it looks as if someone from the someone telephoned your assistant or publicist for comment, and quite rightly got no comment. is that a fair inference? >> yes. or they phoned my assistant in london, who is an executive assistant. she's fantastic but she's not a publicist. they may have given her that label. >> i understand. it's a standard p.a. >> right. >> in terms of the british press, i have no advice other than myself. if, -- >> if for example, you give an interview to the press, you consult your own advice and no one else's? >> you're talking about the british press?

>> yes. >> in 17 years, i've only given to year -- to interviews to the british press. the others have been pasted together or invented. the question does not really our eyes. -- doesn't really are rise. >> you gave one interview in 2002 which has been drawn to my attention. it relates to the time you were doing a film with sandra bullock. i can remember the name of the film. >> "two weeks notice." >> how frustrating is it for you that people are more interested in my love life -- your love life and your films?

you say i do understand where the interest comes from. isn't itty obvious, where the interest comes from? >> of course people are interested in people's lives. we have that curiosity or prurience. that doesn't mean you can obtain the information illegally. >> you continue "when i think about actors i know, i hear about who they are shagging more than the film they are doing next." >> that remains true. but that information should not be obtained illegally. >> you go on into an area -- at >> that comes from the

hollywood press -- hollywood foreign press association -- the people to control the golden globes. it's always a very light hearted occasion and i tried to give a light hearted answers. as i stay in my name statement, prior to about a year ago, if the subject evolved -- if the subject of the british tabloids came up, i took a line everyone who is in the cross hairs of british tabloids would take which is eager to give a neutral answer or flippant answer. to speak out or criticize is to invite a terrible press storm on your head. they had to job, etc. so the answer you are referring to was one of those of flippant answers. >> by was not going to want -- i was not going to read this out. whatever interest the public may have been your private life

cannot justify the use of illegal or unethical coverage. >> correct. >> what happens if information has eventually entered the public domain and once it is in the public domain want to comment on it? is it fair and right for them to do that? >> i think not. i have always thought if they have obtained the information illegally or unethically, why should i help them? the motive is money and profit, almost never public interest. its profit. why would i help them make money out of invading my privacy? >> it's my fault for asking the question -- we see it in microcosm in release and -- in relation to the recent history.

you have made it your opinion known on how "the daily mail" obtain their information but we don't know what basis they obtain the information -- but once is out in the public domain, it is in the public domain. everyone else, by which i mean the press, can't comment on the story which is now by definition in the public domain. >> from experience, i know not only will they comment, they will write it with news and embellishment. a friend tells us for an insider or associate tells us. those are usually invented. they almost never exist. they will create whole new story based on the original story that could have made wrong or twisted plant to it. hence my decision to put out a statement. >> you added an extra dimension,

quite rightly. we've got a story which is whic in the public domain with some clear -- [inaudible] >> how the american newspaper obtained the story. >> yeah. >> we simply don't know. once it's in the public domain there it's in the public domain across the world and now the press here comments upon it. your point is what they're not simply to do is embellish the story or fix the news which is untrue. let's agree about that. but if they don't -- if they stop short of doing that and they don't embellish but all they do is comment on you -- >> uh-huh. >> maybe in a way that you don't like, do you have a problem with that? >> no. i don't mind -- listen, i'm ready forcomments i don't like. believe me. i'm very really ready for that. i've experienced it. i nash my teeth when those adverse comments or hatchet jobs

are based on among facts or lazy journalism like you have a 21-year-old girlfriend or it was cruel for him to only visit for a half hour when, in fact, i was being kind. i mean, i was trying to protect the mother of my child. that's annoying. but, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. >> yes. obviously, the inquiry needs to consider this issue of embellishment which is incorrect and that can be corrected or addressed. one way it can be corrected is that you can bring proceedings in defamation. >> yeah. >> what about explaining to the pcc about recent events. have you thought about doing that? >> i experienced, as you saw, way back in 1996, it's not a very positive one. and they took a year so decide it was a wrongful thing for a hospital to give o my medical

records. in the case of recent events, my lawyer did -- before he took out the injunction, while we were trying to get rid of a strategy to get rid of all these paparazzi and reporters who were besieging the mother of my child's house and making her life miserable and following her, he did send a warning letter to the newspapers and he sent ity the pcc and there was a 10% dip in activity outside of the house for maybe 12 hours and then it was back to normal. so my verdict on their contribution to this was that they were ineffectual. >> now, another -- another factor in your case which i say adds -- >> i'm sorry. mr. jay, i would just comment on that. the pcc at the moment is

monitoring or provides a service certain to the press. but that won't ever touch paparazzi, the freelance paparazzi, right? so one of the things one would have to think about whether one could devise assistance irrespective if you're employed by a newspaper? >> yes. you're probably right. or to somehow kill the market for those pictures. i think, you know, there would be no rogue paparazzi if there wasn't big national papers paying for their picture. and so i'm not quite sure which

end of that do you attack first. >> so the qstion then ises, which goes back to the questions asked about international interests because one could say -- one could do something about in pictures in this country, one wouldn't be able to regulate the pictures abroad. >> that is true. that is true. but i think -- if i'm right, in france, there's laws -- for instance, you can't take someone's picture in a public place. and that does give a much more humane, civilized existence to people in the public eye despite the fact that presumably those pictures could come back in from abroad. is that what you're saying? >> there are problems one could

think about the domestic market which is i'm mainly obviously focused on. but i have in view someone of the public perspective because of the interest that was shown internationally. >> yeah. >> and i'm wondering how that plays in the picture? >> i don't know the answer to your question i'm afraid in terms of international. all i can tell you is that not just in my opinion but in the opinion of other people whore quite well-known around the world, for instance, sometimes do tours, publicity tours with a film or whatever they're unanimous in saying by far and away the worst territory to any kind of publicity is this one. >> and maybe that's right. and maybe, therefore, i just shouldn't worry. i'm just looking for your assistance. that's all. >> well, i think that's right.

there's certain pockets of quite toxic yellow journalism around the rest of the worldut on the whole is still done with a certain elegance, an elegance we've lost in th last 30 years in this country. >> thank you one comment you haven't spared was directed to "the daily mail." rather than in context of the amanda butell, one strips away the factual inaccuracies particularly with respect to the german woman and you made your point about that. do you have any other broader objection to her piece notwithstanding that it is -- it

is d very critical of you. on a human level, you say, of course, i do. i don't like to read that sort of stuff. but we're talking on our piece sort of i think more abstractly in terms of where the boundaries should be drawn in terms of regulating these pieces 'cause after all, all she is doing is exercising her right to comment. >> right. well, that's fine. >> that's fine, is it? >> it's fine. it's sad that it's based on so much lazy reporting. >> uh-huh. okay. >> a visit to the baby and didn't know the fact. but and it is possible that many of my friends, professors of journalism have range me up and said it's clearly a deliberate hatchet job because you're speaking against tabloid press, that may be true. but i was reluctant even to talk about it in a statement because i've always felt that aomment is a comment and it's really not cool to comment on it. but i was persuaded because of this theory that it might be a stick to beat me with because

i'm doing this, that maybe it was levant. >> yes, yes. well, i put in the equation three otherarticles which are admittedly not couched in the same language which make the same sort of point about you and we're weighing on quite a lot of material on a similar nature which you haven't seen all of them. >> i haven't seen all of them, thank god, but you keep coming back to this point, they are based largely on a lot of misreporting. >> yes. >> but for the past, that's not based on this reporting it's perfectly fine to hate me. i have become very accustomed to that. it's been extremely fashionable for a long time d that is what i expect in this country. >> now, mr. grant, we probably got another half an hour.

