just people to say what they think, that doesn't mean i agree with what they think and often they don't. i'm sorry, often i don't. so you medicine have speech. he speaks is protected in the united states were protected. mean says that the court said that the constitutional wells speak the say he thinks i agree with that. but i also believe in raising one's voice against hateful speech. so i both believe that it will be, should be allowed. and the people of good, we'll shouldn't raise their voices against it, which is itself a form of free speech. so the question is whether the state should be in the business of regulating and i don't believe it should be in this context. what that 3 is referred to free of why don't free to do what free to be. 3 feet regulation and control why regulation and control? because you know that many of the public for in the united states privately owned,

why do you make variation? well, because i mean, the constitution says congress shall make no law that a bridge is freedom speak right. the constitution, the bill of rights is directed at the government. that is, the 1st amendment is phrased in negative terms. it doesn't say you can say anything, you want to any talk, what it says that we can't pass laws, it prevent you from speak while, but you know, you know, definitely that life is, you know, brighter and more inventive than the law. i mean, it's definitely broader than the law counselor. we need to be curtailed with laws being fully applied. right. and look, i think it's important to make a distinction between what the constitution says and let's just say our public spirit around free speech. so i'm not concerned right now in the united states

about i, you know, i shoot for on the part of the government to censor people. that does happen sometimes, but the biggest worry for me is that we're censoring ourselves. we find a way we're allowed to do, i just think is wrong headed. so you mentioned college campuses earlier. there was a lot of censorship going on college campuses, but it's not a matter of like bad guys with baseball bats and sunglasses walking around. and you know, inhibiting people want to speak, what it is is that i believe we belong the culture of free speech, which is a different question. that is, we've made environments, they're not friendly to people speaking their minds. well, i actually agree with you 100 percent because when i was studying in the states back in early 2, thousands, many of my media law professors would side. these will,

terry and the principal, i disagree with with what you say, but i will defend your right to said to my very death. and nowadays my own university has a pretty long records of counseling speakers. why not even controversial? i mean they, they're just not subscribing fully to the new ethics that they can over the american campuses. correct. i know that this is a very complex phenomenon, but, but why do you think it is so contagious? why do you think so prevalent across the entire academia which is supposed to be based on critical thinking as the very premise of it's operation? well, i think that a couple of things to remember. first of all, cancel culture as you mentioned, is real. but i want to emphasize your listeners, it's bipartisan, that's what makes it so strong. so if you turn on fox news, if you turn on right wing radio in this country, while you hear about or 2 cases where less meeting people shout down conservative

speakers. and that does happen. fox is right, and that's deplorable on fox won't tell you. is that republican lead state legislatures right now are trying to pass laws to prevent people from teaching about critical reading lead here. i think the american culture, i don't know what it's powerful is it's bipartisan. well, it's bipartisan when it comes to the media, but i ask you about the accident in academia. like, let's not put them into the same basket because i agree. the journalists are also supposed to be at balance. i mean, this is the very premise of our profession, but when it comes to me, i think the standard is standard is much higher. i mean, isn't that supposed to be different in that very sales? i agree with you and this is a problem and it is true that on our campuses, the campuses are run by professors administrators mostly come from the left, although not entirely. so it didn't surprise us in

a sad way that on campuses when you see campus leaders will campus students sentence lang people, it often comes from the left. but we live in a culture of it's bigger than our universities. and one of the really sad things that the united states right now is the same. people complain about cancer cultural care. and that's really the story. i say purposes. zimmerman. in the previous interview, he talked about the psychology of politics, the framing of political claims in terms of psychological harm, which happened over the last 20 years or so. now, i'm not sure the american politics was amber. 3 psychology, i think. but this slide towards the aggressor or, and the me narrative. what do you think? prompted it because it's been go back. 20 years to the late 992 doors were some of

the most prosperous and triumphant years in the united states. well, i think there are a couple of things that happen, but i think one of them is that we develop much more awareness about mental health nor society in our culture. which by the way, i think is lordly, salutary. i think it's fantastic that there's been more openness, more a we're about mental health and in some places also more funds devoting to devoted to treating it. although again, not but it, in our political realm and unfortunate an unforeseen negative consequence, which is i think, is part of the mental health revolution. we increasingly freeze political claims inside the law. arms as the language of mental health became more common. so if you disagree with something i said on this program, you don't to say, i disagree with you. i think you're wrong because of the following problems in your

