stories of women heroes in other countries. it's interesting how they are tremendously moved and inspired by the stories of women in india, pakistan, africa, all of these places. many young women are volunteering, going overseas, traveling overseas, and i am sure many students here are doing the same, and they feel energized, and it's almost as if feminism of those women to remind them of what real feminism is. women inund that young the audience are the most excited, because it is as if they have finally been given the ability to see true heroes on the stage who are not feeling may have to come out have to rest. they are women who are true women, who have actually come founded in enormous challenges. i guess because we are an affluent country, they start -- compounded enormous challenges.

i guess it is because we are an affluent country, the challenges of women are less so, whereas the world stage has real difficulties, outrageous treatment that we don't think of in america. --granted sizes, in a sense vitizes what feminism is. feminism is a very confused thing, and i think a lot of young women are confused and threatened by it. ms. tahir-kheli: there was a gentleman back there? thank you. welker, -- walker. alum.n

ms. brown: good to see you here. >> always good to be here. my question is, from a private sector alum. ms. brown: perspective, what are some of the things that organizations can do to promote women's leadership? we have been trying to take it forward step, but with some degree of limited success in terms of establishing women in leadership roles, women in board positions, signing on with the u.n. keefer she initiative -- initiative. ms. brown: what can you do corporately? >> yes. ms. brown: the reason so many women drop out when they get to the top -- a lot of women -- a lot of companies complain that they invest in women and a flameout after a certain time, and that, i think, is because

work is still organized around the male principle. and there is not enough understanding of how women's careers often are more in these cyclical movements if they want to be married and have children. if you make it so impossibly difficult for them to do both, they are going to drop out. they are not going to choose their work over the children. most of the time, they are going to realize, i have tried to balance this out, and then they can't, so they flameout. and it is a real issue. it is also a real issue for the company's too, because it is hard to create those kind of working conditions. what i do feel is that we are going more and more towards a -- economy, where projects you have to be able to have a population like a repertory company of women who can -- and

men, if they want to -- at a certain point they will come in and do what they are doing, and then they can cycle out for a bit and then come back, and they don't feel all the time that it unless they are doing this, they are failures. they have to be able to move in circular movements until their children are older, and then they can be in that mode again. i think it is really about having a creative look at how your company is dealing with that issue, and get the input of the women there to see what it would be like for them if they ,ould redesign the company almost, where there would be able to work in that way. found that i have been able to keep women for a long time by being very understanding and upfront about these needs, trusting them to work in different ways for different -- have these periods

where they can eat themselves, but still -- where they can go not sayhemselves, but why are you doing what you are doing? it is a way to grow women without losing them. case,hir-kheli: in that if the corporation focuses on output as opposed to facetime -- in academia, it has allowed you to do that. our calendars are more family-friendly. but with an expectation of performance, then perhaps -- ms. brown: absolutely, and with eggs like face time on your iphone, you should be able to do that. it i think companies are still very old-fashioned. ms. tahir-kheli: and when they do that, i have seen that the younger generation is doing it

-- it is mostly be men who get that break to do it, because they are assumed to be more able to manage the time, whereas you get it to a woman, who knows? she might be baking cookies. and so they run up against that. but i think it is a mindset. it really is. any other questions? >> marshall millsap, a johns hopkins alum. you have always in a distinctive voice. you have always had a distinctive leadership style. us how thisare with

story began? were there women or men who inspired you? ms. brown: man, because they were doing the jobs i wanted. [laughter] ms. brown: passion inspired me a lot. and you don'tion think about anything except getting it done, so i was always driven by that, i guess, which is a desire to tell stories and how do i do it, with whom do i do it, and where do i do it? i love institution building and i love teambuilding, and what i have found is -- [iphone ringing] ms. brown: sorry, i did not know i had a phone in here. i really think that creating unconventional teams is where it is at. ms. tahir-kheli: what do you

mean? ms. brown: casting teams not just for their capabilities and resumes, but for temperament and union yang. in and yang. [iphone ringing] ms. brown: sorry, i will turn it off. it's like casting a play, thinking i have this person -- i'm like a whirling dervish, so i have to have a strong tourist person. [laughter] , butrown: it's ridiculous i literally think like that. i'm thinking, where is my tourist, quieting me down? i can't be created if i don't have that person. if you have too many of those kind of people, you get a little doll. -- dull. between three or

five people who are the critical people. i have always intolerant for -- for competentrant people. i have little tolerance for people who are just ok. obviously, organizations need people who are just ok, and i am not good with you are just ok, but i give a long road to people who are talented, but can be difficult. talent managing is something that is underestimated as a skill. you want to be able to keep your style confident. i am sometimes shocked at how organizations treat their staff. staff, i don't mean show bones, i mean people who are gifted in a particular way. it could be something that they are good at, but critical for the success of the operation, and you need to tell that person that the thing so well -- it could be someone really good at writing captions.

captions are really important. ien i lost my caption writer, spent so long trying to find somebody who would make it sting. you have to realize that the skills of the crop are as important as the big thing. i think if you can make as people feel valued, it has a wonderful result and creates an esprit de corps that is very often missing in a lot of organizations. i am shocked very often and how people don't respond to people. in this age of over communication, it is remarkable when nobody ever answers anything. , they are so overwhelmed just sort of don't answer. i think that's intolerable. it is a sputtering offense as far as i am concerned. if someone sends an article in and someone has not lied, the first few hours goes by and the

writer is sitting there sort of ok. they are starting to feel queasy. by the end of the day, the next day, that person is miserable, hates you. another day goes by and you are absolutely dead. it is a redeemable. you have to be able to be responsive. i command you,: you are very responsive very fast. ms. brown: it just burdens a hole in my pocket. just you find that people don't answer? 20 times. annoying.kheli: very does not even matter anymore what they are saying. there was a gentleman back there, yes? u.n.am with the

i know there is a disproportionately smaller number of other men. what i wanted to ask was, how do we, or do we, recruit other men into this kind of conversation? we talked a little bit about the politics of recognition. when we talk about strategically empowering women, i feel like we can't forget that it is about power. and there is tremendous resistance from the other side. how do we bring other men into this kind of event? is it about making more justin trudeaus, is about wearing t-shirts that say "this is what a feminist looks like?" saybrown: a good idea is to every woman has to bring a man with her. i am bringing men to more women in the world on the stage. beginning to now introduce a man at every second