i'm going to give you the opportunity now -- as i've given previous witnesses. >> yeah. >> to as it were elaborate your opinion, and your opinion is contained mainly in your first statement beginning of 39 and 40. >> yeah. >> this is where i go through -- >> and what i'd like to do with you and make sure we've got your point, okay and we're not skating over them. >> uh-huh. >> and you have them in mind. and your first point -- when i think we'll probably all agree with celebrities and politicians slap the hands with newspapers -- and you've given us some examples and some of the examples you've given human beings who will testify before this inquiry very shortly.

>> yeah. i talk about quickly the vulnerable people,who have been victims of trauma such as the dowlers who we saw earlier today. or the victims of the london bombings or families of soldiers killed in afghanistan. and then i talk about collateral damage. >> yes. >> where my phone is hacked but so is my assistant's my, you know, my brother's my father's whatever it might be. innocent people having their privacy invaded just because they're in the collaral damage. and then i talk about innocent people who have been monered by the press like christopher jefferies or robert or madeleine mccann whose threats are guilty of guilty crimes -- >> you didn't mean madeleine, you mean her parents.

>> i'm sorry. i apologize. >> i understand. >> i only corrected not to get at you but i don't want anyone to think you said that. >> well, i did and i was wrong. >> and then you deal with the issue of wheer egregious of privacy were committed by "news of the world" and you express your opinion about that. here you're hitting on one of the central points of this inquiry. this is what we're trying to investigate. but we're looking at all the evidence and we've heard your position on that and you've given direct evidence in relation to it and everything he says will be taken fully into account. >> yes. and i'd just like to echo from what i heard from one of the witnesses that given the cross-fertilization of journalists in the tabloid world, it's highly unlikely that they only practice dark arts for

one title. they are always swapping titles and i can't believe they didn't practice those arts in other places as well. >> and the third is thring the baby out with the bath water point. and could you -- could you elaborate on that, in your own words. what you're getting on there? >> well, it is a commonly voiced opinion that you cannot in any way regulate or prove, legislate for the worst practices of the worst journalists in this country without damaging free

speech, without muzzling proper journalism. and the matter is be careful with throwing the baby out with the bath water and i've always said that i don't think it's that difficult to tell the difference between what is bath water and what is a baby. most people it's bloody obviou and that i've always thought that you just simply tak the baby, which in this case is excellent jonalism. we're lucky to have some of the best in the world in this country out of the bath and let the bath water run out. >> okay. >> it's a vy difficult distinction to make what's good journalism and what's not. i don't say it's black and white. it's a gray area. >> thank you. and the fifth message is to a related point overregulation will lead to the tyranny. can i ask you, please, sir,

about what your positive proposals would be in relation to best regulation. >> it's not -- >> say it again. >> you're on four, i think. any attempt to regulate the prs means we're heading for zimbabwe which is another one of these arguments with throwing the baby out with the bath water. >> yes. >> i simply make the point that it's way too simplistic and, two, it's very insincere and used by tabloid newspapers to protect their lucrative business model which is after all almost no journalism no. it's mainly the appropriation ually through illegal means of citizens and fundamental rights of privacy to sell them for profit. and this argument that you can't in any way deal with that without us living in a state like zimbabwe is not absurd but

it's highly convenient for them. there's many examples of regulation between zimbabwe and being the total free for all that we have for you. >> i think -- i think this inquiry -- if you're able to assist to the extent that it degradations in the middle of this sector. none is suggesting having any kind of form of regulation which will result with zimbabwe or tyranny. we're deang with something much less extensive tn that. >> you are, yes. >> but can you help us suggestions? >> there are forms of -- if you take one end of the scale, safe regulations and you take it to the other end of the scale, no

self-regulation, there are various gradations of what some that i call coregulation which would be regulation by a -- say a panel that would be comprised of partly journalists but partly also nonjournalists in the field who would draw up a code of he haddics and would apply it with proper sanctions, meaning sanctions, either financial or in terms of apologies. ..

>> it there are people who are much more export on -- much more expert on this and i'm sure you will be calling them. >> be will be calling a range of people with ideas, but certainly from my perspective, it is abundantly clear this is a topic you have thought about carefully and obviously suffered, as you described, and the experiences you described, whether justifiably or not, therefore i wanted to make sure you had the opportunity to say anything you wanted to say on the subject. >> i came to that at the end of my statement. i think there are ways you can make everyone happy. the press is the only industry in this country with a profound influence over our citizens that

-- that is regulated only by itself. there is no other industry like that, whether it's medicine or advertising. no one calls for those regulators to be tougher than our press and what comes to themselves, no regulation. it would be fantastic if it worked -- but it has shown absolutely not to have worked for the last 20 or 30 years. we have had so many last chance saloon and it has been a failure. this is the big opportunity now, this inquiry. you. privacy law under the human rights act -- you made the point -- [inaudible] >> yes. there's a lot the squealing again from the tabloid press

about these injunctions and so one. and they say it muzzled the press and it is at a chilling effect. and just make the oint, first of all, no one think is prosuting "the guardian." secondly, if the public answers defense, why in the case of many vast majorities of hese injunction cases to the newspaper in question not even bother to turn up to defend their piece on the grounds of public interest. the judge sits there and says worth the paper? they don't turn out. i ask is that because there's no public interest? i think we all know the answer to that. and i make the point, ultimately it all comes down to public interest and who is better to decide whether a piece of journalism is in the public interest or not. would that be a judge or would it be the tabloid editor who stands to profit commercially from the peace? to me it is the judge, and i

would argue that most of the judgments made in these injunction cases have been right, nor have they been biased. we saw that in the case recently. the judges are quite ready to -- all this fuss from at least the tabloid in from the british press about these injunctions is bogus and convenient. >> this leads into the related point -- >> i am fine with that. >> you say they don' let's see what happens to that. the nation to appear hav been reviewed by single or justice, but here we understand the accusation of being reviewed.

