examines the challenges facing democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. as always, we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal" is next. [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] ♪ host: this morning on this sunday, august 20, 2017, and the headlines on "today"'s "washington journal" focus on free speech as demonstrated and protest and rallied across the nation yesterday. the largest took place in boston where a free speech rally organized by right wing group drew dozens of demonstrators but was met with counterprotests of roughly 40,000 people who held signs and chaptered in an effort to drown out bigotry. the rally itself ended early. the organizers were escorted out by police and despite only

scuffles and arrest, the protests were largely peaceful and drew praise from city leaders as well as from president trump. so today, we are asking our viewers should hate speech be protected by the first amendment? republicans can call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. nd independents can call 202-748-8002. you can reach us on social media, on twitter at twitter.com/cspanwj and also on acebook at facebook.com/cspan. a headline out of boston where that very large counterprotest took place yesterday. the front page of "the boston herald" says common sense. 33 arrest no, serious injuries and minor skirmishes and cops keep the peace as 40,000 counterprotestors upstage free speech rally.

he also has headlines out of the "boston globe" that says "making a stand against racism resolute by ready they marched raled tens of thousands of peaceful. from "the boston herald," it says a tidal wave of 40,000 peaceful counterprotestors drown out a so-called free speech rally on boston common yesterday afternoon before the shout and chants from the crowds gave way o clashes on the streets --

15 host: we're asking you -- should hate speech get first amendment protection? marvin's on our line from philadelphia on our democratic line. good morning, marvin. caller: yes. it's kind of hard to speak on it because if that's the case in hitler and the jews, they should be speaking about. it's like opening up a pandora's box from the past of things that done happen. and when you speak on stuff like that, you're speaking on a lot of people that done been killed, raped and everything else. we are basically like getting over the past and trying to come together. why should we open up pandora's box again? host: well marvin, the idea of protecting free speech from our founders was on the idea that the best remedy for speech that

we don't like is more speech, different speech giving our points of view. do you think that that marketplace of ideas is the best way to work out our issues? caller: well if that's the case, then the jews and whatever happened with hitler and people would like to talk about that too. you shouldn't have a right to talk about stuff when it hurts people so deep. and it ain't even know -- it ain't even no resolution to it of why it happened. so, no, i don't think that it should be -- i don't think that part of free speech should be allowed. host: ok. brian is from salt lake city, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: and what are your thoughts today? caller: what we need to do is check our history. e republican party was the wick party and 1868, 140 black politicians -- you guys don't

know about this, and 30 white politicians -- started the republican party. and the reason you don't hear about it was because of woodrow wilson wrote the books of the history of america. and he segregated our military. woodrow wilson's the most racist president we ever had. but charles sumter kept standing up in 1868 fighting for the rights of black people, a democrat, beating with the inch of his life with a cane and the democrats -- it makes me so mad, that the people don't know our history. host: brian, aside from democrats and republicans, the speech that is seen by someone regardless of who speaks it, but seen as hate speech, do you think that should get the same type of first amendment protection as other speech? caller: speech everywhere. you talk more.

that's how we get along. but you need to teach people as a history. david barton wrote a book, "jefferson lies." his brother had black kids, but free his ould not slave because he law said if you are in debt, you have to pay your debt. so instead of paying his debt, he paid his slaves. and this just goes on and on. you know the democratic party is the -- robert byrd was part of the ku klux klan and the democrats just wheel him in a wheelchair. have you guys cut me off yet? host: no, brian, but we have a lot of callers so we're going to shawn from our independent line. hi, shawn. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. do you think hate speech should be protected?