panel to make sure there is a man or a moderator who is a man. when the men get in, you want to make sure the impact the conversation, which is why engaging action on the stage is very important, because men don't want to come in and listen to the blathering on about women's empowerment. there is nothing more dreary than what i call empowerment babble, of which there is a lot. male equivalent of empowerment babble? a lot of conferences -- other conferences where men say they need to lift each other up? i think it is very important beyond that and bring their intelligence to what is happening in the world. you should be able to discuss everything that is happening in the world, bringing more women's point of view to what is

happening in the world, rather than only caring about what women are doing, because it makes no sense. if this -- it is half the population. so let's ring men next time. ms. tahir-kheli: having a seat at the table is a formula. it does not mean you control the thing, but for so long we have been told you are one of the boys. but some of the important change that has occurred is that some -- are willing to be called honorary women. say, "i am an honorary female because i believe in the subject." it is something we have to work on in our own circles. ms. brown: and creating leaders in this space. william hay in england has been a tremendous supporter of women. he wrote a book about slavery,

and it really made him understand exactly how appalling it is that sexual trafficking and slavery really has become a personal thing for him. it has led him in kind of a , realizing that the male leader in foreign affairs needs to be there. a piece on why it misogyny is intolerable and wine men need to speak up about it. not in the patronizing way, "my daughter," but because it is intolerable. heis a great voice, because is a very influential man, and he has made this his thing. when need to have more william trudeaus, and i think it is coming. ms. tahir-kheli: one question here?

>> i am the libyan ambassador to the united states of america. that is not an easy job to hold. i come from a very middle society. i was also appointed the first deputy foreign minister the history of libya. we lost a commission to support women in decision-making. we were inspired by women leaders around the globe. my observation is that, when we look to the world, the united states of america, we found that democracy,g in

after advancement for so many years, the ratio of women in leadership in the united states is very low compared to some of the parts of the world. and this frustrates us because women who have been struggling long, andll -- for so i think the ratio is 19% women in leadership. my question is, after our struggle, we realized that it is so much not about individual women, because when you are strong, you can push and fight your way. men.like it is about changing a lot of legislation and laws, and giving some convenience to women, like in other countries where it is , the ratio of women in leadership. it is 50-50 men and women.

i am amazed that this has not been done here. ms. brown: i think sometimes countries that have been through in rwanda, where the amount of limited government is very high because women have died -- because men have died. here, the structure has been so long in place and rigid that it is harder to break through. >> i compare you to scandinavian countries. rwanda is a different story. but in scandinavian countries, they made men stay at home, take care of children, exchange one year by one year -- for instance, when a woman has a baby, they get equal pay and a lot of privileges. why has that not been done here?

this is the question i leave you with. ms. brown: america is very different in every way to scandinavia. childcare andand all those things. listen, we have not even got paid family leave. it is absolutely remarkable. only, new guinea -- only papua new guinea is in the same category. it blows people's minds that this is true in the united states. it is remarkable. i agree with you. quotas are not really working. it seems to me that nothing is moving in that sense. it may be that a quota system is better, but it will be fought over very hard. i don't see it passing. it was very hard to pass in germany. el belatederk for 2 -- delayed it for two

years. it will be very hard to get that past year. ssed here. ms. tahir-kheli: there was a question on this side? >> hi, tina. and i started an organization for the next generation of women leaders. we are creating a project to highlight seven young women around the world that are in the most violent countries. from storytelling perspective, is there any lessons learned that he would get? like, what are good pointers to do or not to do, especially the not to do? video is very important, always better than getting an introduction in words. if you can introduce some body by a short video about their life, it makes it instantly engaging.

people are going to pay attention than if somebody comes on and starts to give a global introduction. that is very critical. you're are able to extract the most interesting parts of their story. have an amazing story but not tell it, so it is important to work with them and really understand what is generally interesting. and 20 to 25 minutes is the longest it will hold anybody's attention in today's world. the important thing is to move it along quickly and make that person tell a story. responseave much more than if it is elongated or man mentoring -- meandering.

ms. tahir-kheli: it has been a privilege to have me as a moderator for this. i just want to ask, with this being almost the end of 2016, would you say that countries get judged by how they treat their women? i think the health of a democracy can be judged on how it treats its women. the countries that caused the most trouble or the countries where women are treated the worst. that is why it is very important for our democracy that we make sure that women are continuing .o advance as our friends from libya just said, it is not acceptable but those numbers are as low as they are. it's just not acceptable. unless there is energy around these issues and protecting what we do towards women, not allowing misogyny to become

rampant without real genuine pushing of it back. things can go haywire, and all of a sudden you have a very different country. so you are absolutely right about that, in the sense that how a country treats its women is the critical factor for the next generation. ms. tahir-kheli: i want to thank you on behalf of the dean and community for being here and sharing your thoughts. ms. brown: i am sure this room is full of tomorrow's leaders, and i hope that you all turn out to be role models. i am sure you will. and "role model" is such a cliche, but it is actually about being great at what you do and not forgetting the people who helped make you great. that is what really makes you a role model. ms. tahir-kheli: being passionate about it.

dips where things go and don't go, but when you are passionate, it carries you through the dark moments. ms. brown: well thank you so much for having me. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] we are five minutes or so away from taking you to the national press club in washington. reporters will talk about campaign rhetoric this year on the first amendment. c-span's "washington withal," live everyday news and policy issues that impact you. thursday morning, kelly jane torrance, deputy managing editor for open of the weekly standard," -- "the weekly standard," on the latest of elements in 2016, including the rift between donald trump and other republican leaders nationwide. she will also talk about the attitude of women leaders towards mr. trump. rock the vote will discuss their efforts to reach millennial voters and get them to the polls on election day.

washington -- and the wall street journal's financial protection reporter will discuss this week's decision by a theral appeals court that bureau's structure is unconstitutional. she will also talk about what to do andas designed where the agency goes from here. join the discussion. watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump wednesday, october 19. our live preview from the university of nevada-las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the studio audience is at eight: 30 p.m. eastern, at the 90 minute debate is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us after the debate for reaction, and watched the debate live and on-demand using your desktop, phone, or tablet.

listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with the free c-span radio app, downloaded from the app store google play. a court decision yesterday takes a look at the operations c and takes a look at its leadership. joining us to talk about it, libby wheeler. with "the hill," there federal regulations reporter. can you talk about how the leadership structure is, and what does the courts have to say about it? cfpb is headed by richard cordray. he was appointed the president to head this independent agency in 2013. basically, the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit world that the way it is set up now is unconstitutional.