evidence or logic. you say your micro grass mate, you say you triggered me. you said you heard me again some psychological way because those are psychological terms. and i guess an enormous problems or politics because it's almost impossible to have a discourse on that terrain. if you were to say that i, mike regressed, you all, i can you resend responses? i'm sorry i couldn't deny. could that happen because i can't look into your soul. so it's a cul de sac. that is, it's a way to cut off the discussion at a time when we actually need more of it. he talks about psychology, diving of politics, but i wonder if the opposite is also true because that is the politicizing of my college because any psychologist would tell you that there is no clear separation between a victim and abuser. and abuser is almost always to form a victim,

you know, those things are all in generation. so in a way, do you think it's perhaps the mix of both them the manipulation of both psychology and politics? absolutely. i think that's a really fair point. and i think, honest, i will tell you that a lot of claims about micro aggressions and trigger warnings don't really have a lot of psychological basis. that if they're not grounded in research, even the idea that we should try to insulate you from something that may be harmful . i think that will go from live because you can leave your life and you're going to be informed that the adult indigenous. and i don't even on terrain of psychology, there's a lot of evidence suggesting that not very good for you. but actually the best thing for you is to expose yourself to these things. we are afraid that will ultimately be better for your mental health. so i guess my point is this, the college of politics, it doesn't even work on psychological grounds. that is the psychology of it. as

best understand the science is highly flaw, then i think it's fair to say as you do politicize. okay, well professor is a mom and we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned for me . are you mr. moseley, when you said that i could you put it up to the board to google. i want you

to do i see going to show you where you know where to put it into the molar. that's what you will cover. the 1st of all, i don't know if i use them in your voice to follow you so much. not although a lot nobody me on the is a sucker and they were billing me personally. hon. which ah ah

ah, driven by remember shaped by person, those with me in the me i think we dare to ask me. ah

ah, welcome back to all the parts with jonathan professor keeps your imagination at the university of pennsylvania and also all free speech. why you should give them professor zimmerman. before the break, we were talking about the psychology of politics and politicizing of psychology, but they could be at some other reason which i want to explore with you or your colleagues, jonathan, hide and greg jonathan down. now famous book, the coddling of the american mind, also addressed the phenomena that we are talking about now. and they suggested that it may be partially due to the collapse of the soviet union and the american losing that sort of archetype figure. all of anatomy and the soviet union, which kept them together, which kept political tribalism, a bay, and perhaps even provided some sort of a social glue. i wonder if this is something that's tried for you?

well look, i mean obviously i know john and greg and i respect their book. i think the jury is still out on that. you know that his degree to which the cold, who are factored into that. but they're obviously right that the countries become radically polarized. and whether that's because we lack, you know, a common or soviet enemy i think is an open question. but the polarization is beyond question. and i think that's the other incredibly important context here. i think the other reason that we speak is on the ropes in many places united states is because we've imagined our political opponents as moral enemies. and that's never friendly to free speech. because if you're opening premise is the person who disagree with disagrees with you. if somehow a monster, well, what's the talk about? should you talk with the monster will of course not, you should defeat a monster. well, i think this is actually where your book provides a very interesting intersection between the domestic and the international

discourse. because you make a very interesting point. there historically, political or rather geopolitical speech have always been limited in the united states under the pretext of not aiding the enemy. and it was only around the war and you have not when open criticism or b u. s. military action was becoming publicly acceptable. i wanted to know if counsel, culture and all these other forms of gag actually didn't actually sort of exist on the same premise that and me or a poem and the bad guys don't have the same right to the wars as we be good guys. i think that's a really important point and i would agree with just with the, with the one important caveat, it's true that up until the war americans often weren't allowed to criticize their country during war time. but to go back to the question, the constitution, they weren't allowed by the state. that is the state in the form of the, you know,

