and exchanged diplomatic notes and engage in the process. >> shifted over to iran appeared you talked about the execution of american foreign policy. i cannot think of a more dramatic area. the collision between the executive branch and the legislative branch than when a foreign leader, the constitution talks about who deals with foreign leaders. the speech on march 4 by prime minister netanyahu. i've said publicly that i believe he should postpone that speech. to me -- could you describe what is the issue here? you are secretary of state. do you think this is a wise move on the part of the prime minister to come here when we

are in the middle of delicate negotiations? was it a wise move to ignore the administration in terms of appearing in front of a joint session of congress? what are your thoughts on that? secretary kerry: my thoughts are that you as a secretary's have leeway to make up your own minds about how you feel about this. my job is to work with the prime minister of israel to maintain security to honor our very strong relationship, and i speak with the prime minister more than any other leader. i speak with him later. -- i speak with him regularly. the enduring relationship we has, nobody should question that relationship. you all have to make up your own minds about the propriety of the

way this unfolded or what happened. we are going to proceed about our business, which is protecting the country in maintaining the integrity of these relationships and that includes israel. i will be, i know i have been focused on iran negotiations in ukraine and afghanistan and a bunch of other things. i will be leaving on saturday for meetings with foreign minister lavrov on syria and other things. i will not be here and i will be negotiating with iran. during that. of time, i will be sitting there trying to get an agreement. >> secretary kerry i tried to have my staff research this. i do not know if any other time that the administration has been ignored. can you, in your memory, if you

can answer that now? i hope you will answer that in terms of the history in terms of our foreign relations. secretary kerry: your staff should do some research. i'm not going to get into the history here now one way or the other. my focus is on protecting the relationship between us and israel and dealing with important issues in the region. i do not want anything coming between that. >> i understand that and i believe it is a tremendously important relationship. i also believe what the prime minister has done by taking this action, he has created a very divisive situation. thank you, secretary kerry. >> i have a lot of questions about the isil aumf.

talking about strategy insecurity -- and security. i haven't been on this committee for about two years. seems like we are always in crisis management mode. just because there are always crises, it does not mean we need to define our job as crisis managers. i think we got to look at big picture strategy and take advantage of some successes. i will commend you and encourage you. i just got back from mexico honduras, and coluombia. mexico is our number three trade partner. migration to mexico is now zero. a very dramatic thing. even with significant security challenges, the increase in the mexican middle-class has been

sizable and the trade relationship has gone a long way in 20 years. honduras, a very challenging situation. the administration has put on the table a significant plan of central america investment based on a planned the north and trying all nations put together. this kind of investment has the capacity of significant improvement for folks in that region. and also slow the unaccompanied minor migration. i went to colombia i was there the day you announced the special envoy from the united states to the peace talks to a company colombia in negotiations with the farc. colombia was a failed state in the late 1990's. they will say because of the u.s. investment and their own hard work, they have become next to canada, our primary security partner in the

hemisphere. they provide security in egypt they provide assistance to central american nations and their economy has grown. people who have done your job of secretary of state, you spend all your time traveling east and west. american foreign policy is about europe. it was about the soviet union. it is about the middle east. now we are pivoting to asia. it is as if there is an east-west axis only. axiswe know it has a north-south axis. what people in latin countries had told me, you pay attention when there is a crisis. you ought to pay more attention because there is a lot going on. i would commend you for the work you have done with respect to cuba, the plan and central america, with respect to colombia. but i would encourage you to focus on the north-south axis.

we are one billion people. we share a name. we have a unique culture, and we share that, and it has made us who we are. it has also made is open to other cultures, as immigration from asia has shown. and trade is booming. prosperity has dramatically improved. it is not just carrier, the u.s. and the 33 dwarves anymore. it is significant major economies doing wonderful things. there are challenge, sure. but if this civil war and colombia ends there will be two continents of peace. you can't say that about europe and with ukraine and you can't say that about africa and asia. we are close to being able to say it for the americas. i commend you for the work you have already done. but let's just not focus our attention on the americas when there is a crises and then turn

attention back to the east-west axis. this billion people that could be continents of peace could be some of the best inoculation we would have against global security challenges if we are persistent and stick with it. and i would encourage you to do that. last i want to thank you on something else. the first time he had a hearing and i was sitting at the newest guy on the committee. i asked you about embassy security. state department had a multiyear search and decided they needed to do embassy security facility to keep our people safe. they had come up with that conclusion and picked in december of 2012 a few months after the choice of the site we had the horrible attack at benghazi. in the aftermath, the report suggested that this site was needed. and yet here we are. we are now nearly 3 years after

the selection of the site. two and a half years after the horrible tragedy at benghazi. and it hasn't really moved forward. but i was happy to see in the president's budget a proposal to finally invest $99 million to build this embassy security facility. if -- you mentioned that there are recommendations that have been done and there are recommendations that haven't been done. one that hasn't been done was to provide state of the art security training for those who serve in dangerous embassies around the world. given that the state department wisely recommended in summer of 2012 that we needed to make this investment. i'm a little chagrin but still excited that in fy 16 we finally decide to act on that. and i don't know if you have comments about the strategy or security point. thank you. secretary kerry: i have comments about both senator.

, on the latter we are very, very excited about this. the department of state and the general services administration looked at over 70 properties. there was a major property obviously down in georgia that was considered. it's the enforcement training center. the federal law enforcement training center. and there was a lot of talk about going there. but we made the right decision to go to fort pickett. over a 10 year period we will literally save -- the cost would have been $91 million to do it in georgia. it is $9 million, in the cost of transportation back and forth -- to do it in virginia. so this is a good decision. it is going to get implemented now. we're ready to go and we're very excited about all the due diligence that has been done and it's going to happen. on the policy, i couldn't agree with you more. and in fact several -- i think it was about a month ago. when did we do canada up in boston?

january. i invited the foreign minister of mexico and the foreign minister of canada to join me in boston for two days. we had dinner at my house and we had a full day of meetings. i took them to a hockey game. we had a lot of fun. we talked about north america. we talked about the ability of canada, the u.s., and mexico which are a huge part of the global economy when you combine them, to have a greater impact on central america and latin america. we have committed to that. in fact, i have had a meeting and the state department was in the last month in which we sat with our western hemisphere assistant secretary, who is doing a great job, and talked about how we are going to implement a

greater north-south complement over the next two years in this administration. and the appointment of the special envoy to colombia came out of my second visit to colombia and my discussions with president santos who asked us to get engaged and to become involved. and president obama agreed to do that. and together we decided that you know, bernie is the fellow to help get the job done. because he was intimately involved in the nicaragua-el salvador peace process. he served previously as assistant secretary for the western hemisphere. and in fact, i worked with him on the committee when i was chairman of the sub committee. so we think we got something cooking. and that together with the central america initiative and efforts to deal with petro carib, with the fuel problems in