number seven, privacy, can only be a rich man toy. that depends a bit on the survival of conditional theory, is that? >> i think it depends onthat and on establishing proper replication pashtun regulation. you should be able to go straight to the regulator and skip the whole court process, especially if you're not a person of means. i think they'll been those wonderful thing to come out of this inquiry is proper regulated to get access to justice of the kind that having to go through the court. but there will always be cases, we will have to go through the courts, and when they do it is scandalous, in my pinion, that this will now be, if what is going through parliament now in the back of the jackson report happens, people without great means will be excluded from justice. if you look at the dowlers, use

the cfa in their phone hacking case against "news of the world," they would not have been able to make that case. they would not have been able to prosecute that case without cfa. ffries was a man wrongly accused of the murder in brussels, or maligned by the press. had to use the cfa to get justice, sorrow of pain, same thing. without cfa, those people have no justice. and this whole campaign to restrict use of cfa has been very heavily pushed by the tabloid press. and the government in its infinite obedience of the tabloid preshas simply said yes, fine. >> okay, thank you. clr on that point, mr. grant. the next point that exposé carry

a public interest defense, i think we party major position clear, clear o that. but please say whatever you wish to say in addition. >> i did say that there is certainly cases where there is a public interest defense, politician, campaign on family value platform. in his obligations, and he's been, you know, having extramarital affair or whatever, i addressed that with a nun, sleep with prostitutes do we need to know about it because he is a hypocrite. but i think that the vast majority of these exposés peoples sex lives are not in the public interest and that the public interest defense offered by tabloid newspapers are very flimsy at best. they'll say he trades on his reputation, but he doesn't. he trades to me quickly on the

fact he's a brilliant football. of anyone is buying a pair of his but because they think he's a great family man. i think they're buying it because he has won lotof trophies for majesty's united. and i read an independent this point, apparently i do the same thing. i trade on my good name and, therefore, there's a public interest defense goinginto my private life. but i wasn't aware i traded on my good name. i've never had a good name. [laughter] and it's made absolutely no difference at all. i was the man arrested with a prostitute and the film still made tons of money. it doesn't matter. >> okay. i think that's very clearmr. grant. myth number nine, this is a sort of development about the impact idea speech yes, it's another very common defense of what i

would call the privacy invasion industry, some people call it the tabloid press, that what i see is a myth, people like me want to be in the papers and, therefore, our objections to privacy intrusions are hypocritical. and i go on to some length, explaining how that is a myth, that in my business, for instance, whati need is not to be in "the daily mail" or the mayor, it's to ake enjoyable films. that is 85% of success. about 10% of the success is the film is well marketed. soma becomes a good trader or tv sp. right at the end of a 5% of the success might be just before the film comes out you bang the drum a bit and a bit of publicity. quite minor, and you are under an obligation to do it. and not just, sometimes its contractual but more times it's just a moral obligation. someone put up a lot of money for the films.

hundreds, sometimes thousands have worked on this for over year. if you didn't do a bit of publicity you would be a monster. you would be -- people would hate you. so you got to do a bit. but it's only 5% of what contribute to success in the film. and within that 5%, how much of that is tabloid newspapers, or even newspapers at all. very lite. what everyone does not is broadcast media. everyone is in television and radio. and if tabloid were so important to the success of the film or success of an actor or a singer, why is it, for instance, none of us in the large ensemble cast actually took to anytablo newspaper at all when that film was released and the film is still a gigantic? the theory put about b tabloid paper that they are responsible for success films and the create stars. it is entirely in spirit. either they are mad, arrogance,

this funny cocoon of self-importance, or it's just highly convenient because it gives them a chance to say if anyone criticizes us, it's hypocritical. >> isn't it, particularly one goes back towards the start of your successful part of your career, the early 1990s, didn't it help your career that you were quite constantly in the public eye? didn't that make you more attractive to future filmmakers possibly? >> no. i would argue, what may be attracted to the film makers was for weddings and feel, pressure a couple of felt like they said i was arrested with a prostitute, you couldn't call the positive press, and i'm still very high level because someone had made money. in terms of a career, that's all studios cared about. and audiences only care aout

whether the film is intended or not. i can to examples of fms that have wall-to-wall tabloid covers befo the come out and still die at the box office because they're not entertaining. it is a big myth. and i personally have actually argued with my lawyer over the years when making settlements, libel or whatever with papers saying please, forgive me, forget an apology. just make them give an undertaking never to mention my name again. and i can bring you a list of hundreds of people in the public eye in this country who would ppily sign up for that. it's such a myth to say we wanted so badly, we are also being, we're dying to be in the paper. it's the last thing anybody wants is to be in a british tabloid newspaper. so long as the work you're doing at that moment is okay. >> you deal with i suppose one aspect or another aspect --

[inaudible] understatement. >> yeah. >> what is the consideration, if you do an interview with a paper or magazine, you are saying here, well, it doesn't give any lifelong license to publish atever you like about this subject matter. that, of course, must be right as a matter of common sense. but it surely gives some license to comments, possibly unfavorably on the rest of the and to speak with you are, of course, that would be fine, absolutely fun. but i'm talking here about intrusion. and i have heard the defense quite frequently from tabloid papers, he never talked to your private life, then you have no defense. you have no right to xpectation of privacy, which i think is

absurd. because anyone, as i told you earlier i think i've only done two interviews with british press, but when anyone does do interview, it is after all a bargain. that paper gets boost in sales they hope and the person giving the interview gives some noise about the forthcoming project. and when it is over, it's ove. i would not expect you to come to me ever afterwards and sing i cannot -- [inaudible] i would hink you are mad to spend your point is more specifically, having conducted this little contract, it certainly doesn't authorize the press subsequently to investigate your unlawful and ethical way, or intrude into your privacy? >> that's what i'm saying, yes,

exactly that. i do believe in shrine in our bill of rights, you know, a person's basic -- i don't think you should give that up. >> and the 10th yth is the point -- >> yes. >> you see them glamorizing themselves, oh, well, we might be a bit naughty but, you know, we get the story. but when the story has been obtained by hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl or the family of a soldier killed in afghistan, i don't find that naughty. i find that cowardly and bullying and shocking. and most shocking is that this is been allowed to go on for so long with no one putting their hand up and saying, stop, not

the police because they're intimidated. not i in peace because they're intimidated, and not a good because they have been intimidated. [inaudible] paragraph 88? >> we sort of went over them. i give you, paragraph 86 in a nutshell is included the issue be unacceptable and illegal to deprive a person of the fundamental human right to privacy, and thus there is a public role. it's notocket science. the ways i would protect it is one, i would resist the clamor of the privacy stealing industry to close down privacy law as it emerged through common law, through the human rights act. and i would disband the pcc and create a proper regulation, which would not only protect

people from abuses of privacy or libel of the first, but it would also be ere to protect in good trim, this is the other side of all this. i, for instance, and keen on libel reform i am keen to see good journalism protected as much as i possibly can. i the reverse of a muscle or, but i personally feel that the license that the tabloid press has had to steal british citizens privacy for the commerci profit very often will vulnerable british citizens is a scandal, that we could government too long have allowed it to pass. >> mr. grant, there anything else you wish to tell the inquiry?