the military and the police actually jailed people for criticizing the country. that's not happening now. it said we're doing it yourself. right, that is, you know, their or state agents. nobody's come in the night for me because they don't like what i've said i get no e mails from people out in the world, but nobody from the state. and you know, i think that's why i say 2 things. i think 1st of all, we need to remind ourselves in america how recent that is, how recent that is that somebody like me, a newspaper columnist hasn't had to worry about criticizing the government. because for most of our history, the kinds of things i right could have got me in deep trouble because i criticized the state. now the danger doesn't call the state it comes from our culture. it comes from ourselves. there's no ma'am another day we're going to pick up the

battle with you, but i find these been private and they funded artificial and i have many experiences in my own line of work when i would be reporting from somewhere in libya and extremely dangerous terrain. and my reports would be due to my or view the something that is not worthy of attention compared to let's say, my american colleagues core sitting in the studio somewhere in washington in new york and pontificating about the valley is not even a stepping good on the grounds, so don't you think that, you know, driving this distinction could be extremely manipulative and ultimately it does hurt free speech regardless of whether those, you know, those limitations are applied to state or private surprise, but here's why i think the distinction is important and the example you just gave

look. again, i wasn't in libya, i don't know if the circumstances, but i'm certainly willing to imagine that there were plenty of americans who had their ignorance right. dismissed. what you were say. and, and, you know, somebody else is free to say, oh no, she was actually right. and here's why. and then a 3rd person, you say, no, actually it was something in between, right? that's not sensor kit that's dialogue. nobody's preventing that from the c, right? we are all narrow. we are all prejudice. we are all biased human beings. ok, that's the premise of all of that. ok. and that's why we need to keep talking and we need to keep talking. all right, when you know somebody from the state saying, oh no, you can't say that. but the professor with all due respect in this state is far less influential than many of the current communication or social media platform.

if you decide that our conversation needs to be suppressed, simply because i get my salary from, from the rational said it's still in my ability and your ability to, to reach the audience not only in the united states, but everywhere around the world. and again, that is a very real issue. i mean, that's a separate issue. and that issue has to do with, you know, the power of these private companies, right? that are not state agencies, right? so facebook and twitter are not government agencies. okay. be subjective to the same kind of criteria and requirements and limitations and scrutiny as the statements that you should given the enormous influence and power that they hold. i understand how much power they have, right? but when my students say, well, i want the state to be regulating facebook and say ok if donald trump's the president, you told me you have trump, you want him regulating it. really do you trust the state much?

i don't, i don't. so it seems to me, you know, the answer to bad speech is always more speak. and if you don't like what facebook is doing, you should say, so that's humanity. trump, and i know that you're, you're describe yourself a demon trump, but he is somebody who is supported by a substantial portion of your population of your fellow in and of itself. not enough to allow him any sort of platform. oh, i might be clear, i do not support twitter and facebook cutting off donald trump. i happen to lose trump. but i don't, i believe that was wise on their part. they had the right to do it because their private company and to please understand i'm not defending their decision to do it

. i thought that they had a much better plan in place for that which was whenever trump posted alive, which he did almost every day. for them to exercise their speech and say, oh, by the way, this is a lie. and why don't we? that's what they were doing. and i think that's a much better response than just to cut them off. and let me just add that when they were doing it, they also produce, perhaps an advertisement many lives. and the only thing you need to look at is the change your rhetoric and narrative on the origins of call that 19 pandemic. because something that he was arguing at a year ago is now a mainstream version of events, the bite and ministration itself is investigating their origin but labeled as a lie. right. look, there were many missteps on that subject without a doubt. and there were also probably people on the left like me who dismissed this

hon theory because it was coming from trump. and because trump had told so many lies like an a crying wolf kind of way, we just assumed this must be allies well and i think that was mistaken. but this is my point. you said now by missing, let's have an investigation or they have an investigation in china. you think? you think they're really investigating and china honestly and openly. i would say they're not. and the reason is because there's not a democracy. and because china doesn't have a constitution that guarantees the right of free, so a preference as amendment number me, and i'm sorry to break it to you, but that particular laboratory time had any contracts with the american center for disease control. and i think it's called national how institute and i haven't been many invest investigation into that contract on the american side. i was

