nadine strossen is social media and a new complex -- every time there has been a communications medium going back as far as the printing press those of us who support free speech inhuman rights get very excited. this is a wonderful opportunity for more people have more permission to participate.

those who have a more let say authoritarian or communitarian bent are concerned about giving information to individuals and control. every time you have a new medium government responds by trying to suppress that medium. that definitely happened with the whole on line medium in the 1990s when it was widely known to the public and politicians in the biden's is not about pearl. immediately congress can a law called the communications decency act which supported by almost every member of congress on both sides of the aisle. signed by then-president clinton. fortunately the aclu succeeded in her lawsuit which came to a landmark supreme court decision

called green eyes and janet reno and enters the aclu and this goes back to one of the first questions you asked me to be supreme court consider whether the context of whatd to do the first amendment free-speech right should be as robustly protected as it has been poured traditional. media. with 90. on line expression should be subject to the highest levelhe f this first amendment protection. this gives the opportunity to meet the basic point that responds to one of your earlier questions as well. freedom of speech is not only those rights of the individual to choose what to say and what not to say but it's also the right of individuals to choose what they listen to and what not

to listen to. if we suppress speech on the new medium such as social media that ,is impacting not only the speeh rights of the medium owner itself from the platform is of the speakers who want access but also all the rest of us who want toto hear what the speaker had o say. that's why allegedly donald trump his support of the aclu brief which i read and respect for a way the jazz of the gag orders went too far. that was violating not only the free-speech rights of donald trump who is the leading presidential candidate would you like it or not, that's the reality. that's why this is especially important for the rest of us to hear what he had to say to inform our decisions as voters.

>> any dean facebook x google by the companies you cite an example that in 2018 facebook blocked a post containing passages from the declaration of independence that were referring to merciless indian savages. doesn't facebook have that right. >> yes and what you are talking about is a really important distinction between a legal right and whether something is right as a matter of morale for public policy. my boys hate for example why we should resist it free speech and not censorship it? i approve government suppression on hate speech but i urge everybody to not engage in hate speech themselves and not listen to or be supportive of messages

that other people are issuing. by the way as i defend the right of newspapers and c-span2 make determinations about who should have access and who should not have access to important platforms but i also disagree with the judgment made in the exercise of that power and the right for companies to be more free-speech friendly. think i want to quote nothing w strengthens groups more than censoring them. it turns theinto free-speech parties for expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity. >> i'm quoting their a nobel prize-winning chinese dissident. i'm not going to try to pronounce his name.

he was imprisoned for having exercised their would he protected free-speech rights here. i think it is one thing to say we absolutely deplore ideas that are suppressive women's equality and some of donald trump's ideas to use an example. you are suppressing those ideas by suppressing speech that you are -- because throughout history to this day there has been a very widespread phenomenon sometimes called the forbidden for now month sometimes called the streisand factor for temple involving barbara streisand that when you try to suppress expression if paradoxicallyy brings people's

attention to the expression and leaves more of them to listen to it than otherwise would have happened. barbara streisand many years ago showed on line photographs of one of her beach for properties. suddenly interested in those photographs enormous bike. unfortunately we can look at the example of suppression of speech that backfired. it was in germany from 1918 to 1933. the republic had many laws against hate speech which is strictly enforced including against himself. it was the gag order for a couple of years not allowing public speeches and anti-semitic

humor of publications with terrible anti-semitic tropes and cartoons. he was prosecuted many times and received criminal convictions. sadly we know this does not suppress the rise of ideology converselynv they loved these trials because they became propaganda platforms to them get a sense of sympathy they otherwise may not have had. >> to take that example, no tter who we are as individuals and to a societal group they belonged we can and must increase our capacity to resist the hurtful potential of discriminatory work that targets us while also becoming more sensitive to such words that target others. is at the call for censorship? .. this is a call to recognize en

if we had strict censorship laws, ideas will find a way to express themselves. hateful ideas will migrate from one social media platform to another. people also come up with different means, -- meme so youou are never going to suppress the controversye oh potentially problematic harmful speech completely. therefore it's like any prohibition strategy. you cannot completely eliminate the supply so you have to work on the demand side. try to encourage people to not seek out that hateful disinformation expression. orand if they are exposed to it, to reject it.

too not allow it to tear them down if it's a matter of imposing their dignity. i put my money where my mouth is. there is a tremendous amount of anti-semitic speech that has been especially virulent in the wake of the october 7 hamas terrorist attack and israel's response. i actually was commissioned for a piece which i differ the free press, even for anti-semitic speech. one of my friends said to me it must be very hard for you a jewish person whose father was actually holocaust survivor. many of my relatives were murdered by the nazis and it's not hard. knowing the history including the history and nazi germany i absently convinced no matter how well intended censoring anti-semitic or other hate speech might be it is doomed to fail. the only hope for resisting the hateful ideas and the hateful actions is by going after the

ideas which you did through education. going after the action you do through enforcing criminal law the nazis literally got away with murder they were not sufficiently punished for violent attacks. the fear in the united states we have many reports of assaults and threats against jewish students and others recently that have not sufficiently been punished. >> i wanted to address that. what do you say to the jewish students who are feeling threatened or have been assaulted because of the issue going on in gaza and israel? >> as it said earlier freedom of speech is not at all absolute. first of all an actual assault or physical attack is completely illegal and must be punished the full extent of thehe law. the expression that constitutes with the court calls a genuine

threat should be punished is not constitutionally protected. and here's how the supreme court has sensibly defined a truth it's a little bit narrower than the general way we use in everyday speech. when the speaker is targeting a particular individual or small group of individuals and intends to instill a reasonable fear they are going to be subject to attack, that is a publishable truth and should be punished for this is truly important, peter, the speakerke could not have to intend to actually carry out the attack. it is enough to target reasonably fears being subject to attack because that already inhibits that person's freedom of movement. we read many accounts of jewish students not only being physically assaulted clinical one such really disturbing account at my alma mater, harvard, which must be investigated and if the accounts