we've covered the ground. >> no. it's a strange form of interview in the sense i wish i'd been able to read my two statements out loud first, because we haven't really, it's all been the defending positions in them without anyone saying with the statement as she says. >> i think you will find the statement will be available. >> i hope you will read it. >> they will, mr. gant. further point, i would like to think what you wanted to bring out, you have brought out. if you feel the point -- >> there is one final point. >> please bring it out spent because i'm tired, i wodn't mind reading it since it's in my statement. it's my onclusion, i guess i don't want to see the end of popular print journalism. i would want a country that was fun into power or success but i like and about and would always want to protect the british, difficult and to take the free

press is of course the cornerstone of democracy, i have no question about that. i just think that there has been a section of our press that has become, allowed to become talks is over the last 20 or 30 years. its main tactic being bullying and intimidation and blackmail. and i think that needs a lot of courage to stand up to. and i feel it is time, you know, this country has a historic we could record standing up to bullies, and i think it's time they found courage to stand up to this bully now. >> thank you very much. >> okay. mr. grant, thank you very much. [inaudible] although you may have felt that you're on the back for too often, it was a way of getting the picture a cross so that everybody has had a chance through mr. jay to ask questions, but the thrust of your evidence contained in your statements is clear, and you

ve no need doubt that i have read it or not paid full attention to it, and will continue to pay attention to it. >> thank you very much. >> right, thank you. anything else? [inaudible] >> just the issue of anonymity if i may. >> well, let mr. grant, return to where he comes from so he can just relax for a moment. >> right. yes? >> earlier you made a ruling on the ninth of november, and if anybody was thinking of exercising their right uer section 38 to seek any review of that, time expired on wednesday. and since then, of course, there has been a draft andan inky protocol, and i think you

invited any further submissions to be with you by last thursday at 5:00. we certainly put in the submissions. i was just raising the matter to see if you wish to confirm the protocol, at anything during the course before -- >> i am happy to do that. i think that essentially the points, many of the points we made eye take on board. i'm happy to clarify some things, if they need clarifying. i'm not entirely sure they do. but i would be surprised if anything in the protocol could impact on the fundamental decisions i made in my rulng. t if there's anything th needs to be done tomorrow, i'll do it. i think there are two slightly

separate issues. there's that anonymity that i've granted to one of mr. hsu barnes clients who i know is h. j. k. and there is some knock on consequences about how we're going to do with his evidence in the absence of anybody saying anything to the contrary. i propose to maintain that anonymity, and to allow him to give evidence in a way that ensures it. that will require taking certain measures, for example, he likely to give evidence in a cleared inquiry come obviously the participant of lawyers we present. but otherwise nobody. i'm likely not to have a running transcript to publish a transcript as soon thereafter as possible in case something emerges that needs to be

redacted. in that way i have, his evidence will be put in the public domain with any form that doesn't damage the anonymity have sought and whic i found to be justifiable picking anybody has any comment about that, i appreciate you have only recently seen the suggestions in that regard i'd be very, very interested to hear them. as regards other people, i'll make sure that i've got the final protocol for you to look at tomorrow. but as i say, i don't think it should really make a difference to whether or not there is an issue that is worthy of ventilation in the divisional court, which, of course, is your decision entirely. >> a couple of points.

first, we just received submissions from the metropolitan police relationship the anonymity protocol. just this afternoon, so those will have to be considered. >> now i'm about to come out. i will saythe reason there hasn't been won is because it was only up to the end of literally the d of friday that i saw the last one but i wasn't sure whagot them all. indeed, now you heard i haven't gotten them all and i did want to for everything and tell actually heard from everybody. so that's, isa limit on defense, which i was going to say anythingabout. anything else, mr. jay? >> in relation to h. j. k., one issue, whether when he gives his evidence he will not give evidence in relation to any named newspaper. other words, that will be redacted out. >> yes. i've made it clear, i think if nonot in a ruling, and i in argument that in relation to any anonymous witness, in order to

protect the position of any of the media, it would be quite wrong to allow names or titles to be identified. i'm not going to make decisions about names and titles, everybody knows i'm looking cost of an practices and ethics across the piece, which is why my questions to mr. grant were of general rather than specific topics. and i would adopt the same process for hjk. so that's a matter of anybody of concern to anybody, then they should say so. thank you. well, thank you very much in the. i repeat my thanks.

i will do all the witnesses, particularly those who have come as all have today voluntarily. and tha you verymuch. >> all rise. >> on the "newsmakers" rep raul grijalva. that today at 6:00 eastern. >> simon winchester, off -- author of "the professor and the madman" became an american citizen on board the u.s.s. constitution. >> i decided i would take all

the necessary steps for the exam and there is a 10-question exams and i got one of the questions wrong. an australian friend also up for citizenship -- iran harappan said i got one of the questions wrong. -- i rang her up and said i got one of the questions wrong. i feel a fool confessing it, but it is what is the american national anthem. i blurted out "america the beautiful." the immigration officer said in my view it should be, but it is not. >> he's the author of 21 books. watch the rest of the interview with simon winchester on c-span tonight. >> in 1961, john sigint dollar founded the first amendment center at vanderbilt university to promote discussion on guaranteed rights including freedom of speech. in 2005, he was a victim of

misinformation on wikipedia. an anonymous postings stated he was thought to be involved with the assassinations of john f. kennedy and robert kennedy. the hoax was not corrected for more than four months. he visited vendor built in october to talk about his experience and responsibility that comes with online publication. this is 50 minutes. have tore that i don't quiet a group. >> i want to warmly welcome you to our reunion speakers today. as i promised a little earlier, john seigenthaler is someone i greatly admire. he's a remarkable graduate of vanderbilt university and we're

so proud of him. he's not only -- [inaudible] [applause] he has helped form the industry and lived the news. we know he is a national treasure but he is really a national treasure. he has played in the highest political arenas and contributed to the civil rights movement. he has contributed more to the intellectual lives of national then i'm sure i even realize and it is with great admiration and great fondness that i present mr. john seigenthaler . [applause] >> thank you. i wish i was worth waiting for, but i'm happy to be here with all of the and so glad you waited and so sorry i made to wait. i had a little fender bender.

she didn't need to call the cops but the young lady was afraid of her job so i was stuck literally five minutes away. i planned to be here three minutes early. but some how seigenthaler standard time to cold and i am fashionably late. i apologize for that. i want to talk today a little bit about what the new technology has done in opening up a new world for those who need information and i also want to talk first about what the new technology has done

that inhibits access to new information by distorting or misrepresenting. i won't dwell -- i might dwell on a deeply personal aspect of the problem that really makes the point. some of view, my friends, i looked around and see about four years ago i had a little problem with which to pia -- had a problem with wikipedia. i didn't think was a problem at the outset. i had a call from someone who said google yourself and hit the wikipedia link.