talking about it now and we're talking about it because we have free speed. right? that's why we're talking about it and, and nobody is going to nobody from the state is going to hurt me or interfere with me in any way because i'm discussing it. and because of the statements that i just set. and if i lived in china, that would be different. well, that's a speculation on your part, but speculation really think, how do you read about typing in hong kong? i read that happening again young. i actually not only read, but i've been there. so i think that the way the american media, western media reporting on many things historically void of any cultural understanding. and you are somebody who spend 2 years as a peace corps volunteer. and you should know about better than anyone because many countries approaching those issues from a different cultural perspective, which is actually another question of mine. because in the united states you have

these 2 calls. one is called the fuse and other one is called the activism. so, a young person speaking up to authority is always lionized, but in many other cultures, that's not the case. in the, in the east, you know, be the respect of authority to respect of the elders is purposefully cultivated. don't you think that you are perhaps under a cultural bias of ages and historical ages, most referring, you know, wondering generation to everybody else is what i would say. the problem with the term culture as you're using it is it tends to it tends to draw attention to differences across societies and blind or attention to differences within though. okay, that's the problem with the term culture. so the statements you made the

generalizations about, say, a place like china or even russia and assorted. i might agree with them at some level. but you know what, the dissidence in those countries. all right, and the people that have been ga, olga, and most old by those regimes. they are killing even russian. also, they're part of that culture. they are no less chinese or no less russian for criticizing the authorities. so that's the problem with the term here, right? what you end up deciding is that a chinese person, this is what a really nice person is, and therefore, you know, i way or some other dissonant, does really acting like a fine, you know, like propagandized by the west. we're try. nice thing is. so you, people disagree with these other ones and they, they can express their opinion in many different forms. i mean, especially in the current that he's your communication. you can do that very easily

and let me tell you, i know that historically that when you, whenever a free speech is suppressed, it actually produces a huge, underground explosion of all sorts of these. because i mean, the more constrained it is, the higher the incentive students, and that's a book. it doesn't work. and, you know, in the soviet union, obviously there was this huge studies the culture that was produced precisely by that. yeah. right. i mean, there was this incredibly rich culture that was underground that actually flourished in some ways because the state was trying to suppress it. let me squeeze in one final question because in the beginning of our conversation, you said something very interesting. that free speech of thought is getting encoded as a, as a can to thing. and i don't understand why something like this wouldn't be problematic because i started our conversation deciding the bible conservatively, you know,

historically people have always appreciated the power of the world. and the, you know, i believe there was to change things. i look if it's, i mean i, it, it's, i hear what you're saying it and i deeply object to the coding of free speech is conservative. i don't think we speech is conservative. i don't think we speak is liberal. i think free speech is at the horn to of the american id on the american dream, which is for us to govern ourselves. and we can't do that without free speech. we can't do it well. we can't learn from each other, we can't communicate with each other. we can't criticize the government. the government is aired. it's been coded as conservative on college campuses because college campuses are liberal. and so people that are objecting to the consensus or dismissed as conservative, if i'm for name calling, right? of course it is right. and, and it's, it's

a fast way of adding to our kind of polarization, a neutral cremation. but it's, we'll, i'm, you know, i'm a liberal democrat but i think there are plenty of people that don't know. maybe it's think i'm a conservative because i care that for you, steve. and again, i think that's a huge, distorted, and most of all and historical view. i mean, i'm a historian and i can tell you that great radicals of past all were free speech develops. they had to be, we have to leave it there. thank you very much. for being with us. thank you. it was fun. thank you for watching. i hope to hear again that's week was the part for me. the me

i you could go to a 6 day marathon of creativity, a multi cultural festival. and the biggest variety is the competition for a few days, became a russian cultural capital. 28 categories. ahh, from filing a piano to the artist, parenting and data protection. not yours just throwing up. for always water in limits. georgia, you know, if you could get some kind of a 3 or for them to

be here, they 1st had to when reading the content, the delta games only take the very best of the best buy. ah ah the ah ah. the the

news the breaking news and the headlines this monday. the taliban so he's government buildings and stake tv office. the tv off going to thought presidential president fleas and quit leaving the country and killed the groups already. and now we have gotten more is over the survey and product. meanwhile, a couple of fort worth, thousands crime terminals in desperate search flights out kind of been closes in the united states loads. it's embassy flag and evacuated workers. the images of helicopters swoop again for the best for soft medicine with anxious escape from vietnam less than 5 decades ago. the.