are accurate there must be pupunishment. we have also read many accounts of theso language that arguably meets that standard for that. at cornell earlier this week there was an arrest made of a student who issue very anti-semitic threatening language that specifically identified members of the cornell community who weren't using a particular dining facility which was frequented by uejewish students because it honored kosher. that i believe a more important to the fbi and other law enforcement agencies agreed at satisfy the standard for a true threat. efficient to arrest the student and t subject him to criminal prosecution. >> a another issue we havero red

reports about law schools pulling offers to students who have signed on to the anti- israel letters. these students were expressing the free speech and now they are being punished professionally. >> a stickler about this, peter. number one it is a difficult issue. butt number two the legal parameters are quite clear. on the one hand students will have a free speech rights to engage in the most obnoxious controversial viewpoint as long as you do not cross the line to targeted threats or harassment and other kinds of protected speech. number two, employers have no obligation to hire any particular individual. that said i should note that our state and local laws that do

inhibit employers from discriminating on the basis of political belief. i would advise that acting consistent with state and local laws. but that does to the harder question, even if you have a right to do something is it right to do so? we have had many, many conversations recently about the problem of canceled culture as to free speech culture but what that's trying to signify the essence of it is this. we should exercise some self-restraint and advocating or implementing overly punitive, disproportionately harsh responses to people whose speech we just lie. even if we have the right to do that and the aggregate it creates a kind of coulter or people so afraid of adverse

ramifications. in rampant self-censorship. nothe during to express their views on certain hot button topics. but unfortunately surveys continue to indicate that throughout our society including on campus where free speech should be most robust, people are so afraid of being subject to cancellation measures including loss of potential jobs. but also social stigmatizing ano ostracizing. they are not discussing the most important topics. surely the october 7 attack of the political situation are generally very important topics. i would urge employers to exercise some self-restraint with the goal of fostering free-speech culture. one other point which is these young people are not fully

lodeveloped in terms of the portions of their brain that enable us to make judgments to such an extent of the united states supreme court is actually held imposing the death penalty and other harsh penalties on minors isut unconstitutional. college students are not minors but evidence indicates many of them are not yet fully formed thoughtful individuals. i believe in a more merciful, hopeful for storage of justice approach. i think we have been to punitive in our society that does not do any good in terms of likely rehabilitation and constructive ctreintegration into society. even people who have committed

homicide are now being offered restorative justice approaches. advocating violence even when they are so young maybe we should earn favor of giving them another chance. that's on a matter first amendment rights that's a matter of what is the right thing to do for society as a whole? >> you mention canceled culture which is a topic you addressed in your newest book free-speech, what everyone needs to know. and good afternoon to you. thank you for joining us for this book tv in-depth discussion with former president of the aclu she is the author most recently of free speech, when everyone is in a pride that in 2020 hate why we should resist it with free-speech not censorship came out we talked a little bit about her first book defending pornography. free-speech, sex, the fight for

women's rights came out in 1995 is being reissued next year i think you said by nyu press. if you would like to participate in this conversation would love to hear from t you (202)748-8200 if you live in the east and central time zones 748-8201 rate for those of you in mountain pacific time zones if you can't get on the phone line and still comment try our text number 2027488903. that is for text messages only. please include your first name and your city if youna would. at some point will also scroll through our social media sites. if you would like to join and make a comment that way you can do so. now nadine you mentioned your father was captured or taken prisoner during the holocaust. tell us about your parents.

my father, i am so proud of him. he was not just a holocaust survivor he was an opponent of that nazi regime. after liberated by americans. let me say a word about that. under the pernicious racist nuremberg laws was called a half a jew or a jew of the second degree. this brother it was a jewish and i really admire my maternal grandfatherr who was under so much pressure to divorce his rcwife and bravely stood by her under an enormous amount of economic, political, and other pressure. when my father was imprisoned it was not only for the crime of being a half jew but also because of insight nazi political activities.

before that double discriminatory factor, he was slated to be sterilized. the nazis had a program not only of genocide he literally had a date scheduled. one day before he would've been a stair light he was liberated by americans. and by thewa way i learned from one of my hopefuls individual member of the american military who dug my father out from some rubble right before it was black. that still gives me chills because unfortunately the united states, thank god we do not have death camps but we did have jim crow. this brave man who liberated my father was subject to discrimination back home. all this feeds into my passion for human rights.

as does the story on my mother's side. her father in particular was an immigrant in the early part of the 20 century. he was a pacifist, eight marxists, and conscientious objector and world war i for the crime of objecting to the united states war policy and refusing to serve himself. he is sentenced by a court in hudson county, new jersey where he lived to stand outside the courthouse with his hands and feet splayed against the courthouse wall so passersby and spit on him. >> free-speech was an issue during world war i wasn't it? >> and interestingly enough that was the i issue that gave rise o the aclu. it was the civil liberties and bureau of an organization called

the american union against militarism. the focus was defending free-speech rights of the thousands of individuals or imprisoned or prosecuted simply for peacefully opposition to the war and fortune they do not get there in time to assist my grandfather but it was wonderful onpoetic justice i've been actie in that organization my whole life. clocks under grand harvard, law school- harvard new york law school professional still to this day. >> i took america's from teaching at the end of 2019. despite loving my students and i got pretty good feedback from them too. but peter, i was starting to see the attacks against freedom of speech from both ends of the political spectrum would becoming so rampant i decided it will be even more important to spend my time writing and speaking more broadly about