i did it and my name popped up and someone had inserted without my knowledge, certainly without my permission, you don't need permission from anybody to say anything about them on wikipedia or many websites. but someone inserted a six sentence biography of me. it said in the early 1960's, he was the administrative assistant to robert kennedy. true. it went on to say after the death of president kennedy and attorney general robert kennedy, he was the suspect in their assassinations. then it said nothing was ever proved. it said he then defected to the

soviet union for 13 years. [laughter] and i did exactly what you did. i laughed. late in the afternoon, my son called on the phone and said dad, you have to take this seriously. you are not the only john seigenthaler in the world. ina john seigenthaler and grandson is a john seigenthaler. you have to do something to get that down. i didn't know enough about wikipedia except to note is a good resource for instant information. i had been there for quick checks, but suddenly it dawned on me how could this happen?

i called my friend brian lamb in washington. he had an interview few days before i had seen with the founder of wikipedia. i call them in st. petersburg. it's a genius idea, wikipedia. he called intellectual democracy and i have a hard time challenging that except apple if you give access to anonymous sources, people all around the world and wikipedia has an international reach, it's likely that someone given the anonymity and the difficulty of tracing that anonymity will say

something bad about somebody. i had no idea who did it. so i said would you go up with me and look at wikipedia and let me take you to this biography under my name. he said i don't know enough about you but i know that's false. he said i'm going to put it in the archives where nobody but 1100 of my editors can read it. i said i don't want anybody to read it. he said the best i can do is put it in the archives where my editors can see it. i said i guess i have to accept that, but would you tell me you did it? he said i don't have the

slightest idea who did it. i don't have any way in the world to know who did it. i can help you with your ip number. you may not know if you are on line but you have an internet protocol number. i'm sure at the library is the same as it is across campus. everybody at the seigenthaler center has the same ip number, but if you have an individual computer at home, you have an individual member. the number tells you what is the name of the on line carrier doing business with the person who has written this biography. in my case, it was bellsouth.

i was delighted to hear that. that narrowed the whole world to 12 states. i was 80 years old at the time and i said i've got enough investigative reporting skills that i can find out who this so be is. [laughter] -- who this s.o.b. is. i'm going to back channel bellsouth. i know some people way up in bellsouth. i called them and said look, in strict absolute confidence, look this up and give me a hint. [laughter]

that's the way journalists do it. i said this is completely off the record. they had heard that before. they called me back later and said if i talk -- if -- i have talked to my lawyers and if i give you that person's name, i'm violating their privacy what rights. you have to follow aide john doe lawsuit in court -- you have to file a john doe lawsuit in court. my problem is i created the first amendment center. [laughter]

if you created the first amendment center, are you going to sue somebody the first time they say something bad about you? [laughter] i said i'm not going to sue anybody, i just want to use what skills i have to try find out and going to list the best reporter i know, my son, to help find out. we could not find out. after a couple of months, i decided the best way i would address this, i wrote an article, an opinion column on the op-ed page of usa today. my successor was happy to help out. i said in this call-in -- in this column, that wikipedia was an unreliable, and on a credible resources.

i acknowledge it was loaded with great information but was not a credible resources. that was published and that attracted the interest of the critics all across the country. usa today pick it up, associated press, they all began to call and say what about this? then they called jimmy wales and he said anybody can come on anonymously. i don't know who it is. jimmy and i got on television a couple of times and npr couple of times. i'd want to say we yelled at each other, but i raised my voice. he was as polite as he could be. he said it against my rules to require people to come to wikipedia and say who they are.

the article resulted in literally a flood, a thousand e- mail's, telephone calls, letters, many from people who had been harmed in the same way. some five wikipedia -- some by wikipedia and some by other websites. what finally was impressive to me was the flood of a tax. some of them came by e-mail personally. but so many of them went back to the biography that somebody was writing and most outrageous, venomous, vicious things you could ever imagine or said about me over the next eight months. jimmy wales finally put a block

on this new biography to which i had confused to contribute anything. the last person said i had raped jacqueline kennedy. not so funny. but there was not a thing i could do about it. then i received a call from a person i had never heard of who lives in san antonio. he said i can help you. he said this happened to media -- as happened to me a few years ago and i started something called wikipedia watch. it took something like mine and posted them. he said i have researched the ip number, have gone to another site, and i have found the person who did this did from a business called instant delivery. -- resht delivery.

he said it is located -- rushed delivery. he said it is located right in your town. on the morning i was on npr the second time, came back into the office and the lady at the receptionist's desk set i have dropped this off for you. it was a man named brian chase. they worked for -- he worked for rush delivery and they feared was going to sue journalists from all over the country. they have started calling in as soon as i have let it be known that russia delivery -- rushed delivery is where it originated. he said i did it as a joke and they fired me. just before christmas. i went home feeling triumphant, telling my wife that i found the scoundrel and they fired

him this morning. she did not burst into tears but she said it's just before christmas, you can't let them fire that man because he said something bad about you. [laughter] so i called them and i said i'm sore at him, i don't like what he did, but it's wrong for you to fire him for christmas. my wife dolores said so. [laughter] they took him back. rush the -- rush delivery has

since gone out of business and i have not heard from brian chase since they took him back. but i tell you that story because it illustrates in the best way i know about my personal encounter with this ingenious idea called wikipedia. but in the process, i found i am not the only victim. many of these people e-mail me, some did not. you may have heard of an african-american actor-comedian named sinbad. his name is david atkins. he's quite good, a talented man. but david atkins has been killed several hundred times. he is alive and well, but they have killed him on which p.m.

-- they killed him on wikipedia in more ways i can count on two hands. they have killed him in a drive-by shooting, a sexual assault and a public bathroom, he has been a suicide victim, he had a heart attack, again and again and again. they killed him. most of them, there's a place of his biography they have created that gives his birthday and death date is blank, but they fill in the death date. again and again. here is a man who relies on his visibility to work and he is victimized by this website that is so marvelous in so many ways. there is another name that might be more familiar to you -- fuzzy seller. he was a professional golfer years and years ago.