the caribbean depending on what happens with venezuela and so forth, we're now putting together an entire energy strategy which involves mexico, and others, which could begin to really change the economies of the region. so i think -- i appreciate your focus. we should work on it next time we head down there, maybe you want to come with me. and i will be heading down there shortly. we're very excited about the possibility of really defining this north america axis. and you are right on target. >> thank you. senator menendez. senator menendez: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank senator kaine. someone who's been 23 years trying to create this focus on central america and latin america. great to that passionate voice about it. three questions. speaking of latin america. the situation in venezuela continues to deteriorate. the venezuelan government

arrested the caracas mayor on trumped up charges. there are high-profile prisoners who have languished in prison over a year. we had legislation past signed by the president that calls for including mandatory implementations of certain sanctions. can you give us an update of where the administration is at and how they intend to move forward? secretary kerry: we are perplexed by and disturbed by what is going on in venezuela senator. , i reached out when i traveled last year, year before, to panama. and i think it was in guatemala i saw them. we met. it was supposed to be a 15 minute meeting. turned out to be 45. we agreed we were going to follow on and begin a new period. the next thing i knew, couple weeks later we were being attacked for this and that and

being accused of this and that. this seems to be the pattern. whenever president maduro or someone in venezuela at the high level of their government gets into trouble or something is pressing politically, they blame america. it is repeated effort to trump up notions of coups which don't exist and to play, frankly, to an old script. this is regrettable. our policy is we're very supportive. we continue to meet with and encourage meaningful dialogue between all the sectors of venezuelan society business, , government etc. we call on the government to release political prisoners. including dozens of students. and opposition leaders lopez and the mayor.

and we're working with others to try to live up with their defense of democracy. so we're working with the national security council right now and the department of treasury and other agencies to implement the provisions of the law on sanctions and we're moving ahead as fast as we can. senator menendez: i hope -- senator kerry and i have raised : the issue of venezuela in all of my conversations with leaders in the surrounding -- senator menendez when we were : proposing this we were asked to withhold because there was an attempt by colombia and others to try to engage. and unfortunately that didn't produce results. and it seems that president maduro only continues to arrest those that either create opposition to his government and/or he uses as scapegoats. at some point i hope we can use the provisions of law sooner rather than later and i recommend your attention. secretary kerry: we are pushing in that. senator menendez: great.

secondly, turkey has gone into the exclusive economic zone of cypress. put ships there. followed with warships. it is pretty outrageous. this is a country cyprus part of the european union. if this is the way we're going have countries in that region effect others exclusive zones which are internationally recognized and at the same time pressure a country in good faith negotiation to try to solve their long-standing problem in terms of the division of the country, it is a horrible set of circumstances. i hope we can be stronger with the turkish government about that this just simply -- i've read some statements and they have been positive in terms of you know, criticizing what they have done. but they are still there. and at some point there has to be -- there is another one of those elements of the violating

international norms and not having any consequences. the message you send globally is you can do that if you happen to be the stronger party. secretary kerry: and we've raised this issue. i have raised this issue. i have met with president of cyprus, the prime minister. we've had conversations. it has been raised with turkey. i don't know when but in the not too distant future. i think i am slated to head in that direction. this would be one of the conversations come how do we move on cyprus. senator menendez: i hope we can be vigorous about the part that if you want to get a negotiation forward you can't have your warships off the coast of the country. that is just not a way in which to get parties -- and i have followed this issue as well for a long time. this cypriot government is more advanced more forward leaning , in trying to get to a negotiated settlement. but you can't do it at the point of a gun, in essence.

and it creates a real problem to try to move forward. so i hope when you are in the region -- secretary kerry: we've been doing it even outside the region. i had meetings in munich on it. we had meetings prior to that. i had meetings in new york on it. we have met frequently with all the players. we have people deeply engaged. we have an ambassador deeply engaged in it. and it did get in a bad place partly because of this. but other ingredients also. and my hope is -- i've had conversations with the turkish foreign minister about it. previously, now prime ministerd davotaglu and i were working closely on it. my hope is we can get back to equilibrium to allow us to move four but will -- four but will explicitly discuss those things.

senator menendez: on cuba. you talked about h. what also hasn't worked for 50 years is the leverage of the international community that was all engaged in cuba and all the castro regime has had more political prisoners, more repression and no openings whatsoever. the europeans, latin americans and the canadians and others who have traded with cuba and visited with cuba and done all of those things that we think are going to be the turning point did nothing to change the course of events there. i hope and i understand that at the president's direction you are conducting a review of cuba on the state lists of terrorist sponsors. so as assistant secretary jacobson was before the committee at that hearing, she confirmed that the castro regime continues to provide sanctuary

joanne chesimard, who is on the fbi's list of top terrorists. and we also know even while negotiations are being hosted by cuba with the farc. the farc continues to risk negotiations even inside the midst of the colombia and the colombian government pushes back on them. and we know cuba sent the most significant violation of u.n. security council resolutions on north korea, sent migs, missiles and tons of other military equipment to north korea in violation of those sanctions. when you are looking at removing cuba from the list of terrorists i'm going to look at that provision of the law that specifically comes from the export administration act that defines the term quote repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism to include the

recurring use of any part of the territory of the country as a sanctuary for terrorists or terrorist organizations. and i'll be looking forward to how you meet that threshold to remove cuba from the list. secretary kerry: that's all part of the analysis that has to be made. >> mr. secretary thank you for , being here. i want to raise just a couple of small issues relative to some of the bigger issues that you have been talking about and i'll do so briefly. i know we all have places to go. i know hundreds of american families have adopted young ones in the drc. they have suspended the process of those children leaving. i know it is incredibly difficult thing for us to deal with, with the government that is in place there. but i would hope that -- i want to raise this at this meeting just sell your department will continue to work with others to try to break that loose.

and also get signed up love her -- also get some kind of lever in place with the drc. these are kids that are adopted today by u.s. familys. -- u.s. families. senator kerry: i have raised it personally. we are mindful of it. senator corker: obviously with respect to everything today it's minor. it's everything to the families involved and we hope you will continue to raise that issue. secretary kerry: we raise -- let me tell you. with the iranians, whoever it is, these names are all in the front of my head because we constantly raise people who have been held in one place or another. we don't always take about the

names publicly because that works to disadvantage sometimes. but there are folks in pakistan, places where we are highly focused on these situations. and it is a daily concern of the state department. senator corker: we appreciate your commitment to the authorization process and i think in many ways it can help you significantly to leverage efforts and get congress far more bought into some of the issues you are talking about today. and yet there is almost no knowledge of those activities because of the lack of involvement that's taken place. so i look forward to working with you on that. secretary kerry: ok. senator corker: i appreciate very much your comments regarding the modern slavery initiative. senator menendez and i introduced legislation today that hopefully will move through the committee later this week and onto the senate floor. and i know you are committed to the same. and i just want to close with this. i think there is a concern.

and i know we're going to have a lot of testimony. i know there is concern. we're going to have a lot of testimony over the next several weeks regarding syria. there is a sense of a lack of commitment. you are not going to dispel that today. but i do hope as witnesses come forth they will be open and transparent about the things that are underway. because today i think there is a sense that in essence we have a containment strategy that we're in essence riding the clock out until this president leaves office. we have the same concerns right now in ukraine. where we lured them west. they gave up 1,240 nuclear weapons. obviously russia would not be , moving into their territory today had they not done that.