those issues. freedom of speech, intellectual freedom, civil discourse even more important than teaching my students other aspects of constitutional law. i have a doing 200 public presentations per year since then. if i could also mention i am the host of eight newly issued a three-part public tv series called leavitt to speak it aired starting last" month. it is on public tv around the country and it's also available on youtube, free to speak. stu and give the topics you've talked about, what is the biggest critique? >> i think i've already alluded to it which is i would absolutely support free-speech to the detriment of other values. thank you for giving me an opportunity to reinforce by that whythat is with all due respect,

eight misplace critique. i continue to be fully committed to the full range of human rights. the only civil liberties in the united states but also in the international human rights movement. and i remain absolutely convinced, peter, that without the mostat robust freedom of speech, including freedom to engage in speech that seen as controversial, harmful and dangerous. without that were never going to make progress on any other human rights for you and i may have a certain concept of what speech weai consider to be dangerous. when you look at the pattern across the street and around the world disproportionately at government, not surprisingly consider speech to be dangerous. that is critical of government policy. that seeks to reform and challenge the status quo. that is why throughout most of

u.s. history brick before the supreme court came down to enforce free speech during the civil rights movement from the second half of the 20 century until that point governmenten censorship suppress the abolition movement. the movement for women's suffrage. i'm for unionization. antiwar speech, pacifist speech, socialist speech great lgbtq right speech. basically all speech advocating, and mind you bringing to reality the idealists set forth in the declaration of independence. free, full, equal rights for all of us. >> i believe, tell me if i am wrong. margaret sanger's original brochure or pamphlet was outlawed in the u.s. out like the abortion rights progress advocating at that point she was advocating information to women about their

reproductive function. form is not contraception and she was repeatedly subject to prosecution. interestingly enough some of the aclu's original clients she also was prevented from speaking on campus. which is very interesting because today it would be somewhat opposing a little productive freedom they would call up murder on college campuses are likely to be censored. yet if we want to have freedom for speech that we agree with, we have to be willing to give freedom to speech that we disagree with or our own speech is going to be in danger. so what i want to quote an article he wrote for tablet magazine in 2022 because many campus communities skew overwhelmingly liberal or prressive. but because progressive views tend toat disproportionately

dominate fields that favor workers with academic degrees, self-censorship is particularly acute among non- progressive conservatives,ibertarians, moderates, the politically indifferent, and even old-style liberals. many left-leaning members of campus communities explicitly admit or boast they would deny employment or other professional opportunities to academics with conservative views about public policy. >> yes. this is a pattern that continues to be documented the most recent is the surveying that came out a few weekss ago but with a bright detailed survey of examination of 248 campuses. which showed self-censorship is rampant among students and faculty members alike. in every context included inclug

classes, extracurricularin activities, conversations between faculty members and students.in and interestingly enough these self-censorship does come even on the part of those on the left end of the political spectrum. but not at the extreme left and appeared that said the survey also underscored as have other data that a lot of censorship efforts are coming from the right. does it tend to beat governmentt laws, executive degrees, legislation. the left and the right use are e.the same. so famously college students and faculty members on the left started talking about repressing speech that made themun uncomfortable. or that was divisive. that usually meant speech about issues of race or gender that

were not sufficiently progressive. conservatives would make fun of that nomenclature. mock liberal progressive snowflakes. and yet we have seen laws that have been passed but mostly conservative state legislatures around the country that outlaw expression about race or gender. that makes people uncomfortable or is divisive. they are targeting the 1619 project in so-called critical race theory. so again i'm going to a broken record here as we care about freedom of speech that we agree with we have to neutrally defend the same principles going to protectt speech that we disagree with. the facts speech may make you uncomfortable or divisive is not a reason for censoring the speech either direct censorship through legislation or soccerr censorship through counsel

coulter it's a reason for responding to that speech developing habits of resiliency so it does in fact have a negative impact on is not a justification for suppression. >> it was in 1988 the term aclu played on a large stage of the max lexicon let's listen. lexi is the one that said that, not me and i am the one who says i am not a card-carrying member. i don't want to take away tax exemption from our churches they do not believe that child pornography should be legalized and i do believe in god we trust in our currency.

>> title to opinions we believe in free speech we believe in tolerance but i have a right to ask this question if you respect aclu's so much will he take their advice when it comes to appointing injustices for the supreme court of the united states? would nadine what was the effect using the aclu as a beating post at that time? >> as you might imagine it through a tremendous amount of attention to thent aclu gave usn opportunity including for the national media to respond to those charges. and interestinglyte enough at te conclusion there was a movie made about this, the american president that i illini the candidate who said i am a proud card-carrying member of the aclu and gave a speech we wish of

michael dukakis had given in real life. he said to his opponent he said i am a member of this organization defends all fundamental freedoms to matter who you are no matter what you believe. why aren't you a member of the aclu are not membership numbers shot upward and civil liberty including tend to be supportive. it is not always under seizure. such a vintage of thomas jefferson internal vigilance is the price of liberty. >> of your political views altered in the past couple of decades you are at freedom infested. >> my political views have been centrist liberal throughout my

entire life. but much more important to me then it might views of policy issues are my views on neutral fundamental civil rights, civil liberties and human rightsli issues. i continue to believe that again no matter who you are and what you believe you are entitled to these freedoms and these basic rights. and i will defend them for you. undertaken to defend them. on behalf of the immediate beneficiary vary in terms of their political beliefs. but the ultimate beneficiary art every single one of us. when freedom of speech the late

1970s i came out of illinois many were holocaust survivors resounded to the benefit off anti- let me stress the lead aclu counsel in that case was eleanor holmes norton the longtime representative in congress of the district ofre columbia. she was then a new staff lawyer a young staff lawyer at the aclu. and until this day i saw an interview eleanor gave less than a year ago onvi this topic sayig she is so proud of having defended freedom of speech was a case called brandenberg at the vesame principle involved was a member of the kkk and other

racist organization. the immediate beneficiary that particular case would be a nazi that's a really important beneficiary would be her colleagues and aclu of the the t non- violence coordinating committee and other civil rights organizations. see what let's take calls is been with karl in chicago. please go ahead your own author nadine. >> yes hello. what is yourr take on how polarization, social media and the intervention of a political dialogue increase speech from the recent book the short life of free speech by alice close? >> before she answers that what is your take? >> i have been over a 65 year member.