a mistake by creating a far-reaching agency that is led by a single director. instead, it said that it should with andependent agency number of commissioners and also a board of directors to keep it in check. >> why was the structure set up in the first place? decision that congress made. the agency came out of. frank financial reform law, and i was a good decision that it made. agencies, liker the treasury department. department hasy to report to the president and solve their directives. the president said you have to act more like the treasury department and basically be

governed by the president, and the president can supervise you and move your director at will. the organization is declared unconstitutional, does that mean it has to stop operations? >> absolutely not. the court said in its 110 page decision that this does not cfpb. the operations of cfpb can take enforcement actions. what is happening is that this is kind of a tweaking of the way the agency will be run, but it gives the new president the power to get rid of richard quarter, even if he wants to get -- of his five-year term even if he wants to end his five-year term. >> so if the supreme court challenged it, these actions should be avoided? >> sure. that is something you might see people -- something you might

see. people, and and challenge actions that -- comment in -- challenged agencies. aboutdefinitely the past action. >> what was the reaction from the white house? >> they said that this was a tweak and they did not seem to concerned about this. arren'sency is w brainchild. it could get overturned. they can ask the d.c. circuit for a full review of the decision by the roster of the judges, instead of just the three, or they can appeal.

brought the lawsuit? mortgage lender that took the agency to court after cfpb fined it for allegedly accepting kickbacks from mortgage insurers. takeaction pushed them to the agency to court. and argue something republicans have long been arguing, that cfpb is unconstitutional. lydia wheeler is the federal regulations reporter for the hill. are now live at the national press club event with reporters talking about campaign rhetoric. we have live coverage here on c-span. attention oft the

the panel and the people in the audience. hopefully, you, at home. we are going to look at the bipartisan issue of the impact andho is in the white house the access to information. my name is chuck. i am a partner and i represent journalists across the country. joining me on the panel, starting on the far left, kenneth. author of the "supreme court yearbook." he authors a popular blog. he graduated from georgetown university. there is a big difference, especially to those who went to both.

he was an adjunct professor and often appears on broadcast commentary. next to me is kitty townsend. wonderful non-profit that is dedicated to press issues. filer and she is suing the government under the freedom of information act. outstandingd an arguments to the d.c. circuit that actually won. when a government employee puts their e-mail on a private law follows.oia >> not that government employee, though.

>> we will talk about that one. new information every day about the white house and she has been covering the clinton campaign, sharing her company's coverage of clinton, in addition to her work as a white house reporter. she previously worked at the washington post and the tampa bay times, covering government at every level. she is a graduate of the university of virginia. finally, my friend at the end is states supremed court reporter for the new york times. workll discuss some of his in his sidebar and his news stories. yield and heate of

joined the new york times in 2002. and joined the new york times in 2002. he has defended the new york times as counsel. he has taught courses at yale and the university of chicago. thank you for joining us. off point was the trump comments where he expressed frustration about journalism and journalists, making suggestions that caught the attention of a lot of people. clipught we might show the that launched us into this area of discussion. about beingtalked unhappy with the new york times and the washington post. you said you should open up a libel laws.

to prove, you have that they published something they knew was false. how would you change that? >> in your times has written stories about me that are false. they know they are false. they are so false. they are defamatory. everything is libelous. the problem is, the libel laws are nonexistent. and it isy you are x unfair. if somebody writes falsely, you should be able to sue. win.an sue, but you can't they are set up that way for the papers. when i win, i will make the laws fair. if somebody writes a knowingly defamatory story about me, i should be able to sue and get

damages. i will have the loss changed. people say, "let's go after them more." but the laws are unfair and it makes the media dishonest. >> that was trump, the republican candidate, on fox news. he talked about wanting to open up the libel laws and he says that he will make the laws change, if he is president. -- if donaldn trump is elected, he will be the head of the executive branch. the executive branch control the flow of libel laws? >> thanks for the question. thanks for inviting me.

i have spoken to my law school class -- chuck has spoken to my law school class. you are returning the favor. >> retaliation. >> the question goes back to high school civics. thatof us will remember the government of the united states has three branches. congress is the one in article i. the president is in article ii. the president is entrusted with executive power. the judicial power is with the supreme court. donald trump uses the phrase, "i am going to open up he isbel laws," oversimplifying.

-- governing law of the law statesaw of the united decisionm a landmark from the supreme court of the from before i was covering for anybody. it is a case that many, if not newt, would recognize -- v. sullivan. if i heard mr. trump correctly, he said that you ought to be able to sue when it is false, defamatory, and they know it is. that is new york times versus sullivan.

i do not know how he plans on changing the law to open it up. historical for a sketch. let's go back 300 years to the case of a german immigrant who printed a paper called "the new york weekly journal." some writer, i'm not sure if we know the writer of the story, ofused the colonial governor various acts of corruption and the colonial government charged likerinter with libel, charging your it staff for libel for whatever is published in your news organization.

was favorable to the plaintiff and the presumption was that you had the character. so, if somebody published something defamatory, you were presumed to be liable, unless you could prove innocence. the jury spent 10 minutes and found him not guilty. it was a landmark in the free press law in the united states. unfortunately, when the united states became a republic, the first amendment took up -- it says that congress will make no law that abridges the freedom of or of the press. these days, we would say "media."

it was seven years after ratification that the federalist president, john adams, and his allies made a law called the , whichn act of 1798 drove a truck through the first amendment, making it a crime to print malicious writing against the government of the united states, either house of congress, or the president with the intent to defame. that does not sell my free speech -- that does not sound like free speech. members of congress were thrown into jail under the law. the lastfederalist had laugh, thomas jefferson.

precedenttrump has a of john adams to fall back to. >> that is exactly right. let's fast-forward to the new york times versus sullivan. involve adoes not story or an editorial written by the new york times. vertorial, which defended martin luther king. there were minor errors about the montgomery police department that the police commissioner construed as personal defamation. and got a big verdict, which i think was six figures. it made it to the supreme court

and the supreme court said, we have never had the occasion to consider the constitutionality laws.el we now have the chance. justin brennan -- justice brennan wrote his best decision ever. speech isook, false constitutionally contacted -- protected. writetory speech, you can and be critical of the government. that is protected. when i teach this class, i make a circle. these circleswhen intersect, it is still constitutionally protected, unless the statement was published, knowing that it was false.