he won the masters and won many golf tournaments. he is a man with a great sense of humor. sometimes he lets them get away with things and he says things that are not funny. but one thing about fuzzy is he's not a drug addict. he is not alcoholic. he is not a wife beater. he is not a sexual abuser of children. his biography on wikipedia said he was all of those things. his lawyer called and said what do you do when this happens? i said i know what you are thinking. i'm not going to encourage you to bring a lawsuit because it's very, very difficult. he said i am going to sue

wikipedia. he did and then he found out about something called sextant -- section 230 of the communications decency act. he files the lawsuit and the court says give him a name. they gave him the name of a company in miami with 49 employees. the company said we are so sorry. we don't know anything about

this but we will help you look. and they did try to find that person. i think the interview every employee. but it could've been some of visitor in the building. it could have been someone who came in off the street. fuzzy couldn't find out and said he dropped the suit. remembernow if you reading about the time, but it was a scandal. but it is not just wikipedia that misleads on line. i will tell you and more tragic story. there is in hollywood and actress whose stage name is chase masterson. there is in los angeles

something called metro/. -- metro splash. it is an online entity with an arm called the dating board. people who want to date other people can meet on the dating board. somebody in germany, an anonymous source, put on the dating board specific information on how to reach a chase masterson. addresses, telephone numbers, and she began to get calls from people looking for dates. some of those calls quite obviously were salacious because the posting on dating board when beyond who she was,

be on the fact she had been a star on the soaps. i think she was on some of the star trek programs. it not only to find how to reach her, it invented in a salacious way water sexual preferences were. she began to get these calls and she talked to her lawyer. she sued metro splash. it was a federal suit and went to court. this is the point, the final point i want to make about people who are harmed by this. the judge used the word reprehensible. as reprehensible as what

happened to her, the decency act protects online service providers. what the language says was in matters of defamation, if you are an online service provider, you are protected against libel suits, different, the law says from publishers or speakers. as i could have been sued when i was a newspaper editor, i could have been sued for saying that about her. a television station or network could have been sued. the information service protector provider is protected online.

unless she could find out who this anonymous source was in germany, and she couldn't, she had no opportunity to succeed in the lawsuit and so it was dropped. the court dismissed it. reprehensible, but protected. i am a first amendment advocate and i'm not interested in having congress passed new libel laws. every time congress begins to regulate the media, it goes way too far. some of you won't believe that, but i can tell you i did not want to go down that road. the reason i'm happy to be here with you today and talked about this and because of your

interest in it, it only reflects a sliver of the opportunity to post vicious, venomous information, false information, plagiarized information. libraries with access to the internet like newsrooms, they have the world at their fingertips. that keyboard can take you to places and give you the information that in other circumstances in days of yore, you would have spent hours, weeks, months digging for to get accurate impression. it is there now.

the question is, and you have to ask yourself, is its a credible website? is the blogger honest and honorable and looking to provide straight, truthful, candid information? what if you are a student and your professor says i want an essay on an african-american entertainer and you say i will go to sinbad. i watched him on television last week. and you go to sinbad -- dead. you are a journalist and you have the same assignment. we would like a profile on sinbad -- dead. you go to the editor and say he is dead and he says the hell he is i saw him on television.

if you saw him on wikipedia, you know he is dead. he's caught in this trap that is not able to enter because day after day after day, someone answers again and again and again. as one who went through that and tried to laugh my way through it, through some tears, i can tell you it is a problem. the great conundrum is this -- what do we do when we have access to this information literally at our fingertips. i am working on a biography of a woman named alice paul. a suffragist. i've been working on a for a couple of years.

i can sit there and from the computer and i have at my fingertips access to information about her that was -- without that information, i would be here asking for help and she would be given me all the books ever written about suffragists and i would be trying to pick and choose what i could find about this little known but hero, prison for seven months, who went on hunger airstrikes, -- who went on hunger strikes. she was fed by tubes being injected into her nostrils to keep her alive, put in an insane ward by the wilson administration. psychiatrist examine dallas and said look, she is not crazy, unless you think it's crazy for women to want to vote, she is as same as i am. it tells you something about history. to add the information at my fingertips, including a 700 word oral history she gave before she died at age 91, it's

a marvelous world, this new technology has given us. but it is flawed. those of us who rely of libraries that have traditionally relied on libraries for access to accurate, credible information are caught in this catch-22 trap. if i go there, is it going to be credible, is it going to be factual? is it going to be reliable? jimmy wales at one point compared facts after i irritated him -- he had a study done comparing himself to the encyclopedia britannica. he found he was almost as reliable as the encyclopedia britannica.

but of course, he never considered how much of the content on wikipedia was plagiarized from britannica. [laughter] i had enough of it and didn't want to go there. my friend in san antonio did a superficial survey and said yes, plagiarism does affect wikipedia. it's not just a vicious, mean- spirited people, it is also people who want to say something evil and what about you and it is also those who are willing to steal a work of

someone else and claim it for their own. i will deal with this very quickly. i don't want to keep the late. -- i don't want to keep you late. i warn you to think for a moment about wikileaks. wikileaks drop bombshells on the world. the creator of wikileaks got access to information, government information, classified information, top- secret information, information about american interactions with people are on the world. most of it is dead, solid accurate.

which tells you something else about this wonderful new technology, this marvelous new technology. government secrets are not easily capped. ifre's a problem with that you look at rupert murdoch and his son james in england. they had a crew of reporters to attack into your phone, hack into your computer, and go with information that was deeply personal, often scandalous, and i daresay sometimes inaccurate. the point of it is for those who love libraries, who work in libraries and you want to

protect the integrity of libraries is to remember those computers that are available to people these libraries are fallible. they can be misused as well as used to discover the wonders of the world. they can ruin you. they can mislead the people who come to libraries. there is going to be at some point day movement to regulate information. it is inevitable. you cannot find out about me on wikipedia right now. but you can find out about george bush and barack obama.

what happened to me is superficial stuff compared to what is delivered to politicians. my fear is what enough politicians are damaged by and feel it, when they feel damaged by it and cannot sue, there's going to be a change in the law. those regulations i always find, from gutenberg until microsoft, every effort at regulation is in some way step beyond what is needed to protect the information and the public. the bottom line i come away with is there is an awful lot of information out there online that is not part of the wonderful world at your fingertips.

if i were advising people who go on line, and my grandson does in order to study or research or right, so many people use libraries for those very things, i would say there is always a second source, always a third source. if you are still in doubt, there is a fourth source. in this library at that keyboard, they are all right there at your fingertips. i will close with a quotation. i love when i talk about first amendment issues and clearly

this is one. i love to quote thomas jefferson or james madison, are most eloquent and elegant spokesman for our rights of expression. but there is another founder, one not much identified with rights of free expression. he pointed out -- in the constitutional convention, he stood and said -- i am paraphrasing only slightly -- whenever fine words are inserted into a constitution, and he is talking about freedom of the press, he says it always must attend -- must depend on the general spirit and public opinion of the people and the

government. what he is warning is you can go the direction jefferson and madison said he should go and if you do, there will be violations. there will be wrong done, people will be slandered, people be insulted. what you will do, and it was with this in mind, that had a

measurable when we started the first amendment center here at vanderbilt, when you go here, you always must worry about public opinion. and the spirit of the people and the government. i'm going to say that during most of my life as i looked at public opinion and the general spirit of the people in the government, i worried about maybe losing it at some point, as first amendment rights and

values. i looked today at libraries and once again i recognize and we all must recognize we must take every advantage of the vote won world of new media. as we do it, we must be well aware that as we gain knowledge, we can also be undermined by waves of false information. some of it not fit for your garbage pail. thank you very much. [applause] she said would you take questions? you waited this long.