and yet together with them and with the u.k. we made comments about their territorial sovereignty. and yet those are being invaded. and it does appear that the administration is not committed to doing those things that are necessary to cause ukraine to be able to at least defend itself. we were slow on intelligence. we are providing blankets. we are providing mres. but we're not providing some of the defensive lethal support that is necessary. secretary kerry: well. senator corker let me just : finish. senatorsecretary kerry: we're providing counterbatteries and other things that are defensive. i understand the debate. senator corker i just want to : say where it takes on iran is, there is a strong sense of a lack of commitment. of a not willing to hold the line. so i hope that we as a committee are going to be able to move forward on lengths that allows us to see that, to cause you to force -- to cause us to force a

process where you will submit what it is you are doing with iran. i know you have been working on it very heavily. i know you must be proud of that effort. and in the event you come to a resolution with iran, i do think it is important that it is submitted. that we have the opportunity to approve it prior to sanctions being lifted and the regime actually dissipating. and i think the role of congress to make sure that they are continuing to adhere to it is important. so those are comments i'd leave you with. we thank you for your service. i don't know of anybody who's worked harder to try to deal with the many crises that we have around the world. we thank you for your service here as a former chairman. and we wish you well. secretary kerry: thank you.

good to be with you. >> veterans affairs secretary bob mcdonnell apologized for telling a homeless veteran and loss angeles that he had been in the special forces when he had not. coming up, a conversation on press freedom and violent radicalism. an update on homeland security funding on "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern. >> secretary of state john kerry will be back on capitol hill for a second day. he is scheduled to testify about the 2016 budget request for state. he will also get questions about ukraine, russia, israel, iran and other issues. live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, also on c-span3 retired

marine corps general john allen will be at the senate foreign relations committee talking about countering islamic extremism. he currently serves as the president's envoy for combating isis> live coverage of 1:30 eastern. >> sunday on q&a, baltimore police commissioner anthony batts on the challenges of policing the city. commissioner batts: it was clear i had an issue with public trust. i stand and say it use of force is down 46%, to 30 discourtesy complaints are down, lawsuits and officer involved shootings are down. people >> and communities say we do not believe it. sending it >> -- >> sunday night on c-span's q&a/ >> veterans affairs secretary bob mcdonnell apologized for falsely claiming he served in the military special forces.

spoke to reporters briefly about the incident. secretary mcdonnell: good afternoon and thank you for coming. i'm bob mcdonald. as you know, when i was in los angeles, engaging in a homeless man to determine his veteran status, i asked the man where he'd served in the military. he responded that he had served in special forces and in an attempt to connect with that veteran, to make him feel comfortable, i incorrectly stated that i too had been in special forces. that was wrong and i have no excuse. i have great respect for those who have served our nation in special forces. they and all veterans deserve a department of veterans affairs that provides them the care and benefits that they have earned. we at v.a. are working hard to

restore trust and again i apologize to those who may have been offended by my misstatement. we remain very focused on continuing our progress to better serve veterans. i'd be glad to take your questions at this time. >> mr. secretary, -- from the huffington post. >> hi, dave. >> have you had time to think a little more deeply about what caused you to burst out like that and what was your motivation? >> as i said, my biggest motivation was to connect with the veteran. as all of you know, in my first national press conference, i gave out my cell phone number and many of you have been kind enough to publish it and repeat it and i get calls from veterans every single day. my whole purpose in this job is to try to connect with veterans and to better serve veterans. that's what i was trying to do.

>> a lot of people are wondering, mr. secretary, with your experience, your service to the military then and now, how could you possibly say such a thing? >> i made a mistake. i apologize for it. i was in the army, i went to west point. i was an army airborne ranger. went to jungle warfare school in panama, arctic warfare school in the arctic. desert warfare school. when i was in the 82nd airborne division we were the rapid deployment force for the u.s. military. >> did you even realize that you had made that mistake as you call it? and did you ever think to correct it? >> i was talking to a homeless veteran. i was concerned about getting that homeless veteran, if they were a veteran, the kinds of cares and services that they needed. what i said was not on my mind at the time. i was trying to connect with him and we had people with us that could help get them into a home if they were a homeless veteran.

[indiscernible] >> for those special forces say they feel a bit insulted, even with your service, even with your ranger status, they had a sense of insult. >> i apologize to them. >> mr. secretary, do you think -- >> suzanne. >> you say you want to connect with veterans. in light of -- in the recent situation -- [indiscernible] what does that have to do with connecting? >> what you try to do when you connect with someone is try to find common ground. and with veterans, my common ground is my veteran experience. so what i was trying to do is find a way to connect with that veteran. and as i said, i made a misstatement. i apologize for that. i have no excuse for it. but if you look at my 61 years you'll never find anywhere in any of my biographies that i've

claimed to be a part of special forces. i've never claimed that. it was a misstatement. it was a mistake. >> did anyone tell you that you had misspoken? or the statement was not accurate. >> the question was, did anyone around me tell me i had misspoken. the answer is no. >> you also recently stated that 60 people had been fired from the department based on misconduct around the scandal allegations before you were secretary. now about the misstatement, are you concerned that these are going to undermine your ability to rebuild -- >> for my 61 years, integrity has been one of the foundations of my character. it's the reason i was a boy scout the reason i went to west , point, the reason i went in the infantry at the 82nd airborne division, i reason i joined the procter and gamble company and the reason i'm here. the reason i want to be here is to care for veterans. so integrity, character is part of who i am. and i will do better to make sure that i don't make mistakes like i did in los angeles.

>> right now, capitol hill lawmakers are accepting your apology. do you feel like you've used your one free pass you have -- in your relationship with capitol hill. >> trust is something that is gained every single day, one veteran at a time. when i get these phone calls from these veterans or text messages, they tell me the problem they have, i go away and work on it with a team of people that i have and if i can solve that problem, i've earned one bit of trust. now, i may give up a bit of trust the next day, but my job is to work for these veterans every single day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and get them the benefits that they've earned. i served with them. >> did you ever consider resignation? >> i want to serve veterans. i'm here to try to prove that we can make v.a. work and that the veterans who we serve can get all the benefits that they've earned. that's what we're working for and we're making progress. wait times are down 18%.

backlog is down, the claim backlog is down about 60%. homelessness is down 33%. great progress made during general shinseki's time. when sloan gibson was interim secretary. we're trying to keep that going. [indiscernible] i can't hear. >> questioned the statement of the number of people who have been fired, you said 900 people were fired. 60 were directly related to the wait scandal when in fact there was a much smaller number. might be a pattern of credibility. >> chairman miller and i meet frequently. we talk on the phone frequently. we have a great relationship. we work together to help solve veterans' issues. i think what you saw in our last committee hearing was tremendous unanimity from all the members of congress and the v.a. around what we need to do. we're here to serve veterans. everybody wants that. nobody can dispute that. thank you very much for your questions.