-- published knowing that it was false. that was the test of "actual malice." and test was applied adopted for suits against public officials and that was expanded to cover low ranking public officials, candidates for public office, public figures, public figures, including a football coach at a football college, a retired general who led a demonstration against desegregation, the chief executive of mobil oil. a public figure does not necessarily include a prominent socialite in a high-profile divorce case.

somewhere between public and private, the protection for a ed.el defendant is weaken donald trump, ever since he has been public -- >> donald trump would be a public figure and you make it hard -- you make it seem hard to win, as a public figure. >> it is a substantial obstacle that few could overcome. done.n be overc you can show, for instance, that a case where a reporter showed what he

write wasto false and the editors said that he would publish it. test wouldmalice be overcome in that case. it was hard and it was intended to be. >> donald trump says that he is being maligned and that he is offended. "knowingly."ord, umbridge, like o not falsehood. that?he law allow for >> it does not. criterion in

privacy lawsuit. if you publish an embarrassing fact or a private embarrassing offensive to a yes.onable person," the offensiveness trump first amendment? sorry. iteration ofnt this is from the roberts court. baptists church at thewere demonstrating funeral of a fallen servicemember and the demonstration was very offensive, but the supreme court said, "i'm sorry this was very offensive, but that is what the

first amendment is all about." the notion that the trump criteria, "personally horrible," it would have no bearing on the suit. that youis an argument sometimes have to offend and that is the job of journalism, pushing the buttons of public officials to provoke discussion. the snyder versus phelps decision we were told about, which says that the offensiveness is not grounds enough to bring a lawsuit and that even offensive speech is protected, that decision came out of the roberts court and he has been the chief justice for

11 years now. hasg forward, how strong the first been on amendment? >> for our purposes, quite good. there are some who say that the roberts court has not done as much as it could. the first amendment tries to guarantee that the government will not censor speech the people need to know to be active citizens in the democracy and i do not think there is a reason to be afraid of the roberts court. they are not want to cut act against the new york times v. sullivan. there are questions on whether law enforcement officers are public officials. you can see the argument going the other way.

there is no interest on the current court on cutting back against newer times -- new york times v. sullivan. the person i had a problem with, scalia, died. sullivan is problematic, in a way. it is in the fabric of the country. nobody wants to cut back. by thess was being sued lawless southern officials, who wanted to make sure that they did not cover the civil rights movement. oxygen --d us like needed us, like oxygen, to show what was happening. brennan didcause not get the majority for what he

really wanted to do and what would be the correct first amendment answer, for bidding lawsuits for public officials -- bidding lawsuits for public officials, there was a false standard of reckless. likesrstand why scalia that interpretation. if trump was elected, the only thing he could do would be to start of pointing people to the supreme court who would vote the way he wanted. >> there are sometimes changes in the supreme court. v.just had lawrence texas, a right to marry case. held86, the supreme court that the state could criminalize

gay sex. the supreme court has reversed itself. >> it is true that cases are occasionally overruled. that is correct. >> you are saying that could happen. it is not likely. >> this current court? i do not see that at all. perhaps.p nominees, this is settled. i do not think that the press will get further protection and i do not take it will get cut k on two- cut bac generations of protection. >> i believe that berger and justices the only two who have considered -- who have called for reconsidering

sullivan. i don't think there is anybody who wants to take a bite out of this. >> there is nobody who want to extend the rights further? >> i would try to keep a press case out of the court. i do not think they are eager to do us favors. >> interesting point. we have a reporter's privilege judith miller or james rice getting threatened wh jail. >> are they receptive to reporters on these cases? no. i do not know that we would it a single vote for the reporter's privilege. i am told that judy's case went

to the court and there was not a single vote for that case. i did not want to see my colleagues in jail. reporter'sd of privilege, that was good. toyou made the allusion scalia, who famously said that ed the malice standard. >> not a fan of the press. he thought that the first amendment had an original meaning and it does not fit well with the original meaning of the constitution to have false standards. i think it is possible that you could make the argument to officials, asblic

such, should not be protected. the first amendment ought to protect all criticism of the government. hard.lice standard is still seems to be clinging to the notion that criticizing people in power should not be actionable. >> there was a grieving father who was trying to arebury his son and he had to put up with protest from lunatics. the supreme court said, we have to protect this. thought that this was in the nature of "fighting

words." barnes whowas ,nterviewed the grieving father who said that there was not justice.. some of the other justices? talk about justice breyer and justice thomas, their views on the first amendment. thomas is good on the first amendment, particularly when it is powerful people or corporations. less good with students, people in prison, or unions. worste breyer is the first amendment judge, with perspective -- with regards to the press. most people think that the first amendment law is categorical.

if you are inside of that category, you get complete protection. justice breyer takes a european view of allen saying interest. he comes out on the right side of the balance, as he did in a balancing and making it clear that, if the balance was different, he might come out a different way. >> it is difficult. know, presentu and trump in office and the appointment power of the president -- a president trump in office and the appointment power of the president? is this a valid concern?

>> we have three justices who are approaching their 80's. the next president is going to andint a scalia replacement those three. maybe others. ofhas ginsburg shown signs stepping down? the contrary. ate is champing at the bit having another democratic appointee. she will get to start assigning decisions and she has never assigned a majority opinion in her life. this seems to brighten her day. i do not think she is going anywhere.

>> she is determined. donald trump mentioned the .ilicon valley billionaire is this resonating with voters? >> not really. we talk about this and we complain about it, but not really. i'm sure that you get the same "if you writey, about yourself or the media, it is all that yourself." i am wondering who they will point and what it will be like. i talked to a younger voters who said, i am trying to convince my

friends to vote and think about the next 30 years, thinking about the supreme court. 8e cannot look at the next 4- years. lets make this bipartisan and look at the clinton side of things. automaticher an ticket to pro-press justices? >> there are lots of conservatives who take an expansive view of the first amendment. citizens united was a "classical" first amendment decision. >> justice brennan was a consideredappointee, by eisenhower to be a mistake.

there is something to that. >> right. brennan was an effort to get the catholic vote. these days, it is all ideological. for the first time, it strikes you as surprising, because of the polarized country, that the conservative court justices were appointed by a republican and every liberal was appointed by a democrat. me theford said, bring best lawyer in america. there used to be a jewish state. an era where the the polarization . nation -- of the nation.