caller: yes and no. t's a duality of it. some of the things those guys say, some things make sense and are relevant. so we should give them a platform to hear what they're saying and negate where they're coming from. because i remember seeing the things that happened last weekend in weekend and they were addressing the jews would not replace us but all our organizations that have black interests which i'm a brother nd home sexual with the -- homosexual and gay agenda. why don't they have jewish organizations that's speaking? because that's one of the specific points that were made. and another thing is will -- no, i just will listen. thank you so much. you look great and you do a great job. and you're a credit to your

race, the human race. ood morning. - host: john's calling from connecticut on our republican line. do you think hate speech should be protected, john? caller: yeah, of course. all speech should be protected. i just want to say that i tried going to the rally yesterday. i'm a trump supporter. neo-nazi. --

the obviously animals that were violent yesterday in throwing urine on police and protestors left. he people on the they were violent yesterday. they were throwing urine and people were arrested. that's all i want to talk about is how they were violent yesterday. but i don't suppose that's going to be talked about too much. i just want you to keep putting the pictures of of them throwing the bottles of urine of police and the people that were being non-violent yesterday and that's pretty much all i want. host: well tom, what prompted you to try to go to the rally yesterday? what was your motivation? caller: because i don't like the feeling that everyone that's associated with being a trump supporter is a racist now. that's crap. that's not intellectually honest. it's the easy way of arguing

that you don't like his stuff. and people want to -- you can't silent any speech. i mean the fact that people don't understand that is more scary than anything. and just please, please, please, the left was violent yesterday. they were the ones causing violence and throwing urine on people and just -- i just can't stress that enough. i mean, i was there. i saw it. it's easy with 30,000 or 40,000 people throwing urine on 30 people. oh, that's very brave. yeah, real brave, guys. well, we'll keep fighting. thank you. goodbye. host: ok. carmen's calling in from hamilton, montana, on our independent line. hi, carmen. caller: hi. how are you? i just want to say everyone calling to defend hate speech today, i don't care about the first amendment. i think hate speech should be stricken from it. nobody should be speaking any hate anywhere. having any kind of disruptions or killings.

i want every one of you men and women to look into your families -- i don't care if you say you're a trump supporter. you're a racist. i don't care who you profess to be. see how many of your uncles and brothers and grandfathers that were killed by nazis, ok? this nazi crap that's going on is just a cover-up for ignorance. you people are ignorant. you need to find out what peace and love is all about. this crap of walking down the street -- am i still there? host: yeah, carmen, but last words. we need to get to other callers too. caller: i'm just sick -- i'm 69 years old. i was in the vietnam war. i fought with my black brothers and hi brown brothers over there. this is not what we would stood up for this country for. you people emitting all this hate, every one of you. next time you're on the street, every one of you should be

thrown in jail and you need to get in there and thrown with some black and brown people and you find out what life is all about. host: ok. ed is on our independent line. ed, do you think hate speech should get first amendment protection? caller: well, without free speech, we have no freedom in this country. hate speech to some -- there's some truth and people express their opinion. no one looks at the left and the violence that they were promoting at every one of these rallies. they intended eight people coming there to express their freedom of speech and their opinion. it seems to me and i watched the corporate media. they never show these violent agitators who are getting paid to show up there to break up the idea of free speech.

we need free speech to protect the democracy of this country. now some might not agree with it. but without it, we have no freedom. and if anyone -- look at these countries with dictators run the ntire country. they stop freedom of speech. they need it. but why doesn't the news show these people doing these violence, intimidating people who were there for free speech? ons it. - i don't understand it. host: there us a a piece that talked about the about will you urging it to rethink its stand efending the speech. itsclu urging it to rethink standing defending on the speech

- host: ruth is calling in from pennsylvania on our democratic line. hi, ruth. caller: hi. host: and what do you think about free speech protection for hate groups? caller: well i think we have one inalienable right to be happy. everyone has happiness as a

given when they're born in this country and i think hate speech interferes with that right. if you're going to be chanting hateful things, somebody else is hurting. and that gets in the way of everyone else's happiness. so i don't believe that should be protected. and thank you for hearing me. host: ok. adam is calling in from dallas on our republican line, one of the cities where there were a demonstration yesterday. what do you think, adam? caller: yes, good morning. i'm an african-american republican for economic reasons. and i lived in deep west texas where racism is a little bit more in your face. with that being said, absolutely, yes, first amendment should be protected at all forms because if we don't, it should be a very slippery slope. no, i don't support violence or hatred, but first amendment