thank you. >> what exactly were you trying to say? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> unless a funding deal is reached, the department of homeland security partially shut down by the end of the week. we will get an update on "washington journal" from congressman henry cuellar. we will talk to house foreign affairs committee mark meadows about homeland security funding and immigration. a conversation about the evacuation of the u.s. embassy in yemen. john hudson of "foreign policy" magazine will join us. join the conversation by phone facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is live

each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> some of our featured programs on the c-span network. on c-span2's book tv, alan ryskind talks about the communist party in hollywood. our conversation with harvard law professor and author luni guinier. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at six occult the eastern, -- six clock p.m. eastern. an interview with former consultants to the nixon white house. a classified study on

vietnam which he gave to the new york times. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400. email us. send us a tweet at @cspan #comments. >> john kerry will be back on capitol hill for a second day. he's scheduled to testify about the 2016 budget request for state. he will get questions about ukraine, russia, israel iran and other issues. we will have live coverage this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. later, also on c-span three, retired marine corps general john allen will be at the senate

foreign relations committee talking about countering islamic extremism. he serves as the president's envoy for combating prices. live coverage at 1:30 eastern. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. 43 new republicans, 15 new democrats and the south. 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate. 108 women and congress. the first women veteran in the senate. keep track on c-span. rp or congressional chronicle has lots of useful information including voting results. new congress, best axis on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the editorial director of france's "le monde" newspaper

says the french government is considering internet restrictions in the wake of the shooting at "charlie hebdo." a conversation on press freedom and violent radicalism. this is one hour 20 minutes. >> first, the former editor and chief of "le monde." i hope everyone in journalism knows, every publisher knows if you have a problem with the first amendment, you call floyd abrams. then i will ask to talk of the the elephant in the point of understanding of what the

problem is, what the underlying problem is and where things are going. i'm hoping there's a lot of dialogue. i will ask each person to speak for about five minutes. sylvie first will tell us what is going on and what the problems are from her perspective. i'll let floyd outlined the differences and similarities between our idea in america of free expression. with no further ado. let us know what you think. >> thank you very much. thank you for having me here. it is always a great pleasure to come back to new york, where i have spent five of the most productive bulk and enjoyable years of my life. i will go straight to the point. we have a serious situation in france at the moment.

france has the biggest jewish community in europe and the biggest muslim community in europe. i used to say we have our own little middle east in france. we have had tensions at various times. you may remember in 2003 and 2004 during the iraqi invasion and war, there were a lot of tensions in the middle east. they immediately reflected in france. there was at that time a rise in anti-semitic incidents. there has been that kind of period. last year during the israeli offensive in gaza last year, we

had a lot of tensions and friends. the january attacks have brought us to a new level. since these attacks, we have reached a crucial point. i have written that these attacks were a direct assault on our identity. they targeted several pillars of the french identity -- free speech diversity, the place of jews in france. the targets were very obvious. the cartoonist who had drawn drawings of mohammad jews targeted as jews and killed as

such. and security forces members, most of those victims of the attacks of in the past couple years, most of the security forces who have been targeted in various attacks have been men and women who had diverse ethnic backgrounds or muslim backgrounds. this is not a coincidence. we're forced to confront the threat that has been there for some time and we knew it was there. the intensity and ferocity of the attacks in january have made us look squarely at the problem. now, how do we confront this threat? again, let me go straight to the point, there is no simple answer

and we are struggling. we are struggling as a nation, we are struggling as a society the government is struggling. the security forces are struggling. you may have read the report in today's new york times about how the intelligence work was a challenge and there was also an investigation two days ago in "le monde" addressing this issue. schools are struggling, teachers find themselves with new burdens. churches are struggling. the whole country, the media is also struggling. this is the situation right now. there are positive elements. the rally of january 11 with something extraordinary by all

standards and also the international solidarity which was expressed on that day. i was there, i was myself totally surprised by the size of the crowd, the behavior, you are probably all familiar with their behavior. people demonstrated a sense of responsibility of maturity. the spirit of the crowd also. this was an act of solidarity and defiance and resistance. it was definitely something we have to build on. even though we do not know yet exactly how to build on it concretely. we had this famous "je suis

charlie" slogan that was quickly found out and followed by "je ne suis pas charlie," and we found out that a lot of people in france did not feel that they were charlie. we will come back to this later. another positive element in this terrible rise of anti-semitism that we have witnessed lately is that french jewish organizations have broken with and the positive element is not that they have broken but that is the step they have taken, they have traditionally stuck to israeli policy. they have broken with this line by saying no to prime minister netanyahu's call for mass immigration. people have been shocked by this. and french jews, most of them, those who have expressed

themselves have been shocked by this call and have very openly said they feel their place is in france and they do not want to -- they should not leave. another positive element was much smaller. it is a sign. a spontaneous demonstration yesterday by high school students in sarre union, the town where a jewish cemetery was vandalized. by teenagers, 15 and 16-year-olds. we do not know the extent of their motivations but this morning they were charged with -- i am not sure what the name of the charge is in english. it has been acknowledged that their motivation was

anti-semitic. several hundred school students took to the streets to demonstrate their solidarity with jewish people and went to the synagogue just to show solidarity. that is something which is worth pointing out. yet we have huge challenges and to name just a few. one is to stop anti-semitism. without giving way to accusations of double standards within the muslim community. this is something that is a huge issue in france. and this was part of the "je ne suis pas charlie" debate. one question you here in schools

and universities and work places everywhere is how come "charlie hebdo" is allowed to publish any critical material on muslims, on the prophet. of course, they publish critical material on many other religions. this is what is me addressed and at the same time, the standup comedian who attacked jews in his shows is being detained and charged with glorification of terrorism. why the double standard? there is no simple answer to this but these are questions that have to be answered in addressing the public debate. one thing the government is planning to do is to launch a national plan against racism and anti-semitism.

declaring it a national cause. they working on it right now. it was something that was planned that they are taking it forward to launch it in february. this will involve educational programs, security repression programs also and also regulation of the internet. i do not know exactly, we do not know what that means concretely. we go back to this issue because it is an important one. this is one of the things, one of the issues which have been grace. another thing we have to do in my view is to open the debate about laicite and this is one of

the most difficult things we have to do. i hope we succeed but at the moment it is proving extremely difficult because it is one of the main pillars of french culture, laicite. it have to do. is drawing from a 1905 law when we did not have a muslim community. and so people feel that a change has to be brought or maybe some opening but at the same time we do not want to be giving way just because there have been terrorist attacks. this is another very complex issue. it is new, we're pretty much in uncharted territory here.