>> would you be worried about records with the tax making its way up to the court system? >> we are right and he is wrong. you are allowed to publish news with information that is accurate to inform the electorate during a presidential campaign. that is not a close question. bend the courts will not to the will of the president, would you be worried about a president was in the white house ? >> we would be worried with either. a lot of attention is paid to trump and we think that, whoever

wins, the access is going to be less than it currently is. obama does not look so bad anymore. we have been complaining about him and press access. those of us on the campaign think that both candidates will be worse for press access. we will be worried about legal worriedd we will be about every day access in the white house, the information we get. at the candidates and how they've treated the press. look at the candidates and how they have treated the press. trump has been vocal. those who cover him, and i have he --d obama and clinton,

the way i would characterize it is out there and talking about what he does not like. we hear from people who do not like stories. this is part of his campaign rhetoric every day now. it is about the media and getting into the white house to change things. anecdotally, some of the things that have happened, i will use this example from sunday. he has a traveling press corps. you have print and radio following both candidates around. on sunday, which was the second presidential the bait, a note -- second presidential debate, a note came and the press corps found out that donald trump left them behind and travel to st. louis.

the candidate is not on the same plane. we know this. there is not even the information there. he is not providing the information that candidates have provided. he is providing little information about fundraising -required. legally >> he is seeing managed, for political -- is being managed, for political reasons. every once in a while, he gets off of the leash. what about a president trump? >> we do not really know. it is hard to tell what is the rhetoric and what he would follow through on. he would have the press conferences and lash out at the media. he would have more press

conferences than president clinton. there are lots of things that can happen that are not legal issues. how would his information handle foia? it is not great right now. would he slow it down more? restricted inbe the white house? can he say that he does not want to have a set of reporters following him around the press pool? when obama leaves the white thee, somebody represents newspapers, radio, and tv. when he goes out to dinner, we are there. can he say that he is not going to do that anymore? he probably could. we are worried about all of those small things every single day.

>> what about clinton? how has her access been? >> we do not hear about it. she is not focused on it. clinton has not gone along with the media since she was the first lady. she is not talking about it every day, but it would not be a priority for her. access wouldn't be a priority. on the campaign trail, we have pushed for more access to get on the same plane with her. to give you perspective, both candidates, regardless of the , allowed a protective pool. the reporters get to travel with him or her, no matter what.

if history gets made, we are there to witness the history and neither candidate has done that. they are not doing it. both of the candidates before, they did it for the became nominees. we push for that to happen when she became the nominee and it still has not happened. to give you the idea of what we're talking about this year, when hillary clinton got ill, they did not tell the media where they were going. they left the media. i do not think it would be the priority for her. she is giving less information out on a lot of things and you can look. she is giving out some information on fundraisers, but not what obama gave out all stop

she is giving out less and i do not think that obama did it in a good form, but he gives out visitor law x. there is some format there. do i think that hillary clinton will do that? no. there will be less information and less news conferences with the media. >> is this an increasing trend with whoever occupies the white house? is there less willingness to engage? >> i was writing about health care when they first lady was the head of the first health care task force and she successfully resisted having act applied to the

task force with the industry and the consumer representatives. to say that hillary clinton would not make access a priority -- >> i am being diplomatic. in answer to your question, even without trump and clinton, i think that we would see less "more traditional" press access. they do not need this. they have twitter and instagram. they have a million different ways to get information out and they do not have to go through a filter. we complain about that and that is their answer. "that is just the world we live in now and we can get

information out another way. -- another way." >> do they need you? in, but iee to jump think that people get information in a lot of different ways. we still provide information in ways that people read or listen to on television. what they call journalism is not journalism. they can get their message out. that is fine. we are taking that information and filtering it for you. what they are talking about, putting out things to the polarized world you talked about on the right and the left, they just take the information and say what they want. i would obviously say that we

are still needed and i know that we are. it is a question of whether or not the united states think so. know, the white house cares about what the new york times says about the white house. >> does the supreme court? >> on occasion. obama has been criticized for in leak investigations . do we have a sense of what the candidates would be like? that -- so, a few years ago, people were hearing that the obama administration would go after the leaks and start investigating and they

down.it we all thought this would be the i am notuld be and sure about that with hillary clinton. i was being diplomatic when i said, "it is not a priority." she does not want information out there. this is a huge leap. let's talk about the obama administration record and going after journalists. there are a few famous thedences recently and committee got active with working with holder. >> it led to some revisions in the guidelines and a chronic case is the one of james and

there are issues with the associated press and phone records they were not aware of. jameswas the fox news' having a warrant. these came to light after the alarmed the media dialogue news media and, on thermed department of justice side, they issued subpoenas and warns to journalists and they were they only reforms and covered subpoenas to the media

devil, with respect to foia, is in the details and implementation. the freedom of information act setute has requirements forward by congress and they decided not to apply them to themselves. it is only to be executive branch. how this gets carried out will depend on the administration priorities and the views on transparency. it is a congressional mandate and it can be shifted to who the president appoints as the attorney general and that goes foileaks investigations and

a> . >> i teach the freedom of information act and i say that it sounds good. exemptions and it sounds like a roadmap to get out. >> look at the guidelines and memos. foia ts always more to han just the statute. delay, whiche, the is endemic. request toserious process quickly and the important ones are not prioritized. >> there are deadlines. >> there are and they are ignored.tinely the situation became worse with

administration and the assertions of exemptions that increased. famously, on his first day in office, obama pledged to have "the most transparent administration in history." >> go back. the focus of the panel is who is in the white house and who controls access to information and there was a shift, on paper, between the administration's. -- administrations. >> this is an example of how the administration can affect the law. this is the memo from 1986. famously,ndum said,

place that told agencies that, if records were requested that were excluded meaning, somebody requesting information on an thatmant -- you respond such records." some said that it was giving the agency permission to live. >> it was moved by the reagan administration and there is a sense to it. in order to prevent the mafia that wouldg foia

lead to the status of investigations against them, it's good. when myward to 2013 firm litigates a case on the surveillance of martin luther king and the records related and the obama administration did not tell us that the records existed. underenied the existence exception c. "b'usually talk about the s." ia cans is the way that fopia be undermined.