a big free speech advocate. i agree with it. >> thank you for calling in. >> thank you so much for the great question. she is the first i think the only the aclu she is a very prolific shortly fors the book you site she wrote the book the history of the aclu. the point alice made is very important one. freedom of speech depends on it robust speech protective enforcement that's a necessary necessary having meaningful beyond the legal protection has

educational financial and technological resources. to exercise free speech so supportive of free speech for the online media including social media extremely large audience. no longer do you need to use the really expensive broadcast media look at movement such as black lives matter which existed for a long time make cheaper easier and faster to reach a larger audience jim good afternoon x

thank you very much terrific discussion thank you very much. >> thank you jim. >> my question as a little off what you've been talking about. the 13th amendment cases president trump should not be allowed in section iii as i read that once talking about in those words not anything that's happened subsequently or when happening subsequently did notse use that word it was not if you r instead of insurrection, the argument fails. i am a retired attorney. it seems an absurd argument. i'm interested in your position

in the aclu position. peter: thank you for calling in. nadine: thank you so much, jim. i don't know if the aclu has a position on this. i'm not involved in the day-to-day activities anymore. i can tell you i do not have a firm position because i recognize i have been so focused on just the huge and proliferating number of free speech issues it is all i can do to try to keep on top of those. on this issue, i do know enough to know it is extreme and complicated. it has been subject to enormous debate and an enormous debate and disagreement including among people who often agree with each other and some experts have recently been examined and revised r their vision of the pieces i have read about it and one that was intuitively appealing to meap and again i'm not saying it's final but it was

written by michael mcconnell is a very respected, conservate at stanford and he said we should go easy here. recognizing that the impact that the interpretation that would disqualify someone from the ballot is threatening to democratic values that we should perhaps err in favor of where there's interpretation. this goes back to a point about free speech. not only would this mean that donald trump has the opportunity to run for president. 50% of the public asking to support him would be disenfranchised and deprived of the opportunity to vote for him

so again i don't have the expertise to give you a definitive conclusion but that would be a big question and a big concern that i would have. >> how did you end up being raised in the twin cities area? my father was working for a large corporation to ashland oil company well actually he was initially working for the archer daniels midland company based in minneapolis. we are talking about her, and minnesota origins. they were transferred in that division was overtaken by ashland oil and he was transferred to ohio. i have midwestern roots as we say. a next call is from julian minneapolis. go ahead, julie. >> hi. i have two things.

one is i think the subject of your book and free speech and my favorite headlines these days that euphemism is the enemy of the people. we cannot talk freely about things openly directly along what you are saying about self-censorship. that we are inclined to use thoseth words rather than direct to true words and the other thing about free speech andeg communication and people who particularly disagreed who don't understand i think hate speech is almost pure speech. >> hate speech is almost always what? fear. >> fear speech.

>> if you agree or disagree with that notion in my head. if you have any agreement with it how does the perspective that we take readers of your book and the general public how does the perspective while they are talking hate speech versus they are talking fear speech and they are coming from fear. how does thatt perspective influence response and the opportunity for true communication >> julie thank you for calling in. >> julie those are great points. let me start with the first one, euphemism. self-censorship isn't always bad. if we are so self censoring and using euphemisms for a constructive purpose to convey the same idea but in a more respectfulmo way that is effecte

communication. we try to use the language that is not going to alienate people by the is more likely to make them receptive for our ideas. as a lawyer iti would say that s effective advocacy. if however we use euphemisms for an entire ideas in posted conveying the same idea with respectful courteous manner that is a horse of a different. we should never censor ideas and not only as a matter of self expression but also because that is the lifeblood of democratic discourse. i think george orwell's dystopian novel 1984 and remember the language newspeak which was eliminating work that conveyed controversial ideas with a specific goal at

suppressing the idea. in a famous case involving a four-letter word and i'm not allowed to say it on broadcast tv. i probably can on c-span but i won't. >> thank you. >> we are on the radio right now. and that the supreme court said make no mistake about it. you can nightak on minute to particular worde without also or eliminating to particular idea. >> fear speech. >> is hate speech fear speech and i think you're getting to one ofis the reasons why i say what you are trying to eliminate and i i believe it is not the speech itself but the underlying attitude. you are steely trying to figure

out once attitude and what is causing that person to harbor and voice ideas. a lot of historical and psychological cultural psychological and sociological evidence does indicate what is most likely to lead people to other groups of people to discriminate against them to engage in speech. is fear, fear that these people are threatening. their autonomy. i think of the hate speech speech insurance for the virginia elite enight the right demonstrators. you will not replace us. will not replace us. peopleec feel embattled that thy are endangered that they are

losing political economic and cultural challenge in this country and it is that fear that triggers hate. if we are effectively to de-amplified the hate and reduce it would help to address its underlying cause. and we don't do that by suppressing speech. we do that bye educating them about the benefits that that they won't be harmed in their own lives and well-being and those of their children will be in the growing diversity of our great country. >> nadine strossen julie's call reminded me about partner professor jonathan rider who yet written about. >> jonathan is a friend and colleague of mine. and he is one of many professors who had been sanctioned for using a racial epithet.

