i'd like --. >> nadine strossen, what was the effect of george h.w. bush using the aclu as a beating, beating post at that time? >> as you might imagine it drew a tremendous amount of attention to the aclu and gave us an opportunity, including through the national media to respond to those charges and interestingly enough, that the conclusion of -- there was a movie that was made about this, "the american president" that lionized the candidate who said i am a proud card carrying member of aclu and he actually gave a speech we wish that michael dukakis said in real life, that i am a member of this organization and defends all fundamental freedoms for all people no matter who you are and what you believe. the question is why aren't you a member of the aclu and our membership numbers shot up, but sadly, peter, this shows that when people see a dramatic threat to civil liberties, including free speech is when they tend to be supportive. otherwise, they tend to take it for granted and not realize that it's always under siege and to quote a phrase from thom

peter: another issue, nadine strossen. ave read reports about law schools pulling offers to students who have signed on to the anti-israel letters. these students were expressing their free speech. now, they are being punished professionally. nadine: let's be clear about this, peter. number one, it is a difficult issue. but number two, i think the legal parameters are quite clear. on the one hand, students certainly have the free-speech right to engage in the most obnoxious, controversial viewpoints as long as they do not cross the line to targeted threats or harassment. number two, employers have no obligation to hire any particular individual, under federal law. i should note there are some state and local laws that do prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of political beliefs. i would advise all employers to make sure they are acting consistent with state and local laws. that gets to the harder question which is, even if you have a right to do something, is it right to do so? we have had many, many conversa

i would like to begin with you, nadine strossen. you have an extraordinary depth of expertise on the subjects we will discuss today, and i would like you to start us off by explaining the constitutional and legal roles following expression and protest on public and private campuses, what kind of speech and activities are protected, and any exceptions to the general rule, in five minutes. prof. strossen: [laughter] if you want the first story, you will have to read my new book. thank you so much and thanks to my distinguished co-panelists and everybody for organizing this really important seminar. so the united states first amendment free-speech standards, which by the way, are only directly binding on public universities, but which the vast majority of private universities, including harvard, have voluntarily decided to adhere to as a matter of economic -- academic freedom and pedagogical excellence, so i will refer to the first amendment, but please be aware we are not literally talking about the first amendment. we are talking abo

. >> host: author of nadine strossen the last time i i sau was at freedom fest in memphis in july. a lot of people would be wondering why the for