you can feel that this feeling that something has to be done to open the debate, that it is a difficult one to open. last thing, freedom of speech. since the january attacks, we have heard a lot about this. i will not go in depth into this. there are more distinguished panelists on this issue here. but just to name a few issues which have been raised in the context of freedom of speech the cartoons, of course, religion, how do we address, how do we treat all these issues without betraying our faith in the freedom of speech. there is a strong tradition in france of criticism of religion which goes back to the 18th century, to the enlightenment. there are issues of sensitivity to other religions, two

different religions but yet we cannot be seen as going to the threat of terror. self-censorship, i think there will be self-censorship. but in a choice between censorship i do prefer self-censorship. and that brings us to the dimension of free speech that is important if we compare the situation in this country and in europe, particularly in france. there are cultural limitations to free speech and there are legal limitations to freedom of speech. in europe we do have a lot of legal limitations. i think that stems from our history. and i mentioned it already, the internet, the french government has been saying since the

attacks that there is an issue with the internet, with this material circulating on the internet. it is -- if you start to look at it it is terrifying and sickening what is going on. on social networks and anywhere. but we have not had many details on what the government is planning to do. you also have -- i see this debate on how to involve high-tech companies in trying to regulate this. we are just seeing the beginning of this debate but in my view it is one of the most important debates. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks, it is a real honor to be here.

it is a special setfit to be at an organization that deals with french and american relations and the like, to talk about the first amendment. we probably would not have a first amendment if the american ambassador to france, thomas jefferson, had not written to james madison at the time the constitution was being drafted. saying to him basically that he would not support the constitution if there was no bill of rights attached to it. jefferson wrote that it was necessary to have a bill of rights which clearly and without the aid of sophisms protected freedom of religion and freedom of the press and like and really

but for jefferson's strong view to that effect, we very well might not have a constitution that we have, let alone any bill of rights. the argument to the contrary is that it was not necessary, therefore it ought not have to been -- have been added. i thought i would mention three areas of america's first amendment law, which bear on what sylvie was just referring to. three core first amendment principles, the first of which is that as one great american scholar put it, the first principle of first amendment law is that there is no heresy. no blasphemy. in america. people may feel and conclude

that others have such views but the law does not recognize the notion of blasphemy. or, certainly, of heresy. which is not to say at the time of the founding of the country that there were not some state laws to that effect. indeed, there are still a few left. but they are not enforced and they are as we say unconstitutional. the second we do not have any ban which is constitutional on what is called hate speech, some of the sorts of speech that were just referred to in the previous presentation. when jimmy carter was president, an international covenant was drafted on political and civil rights which was basically signed by every leader of every

democratic country. one of the provisions was that countries were obliged to take steps, to take action to prevent hateful speech based on race religion, or the like. president carter signed it and attached what is called a reservation to it, and important reservation which said that as far as the united states was concerned, this was a core subject to the bill of rights. another way of saying we would not do it. we would not have legislation because it would be unconstitutional if we were banning speech because it was in hateful, against some religion, against some race or the like.

and the third principle is that we do not allow what has come to be known as a heckler plus veto where speech has evolved that is otherwise protected speech. the fact that some in our society are not only troubled by it but angered by it maybe even , respond violently to it is not a basis for banning it. that we will not give a heckler, so to speak, the ultimate control over what is said and what is not. recent literature, very recent articles prompted by the murderous events in paris have asked hypothetical questions

how much do we really mean that, suppose someone were to say i am going to kill hostages unless you stop saying x. i think the odds are that our supreme court would still say that we are not going to let criminals decide what can be said and what not. i do not mean to address this as is -- as if it is an easy issue. at a time a few years ago when a preacher in florida said he was going to burn the koran you may remember that the secretary of defense personally called him on the phone and asked him not to. that there were riots in pakistan, that people were

killed, and justice breyer commenting off the record said he thought that might constitute the sort of clear and present danger which could justify even under american law a limitation on the person doing it. i do not think he is right. i do not think the court can say that that would be the law but these are not easy issues. for an american lawyer, it is interesting to compare it to our law to french law. french law is more complicated. i use the word deliberately, looking at my wife here, i recall a trip that she and i made to istanbul once from

paris. we were talking to a french diplomat. it was the time of gary hart running for president and getting in also its of terrible -- in all sorts of terrible trouble because of personal activities of his, and we were chatting about it and he said to me, we do not understand in france why you're making such a big deal about who gary hart has sex with. our prime minister has a very complicated personal life, he said. compared to american first amendment law, france has a more complicated law with respect to this area as the last presentation makes clear. france is a country that believes and in and treasures free

speech and has more limitations on certain speech than we do and sometimes, those limitations make for very difficult decision-making. after world war ii, france passed legislation basically abolishing all the vichy legislation and restoring that 1939 law which prohibited racist and anti-semitic speech. they did that for obvious reasons. france is one of many european countries that makes it illegal to engage in the denial of the holocaust. french law basically distinguishes and i am reading here because it is so difficult and complicated to draw lines in this area, but basically

distinguishes between insulting a religion as a whole and saying things which provokes discrimination, hatred, or violence. the problem is the first can cause the second or at least be involved in the second so it is very difficult to make the distinction and that is one of the reasons i think that the question of dual standards comes up repeatedly in france, why are you prosecuting the anti-semitic comedian and you allow, indeed celebrate after the murders what the mocking publication said about mohammed.

that is a consequence of a choice that different countries make about these very difficult issues which are -- which come about because of our different histories, the different turmoils, the different way we have seen our countries behave in one way or another. i am not here to predict how we would react here. if the next what i will called paris or copenhagen like event is here. usually the first place people go is to limit speech. in those circumstances. it is almost easier to do that than to take the broad social steps which you hope will prevent events like this from happening in the future.

in any event, there are real differences and there are real similarities. the big similarity is that both countries do have an generally act as a matter of law on the basis that they care a lot about broad freedom of expression, whatever the potential consequences of it because there are always potential consequences. the final thought has always seemed to me sort of interesting that here where we have more legal protection for speech, we do not have a lot of the publications that countries that have more severely limiting free speech have.

we do not have a publication like charlie hebdo and people would say it is in bad taste, it is offensive, it is trying to stick a finger in the eye. our law protects journalists far more than is the case in england. our journalists do not engage in hacking. our journalists routinely behave according to the law at least better than the tabloid journalists in england notwithstanding or perhaps a harder question because of the more stringent laws that exist in that country. it is stuff that is worth talking about on a panel. thank you. [applause]

>> so, bret stephens can you take the podium and, while you're going up -- you won the pulitzer prize and you are the deputy editorial person at the wall street journal. we set the stage but tell us what you think. >> i single-handedly took down osama bin laden. [laughter] thank you and it is a great honor to be here for this audience, for this foundation and to share the stage or the table with such distinguished panelists. i will be very brief. i agree with sylvie entirely when i think of the events in paris in january as a watershed moment. really not just for the french but there ought to be for all of

us especially here in the united , states. that may reflect on it in four different senses. since at least the attacks of 9/11, there has been a long-standing argument among -- in foreign-policy circles which revolves around the question why do they hate us? and basically there are two camps in this why do they hate us school. there is the camp that has made the argument fairly consistently that they hate us because of western policy in the middle east. that is to say because of american support for israel and for dictatorships like hosni mubarak's regime or the late shah of iran because of our policies vis-a-vis the saudi's, our energy policies sees in the middle east, our involvement in the gulf war, the most recent iraq wars, there is a whole list of policies that you can list or