i'm sure a number of you have to go to the bathroom. but if anybody has anything you want to ask about -- >> did wikipedia offer to let you have a rebuttal in the same place where they put that in your biography? >> wikipedia is always happy for you to -- and many people criticize me for not correcting my website -- i thought if i corrected my own the website or asked my son to, i was simply playing to their system. i did not want to play their game. if you read the biography, if you can find it today, and they have a block on that. but today, is riddled with errors. there is no longer a the slander or libel, but it is riddled with errors. people have picked it up from other publications -- is just

wrong as relates to my role and some of the is wrong in a way that somebody ought to correct because it projects my role in a rather heroic way and i should as a matter of conscience go in there and downplay that and give the credit where it belongs, to those brave young people who literally risked their lives, but i'm just not willing to play their game. so i did not go in and corrected. but i could have. the problem was, the day i correct it, it will be read

damaged the next day by dozens of people. he said he had editors -- they have these servers so every time there is a new entry, he has more than 1100 now who can go in there. in the first draft of my biography, he had somebody watching and there was an error. brian chase, who wrote that stuff, misspelled the word early. the editor caught and corrected it but left me there as an assassin and a defector. i decided i would not play the game, but yes, wikipedia does give you the opportunity to go in and say whatever you want to say. but they don't stop somebody else from coming back the next day and putting it right back the way it was or worse. >> [inaudible] >> say that in to the microphone. everybody ought to your from a

technology expert. >> i can put a virus on your computer and then send anything at want from your computer to anybody want to. >> that takes the deception another step away from reality. it makes the correction even more difficult. borderline impossible in those circumstances. >> yes. >> cited cases here that suggests i'm hostile to the new technology. i'm not. i use it every day and i love

it. it is not equal love. i love what is the best of it, of access. a gives me what i need. on the other hand, it also gives me access to that which damages so many others and many of them without their knowledge of it. >> [inaudible] >> you have just about listened to me to death -- >> i have a quick question about something that happened evander bill recently. they implemented a new feature on the vanderbilt website called the free speech sound. but there are rules -- no organized crime, no paid advertisements and no hate speech. i particularly have a problem with the no hate speech rule and i was curious to hear your opinion on that. >> i have a problem with any 8

-- any hate speech rules and i think hate speech laws are a bit dicey. people were damaged before the legislature's put the word hate in front of speech. they were damaged by vicious, hateful speech. i have a hard time identifying what was said about me as hate speech, although with fuzzy and sid ahmed, who ever did that to them and they will never know, -- fuzzy and sinbad -- i think calling that hate speech, i don't think that helps it at all and i have a real problem with the whole issue of hate speech. free expression not to give you the opportunity to say we think.

i know want to get caught in a conflict with vanderbilt about first amendment issue and i have a first amendment center on the campus. but if somebody asks me, i will tell them what i think. and i appreciate the question. i think. [laughter] >> it's so refreshing to hear someone champion the general spirit of the people again. thank you. >> and thank you to all of you for coming today. i talk about wikipedia and wikileaks but i did not get to wiccans but everyone knows what one is. i look back on my life and some of my best dates were wiccans. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause]

>> before we continue the conversation over -- during the reception, if i can secure john's permission on behalf of the staff of the libraries at vanderbilt, we would like to add a book to commemorate today. this is a book from 1830 called "entreaties of law and libel and liberty of the press, showing the origin, use and abuse of the law and libel" written by college president. we can discuss that later but if you would allow us, we would like to commemorate the occasion. >> every time i come here you honor me with something else. >> many of the know we are honored because john has announced his papers will be at vanderbilt's library.

we have offered regularly to go look for that and we look forward to the day they arrive in our collection. join us on the second floor in the gallery for a reception and let's thank john one more time. [applause] >> thank you for coming. thank you so much. >> it's so wonderful to have you here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this past july for a in a ceremony held aboard the uss constitution, private winchester, the author of "the professor and the madman," became an american citizen. >> there is a 10 question exam. i got one of the questions

wrong. i had an australian friend who was also up for citizenship. i said that i got one of the questions wrong. [laughter] i feel a fool confessing it to you. i blurted out -- america the beautiful. it should be, but it is not. the latest is now in paperback. watch the rest of our interview tonight, on c-span's q&a. >> next, a discussion of race issues in hollywood from the naacp annual convention, which took place in los angeles earlier this year. this is the 102nd annual meeting of the civil rights groups. it is about 100 -- 1 hour and 30 minutes.

>> i told hill that if he made the effort, he would be here waiting with us. hopefully, he will be able to join us. please forgive me. i do have some remarks that i do not want to forget. first of all, i do not need to look at the script. i would like to thank the chairman, the president, and the planning committee for allowing us to have this session here in los angeles. the activism and support that we have had in hollywood from the naacp is very important. the naacp has been involved in the issues of race in hollywood since its original protests in the nation in 1915, which for some people, i thought of

college session yesterday where they were talking about new technology. 1915, movies with a cutting edge of new technology. for the leadership of the naacp back then to understand the power that this medium was going to go on and have just showed the foresight that the leadership of the association had always had. it is important, also, when we talk about movies and television, we are looking out scripted. we do not want to break down in three areas. movies and television is a story telling. again, a lot of editorial control. obviously, new media, which is community building. today we're going to focus on

these scripted things. in that, the forefathers of hollywood were european immigrants that came over and it was important for them to be accepted into american culture. as they started the entertainment industry, they were also very involved in creating what is known as the american dream. work hard, you will succeed. family comes first. good will always try of over evil. we know that that is not always the reality, but we know that it is the essence of the american dream. now, one of the problems and why the naacp got involved was because the american dream, even currently, was a predominantly white story with white heroes, with white actors and actresses. as part of the american dream,

we need to know that that is multicultural and multiracial. thank you to the panel for being here with us, today. i am just going to jump right out. mr. belafonte told me that it did not matter what question he asked, he would -- what question i asked, he would get to the right answer for the audience, making my job easy. i just want to give everyone some background and talk about hollywood a little bit before we jump into the activist park. what do you consider your first big break in hollywood? what was your reaction as a young actor, trying to get into hollywood now -- hollywood? >> first of all -- can you hear me? first of all, i was looking -- i am looking for my first big break in hollywood.