i'm not even going to use the euphemism for that epitaph because a law professor has been punished for even using the euphemism so i have a right to say it but i'm not going to be and endanger my career as the accepted human being that even when you have a pedagogical purse -- purpose jonathan is an expert on culture including music and he was teaching about rap and other music where this is a common essential access of lyrics were culture indicates that when it is used by those performers in their communities if it doesn't have this pack. there is a fight to stop the use

of any up a tad in any stigmatizing way but just wish that we could use a more discriminating. for example martin luther king wrote and the start lever -- letter from birmingham jail considered to be one of the most clarion calls for full and equal human right for everybody putting a americans. he uses that a cat to counter it and professors have been sanctioned defining that to their stood lola's the speaker intending and i know you had a program about it recently. another great example where think that is one of the most

powerful indictments of and of racism that has ever been written and the use of that term was to underscore the antiracism anti-message and yet it's treated as if it was coming up at the of a white supremacist. i think that kind of lack of distinction and judgment is ultimately truthfully not good for free speech but more importantly i don't think it's good for human rights and equal rights for other racial minorities. >> the next call michael broward county florida. hi michael. >> yes, hi. hello ms. strossen. you mentioned education of few times and i wonder this can be taught even in kindergarten these are basic community issues and if you aren't educated by the freedom of thought you don't have the ability to think.

she you have the ability and unique biology. in a culture and i salute others who were doing the masses live. you mentioned a great example of that in we trust which is significantlyf affects our freedom to think in ways that we are aware of and a better example as far as truth and relativism is the fact that higherm education system and al the think tanks and are me his base evolution. the evolution clearly says it's competition and we make it a competition where we guarantee 30% instead of doing what we do in our homes.

if we take out the garbage we don't get a b for taking 80% we have expectation of 100%. i used to teach science and i expected every kid to get one or 2%. all my kids got a's in science class. here's an example. >> michael we will happily sit there there. let's get a response from our guests.re >> michael you made many points and let me start for the first one. that is important a rigorous education. it's not indoctrinating that from the earliest educational level is stimulating critical inquiry. it's especially important in the sciences for utah but it's also incredibly important for luetscher and humana to cement the social sciences that we had to educate our students to ask questions, to do research, to be

exposed and to be able to articulate different perspectives. the mantra that i use for my law students but i don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply all the way down k-12 as well. i wanted my students to be able to understand, articulate and advocate all plausible perspectives on all issues. that means anything that can be supported by evidence, by analysis and by agreement. no unsubstantiated remarks and no ad homonym arguments that are based on liking or disliking particular people. ultimately that comes down not only to individual freedom but also our democracy. >> nadine strossen let's follow up on michael's question with his text message from eric and warren michigan.

what's does the dean think about the rights of parents in their children's elementary schools especially concerning dragch queens, and reading material like >> let me start with a general question first eric and that is the public schools are a microcosm of our democracy. local government where we basically give in our democratic republic majorities have the power to elect government officials who are accountable to them. and the school board the local school board and the board of education is certainly a paradigm of local grassroots democracy. that said the bill of rights was added to the constitution to make it expressly clear that we are not a pure democracy. our framers why they recognize

that there are some rights and so important that no majority should have the power to take away from any minority to matter how small that minority might be. the u.s. supreme courtsp has sad balancing these two concerns most decisions get to be made by the local school board but on the other hand if that decision about a curricular matter or school library matter sharply and directly implicates freedom of speech and freedom of speech trump's that. for sample example the supreme court gaveru let's assume the board says we are going to ban all books from the library written by members of the democratic party are written by people are written by women. that would violate the first amendment. in between there is a lot of latitude for decisions to be

made at the local school board but i would urge as the supreme court has that those decision should be made on the basis of considerations such as educational civility and age appropriateness not on whether the ideas of the author or the identity of the author are popular or unpopular in the political majority of the certain community. with that in mind the label has been used for a wide range of educational and suitable material. including we were talking about the holocaust and the award-winning graphic novel because the holocaust one frame shows a woman who was with her exposed. i think the book may not be age-appropriate for other

reasons. to say that that's and should be banned on those grounds is not justifiable. >> nadine strossen's flast book was called defending -- "defending pornography, hate, and freeee speech" is a classicy nyu press next week in steven indiana checks in with you i understand that certain types of pornography can be restricted. if there relates to living person. can pornography that does not relate to living persons of which is generated by artificial intelligence be restricted next interesting take. >> steve i assume what you are referring to is what is sometimes referred to as revenge pornography which is when any explicit image or naked image of

a person is disseminated without persons expressed permission and that's a violation of individual privacy and i'm not an expert in this area but i would assume privacy concerns are equally important for somebody who is no longer among the living as well as those who are still living. in all situations so i think it should not be an absolute prohibition. we to give countervailing consideration so i think artistic representations that have occurred in film. i don't think that be the subject to consent and is not a good example. let's consider on the fact by fact bases and in will not categorically derived from fiction. >> artificial intelligence is and will be a major part of our

life and communications professor dwight ellis. you know professor ellis.or >> i am familiar with this scholarship is >> this question to you what challenges do you see in the regulation or management of free speech during this age of artificial intelligence where counter speech may be difficult to send to case history. >> artificial intelligence is definitely going to complicate thein equation but in multiple directions because artificial intelligence along with all communications tool can be used very effectively to counter attitudes including the fearful attitude that you ask questions about can help us to identify people who have ideas that are based on fear and to craft

messages education and persuasive messages that are likely to dissuade them from those attitudes much more than censorship is. let's look at the potential positive and do our best to harness that. >> mike in berkeley california, thanks for holding and you are on with the author's nadine strossen. >> i'm interested in the intersection of academic freedom and the first amendment and specifically had like to have your opinion on the imposition of required dei statements for the use of academic appointments and promotions. >> could we ask are you affiliated with the university inin berkeley. >> i am an emeritus with the university. >> another and the cut last couple of years ben shapiro and anne coulter have been prevented and are protested from speaking at uc berkeley.