the number of policies you can list and you can say this is the problem. if you change the policy and this is what you would hear from ron paul and people on the political left. if you change the policy you largely remove the problem which is to say that terrorism is a function, a reaction to policy in middle eastern countries. the other side of that debate is it is more fundamental, it is a clash of civilizations or at least of values which is to say that you have throughout the middle east both among the secular autocrats of the baath regime or the fundamentalists of the shiite and sunni stripe, you have values that are antithetical to the core concept of what western civilization not the least of which are

freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, all the freedoms we associate with the american constitution and with liberal democracies like france. after the attack on charlie hebdo, i would hope and i am speaking here as a columnist, i would hope that they would -- i would hope that that debate would finally be resolved. because it is very difficult for me to see how murdering a dozen journalists sitting around and editorial conference table who are guilty of nothing more than practicing not just free speech but scatological, vulgar irreverent speech with barbs aimed in multiple directions, it is difficult to see that as a response to western policy. i did not track the politics of the various editorial members

but my impression and sylvie will correct me if i am wrong is they were not as well aligned with the views of the american neoconservatives or others who are arguing that we should bomb iran's nuclear installations or do things like that. if anything, my sense is that they were people of the political left to simply -- of the political left who simply insisted that to realize that promise of a liberal democracy you have to prove that you could say and print and publish anything. and so it ought to be -- the attack on charlie hebdo should be a watershed moment. it had to give us clarity about the nature of the conflict which engages us now between groups like islamic state and al qaeda and all of us in this room and all of us who share the values we have.

that would be the first thing i would say. the second thing is the attack on the kosher supermarket or the grocery, it also ought to be an occasion for a certain amount of clarity. i started covering the middle east when i was based in brussels for the wall street journal in the late 1990's and early part of the last decade. even then and especially after the outbreak of the so-called second intifada in the fall of 2000, i sensed there was a great deal of anti-semitism on european streets and it was anti-semitism coming in both a vulgar and high toned variety. the vulgar variety which was the sort you would encounter if you walked through my parsley muslim neighborhood in downtown brussels towards the canal but

also a high toned variety that had a weird reflection in traditional anti-somatic tropes. -- in anti-semitic tropes i will never forget that shortly after the outbreak the economist had an editorial, the economist is a serious magazine and perhaps one of the best if not the best magazine in the world. there was a line, the israelis are a superior people, their talents are above the ordinary but they must curb their greed for other people's land. i said, boy, if that is not in anti-semitic trope. and there was -- it was hard to sit in brussels and have dinnertime conversations with the class of commissioners and

foreign-policy people and not get a great deal of it. now with the attack on the kosher supermarket i think it is out in the open and in that sense i am almost grateful it happened. that at last europe is coming to recognize that it has a real problem with anti-semitism that cannot be denied or passed off as a function of a reaction to israeli policy. the third point is this. my grandmother knew trotsky. i grew up in mexico city. trotsky is a favorite of mine. he had this wonderful line. he said, you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you. you may not be interested in the middle east and its troubles and turmoils and ideological fanaticisms, but it is

interested in you and i think that is another lesson we have to draw from paris. we cannot simply look away from what is happening in yemen today or in northern iraq or eastern syria and imagine that it is some faraway place. the french government has been admirably out in front. i would argue, out in front of the american administration, in the action it took in mali and its seriousness about the nature of the threat and the fact that it has to be confronted not just in the form of marches and statements about solidarity but it has to be confronted kinetically. that is an important point. i would add, i know i am running up against my time limit. i think because we are coming to grips with the fact that this was a war on western values like

free speech, one of the best responses is to have more free speech. if i were part of the french political debate i would advocate for two things, one of which would be what i once heard someone say, there is a pedagogy of insult. people have to get used to having their sacred cow gorded. it is not going to help if it is left only to charlie hebdo or publications like that behind barbed wire. people need to do it more. at the same time i would think if i were french policymaker that they need to lift, not impose new restrictions but to lift them because the charge of hypocrisy is potent. i do not see the popularity of the anti-semitic comic being brought low by the fact that he has been charged multiple times for violating the law. if anything, it is elevating

him. this ought to be an occasion to reflect and import some of the american statutory values of simply allowing people to speak without fear of the law. the same time i would want to finish with one thing which is this. people after the attacks said don't you understand this comes in the wake of the gaza war so people's emotions are heightened and they are upset. if you try to explain anti-semitic acts by reference to what some jews in some other country did you are not explaining, you are replicating anti-semitism and you have to guard against this, people were upset. so, "if only the israelis

pursued a different policy perhaps we would see the kind of anti-semitism we are experiencing here abate." the final point. when i was in brussels and especially when it was editor in chief of the jerusalem post, i was routinely scandalized by the crassness of european coverage of the israel-palestinian conflict. and when too much of european media portrayed the conflict as a story of a crass and brutal israeli goliath simply stepping on the necks of poor palestinians who lack all moral agency, it is not surprising that we should now find this anti-zionism translated into anti-semitism. there is -- i think the quality

of journalism, particularly among some of my european peers, the unthinking sense of solidarity with the palestinian s, whether it is hamas or fatah or you name it, the treatment of people like the prime minister of israel or any prime minister as some kind of unique devil figure is not a good thing. to the extent that journalists have a responsibility to do better journalism i would wish for some fair journalism and -- that came out when it comes to portraying a very complicated conflict that is not a story of angels on the one side and demon persecutors on the other. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. so, to set the stage again, i

would like to have about 10 minutes of cross dialogue. and then we are going to open it up to the audience so get those questions ready. do we have a microphone? we do? ok. so just drawing on something that floyd said. there seems to be the more you have laws that restrict speech the more obnoxious speech you get. and i heard you, brett say that there was relief in this situation that at least the problem was out in the open. if tomorrow magically lost restricting whether it is wearing headscarves or speaking your mind regardless of how hateful and of noxious the words were, with that make it better or worse and how realistic is it to think that the policy would move in the direction of less restriction? >> i do not think we are discussing or considering more

limitations to free speech. we already have legislation in place for a historical region. -- for historical reasons. the holocaust took place on our continent. naziism was on this continent. so this is different from here. there is a consensus on these laws generally. so nobody thinks seriously that in france we're going to have laws prohibiting or limiting the way you can draw mohammed or mock such religion or the other one. i don't think this is being considered at this stage. what may happen and what is already happening i think is that we all be a bit more

cautious. we already saw that in 2006 when those cartoons were first published in denmark. we had this debate about whether we should reprint them. in le monde, we decided to reprint two of them. there were 12, and we choose them, we decided we could not not publish them at all but we did not want to publish the most offensive ones. and also some of them were totally uninteresting. that is the kind of role. other papers decided not to print any of them because they were afraid or because they thought it was a bad idea.

we had this debate in the western press. and american newspapers and media generally took a different road from the one we took in europe. but even in europe, some papers decided not to publish them. the guardian had a lengthy discussion and debate at the editorial board about this and came up with this, i thought they explained their decision, they gave 100,000 pounds to support charlie hebdo and on the other hand they said we are not interested in publishing this. this is not the way of showing our solidarity. we do not find this. >> do you agree that there is less some-in-the-ithumb-in-the-eye

noxious journalism? >> i think so. you can see what is happening in denmark. some of us will take the defiant position and say we still have to publish this. that would be like an act of defiance and some of us will say we have to be more cautious. this is a trend generally. we have looked at the cartoons we published in the 1970's about catholic priests and jesus christ in france. we would not publish them today. the tolerance of the public is not the same as it was 40 years ago. so it is not only about islam, it is also a general cultural trend in europe where we notice this difference. >> what is your response to that?