[laughter] i keep hoping the that decade after decade, there will be a kind of radical energy that has grasped the black community to push themselves beyond these borders that we have been contained within. i think that we try and that we put our best foot forward, but i have not seen with any consistency, except for a few moments here and there, films that i would say have quintessentially reflected the life and aspirations to black people and people of color, if there is any one single thing that has been missing, it is the ability of the cinema culture to have opened itself to the

expression of the communities of the people who are oppressed that they can generally speak to any reasonable things with through the source of it. i think that from that perspective, we have failed in the mission. i do not mean anyone personally because i do not think it is a black thing, necessarily. but i do think a lot of people are engaged in the process, therefore extending the comparable nature with which hollywood continues to ignore us and places us in places that continue to serve the aspirations of the society that i think is mostly committed to the negative rather than to the positive. a cadre of great actresses,

actors, and remarkable writers, who have yet to come to the full measure of their potential because there is no radical fought in their -- in our midst when it comes to the idea of money, money in abundance, and the trinkets that are awarded to us over what we say is the excellence of our work. i think that the excellence of our work has yet to be exhibited. we have yet to touch the deeper and more profound places where our true story exists. whether or not it is africa or other places of african diaspore of. lots of places in the world. thousands upon thousands of

stories to tell each day. one of the stories to be told is the global community, in which to buy the greater truth where we as a people are indebted by the greater creation. those things have diluted us. -- elude us. we have yet to open that door. >> obviously, we have mr. harris on stage, as well as other members in the audience. i'd love it if you would stand up and take a well-deserved about. thank you for being with us. [applause]

>> all right, i would like to continue our discussion. there is a lot of ground to cover. obviously, i find it very compelling. we to be here until midnight. going back to mr. belafonte, what do you consider your first big break? what was that like as a actor back then? >> right after about depression, we grew up pretty homogeneous.

stickball. the front part of the board and the back part, we would make sluices. our heroes were all white. except for smokey robinson, people like that. it really did not matter. at 5:00 we could have gefiltafish, lasagna, or corned beef and cabbage, and we were dumped into the background -- bathtub regardless of who we belong to. as a result, i was the president in my junior high school and high-school. it was the you to be superman sunday. of course, i got a slap upside of the face. the results of my first big movie, "the landlord," was an

exception. my first reality check was 1966, here in los angeles, driving a fairly and 500 with the top down. it took me four and half hours to get from dressing heights to the beverly hills hotel. it was a sweet and sour experience. that same day, i was hit upside the face, handcuffed trees by the lapd. i have had to deal with keeping my equality space.

i will speak later on about the book, about it all. i can identify with it the two realities on the screen as we learn about ourselves. too much of a long story to tell you about right now. the first break was movies of the week at universal. >> can you tell us about your experience in hollywood, and especially as a woman? >> growing up in new york, i started in theater. one of the first place that i did was senses, on broadway. "fresh prince," it was that thing that changed my life,

change my family's life. we moved to southern california. in terms of work, i led a very charmed life as an actor. but parents always instilled that it was very important, acting was a reward for doing well in school because i loved to do it. after college, coming back here, that is what i experienced the industry as a full boat -- full-blown adult grown up. it is interesting, because i think our history and activism go together. art history at its best is activism. it is very hard to find roles that i can be proud of. find roles that i consider the

dinner table with my grandmother and little sisters and say, yes, i am proud that i was a part of this project. what i talk about, for me it needs to be a positive role. a role where the character goes through and achieve something, conquers something. something within themselves. something outside of themselves. i could play a drug addict, but it really depends on the story. that is what i mean by a positive character. the archetypes of the stories that we tell have not fully been explored.

as for the will of a best friend and a character that is not able to shed light, it can be very narrow. it has been difficult to find that. education is power and because of that my sister and i have started a production company. just to break through the thousands and thousands of stories. there are voices that have to be heard. >> alex, willie, i know that the naacp, and adam smith, who founded the bssca, talk about

the political alliance and the importance of the naacp in their -- being there. [applause] >> i told you, right? [applause] >> are we still talking about the black summit? or are we talking about the health? [laughter] eddie smith was the founder of the black summit association. he was a very active, extremely active person in the image awards. the naacp was our true connection hollywood as our threat to getting through the

door that we needed to get to to get things done. remember, the struggle still continues. you say, he is still struggling. it goes to show you, as we were out front during that first organization, there were white groups in the films, the first organized group that fought. when you begin to fight, you make noise. we continue to make noise. i will always be remiss because the government mentioned the people from before that had to struggle and did not get the recognition because she was one of the slaves and jungle people

in that day. [applause] >> thank you so much. one of the questions i was about to ask, your experience in hollywood and out you got started. how did you to achieve your dream of working in hollywood? >> just to see uncle lou here,

one of my first significant job that i did was to play his son in a film project that was on broadway first. showtime decided to do it as a film. i had the honor and privilege of acting with all lou and learning and watching what true class, true intelligence, of what a true, black, a strong male in hollywood look like. [applause] whenever i have been able to achieve and whenever modicum of success i have had is certainly due to individuals like mr. belafonte, uncle lou, and those that came before. it is interesting, when we talk about the value of being on camera and the value that we

could bring, it seems to me that we all have platforms and the ability to effect change in our own individual way is. i would suggest that folks who have a platform of so-called celebrity, to the extent that they do not use the about four, or if they use it for their own self aggrandizement, it goes to waste. it is just an extension of what they have already done. it is an extension of using that platform to create positive social change and effect. [applause] >> when you talk about being an aunt of the camera and the images and the stories -- in front of the camera and the

images and the stories, we talk about the impact on our children and the influence of the media. it is also international, isn't it? wayn't its impact the america is perceived international -- doesn't it impact the way america is perceived internationally? >> the world's opinion and perception of the united states of america has power. it has more substance, or the absence of substance, toward what america is all about. in 1935, i saw my first film that expose me as a young child to africa. my parents were immigrants who

came from the caribbean. they came with great hope for what america would be able to extend in its generosity toward people who came from a faraway place. they did not find that generosity being afforded them by the way it was other people of color. the most demeaning thing you could be would be to be called an african. when i saw "tarzan and the apes"in 1985, looking at the screen had magical power, the idea that something could be put on a screen and put into motion and capture your imagination was an overwhelming psychological implications. when you see a white man swinging from trees,

inarticulate and unable to speak a language, but able to give a gutteral sound that animals could understand, that became the thing you aspired to when you look at people of color. it did a lot to impact the way people felt. as a kid, the last thing i wanted to do was to be an african and be identified as one. every time i saw a person of color in that context, it was someone who was lacking courage, dignity, integrity, had no real moral value. it was so lame. it was heavily dependent on that creature that swung through trees.

it wasn't until i saw, through the use of news footage or in the documentary form, the plight of the ethiopians led by the emperor hallie salasse. i saw a contrast to the africa that i saw when i saw tarzan and the apes. i saw a man of enormous dignity. he was majestic and artistic and pleading before the body of the legislators to protect the people who were defenseless. i watched them crush him. what they did not crash was his dignity.

when you saw films of ethiopians doing battle against a highly mechanized italian army, you saw a man of enormous courage coming up against potts that were undefeatable. here were these mechanized divisions coming against young men who had nothing but a spear. i watched that. i watched marcus garvey. i watched a lot of people. because they existed in our community, they gave an opportunity -- because an opportunity to find a balance to what we saw on the --