what is your take on that? >> are you asking about minor nadine? i'm asking you. >> i was alumni and i'm a lawyer at the university soaked the university so i've been interesting concerned about what's going on there. there is a lot of self-censorship in. there a lot of issues up in positions students trying to keep other students from speaking. i'm in favor of the full panoply of first amendment rights on campus and what's going on there is embarrassing. when you thank you are calling in. >> thank you so much for your speech for free speech in academic freedom and your question which gives me an opportunity to make an important point which i haven't been able to make. first amendment freedoms include not only the right to say something that we do want to say

that the right not to say something that we don't want to say and that freedom against compelled speech goes all the way back to a very famous case in the early 1940s in which the aclu successfully0' defended the right of schoolchildren not to be compelled to say the pledge of allegiance and to salute the american flag because the supreme court that said that violated their freedom. interestingly enough the supreme court said freedom against being forced to say something that violates your rights is even greater than that for him to say something because it's more intrusive into individual dignity and freedom of choice for the government to force you to the certain scripts. that's the problem with the

statements that are mandatory on so many campuses for applying to jobs and promotions and so forth. mind you i'm not saying i opposed it. that's beside the point.al i opposed a mandatory statement on an issue that is subject to deep debate and disagreement. to me this is is a canon can to the loyalty oath which we also saw on the university of california and other campuses during the mccarthy cold war era and now oregon virtually discredited. i think of future generations look back on the statement and say they are equally to first amendment freedoms. by the way they have brought a lawsuit challenging the dei statements at the university of california community college system.

we brought that on the top of the diverse obey of faculty members many of whom support dei golf. opposed the statement. >> right over your shoulder is your middle book which is called hate why we should resist it with free speech and not censorship but it's showing over your shoulder and you see the big very dramatic hate in the title there. it was endorsed by cornel west and former republican tennessee senator lamar alexander. you must have been doing something right in that book. >> unfortunately as i've said the illiberal attack on free speech are coming from both ends of the ideological spectrum. it comes from all ends of the ideological spectrum. nadine strossen uruguayans spoke

"defending pornography, hate, and free speech" what everyone to know. >> it's been publishing for 20 years in the name is trademarked in the format is question answer which is. completely congenial o me because for the last half-dozen or so years have been given about 200 public presentations per year and they are all in this question answer format such as we are exemplifying today. i hear the same questions over and over because people had the same concerns. i was pretty much able to sit down on my laptop and relive some of the in person q&a experience i have had. >> you sent us a code on the book of people want to buy a prius that cracked. >> i don't know the code and i hopeha someone can put it up he. anybody who buys the book in connection with this author event receipts at discount of

50% and that makes the book costs about $13. it's a 30% discount i think. >> i can't see either but i'm guessing we have it on the screen at this point. 202 the area code if you want to call and talk with our guest author and former aclu president nadine strossen. 748-8200 in the eastern and central timezone seven for eight a-z are 11 in the mountain and pacific timezone and if you can't get on the phone line you want to make a comment try ourex text number (202)748-8903. we will scroll through her social media site in case you want to make a comment that way as well. mark from fort collins colorado please go ahead. >> what is your take about the citizens united controversy and whether political contributions should be protected as free speech and beyond that corporations have bigger

megaphone by virtue of their wealth and what violence is that due to the value w of equality o freeal speech. >> i think i was going to ask you what your opinion was that i think we got it with that second statement. thank you for calling in. we touched on this at the beginning of the show. >> markets are really important point and gives me an opportunity to reinforce something i said earlier. for me legal protection of free speech is only the start. it's not the conclusion of meaningful support for free speech. we have to make it equally available to everybody in the country. we do that in many ways including for education. you don't have to be a wealthy person to reach potentially every other person in the entire world and one of the benefits of

these new media. citizens united dealt with nothing to do with how well they are non-wealthy free speech was. .. r, i should add, as labor unions. it was a law that specifically restricted spending money to advocate political messages if you were a corporation or if you were a labor union. it did not matter if you were a tiny corporation. it didn't matter if you were a poor corporation. if your goal is to make sure that equal access to speech is av equal access to speech is available regardless of how many resources they have it. that would require a completely different law. the political science and research in the wake of the

united wealthy individuals or not at all restricted by the campaign finance laws are the ones that are making disproportionate contributions to elections. i happen to agree with the statement made by the supreme court many years ago. if we think some people are speaking too much disproportionate to others, the result is not to level down the speech but rather to level it up. i am much more interested whether we are talk about corporations, whetheror were talking about wealthy individuals. my concern is how do we level up to make sure everybody, every individual in every corporation hasn't equaled a meaningful opportunity to participate in the debates? what to quote from hate to begin today's concept of hate speech

is often understood as encompassing the expression of anyy idea that some students consider objectionable, our safe space is a good idea? >> safe spaces are a good idea if we are talking about safety against physical assault or true threat to go back to the topics we talked about earlier. but to the extent a safe space means safety from an idea you might consider to be offensive or insulting. that is in fact dangerous. i'm going to quote former president of the university of california who said our job is not to make -- is to make students they for ideas not safe from ideas. in other words we are going to give students a critical inquiry

with the resilience psychologically so that they cag deal with unpleasant, shocking, offensive or insulting speech and not let it undermine their sense of dignity. and not be persuaded by it to adopt hateful ideologies. we went laura smith is a graphics designer, should she have to design a website promoting gay marriage? >> this gets back to that excellent question mike from barkley asked about compelled speech. i think the very same principle applies there as applied to the school children as well for the mandatory di statement. i would say this as a caveat. if there were a type of service or product that is only

available with a few suppliers in a particular geographic area the right net individuals to have equal access to that service should be protected that might warrant in the case you would be talking about the evidence was uncontested. multiple multiple countless providers of that service. she was making selections not on the basis of who is seeking service but on the basis of what message they wanted to communicate. she completely did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. she said there certain messages i won't provide. i would say the same thing a jewish website designer should not have to provide pro- nazi,