to the idea that there is a self-imposed self-censorship partly out of, instead of opening up to the dialogue and having a wide open debate, some of it ugly and some productive everyone will pull back a little bit. >> i think there would be a terrible lesson to draw from the attacks of last january. i was somewhat depressed listening to sylvie's presentation that the question seemed to be between censorship and self-censorship. it seems to be exactly the wrong debate to be having after charlie hebdo. i am somewhat shocked to learn that you would have reservations about publishing images of christ analogous to the ones that the danish paper published of mohammed.

i think that is precisely the wrong approach. >> even at "the wall street journal," you would refrain from publishing things you thought were either not interesting or offensive or not particularly productive. >> in 2005 and 2006 i wrote an editorial for the case why we did not reprint the cartoons. >> speak into the microphone. >> in 2005 and 2006 i wrote an editorial for the case why we did not reprint the cartoons. there is a question, distinguishing what you have the right to print and what is tasteful and appropriate in a publication like "the wall street journal."

i think our views evolved and changed, and we did publish, we printed the cover of charlie hebdo after the attack because it seemed like you have to do it. i wish we had published the cartoon, i am speaking in a personal capacity, i wish we had published those cartoons back in 2005 and 2006. and that every newspaper had done the same. multiply the targets for islamists who think the proper response is mass butchery. >> how confident are you that that makes things better? >> nothing makes things too it much better. is a tough world out there. i look back on the danish cartoon debate.

the press i was doing legal work for at the time published a scholarly book about the whole danish cartoon affair and did not put any of the cartoons in there. my reaction was disbelief because one is not talking about taste anymore. this is what the book was about. and while perhaps you did not have to publish every one of them, it is hard to communicate what was going on if you do not do it. i have a letter in the "new york times" complaining about the fact they did not publish any of the cartoons at issue with respect to what we're talking about today. their stated position was they

have a policy against publishing materials which by their nature are offensive and do not advance public discussion of some issues. my view was that they were newsworthy. how could they not be? and while one could make a determination in the service of good taste, if you will, not to publish them all, publishing none of them seem to me to deprive the readers of the chance to make a more informed judgment or at least have a better informed body of knowledge as to what was going on. maybe it was the head of cnn who put it most candidly. he said i think of the wives and children of my employees.

that is why we are not doing it. i am not sending cnn into places they do not want to go but that is a surrender to terrorism. period. that is a way of saying they win. i think that is an unacceptable answer. >> just very briefly "the times, when" when they made the decision not to publish the cartoon it was pointed out at the time they had published anti-somatic cartoons for the service of illustrating some of the cartoons that a routine in much of the arab world when it comes to their view of jews. and that was the right decision

to publish the anti-semitic cartoons. they made the decision not to publish the charlie hebdo cartoons that much stranger and more curious. i would say further to what floyd just said, you cannot conduct editorial policy, much less foreign policy is if you -- as if you are in a harry potter novel, or certain things cannot be named. you're entering into kind of a strange moral universe the moment that you do that, which is another argument. right now we have a conference on violent extremism but we cannot speak of the violent extremism that we are all of us aware of being engaged in a struggle with. it is a slightly orwellian world. >> i have one more question than afterward, and then i will open it up.

>> just to clarify. my personal view is that we had to publish those cartoons and we did. again this year. but what i do not and of course i do not approve self-censorship and i think we have to stand up to all this. that is pretty obvious to me. but i do not like the compulsory aspect of we all have to publish. every editor takes his own decision and has the debates within his or her newsroom. but i must say i do not like this idea that we all have to publish the same thing. >> the yes-no question, it is your decision whether to put a beheading on the news. it is also promoting the group. you broadcast or you do not.

>> no. >> floyd? >> no. >> definitely not. >> everyone has a limit. let's open up to the floor and i will start up front and work our way back. is there a microphone? please identify yourself. >> [inaudible] i would like to slightly disagree with the premise. that u.s. law is more absolute than french law.

and the social acceptability. and so i think france has to france has to accept it is a multi-faced society at a time when you are trying to dissociate the muslim population from radical fundamentalism. it is not the smartest thing to do [inaudible] i do not think we should change the law one side or the other. but there is something broader and the debate is important to have in france. >> next question.

that was not a question. we would rather have questions for people want to comment, that is fine. is there another question? >> i am a reporter with newsweek and i have been covering the middle eastern conflict and isis for a year and half or two years. as a younger reporter i was curious how you think social media has changed and an example like charlie hebdo. so much of their reporting was coming out of social media. i was sort of curious how that was different from france and the united states, because i found a lot of american publications were pretty much giving all of their news through the aggregation of french publications' tweets, especially le monde, and the new cover

that was distributed through "le monde." that was through their twitter account. i was wondering if you could speak to the social media age. is there a limit as far as the journalistic aspect of that goes because that is how many of us share information. >> do you want to take that one? >> the issue with twitter and facebook and other social media is they are being used by the terrorist groups. to communicate and also to spread their propaganda in a

very nasty way. now, as i said, we are only at the beginning of this. i do not know how you can really put a cap on this legally politically. it is a very complicated issue and also technologically -- i mean, twitter has been closing a lot of accounts after those attacks. but, you know, you close one account and they will open another one. so i am not an expert on this technology, so i do not know how it can work technically. but it is a huge issue, and i am struck by the fact that -- i mean, i know you have this issue here in the states, and barack obama was in silicon valley the

other day and had addressed this . apparently the high-tech companies are being very reluctant to help him on this to collaborate. but the french government has not been specific at also far and it is still very vague. i am not sure they know what to do. >> are tweeters as protected by the first amendment as much as "the new york times" or "the wall street journal"? >> the answer is yes. >> we do not have a first amendment in france. >> if i want to go on twitter and say or do anything i want, is there any difference between what le monde can write and what i can write?

>> that is something which is being debated widely by legal experts. google recently was -- the european court of justice when it sentenced on this issue of the right to be forgotten. they decided google would be the controller. that is the new status, it is not on the search engine, it is new legal status. legally we are trying to find the right qualifications. i do not think in france it is -- we have found a solution yet. >> the fact that everyone is now press, everyone is now an editor is going to have, it has not yet had significant import for the first amendment and it may not all be good.

certainly issues on which the press as press has received considerable protection, confidential sources is one where it seems to me there is no way that everybody that says something on the internet is going to get the same level of protection, and the result of that may well be because i continue to believe is a answered a moment ago that everyone will wind up with the same protection at the end of the day. the results of that may be that the press may end up with less protection than it has now because it will be impossible or the judges will be unwilling to draw lines between the person in

pajamas who is on the internet all day and a great newspaper. in a perverse sort of way that could wind up hurting freighting -- that could wind up hurting freedom of the press. >> other questions from the audience? we have a microphone coming. >> thanks. my name is gary cole. question for the panel -- the u.s. courts have traditionally interpreted freedom of the speech with the rubric of saying that speech is not protected by yelling fire in a crowded theater. can you not make the distinction between depicting the prophet mohammed in "charlie hebdo" and the french comedian who promotes violence against jews?