right is in and of itself sacred. and i'll take any comments off air. thank you. host: adam, what about -- do you think there are any limits to speech? aside from, for example, limits set out by courts that say you have free speech but you can't shout "fire" in a movie theater because that will put people in danger? do you think there are times that hate speech could put people in danger? caller: that's an outstanding question and i am currently struggling with that very question. i'm heiring on the -- erring on the side of no. at if it's the left that has hate speech? we have to protect the first amendment on both sides. and figure out how to quell the violence in between. but it's a very scary thing if and when we start chipping away at the first amendment.

trying to protect so-called hate speech. thank you, guys. thank you. host: and more from the "new york times" about the protest in boston and elsewhere in the country. it says demonstrations were boisterous but broadly peaceful even as tension and worry course through the protests from boston commons, the nation's oldest public park to hot springs, arkansas, into the bridges that cross the wilmette river in portland, oregon. --

host: crystal from the republican line from harrisburg, pennsylvania. crystal, what do you think? do you think hate speech should be protected the same way as other speeches? caller: i do not. i went to iraq throe times to fight for the right of free speech. and i don't think it's acceptable. i do think that that incites violence but hate speech across the board should not be allowed. it should not be allowed against different races. it should not be allowed based on your sexual orientation. but it should not be allowed if you're speaking in terms of police. if you're going out and calling police pigs or throwing urine on them, i don't think that should be protected either because i think that falls in the same category. so i think it should be across the board that it's not protected. host: and jessica is calling in

from nevada on our democratic line. what do you think, jessica? caller: thank you for taking my calls, first of all. and certainly, yes, i do appreciate the fact we have freedom of speech and i believe freedom of speech is fundamental to our democracy. however, on various plasms and in group situations, especially when they are armed with and coupling their quote-unquote freedom of speech with the right to bear arms, then we have to ake a close look at the intent that they are supposably trying to create. are they intentionally trying to with that hate speech incite riot? are they intentionally -- and uneequivalently, i would have to say across the board hate speech of any kind should be denounced. it is not democratic. it is not fundamental.

it is not in keeping with our constitution. and it should be stopped as inciting riots. host: jessica, what do you think should be done for people who promote hate speech? what do you think the punishment should be? caller: that's something that's going to have to start within the state, wherever that particular issue has occurred and then work its way up through the courts and then to d.c., washington, d.c. and the supreme courts, probably. but more than not, i would have to say that those who are participating in inciting a riot should be judged accordingly at the state levels first and then taking it on up the ladder to the supreme court but certainly this is how nazism began. this is how the fall of germany began. we have to learn from history,

move forward in accordance with the platforms of our democracy and keep our constitutional rights at the same time. and it begins with not allowing someone to use their fundamental rights of speech and freedom of speech to a, incite a riot, b, undermine the democracy itself. so i do believe that there state e some sort of a action taken by the courts that would be appropriated by the committees that are overseeing that. host: ok. and looking at some reactions to yesterday's protest in boston mayor marty boston, walsh tweeted a response to president trump yesterday. president trump tweeted great job by all law enforcement officers and boston mayor marty walsh. he supported today.

boston stood for peace and love, not bigotry and hate. we should work to bring people together, not apart. ruth is calling from california on our independent line. ruth what, do you think? should hate speech be protected? caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think generally speaking, yesterday. however, when it is an act of iolence or incites violence, i believe our constitution -- [indiscernible] well i don't have a copy of it. i'm not sure i'm correct about that. but in the workplace, for example, when there are zero tolerance to violence, that includes several violence. -- host: what would you consider verbal violence, ruth?