pro- white supremacy messages regardless of the identity of those asking for those messages. it went but nadine showed those websites you just mentioned, should they be allowed to be online ande accessible? those pro- nazi et cetera examples? >> yes. the fact you have a discriminatory ideology is no basis for government requiring social media platform. social media platform on the editorial capacity to decide they arere not going to host particular messages or speakers. peter, the same way i have no first amendment right to be an honored guest on this wonderful program, nobody has a right, donald trump did not have a right to be on twitter even when

he is a duly elected president of the united states. but again making that b distinction with the law good public policy given how importantly social media platforms are for us with political discourse. i would urge to those in charge of them to exercise their editorial discretion in favor of hosting platforms and speakers that comply with the general principles even though they don't have to do that it would be very healthy for a democratic discourset for them to do that. >> steve, jacksonville, florida good afternoon. >> hello. a couple of my points havee been covered regarding the predominance of mass media and theinequality of voices. secondly my point about anonymity of hate speech on the internet and i don't think your message addresses that.

generally what you advocate while admirable ignores the disproportionality of the mass media. it offers no social remedy to evil and false ideas other than a naïve hope even more of free speech will lead to good in the end. and lastly, an economics increase of supply off something usually does not lead toot the counterintuitive happy result that people will reject it. leads to give us more that's all have a good day. >> steve you pick so many excellent points it's hard to know where to start should. let me take what i think was your most critical points and i welcome that because i'm always

trying to challenge my ideas. i do think hoping freedom of speech is ultimately going to lead to truth you call it naïve i would say a matter of faith. but i will also say this it's a matter of demonstrated fact that censorship is not going to lead to the discovery and establishment of truth. which you allude is so inherently subjective. just with the concept of hate speech and pornography is so inherently subjective. one person hateful speech one person disinformation someone else's cherished and truthful speech. i think we can predict not only as a matter past experience but a matter of logic is whoever has the power to make the

determination about what is disinformation or what is hate speech isy predictably going to make those subjective determinations in accordance either with their own value judgments or in accordance with the value judgments of a powerful constituent therefore receive the patterns throughout history it is the minority voices are the critical voices of status quo are going to be censored. that in my mind concludes those who are economically relatively poorly off. i cussed a number of excellent questions i have received precisely because i do really

support inequality and access to free speech and to other resources. those who are economically disadvantaged also have the most to lose from censorship and the most to gain from robust free speech. >> one of the things we do on in-depth as we asked for an author with some of the favorite books are and what they're currently reading. here's a response we got from the dean. favorite books the fountainhead, on liberty by jon stuart mill she included note that said arguably co-thored by harriet taylor, will get to that in just a second period and charles dickens. is there a theme in these books? >> those books were a book i read it quite some age which is

why i chose than they have been influential throughout my life. they all involve themes of justice. they all involve of individual freedom. surprise surprise. they deeply resonated with me at a young age. and continue to inspire me. one continues to appreciate them beyond adolescence is quite controversial. a lot of people no space on that liberal end of the political spectrum where i am say i lecture when as a teenager but i've outgrown her. i continue to find the themes of individual creativity. self-determination.

on the part of a strong female protagonist as well as a mail character i continue to find very inspiring but i will admit that. >> what you say to those of us to read the first 10 pages and got confused and ran away from the fountainhead? step out that way about moby dick and to each his own house with a lot of things we been talking about this is very subjective. but to me what all those books have in common is a very strong theme that go beyond the particular character or plot points that transcend the particular historical context. but also to meet very memorable characters and m stories. as i travel throughout my

lifetime may be what i am adhering to is that minor aspect of the overall book it continues to exercise some influence on my personality and my quest to do what i can to urge other people to realize unique individuality. and apply whatever their talents and abilities are to advance their own concept of justice. whatever those might be. >> on liberty who was he then who is harrietrt taylor? on the middle of the 20th century. on liberty stands the test of time i think is the most powerful defense of individual freedom of speech including again some of the very important recurring questions and

arguments our astute viewers have been proposing to me. he had a dedication and his book to his wife, harriet taylor who died a year before the book was published in which it is such an over-the-top acknowledgment that it reads as if she were a co-author pretext but every word is empty infused with her influence he delayed a publishing it because she was very sick and he hopede she wod recover to be able to review it yet one more time. i started being curious. such a strong credit for her role in producing this classic work. white wasn't she treated as a co-author? other people have asked thatr question some scientists at a university in england have done some algorithmic research and

asked about artificial intelligence this is one of the positive uses they can analyze language patterns in order to attribute authorship. the conclusion was she is at least a co-author of central aspect of the book. since there are so few female philosophers that have had such a historic role i think it is important to at least raise her potential coauthorship every time i refer toef this classic enduring work. >> in just a minutes in case you did not see it on the screen i went to read out the code or a discount on nadine's most recent book free speech. but everyone needs to know i will read that in just two minutes. so get ready for that. we also ask our office but they are currently reading here is nadine's listed. canceling of the american find,

mr. texasyawrence writ. seven days o possibilities, one teacher, 24 kids and music that change their lives forever and nothing sacred outspoken voices in contemporary fiction by harris press. let's start with seven days upon those what's that about? >> that is such an amazing book. every time i have a lead to it sounds like ann interesting bok i have not read before i follow it up. this is a reporter for the "new york times" who has wtt excellent pieces kansas free speech. i was reading the bio on that topic. and it mentioned that book.