>> you can make a distinction between what constitutes incitement to criminal conduct. and we do that. direct advocacy of incitement to criminal conduct with a high likelihood that it will occur is not protected, for example, by the first amendment. but that is a pretty polar extreme of speech. my reaction -- justice holmes who wrote that phrase -- falsely, by the way, falsely crying fire in a crowded theater -- was trivializing what that was about. if anything, we give more protection to political speech. not just speech in the theater or something like that. there is nothing that is more

protected under american law van commentary about how the world ought to function, who ought to be elected, how government ought to behave, assessments of people. under our law, i don't believe the fire in a crowded theater notion really helps too much because if anything it understates the level of first amendment protection that is given and is needed with respect to political or socially relevant speech. >> if i go on television and suggest a really good idea would be to kill all the first amendment lawyers in the u.s., would you think that would be protected? [laughter] it is just an example.

>> there was a cartoon was in "the new yorker," with the supreme court sitting around a table and one of the justices says "do you ever have a day when everything seems unconstitutional?" [laughter] that is what your question suggests to me. >> just one thing -- he doesn't call for killing jews. that would be easy to qualify as a crime. he says this well-known jewish journalist, it is a pity he didn't perish in the gas chamber. so that he was charged with. then he does the last thing -- he put on a twitter account "je suis charlie" -- the killer at the market.

that fits into the glorification of terrorism charge. but then again, that sentence, "je suis charlie" can be interpreted in different ways. it is difficult. it is not black and white. >> this prosecution for those kind of acts -- does it make him more popular? >> yes, absolutely. to go back to the anti-semitism, there is a strong streak of anti-semitism in the muslim community and in the arab world. there is no denial of this. it is not the anti-semitism that we knew in france in the vichy regime, in the 20th century. it is a different one.

the result is unfortunately the same but the origin is different. he is very popular in some segments of french society. the more he is prosecuted, the more popular he is, yeah. >> other audience questions? let me ask the two journalists -- in deciding to publish after the murders, how much was your own newspapers security and fear -- how much did you say well, are we putting our employees and others in harms way by inviting a violent act against us? >> we didn't take this into account. we had a discussion, we had a debate among editors, but that

was not really a factor as the people who went to the january 11 rally did not take into account the fact that there might be more attacks. it was something we thought we should do. >> it was a major factor. danny pearl was my colleague. we thought long and hard about it. i think "the journal" has more reporters overseas than other u.s. newspapers combined. we have people in harm's way way all the time, so we give it a great deal of thought. the cover of "charlie hebdo" -- the cover after the attack -- was made with a great deal of consideration and deliberation.

by the way after i was on "bill martinher" the other day, he says -- someone said that she wants to buy me a ticket to the middle east so he can see me be beheaded. so i read tweeted it -- so i read tweeted it. i think that is the only way to answer these people. exposure for who they are. >> question? >> i have more of a comment which is -- with the freedom of speech comes up the responsibility, especially for newspapers and media organizations.

when we discuss whether or not it should be published newspapers should have a policy, some principles, that you are producing a curated product whether you show a beheading. those are questions of what is made public. -- of what best serves your public and audience. overtime because we live in the digital age, everybody can publish, but it now becomes incumbent on the consumer to decide what best serves his or her purposes. so i did have a question. i would throw it back to the journalists -- what are your editorial publishes around -- editorial policies run publishing that information? and how are they centered? are they centered to serve the public? >> the point you make is an excellent one. we are agents, essentially, at the journal.

we are institutions safeguarding freedom of the press, and at the same time we are curators of the culture, what is taboo and what is not taboo. and how taboo evolves. we are a family newspaper, so we will avoid foul language whenever possible. there are occasions when you cannot escape using an epithet a foul word, if it is in transit intrinsic to understanding the story. when you reach those judgments a judgment has to be made. you can communicate the same information without offering the explicit language or the explicit images. all i would say is that there is no science to this.

it is editors sitting around a table making often difficult judgment calls. as i said, i wrote the editorial on why we would not publish the cartoons back in 2006. after charlie hebdo, it seemed like a different set of considerations were in effect. and people sort of looked for hard and fast and relatively simple rules for how these things are done, and the truth is there are none. we try to be responsible adults making serious judgments about difficult questions, and anyone who would suggest there is some simple line or it is all one way or the other, i think is not engaging in a serious conversation. >> one last question -- there are many americans who have never heard of "charlie hebdo" before the murders. i have seen it many times in

paris, and candidly, did not read it. what is the difference from someone like yourself and other educated french people between what they thought of it then and what they came to think of it, and what is specifically the future of "charlie hebdo"? >> i was not a regular reader. my brother is a subscriber. he is a teacher. we had this discussion, i would joke with him and say how can you read this magazine? he said -- he explained to me that because of the irreverent streak, the impertinence which is a hallmark of "charlie hebdo." i would conclude by saying, well, i am glad you can read it. it is good news. go subscribe to it. i think it is -- i think it has

an average circulation of 60,000 copies a week, each with something that is not mass circulation, but the are happy for this to be around. the other thing is the cartoonists were very famous in the general public. some of them wrote comics for children -- was not the same drawings but some of the cartoons or comics were read. they were also invited to tv shows, talk shows. and they would drive people wild while debating. they were really popular figures in french culture and in the french public.

now it is going to go on. they have collected quite a lot of money, but i do not know how much -- how long they can go on with this money. but they are trying to put together a newsroom which can produce regularly the paper again, and i think they have -- i think it is next week. they are working out of a different newsroom. it will go on, definitely. >> one minute. dr. just a factual correction. we did have national lampoon in this country for many years. >> and mad magazine, too. >> well, mad magazine was more for children. do yourself a favor.

there is a wonderful episode of "south park," which revolved around mohammed in a bear suit. while the figures of jesus buddha and moses were busy snorting cocaine, looking at pornographic magazines. it was just so brilliant and so profound in so many ways. i would say it is a higher version of "charlie hebdo," with a greater degree of genius. >> i want to thank everybody. thanks to everybody for an interesting and lively discussion. [applause] started this sunday on "q&a," baltimore police commissioner anthony batt on the challenges of policing the city. >> i had an issue with public trust and people believing things that were said. regardless of the fact that i stand in front like i did for you today and said the force

down 46% that lawsuits are down that officer involved shootings are dramatically down and we are moving in positive ways, people in communities say we do not believe it or it >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." "washington journal" begins in a moment. the house is back in at 10:00 eastern. and the work on expending the that expanding the five

republicans have conceded the fight over regulating the internet. approving regulated the internet like a public utility prohibiting companies from creating fast and slow lanes. meanwhile, capitol hill -- senate republicans announced yesterday they will separate homeland security funding from the battle over president obama posses a can of action on immigration or it is unclear whether house republicans are on board with the two-vote solution. we want to take your temperature