footage, ll, in the there were some people who were, you know, saying we will kill you or we will hurt you or we will do something to you or people should die or something like that, and i don't exactly . member but it was clearly threatening and not just verbally, but physically threatened. and to approach a church with tomorrow,, how reminiscent is that -- tomorrows, how reminisce -- torches howat

reminiscent is that with the ku klux klan? host: all right. caller: i think it does not -- te reasoned dialogue [indiscernible] yes, you're free to express your not the point where you thought long the other side. and also, do you need to carry guns to have your opinions? you know? host: ok. and there were guns being carried in the charlottesville demonstration but weapons were banned at the boston event. a little bit more about the question of free speech protection of all speech in this piece by fox. it says there is no question that americans have the right to express racist, offensive, unpopular views under the first amendment. it is a right that has been

upheld by the supreme court but the right wing demonstrators in charlottesville, virginia, may have gone too far -- host: harry is calling in from new jersey on our independent line. hi, terry. caller: how are you? host: i'm good. what do you think? do you think that hate speech should get first amendment protection? caller: i think all speech should get protection. our forefathers were geniuses when they made the constitution and people are chipping away at that. people are swimming here for our

freedoms. and once we start chipping away at our freedoms, it will all go away and a miracle will go away. i congratulate boston. they show that you can have demonstrations and end peacefully. they had the police there. they did the right things. charlottesville kept their police back. they could have prevented different things, i feel that way, anyway, my opinion. and the freedom of speech is violate -- violate to this country. violate. and you may hate what people say but you should defend it, eriod. host: from the president yesterday, during and after the protest in the boston area. during the initial protest, he tweeted "looks like many anti-police agitators in boston. police are looking tough and smart. thank you." and later on, after the event,

he said "our great country has been divided for decades. sometimes you need protests in order to heal and we will heal and be stronger than ever before." and his final tweet, "i want to applaud the many protesters in boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. our country will soon come together as one." ed is calling in from atlanta on our democratic line. what do you think, ed? should hate speech get protected by the first amendment? caller: yes, it should. but what i want to say is this man in office, his whole campaign was on hate. so i'm not surprised that this stuff shouldn't be allowed but it shouldn't have been loud when we were running for people and he would pay their bail and all that stuff. you know, they did what they asked for. so i just hope -- i just hope that it gets resolved and in a peaceful matter because this is

really, really sad, you know? thank you. host: ok. bill is calling in from reading, pennsylvania, on our republican line. what do you think, bill? caller: yeah, good morning. how are you? >> i'm good. caller: i'll tell you what i think. i was in europe for the whole month of june. and there's no free speech there. ok? hello? host: no, i'm here. i'm listening, bill. go ahead. caller: there's no free speech there. i went and got home to go home after work and she got burned by two people. you know what the two people got? two years of imprivilege. . so there's no free speech. i came here when i was 9 years old from greece. i've been to many countries. people don't realize we have a free speech here. but the free speech, it doesn't stab u the rights to go

people, and -- the on thing that the congress, they got one thing in mind. you vote for me, what do i care? that's the problem is. what do i care? but it doesn't work that way. they have to change their attitudes. change the american people and the american people have to be more smart and stick together so we can get this country going and that's what my friend, donald trump, what you do. and god bless him and i'm going to tell you something. if the people don't wise up in this country, we're going to go have a civil war. we're going to kill each other and it doesn't make sense because we are all americans. remember that. we are all americans. we have the right as everybody in this country. host: ok. jonathan is calling in from laguna woods, california on our

democratic line. what do you think, jonathan? caller: good morning. thank you for usually good questions. but the question on screen today , should first amendment protect hate speech is about as silly as asking floods and hurricanes should be allowed? the more relevant question is should civics be taught so that 228 years of constitutional litigation be understood at least basically by people who think that some people should not be protected by the first amendment. the first amendment does make that distinction between speech and action. and people should be taught and learn why it is so fundamental to our democracy that nobody in official capacity be making the decisions about why it is or is not hate. making decisions about speech content but rather, the importance of law enforcement

protecting the right of particularly the most controversial speakers to speak and protecting their safety and right and making that distinction between actions and pure speech. so that's my position. thank you. host: ok. and "the washington post" had an opinion piece which was before the charlottesville and subsequent protest. but it said supreme court -- points out that the supreme court unanimously reaffirms that there is no hate speech exception to the first amendment. piece by eugene volek points out from an opinion by the supreme ourt said justice samuel alito said the idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the first amendment. speech that demeans on the basis of race --