so i ordered the book it is indeed so inspiring as an educator. grew up in anl tiny little townn an island she has challenges fulfilling takes a job with a teacher and a difficult public school where she uses music as a way to reach out to students at all kinds of economic and educational and sociological challenges. she instructs them she becomes a gospel choir to lift them to soaring heights as an educator

myself as someone who loved music and someone it was was esy concerned about making sure education, freedom of speech and self-expression among other vehicles is equally available to all. i just love this book i think it would make a great movie, don't you think of? >> the other book i wanted to ask about is nothing sacred outspoken voice is with harris heresypress i'm not familiar wi. >> i have an advanced reader copy with me. i recently purchased, it's now available for sale with a different cover. but harris see press something so important. it was formed earlier this year as a response to the so-called censorship going on in the publishing industry where there

are certain topics considered too controversial to deal with. certain authors are notth suppod to be the ones that appropriately address the topics because there is cultural appropriation. you are not speaking on behalf of somebody that your character does not mirror your demographic characteristics. the founders of this press, who are friends and colleagues of mine have this idea. bernard was complaining about thus to his wife he was a literature professor. and she said stop complaining, start your own press and he actually did and enlisted a lot of great authors. this was junker oats on the front and on the back. the story is a collection of 12

short2 stories that apparently would not be published by mainstream presses because of controversial subject matters and perspectives. i have read several of the story so far. i started with one by lou perez a comedian who has trouble for politically incorrect comedy. he has the audacity to write for the perspective of a gay man which he is not. he lifts it up. all the other stories are delightful i could not recommend it more. see what her most recent book free speech what everyone needs to know. oxford university process wheree you need to go the code because you did not sit on the screen ala ut hc four. what is at stand firm trying to

figure thatt out. al a ut hc four. that is the code. dan and bridgewater new jersey thanks for holding please go ahead. >> as a refugee from communism i take great comfort in the fact calmness are allowed to speak freely they are allowed to debate them. it was a very productive encounter. especially in the 60s. but i'm really concerned now the atl has declared anti- zionism anti- semitism a very confusing statement. the fate of the president of the student body and why you i took a pro- palestinian position. clark and dan where you from arm

originally? can we ask? >> thank you for calling n. proximity of my colleagues who are active in the campus free speech movement are like you from repressive governments. they take free speech for granted because we've never had the expense of censorship. with respect to anti- zionism and anti-semitism do very strongly support the freedom of anybody to express views that are anti- zionist or critical israeli government policy. by the way freedom ups to engage in anti-semitic speech as well as other hate speech. we should resist it with the

free speech should not censorship until or unless the crosses over to protected threats or targeted harassment. with respect to the employers deciding not to hire certain students this goes back to the very complicated issue of so-called cancel culture. although with the caveats they have to make sure that's not violating particular state or local laws would ask employers is this the right thing to do in any particular circumstance resident making a categorical judgment and engage in engage in with each individual student

members of an organization that signed on to a petition they did not know the petition was beings being signed on their behalf. they didn't read it, they did not approve it. to penalize them for that relativity attenuated to problematic speech i think starts to lead to guilt by association. and again you mentioned communism, i want to raise the >> of the mccarthy -esque excesses of anti- communism we have on campuses in our country during the cold war. people were even suspected of being supportive of communism in any way were blacklisted and being denied employment opportunities. i think we want to, especially

when we are dealingun with the young people are the outside of their careers i would air in favor of giving them a second chance and opportunity to explain rather than automatically categorically imposing the equivalents of the professional death penalty upon them. stew in a market is in houston please coherent your question or comment. >> thank you so much for taking my call. i have a question about a case i briefly read about in the news with the rate wing fanatic supreme court is going to take out. next you feel strongly about this in. [laughter] this intersection i would see between the second amendment i

want to preface this by sending older i get i am a heretic. signed you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and also samuel johnson patriotism is the last refuge i said that with the first amendment the first amendment is the last of the scoundrel progress are going to leave it there were running out of time are you familiar with the case she's talking about the intersection alleyfa between fit and second amendment? >> knocks specifically i am sorry to say. if i can pick up on the last

point that ties into a point and a question you asked earlier, peter. when you look at all of my writings, we must controversy yields speech pornography and hate speech and citizens united, it is because precisely because this speech that's most unpopular. the most despised the most controversy will that people try to censor the government tries to censor and therefore if you want to support a robust freedom of speech that's going to be there you have to the speech you like you have to defend those principles in the context when they are going to arrive mainly went at scoundrels and pornographers and hateful speakers and powerful politicians and rich corporations that are exercising that free speech.

if they don't have the same free speech rights that we have, then we are not going to have the free speech rights either. stay but mike in new jersey. >> mike going to have to blip up by you've got to turn down that volume you can listen to the phone. dan, tacoma washington please go ahead. >> caller: i tuned in late i don't know if you covered the idea when the government tells social media companies that they need to or suggest to them they censor or tag as misinformation this or that, does nadine see that is in violation of the first amendment? >> great question and one we have not covered even though we've covered a lot of ground. as you clearly know, not everyone does the first met with the free speech guarantee only constrains the government.

i social media platforms along with c-span the government would have in every idea put pressure conspiring with a private sector actor what appears to be a voluntary speech suppression by the private sector actor. but it's really the government putting undue pressure on that private sector actor. that doesn't raise a first amendment problem the government should not be allowed to do indirectly by pressuring social media platforms. but it would not be allowed to do directly to government censorship. and the kinds of disinformation you're talking about up with that term" are completely

protected. social media is to take down that so-called disinformation. the issue that's not going to be before the u.s. supreme court is that in many cases the government has cross thatne line between permitted encouragement the government is allowed to try to encourage social media companies to not publish certain information they consider to be dangerous and misleading. but when it crosses the line from permitted encouragement to prohibited coercion that creates a first amendment problem. stu went 20238 nadine, what danger level would you d put at for free speech? >> i would say it is in severe

danger. but i have to qualify i would have said that throughout my entire adult lifetime. that's one of the reasons why i have advocated freedom is throughout mayan career. stewart 19 has been our guest for the past two hours. we want to think it would also want to thank the viewers for a really interesting, engage conversation. so thank you very much as well. ♪ weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday in american history tv documents america's story and on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more including cox. ♪ is extremely rare. but friends don't have to be.

when