of thee worthy in charge guidance to all agencies as to how it should be implemented and you can see how this, which was in place for two decades, until 2011, when it came into light again,, has been applied. again, has been applied. you can look at the memo from days after obama took office and it talked about a presumption of openness and transparency under foia and being the most transparent administration in history. it did not quite turn out that way. in the last foia reform bill that passed in the last congress ope presumption of

openness was qualified. it is not clear if it will have an impact. we will see if it plays out in the courts and i think it demonstrates a give and a take and a thing i want to say that goes back to the point on the three branches of government -- one of the reasons that the reform bill got through congress is because there is a tension between the party in the white house and the party in congress. it is not always there. when you think about who the next president will be and

whether there will be foia reform in congress, you need to look at the electoral map and who will be in control of the house and the senate. historically, when it is controlled by the same party, it is less likely that you get aggressive calls from congress for more transparency from the executive branch. >> the supreme court is no friend to the freedom of information act plaintiffs. most of the cases go in favor of the government agency. >> that is true. i would be interested in the thoughts of adam on this. this is not a favorite topic area. had a lot of expertise on this was scalia and

merrick garland, by virtue of his experience in the circuit has a lot of experience. >> he has been good on foia. >> he has been good. cases his most important -- in fact, a number of them -- were foia cases. them as statutory interpretation cases and they parse the semicolons. --y are not "take picture "big picture" cases. they are not going to change the

law. >> merrick garland is not getting that spot. >> the countdown has begun. now.ays left for obama >> you see no chance in the lame k, where the republicans say, "hey, we will take the 63-year-old moderate after all." >> it doesn't sound like it. >> can you talk about the practice?nd is there a trend and is it a good trend? >> yes and no. reflects the bipartisan way where the trend is towards less

transparency. regardless of which party, they have been more secretive on foia and part of that is the increase of the requests. the obama administration likes to say, "we have had an increase requests." this is true. the holdings are not explained by that. that is not a clear explanation for it. if you take the obama administration's proclamation at face value and you say, "this is what the administration you have to ask what went wrong. what would explain that is a

simple and are sure -- a simple intertia in agencies. no allocations for foia. each agency has to respond out of their budget and there needs views theership that compliance in each agency as a priority. take foiaing, "we not enough.usly" is it is difficult to counteract the delays and the backlog to make the improvements and i think that, if you -- that is not going to improve, right?

it doesn't matter if it is trump are clinton -- trump or clinton. effortd take a lot of and, to the extent that it is not a priority for either, transparency is only going to get worse. it really has to be a top priority of an administration and they have to really put some effort into addressing that. obama, and they love to say this as they talk about legacy, "they are the most transparent administration in history." you have people who say, "i have haved years and i do not

an answer to my foia's." and, the only way the hillary clinton e-mails got out were because people sued. >> how has the administration responded differently from the bush and administration? >> i think it matters -- the bush an administration. >> i think it matters who is the attorney general. trump may have a view on transparency. christie mightl have a worse thview. it matters who the appointee is. i do not think there has been a the cases arehow

handled by the department of justice. there is a way that things could be improved. those casesnd how are handled and how the cases are litigated where maybe you should not take three rounds to tell the plaintiff that yes, there are some documents responsive to your request. that would help and reflect a bigger, better commitment to transparency. we have not seen barely any difference. >> we litigate quite a bit of foia work. theirn terms of playbook, there aggressiveness and it takes getting in front of to right judge, oftentimes, make all the difference. -- yourabout [inaudible]

washis was a case that brought by a conservative, the competitive enterprise institute. they should because they were thempting to get e-mails of director of the agency. that he had stored on his basically a non-governmental e-mail server. -- he wasnducting conducting agency business through this nongovernmental e-mail account. the agency responded that the nongovernmental e-mail account was outside the scope of foia because it was not the agency's e-mail server. we became involved in the case, it sounds familiar. because it sounds so familiar we ended a number of media organizations became concerned that a bad ruling in this case, it was affirmed by the d.c. circuit. it was a bad court ruling approving the government's

argument that the agency has no obligation to search for this, it is outside their control, not subject to foia. the enterprise institute of field and the committee a long with a host of news organizations including "the new york times" and the "washington post" filed an amicus brief. was not a held, it was reversed. the court made very clear that matter if those agency records are on a nongovernmental e-mail account or a server. if they are in the agency home,ors duster are at they are still agency record and they are still subject to foia which is a very important ruling. i do think that is the kind of case where it is a very good show the department

of justice be making those types of arguments -- should the department of justice be making those types of arguments to begin with? we were in trouble not only by the district court ruling but the arguments that were made by the government and the fact that court opinion came out the government began citing it in other foia cases for the proposition that we do not need to search e-mail accounts or servers or anything like that dat are not governmental, ot-gov e-mails or servers. if you have a commitment to transparency and with think those are not the types of arguments you would want your lawyers under your administration to be making. >> i mentioned earlier, i was at the argument of this interesting case and i watched katie do a marvelous job. -- itare very interesting is a very interesting makeup of the panel in the d.c. circuit.

>> we did. we had to senior judges and accordingly because we had to senior judges, the judge that presided all -- over the panel was rumored to be a contender for the supreme court. judge edwards was one of the senior judges and george -- judge sentel. foiahad done a number of cases. >> one who was on the left and one who was on the right. >> judge edwards i think also has a reputation for not suffering. theuffering fools and told government's attorney that he

would be embarrassed. i feel pretty good at that point. [laughter] as did the appellant. >> i congratulate you on winning that. it is -- kissinger walked away from the state department with all of his records. when the state department was sued under the freedom of information act, the state department said, we do not have them. so why are you suing us? and the dissenters said you couldn't -- you could ask for the records back and the state department did not. >> right. kissinger against the reporters committee for freedom of the press is not the ones we are most proud of. how tothe central issue, interpret kissinger in light of the situation, that was a central issue, they distinguished it. i would say,ly,

very clearly. the majority opinion was -- the judge wrote a separate opinion that did not clarify matters, i would say in terms of how exactly to distinguish kissinger, but that was the central issue. >> for those of us who watched the judges very carefully for predilections and ideas, i would concurrentge's opinion went in favor of katie's position was unhelpful because he said it leaves the door open to kissinger types of situations and the lower court should explore whether mr. holdren c eded the material to a private server which was the distinction that was made. he still had control over his e-mail address and katie persuaded them if he can get them he is obligated to get them and that is what the majority said. my other favorite moment was the