host: mike's calling in from ohio on our independent line. mike, what do you think? caller: well i think this goes way back to the beginning of this country, the hate speech. you know, used to be a dead end den is a good end den. so much the hate speech way back. and then the hate speech we were given after 9/11, you know, with the mushroom cloud, the yellow cake and the destruction of the middle east that we created there with the iraq war just because like ann richards said on larry king that night. he said -- love war. they know how to make war. they make money off of war. and how much hate speeches were given then? i think it was 945 lies were

given to the american people in the lead-up to the iraq war. and you know, this is like we're living in a space age fascist impar. we were given the patriots act, citizens united which i call corporate international weasels united. and to bribe money and the hate that goes with that. and then there's alec. we need to look into alec, what that has created, all the hate. but there's a lot to look at, lots to think about. but anyway, there's a lot to talk about here and i can't go into all of it. but thank you and have a good day. host: ok. ken is calling in from south carolina on our republican line. ken, do you think that protection of hate speech should be the same as the protection of other kinds of speech? caller: yes, i do. i think that you may not like it. you may think it's vile or

anything else but you got to sit there and we are the best country in the world. but if you start limiting that -- what you say and what you can't say, i mean, i don't agree with a lot of what's saying like the last caller about criticizing the bushes. i mean, i don't. i mean, you sit there and people -- well, last couple of weeks. i mean, they want to instead of -- instead of sitting there complaining, complaining, complaining, nobody can come up with an issue. but you have the right to say it. i mean, unless you say i'm going to kill somebody or i'm going to do this, do that, no. we have rights and we have privileges. -- in this country that no other country has.

and i just think it's ridiculous that all of a sudden, people want to sit there and oh, well, you got to root -- you can't pay this and you can pay that. and you go back to the old -- or anything else about yelling fire -- crowded movie theater [indiscernible] that's something that nobody should do, but to sit there and have an opinion and then get be put in jail by california right now, if you call somebody they want to do this because it's a wrong adjective if somebody's gay and they're going to put you in jail. what? this is not germany. this is america. host: ok. caller: we have rights and we have privileges. and the privileges should be

extended to everybody. i don't care who you are, what your color is. it's just ridiculous that, you know, that you don't want to sit there and say, hey, you have the right to your opinion or you don't have a right to your opinion. you do have a right to an opinion. host: ok. and let's take a look at some of the responses that we're getting on twitter. from suzuki. it says speech is a protected right. and like every right, it can be regulated to protect the safety of all the first amendment. it doesn't get the right to a latform. what is considered hate speech is nebulous. ed is from our democratic line. caller: i had a couple of points. first of all, your free speech ends when it threatens me and my family. i'm jewish and i've had to deal with it all my life and i also grew up in the south in

savannah, georgia, and i grew up during jim crow and i can remember when black people had no right to free speech, any free speech. that's all i had to say. thank you very much. host: eugene from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say, first of all, donald trump is a very good president. he's doing the best that he can do. as far as the hate speech goes, i'm jewish as well and i'm black and i'm -- i've lived in the south in atlanta. and i think that this left movement, they're going around tearing something that's historical. and they shouldn't go around taking it down. it should stay up and we should get over it. everybody has a right to have everything. it's a sad part of history but

it's part of the american history. so i think that donald trump said everything right. i voted for donald trump. he's a very good president. he's doing the best that he can. host: ok. margaret is calling in from texas on our independent line. margaret, what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. this issue is not phrased quickly when they say it's the left against right. i am an independent, and i know people in both parties. some of them very conservative, who are appalled at this hate speech. one i feel should be praised at is those who believe the values and the ethics that are supposed to be practiced in this country against those speaking out against those who are professing hate, discrimination.

i thought the whom who called and spoke about the history -- i'm not sure where she was calling from. the history in germany. the people, the germans who did not speak out at the time were horrified when actually the holocaust came and the tragedies that occurred in germany and it could all be done with hate speech. and what you read also from that court opinion, it shows that speech is not completely correct. when free speech leads to harm to other people, it is regulated. and basically, that's all i have to say. it's not against what the right against the left. it's the good model ethical people in this country, no matter what party or legal parties they belong to.

speaking out against the hatred arm against tion other people. you look back in history and there was the jews and it still is in the south a lot. i live in the south and against the catholics. we forget about that. they were prosecuted in the south. host: ok. caller: so that is basically what i have to say. i think it is phrased incorrectly. it's the good, ethical model people against those who want to promote hate and harm against certain groups. host: ok. and in some other headlines today in the "new york times," a report that the president and first lady will not attend this year's kennedy centers event that the white house announced early that president trump and the first lady, melania trump would not participate in the kennedy center honors to allow the honorees to celebrate

without any political distractions. the decision was another episode in an already fraught week for the white house. -- and the story points out that several people including carmen -- lionel richie and norman leer decided before that not to attend the white house reception the night before the kennedy honors program. teresa from the bronx is calling in on our independent line. teresa, do you think free speech should protect hate speech? caller: yeah, i do. you know, the tricky thing is who gets to decide what hate speech is? that's very messy because today, it might be something that we all agree on. tomorrow, it might be your ideas

or my ideas and it can be used kind of like a jackboot to science people. so -- silence people. the founders were oppressed. they came here with a set of values to help us not to live under that oppression and part of it is to be free to say what we want to say. i think part of it also is people do get hurt when they hear hurtful things. but that is not violence. violence is violence. you know, bad words are bad words. there are laws to protect against the violence. so, thank you. that's all i have to say. host: all right. valley is calling in from our democratic line. what are your thoughts, valley? caller: good morning. a couple of interesting comments. germany put all tease guys on trial and hung them all. that's what should happen in the south. they were trying to form a nation of all united states and

called all of central america, panama, colombia and brazil and turn it enter the largest slave state in the history of the world. this is what they do. they needed to be hung. those southern gentlemen had to hang by their neck until they're dead. thank you very much. host: all right. and some other news today from the hill, it reports that secretary -- is recalling 300 of his former classmates that he re designed. mnuchin defends on saturday saying president trump did not think hate groups were equivalent and to peaceful counterprotestors who demonstrated in charlottesville, virginia, last weekend.

host: michael, calling in from florida on our republican line. hi, michael. caller: good. how are you doing? thanks for taking my call. yeah, a caller before hit it right on the head when they said they need to find hate speech. right now, it's obvious. groups are calling i hate blacks. i hate gays. fine. a few months ago during the -- well last year during the unrest, the civil unrest because of the police shootings, some popular quotes were no justice no, peace and we all saw some

fringe movements saying what they actually felt about police. then again, they're obvious. maybe they're treated differently. those are outright gestures of hate. but, you know, if you think back of other rallies or riots here in the states or around the world, how about when the world bank meets? it was in seattle a few years ago. and anarchists or the lack of a better term, left wing socialist groups, you know, sets fire to things, protesting about, you know, the world bank and capitalism. and then you remember in new york city with the 1% rallies. those people were expressing hatred but it was against people who make money. and in that case, it doesn't get quite the media attention. it doesn't get called leftist riots or political -- host: do you think those are the same? e type of anti-world bank or occupy wall street protests are the same as what we saw, for

example in virginia when we saw white supremacist groups marching with tomorrow,? caller: overtly, no, because one person is saying i hate the other person of this or because of that. in that very large umbrella, people shouting out those that make more money for them and people shouting out their hatred for economic systems that they don't benefit from them and people who run or enjoy those systems. hike the caller said before. if you're just going to call it hate speech, we're in for a wide range of speech. maybe there's a category we could say hate meaning this. another caller says when one actually advocates violence against another. so the supreme court has set some parameters for hate speech. if you say i hate somebody,