judge who was a rather matlock kind of character saying i just -- i think you just met yourself on the way back from that argument. andlt pretty good for katie that argument as well. do we have any predictions or takes on how a president trump versus a president clinton might do under foia, for example, are we equally in trouble the matter what? >> i do not think probably the short answer is yes. what i saiduse of earlier which is i think there is the way that there is mission inep, there is secrecy creep executive branch agencies and it is hard to pull back from that. i think that you are dealing with two candidates, secretary, former secretary clinton was a government official. we have some indication of how she handled federal records. we have a record to look at and

obviously, that is not the best indication. even setting aside, regardless of what the federal records act required her to do, at the time she was secretary of state. or, its a lack of focus was not a priority for her. k -- i am being diplomatic. clearly, that was her e-mail set up, it was designed to be secret. that is why she did it. showed that iss why she did it. you can argue about the records act and what she should have done and the bureaucracy and the sloppiness but the original intent back from the beginning, why she set it up the way she did was because she did not want people to see her personal information.

and now look what has happened. >> there is a lot of litigation, you are involved in some of it. >> we are. we moved to intervene to unseal some documents to my some deposition videos so we are not involved in any of the number of foia cases against the state department that involve her except in a limited capacity. i think it is very fair to say in the same way that hillary clinton has no, there is no love lost for the media. i do not think there is love lost for foia and transparency. i think she hates hearing the word foia as much as she hates hearing the word e-mails. i had do not have high hopes that she will embrace transparency on day one of her administration. with respect to donald trump, we do not have a record of his public service. he has never been a government official before so we do not know exact a how he might treat foia -- exactly how he might

treat foia. he does not seem very transparent so he does not seem to be inclined toward transparency. we do not know what it would look like. he has not spoken about foia from what we can tell on the campaign trail. except to criticize his opponent. >> in regard to a hypothetical trump presidency, let me recall an episode from the 1960's. the supreme court case that upheld the fairness doctrine w showsthink the history it was instigated or supported by the tenor -- candy administration -- kennedy administration, suiing a radio station that podcast john birch type material. that is one thing a president could do, a president with

hostility toward the established press, institutional press might try to stimulate private litigation against "the new york times" or others. planting a not suggestion in his mind. >> donald trump has threatened or sued the media dozens of times over. >> and presumably, he would be libelto finance litigation in the same way he is offered -- has offered to finance legal defense for anyone up a anti-trump protester. >> i think that is right. i have wrestled with this from a legal standpoint. do you ever get exclusive interviews with politicians to my candidates where because either you have got a particular outlet that they are interested in or because you have established a rapport, you get the ability to sit down with them?

>> i think sometimes get information but i would not say that we get an interview. it was 200 days and she had not been any press conferences but she did do especially during the primaries, she was very interested in doing local media. she did not do a lot of national media at all but she went into small markets or markets in the primary states and did interviews that were three minutes or whatever. and so for example, one of the papers that mcclatchy owns in columbia, south carolina got an interview. south carolina was one of the first primaries. i think -- president obama does that all the time. he looks at the map and says, ors is a battleground state states where he has a particular message and he will go in and do interviews. mostly, that is local. he has done a lot of local media.

>> sometimes -- president bush tended to favor an interview on fox and gave exclusive access. president obama might favor a different network. >> i would definitely say that. whats talked about newspapers and tv stations he watches and reads. he did something with espn the other day. i do not know if you saw it with espn, the town hall the other day. not your traditional news outlets for the white house. he watches a lot of sports and watches espn. >> if they can play favorites, clearly everyone as -- at the experience, can they disfavor a journalist, can they put you outside the room because they do not like what you have to say? let me ask the lawyers. is that constitutional, is that acceptable? >> there is different ways to approach it. one way is to also look at the

standards and the traditions and which room that individual is being put out of. so, for example, donald trump, if he were to become president, would realize very quickly that excluding one particular member of the press from a weekly press briefing is not quite as easy as it is to exclude a member of the press from one of your campaign events. the white house correspondents association is the body, the independent body that selects who sits in the room and where they said. the tougher question i think on hypothetically, what if the word goes out to the press secretary and everyone else that this particular reporter never gets called on, or this particular reporter never gets questions answered, never gets inquiries answered. a much tougher question and that is a question you have experience with because he

represented the baltimore sun and it is one of the cases to -- only cases to address that retaliatory behavior. in decision did not turn out the way we would want -- have wanted it to turn out. that case then reporters,that the even though the governor of the state issued a memorandum saying, don't talk to these reporters, don't answer their questions, there was a wholesale ban, like a blacklist of these reporters. the court said you do not have any special right of access to a member of the media. you do not have the right to have someone answer your question and essentially the fourth circuit pointed to competition among the news media. to givets give -- want

a story to a news outlet they think is going to be favorable. that was in a situation that involved clear evidence of retaliation. that does not apply and where you might get a closer question on issues like that, constitutionally is when the reporter does have special rights either because, they have been credentialed or they have embeded in bed status -- status. for reasons having nothing to do whether they follow the rules or had to do with her reporting, then you have an issue, you have a question as to whether or not the constitution comes and play. the same as under foia. a president trump could not instruct an agency to not respond to foia requests made by washington post reporters. those reporters have the same rights to use foia as any other member of the public. when you get into the grayer talk abouteally

it that much and it is not for the reasons donald trump says, someone had this story and i'm going to hurt this publication, but they do it all the time. just because they give "the new york times" something doesn't mean it will give it to anyone else. there are a lot of people who are credentialed and covering the white house every single day but they are at smaller publications. there is a big discrepancy between bigger and smaller there. re, do the bigger outlets get invited to things like background readings were the explain how president obama you namecision about, it, syria. there was a background briefing and all the smaller organizations complain they do not get invited because they are not enough. they're there every single day, they are covering it. did someone not get their e-mail returned or their call returned,

did they not get called on in the briefing? i -- it happens all the time and i do not think it is sinister. mcclatchy has more readers or "the new york times" has more readers. the question is whether donald trump would do it because i do not like that story and i will kick them out of the room. i do not think they can be kicked out that they can never have their question answered. wekatie alluded to a case litigated in the fourth circuit and the fourth circuit did uphold and said, reporters should expect the -- if they are given favors they could be disfavored. the universe was made whole. we have a few minutes to see if there are any questions. we have some people here.

is for anita. could you speak about the degree -- i am a reporter with mcclatchy newspapers. >> it is not a plant, i promise. the degreeu speak to to which a president sets the tone because the white house press corps is only a small part of the coverage of the executive branch. there are secretaries with their press secretaries and career staff. to what degree would a president president clinton's more subtle hostility to the press filter down to other executive agencies or are they independent? >> i think the matter less than i would have thought. we have this idea that josh earnest, the press secretary and the staff, we asked him about all these agencies all the time and we get the idea that they can get, josh earnest can get them to call us back or give us

information or make these other agencies answer her questions. -- somew that happens of that happens behind the scenes but i feel like they let each agency do their thing. i do think a lot, it is a lot about appointees, it depends on who the cabinet secretary is, and to that secretary appoints. i feel like it is less about the white house than you would think. now, every president trump or resident clinton decided to make it about that or new press secretary or to medication secretary made it about that and i suppose it could be about that. have got one in the back there. >> my name is jamal, a reporter with diverse issues in higher education. i wondered if anyone can address the potential ramifications of collaborating with leakers. i am talking about entities such as wikileaks or at snowden or

something like that. we have both candidates who have been subject to tax of different sorts but they are candidates now. once they are in office, it is a different situation. what do you see as the ramifications of collaborating like that, with wikileaks, for instance, the timed certain documents to go to certain publications. so how might something like that by either the candidates once they are in office? thank you. >> let me turn that one over to adam. your newspaper reported it and has had to make decisions. >> we should stand up for donald trump in one respect, he is pro-transparency when it comes to russian hacking of his opponent. news organizations have a responsibility to make an independent judgment about material from wikileaks or anywhere else and decide whether

they are accurate, whether they are newsworthy, whether the value of publishing them outweighs public harm. these are difficult questions. from senator on papers onward, we try to make these decisions, and i think snowden would say there is a difference between wikileaks which simply dumps things willy-nilly without a filter, and snowden, he went to news organizations and said you guys make the judgment about what citizens in a democracy need to see. >> i would add something to that. what we have seen, there is one instance where the u.s. government had attempted in history that we are aware of to prosecute a member of the mainstream media for publishing leaked classified information. that was at the height of world war ii. leaks investigations and

leakers charges against have been focused on leakers. it was one of the things that was alarming about the james risen situation. in order to get the warrant for mr. rosen's e-mails, the department of justice filed in affidavit characterizing him as a co-conspirator and potentially himself liable under the espionage act. that was something that shocked the media and it was very concerning. what we have seen and we should keep in mind when we talk about what her next administration looks like when it comes to prosecuting leakers, whether we are in the same area we are in now which is the government prosecutes leakers and usually goes after journalists to supply evidence in support of those leaks investigations and when someone like jim rison is threatened with jail time, it is because he is potentially in contempt of court for violating

or re-freezing to follow -- refusing to follow in order to testify as to the identity of his sources. he was not accused of violating the espionage act. the open question is whether a more aggressive department of justice might take that extra step create it is something we would not want them to do but it is a question you would want to -- i do not think it is necessarily a closed question, particularly with the mission of the rosen affidavit. >> they were conflicting statements made by different prosecutors in different circumstances about whether a journalist could be jailed. i would say attorney general holder and the discussions about the rosen search warrant did reassure people that a journalist at least under his administration would not go to jail some plea for asking sources questions and for doing their job. we took some comfort. paraphrasing, i do not

remember the exact words, calling it the thing from his tenure as attorney general that bothered him the most or the thing he regretted the most. there is that. >> i was on a panel with former attorney general mickey z and i asked whether he had given thought to our security journalists and he said, i suddenly fantasized about it. good to know. more questions from the audience. there is one in the back. >> curtis tate, also from mcclatchy. we are not trying to pack the court here. i have a foia question. in my frustrating experience in dealing with foia and the slowness and the backlogs from the federal agencies that i have submitted requests 2, 1 of the things i have been told repeatedly in the past four or we arears is that constrained because of the sequester area they blamed the sequester for reducing their

resources to respond to my foia requests and presumably others. i am wondering is -- is there anything that the president can agencies that they must devote a certain amount of resources to responding to foia or is that something that congress would have to fix? i know everyone loves to talk about foia. congress obviously could fix it by allocating funds. is that likely to happen? no. could the administration and i think this would be done through the office of information policy at the department of justice. tell agencies that it is policy that you spent amount of your budget or you have this many, it would be scaled, it would have

to be scaled based on the size of the agency and the number of foia requests. it is disproportionate. it is not as though every agency gets as many foia requests as the department of justice or the fbi individually. i think thatled absolutely, the and ministration could set those kinds of parameters. no reason why it could not. it has not happened. it is unfortunate. one of the steps that could be taken to improve foia is to fund it. , we arethat journalists inclined to say and media is inclined to say, what's with the delay? sometimes there are resource constraints. i think as the increase my there is an increase in foia requests, there has not been an increase in funding request. didhe obama administration start the office of government

information, services that were supposed to help out on the delays at least via an on birds -- an ombudsperson. >> in office within the national like to put a pin in that. with the last foia reform bill not passed, it could independently report to congress. it had to go to the national archives. now it can do that. it has a pretty small staff and it is not an animus organization, but it does provide mediation server -- and tos for requesters the extent it is going to be successful, it needed the reforms that just happened. it has not been extra nearly successful in the last, here is

no, but could it be moving forward, i think yes. there are advantages [indiscernible] are -- there is an agency that is looking for a director. i do not know when that position will be field so it is possible, it is hard to see how successful that will be. something about that. we have time for one more question. the gentleman in the front row. >> a medical reporter for medtech inside. you mentioned earlier about shield laws and that is something we have been talking about since the first day of j-school. is it something that is attainable or is it a pipe dream and if it is not, how do we get about getting it done? itwe have several run ups to

and it cleared the house of representatives, got stalled in edwardate, and then snowden happened and wikileaks happened and the political will was lost. and the budget problems took over the discussion. i think we need to get the election behind us. i think we need to get it settled out and nothing will energize things more than another crisis involving a journalist thing threatened with jail. so we have gotten close, so i would not give it up and it would say to everyone in this room and at home, it is an important effort and we should not give it up and we should continue to press our congresspeople to pass the protection. >> state shield laws, how well do they work to protect reporters or do judges and up saying, for this, that you and the other reason, you're not shielded?