that's ok. if you say i hate someone. let's go kill them. that's not ok. host: ok. caller: so you can't just regulate hate speech because we're defining on this television show on our mass media as the kellyanne, etc. ut, you -- klan, etc., because after all, civil unrest is one roup hating another. host:-on-the front of the "sunday review" in "the new york times," it dives into the effect of the speech and in one editorial by purdue university, it gets to how the substance of the people can make people feel. he where is "angry white man chanting blood and soil --

host: freddy's calling in from indianapolis on our democratic line. good morning, federer. -- freddy. what are your thoughts? caller: when 25% of white people here in america feel like they

should have the right to incite others to hate me and go out with an effort to do harm to me, their free speech -- freedom of speech ends in the front of my gun barrel. host: ok. kelly is calling in from bluefield, west virginia, on our independent line. what do you think, kelly? should hate speech get first amendment protection? caller: yes. i think it should get protection. white n't agree with supremacist or neo-that? ist. -- neo-nazis. a lot of more worrying trump

shirts and that doesn't sit right with me because that's not the president is voicing. so, i mean, if you're going to protest, fine. but don't wear a trump-pence, shirt and say we're representing the president's ideas. host: do you think the president has done enough to make clear to so much these groups that he does not support them and that his agenda is not meant to boost white supremacist? caller: i think everybody is saying why he didn't come out and specifically offensive them -- identify them. i don't think there's anything that anybody would say is going to stop them from acting the way hat they do. host: john is from tennessee, hi, john.

caller: the democrats and the far left people, they do not want this. hold on. let me speak, please. host: nobody's stopping you, john. go ahead. caller: ok. that must be you hung up the last caller. but anyway, before -- they had a man and a truck rally hemmed up against the door and it's on the -- hold on. throwing eggs and spitting on her and all that bad stuff. so that's freedom of speech. i'm just telling you. t's going down a bad road. and while trump's president and we got the congress and the senate, let's hurry up and make a good law. if being on the left promotes any type of hate like i just described, him and that woman up the door, it chase some people down the street.

then the left wing done that at the trump rally chasing them. host: john, let me ask you this, when it comes to chasing someone, assaulting someone, putting your hands on someone on either side, that's illegal. you can't do that. that's not speech. we're talking about speech. there's no law against walking down the street carrying a torch, for example, saying things against jews or blacks. it's aside from physical contact. do you think that that speech should get protection? caller: look, they were trying to shut them down. so because they didn't like what they were going for. host: outside of conduct, john, the police can arrest you if you hrow something at someone. ok. marianne is calling in from hudson, florida, on the democratic line. hi, marianne. caller: hi. host: with a do you think?

does hate speech deserve the same first amendment protection as other speech? caller: i do not think hate peech should be protected. i think the government should start checking on who they are. i never believed in hate speech even as i grew up against people that were mean to me. i made sure i said to myself, remember, you don't like them. but don't hate them. and we should have more control. host: what about the issue of who decides what is hate speech and what isn't? isn't it too subjective to give the government the power to say

hey, we think your words are hateful if they're not intended to be, for example? caller: well, when things are -- let's face it. people know what words are hateful and how when people get carried away with what they're saying, people understand that. and our politicians should understand it. and put some rules somewhere. i'm not a politician, but i know they have control. they can eliminate people that e bad for our country if the nazis want to change our government, send them out of the country. if they don't like it here, get out. that's how i look at it. this is a wonderful, wonderful country.

and it's not meant for people like that. host: ok. alan's calling in from vienna, virginia, on our independent line. hi, allan. caller: hi. if you don't protest hate speech, shame on you. you don't protest it only because you are not the one being hated at. if you are the one being hated at, i think you would protest it very much. also, your rights being hate speech. hate speech is not protected by the first amendment because a person's right is only extends as far as violating other people's lives. and when being threatened is definitely a violation of somebody's life. host: ok. ok, alan, how old are you? caller: i am 14. host: all right. thank you for calling today. and larry is calling in from fort worth, texas, on our

democratic line. how are you doing, larry? caller: good morning, c-span. i think that hate speech is fad. but terrorist groups like the k.k.k. and neo-nazises, they shouldn't have the freedom to do anything. no way. host: how do you draw the line as between somebody who is deemed as being a member of a hate group and somebody who merely has strong opinions? is there a slippery slope there if you take away rights from people based on their beliefs? caller: when they -- that neo-nazis clans and the confederate flag marching as a k.k.k. group. they shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. they shouldn't be allowed to protest anything else. you're a terrorist group. known to kill blacks and jews. why do you let them have freedom? if i go out and murder somebody,

will i have the freedom? no, i'm locked up. host: ok. and michael is calling in from stamford, connecticut, from our independent line. hi, michael. caller: hi. i live in the southern part of connecticut. so i'm a new york giants fan and i really, really hate the dallas cowboys. i really hate the philadelphia eagles. and i could talk about that all day long. and how is that -- how is that going to someday be oh, i can't say i hate the dallas cowboys? i wish the guy would break his leg or something like that? you know, when is hate speech going to -- how can you go that far? hate speech is hate speech. these people are nazis. that's insane how anybody could back these people up and all these racists and the k.k. k's, that's crazy too. like i said. i hate the cowboys. i love the giants. and there you go. have a good day. go blue.

host: janet's calling from in florida on our independent line. what are your thoughts, janet if caller: yes. it's important to go to the actual text of the first amendment and within that text, t says the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. when people are walking down the streets, especially at night with torches and guns and weapons and dressed as military, that is not people peaceably semi-bring. -- assembling. also threatening speech should ot be protected. you could make a verbal threat or a threat in an e-mail. threats like that cannot and should not be protected. you can say i hate someone but

the minute you say that you're going to harm someone, that is not protected. and like i said, please read what it says. the founders put qualifiers in our amendments. the same thing with the second amendment, a well regulated militia. those are qualifiers and remember -- the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of agree venses is what the -- grievances what is the first amendment says. host: ok. and doug is calling in from lewis center, ohio, on our republican line. good morning, doug. caller: hey, good morning. yeah, i do think free speech should be protected. when people say stupid things, it reveals how stupid they are. and that's what the white supremacists are and regarding

inciting violence, black folks ought to do and the media ought to do is ignore these white supremacists because by engaging them and covering them, we give them credibility. i really -- honestly feel sorry for the white supremacist. to me, they look like they're missing a chromosome or two. they're idiots. so anyhow, yeah, i do support freedom of speech and i don't think it should incite violence because these peopleviolence. host: ok. coming up, bruce bennett will be to talk about how the u.s. and other allies are preparing with the standoff with north korea. grossman james discusses removing confederate monuments. newsmakers --j.b.

poersch. tossuplid the token to a saying the polarizing potential nominee of roy moore could give democrats a shot at takeover. will your group spend money? >> this is a tough target. it will be fair to call it a long shot. if you look at the dynamic that has played out and you have seen and -- the energized democratic base, it usually turns out at a higher level and you have seen a higher performance in arguably hard states like georgia and south carolina, i imagine that will play out in alabama, that race will not be until december. we have a long way until we have to make decisions.

democrats have a particularly and iandidate in jones expect he will have a real candidacy. it is a little too early to see how this will play. but we are open to the idea. anywhere we have the opportunity, we will give this a hard look. doesn't have to be the nominee for you to possibly? judge and senator have ethical challenges. i think they both have hurdles to climb. oore hasnot say that m to be the candidate. i expect the next 30 days will be very competitive between both of them. i would expect senator strange of a favorite in the

institutional and financial support he's getting. moore was outspent 10 to one and he still won the first round. that will be fun to watch. host: tune into "newsmakers" today for an interview with the senate president of the super pac. joining us now from los angeles is peru's bennett, the senior international defense researcher he isd corporation and here to discuss u.s. and south korea military exercises taking place this weekend the threats from north korea. the you for joining us. guest: good morning. host: tell us what will take place tomorrow. guest: