just like westboro church.h. >> tucker: that's not actually true.ry, and in western europe, in the last 20 years, there hasn't been a lot of a christian terrorism there's been a lot of islamic terrorism. i like a lot of muslims. but let's be real. there is a penalty stating the obvious. and the factually true. >> i do not understand this lgbt obsession with christians. a lot of it comes, hallquist talks about growing up in a catholic school and because he was growing up as a -- in her words, is that we can actually grow up and get over it and move on to it we don't all of our problems on things that happened with children's. obviously christianity has moved leaps and bounds, american society has moved leaps and bounds from when hullquist was a child. why are youn blaming an entire religion for all of your problems? these radicalized christians, there is, like, ten of them in the country. who cares? >> tucker: gentlemen, we are out of time. >> thank you so much, tucker. >> tucker: plastic straws have been banished from public life with shocking speed

the westboro baptist freaks or whatever.o struck by is -- well, there is no defending tha that. >> of course. >> tucker: in the speech code that all of us live under, the only religion you can attack is christianity. if she stopped in another world great religion, other abraham make the fates, she would be out of the race tomorrow. why is that? >> that's tricky. i look at all the text that reference christianity that she had sent out and she did, you are correct, to lead up to the story that she'd tweeted about a mother who killed her son because he was gay, that certainly is radical and wrong, reprehensible. absolutely correct to call out westborough, who pickets funerals of fallen soldiers. but these are fringe elements. these are the most fringe elements, calling them out. i do not want to control her right to speech as a transgender woman, -- >> tucker: i think she is celebrating it. let's not pretend. i am not attacking this person, i'm just saying -- if you're upset about people killing others for being gay, it's awful

i have been at events where western -- westboro baptist church has held up the same signs. i think it's important to see that and i think it's important to discuss that. what i think is really tragic are all of those stories we don't hear about every day because we can only focus on one new story topic of the day. we are appear citing starlets fell -- charlottesville which happened at most a year ago. it is a seminal moment. at the same time imagine the other 13,000 or 3 million examples of hate speech that we are not discussing and then we are not processing and not combating. that is still where i come from the perspective of where the courts still as far as saying as file as this is, this still leaves the same kind of protections. unlike how we have carved out for things like libel. briefly i just want to flag something. i know we are going to talk about info wars. is as where i think this little bit closer to some of my areas as far as public relations and minority groups. this is where we often have the conversation. it's not about government regulations. this is about

i have been at events where westboro baptist church has held up the same signs. i think it's important to see that and i think it's important to discuss that. what i think is really tragic are all of those stories we don't hear about every day because we can only focus on one new story topic of the day. we are appear citing starlets fell -- charlottesville which happened at most a year ago. it is a seminal moment. at the same time imagine the other 13,000 or 3 million examples of hate speech that we are not discussing and then we are not processing and not combating. that is still where i come from the perspective of where the courts still as far as saying as file as this is, this still leaves the same kind of protections. unlike how we have carved out for things like libel. briefly i just want to flag something. i know we are going to talk about info wars. that's where i think this is a little bit closer to some of my areas as far as public relations and minority groups. this is where we often have the conversation. it's not about government regulations. this is

i have covered plenty of cases at the supreme court including westboro baptist church, one of the mostnsive operations, they won a free-speech case, why would the first amendment protects the we don't like and are you worried students don't know this? >> i'm always worried when people don't understand the constitution or the bill of rights. i disagree with hate speech, but the right to say it, there's an important note here, it was up to 40% of republicans who supported the president to shut down media outlets they thought were behaving poorly. what is important in this is the attempt to model good behavior and bring people together and i look back at history, the baldwin debate, and hope to see that in the future. shannon: 58% said it is part of a campus community that is not exposed to intolerance ideas. >> who is defining what is intolerant? is defining what is hate speech? both are powerful tools and powerful words to throw around and people start to throw that against things they disagree with or dislike altogether. what are we supposed to do? you are some your team controls level

when we have these conversations i remind them of westboro baptist church, the most inflammatory things won their case 8-1 at the supreme court. >> the first amendment does not -- is meant to protect speech that is controversial and we see how repeatedly universities teach people to give up their freedom in pursuit of feelings and that is a noble cause that it's hard but when you apply it to practice people are taught your speech does not make others uncomfortable. people go out on a limb and have those debates. it starts in the classroom, to make government courses mandatory and teach people and make them realize how important these rights are. >> did you find any you felt were there thoroughly versed on this or did they feel if you're hurting someone's feelings that is where the line is? >> free speech is still good but when put into practice, how far should i be able to go? is all about your intent. if your intent makes me uncomfortable or disrespect to i am that is too far. who gets to decide? a few students at universities should get to decide and they see track record of tools dec

a group of liberal protesters acosting conservative charlie kurt and candice eones outside of a westboro. west restaurant. >> but first, cuomo called trump's immigration policies jihad, and now governor cuomo pledging to oppose i.c.e., my next guest, thomas heilman is with us to speak out after the break, stay there. [music playing] (vo) from the beginning, wells fargo has supported community organizations like united way, non-profits like the american red cross, and our nation's veterans. we knew helping our communities was important then. and we know it's even more important today. so we're stepping up to volunteer more and donate over a million dollars every day. so our communities can be even stronger. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormon

i don't know if they familiar with the westboro baptist gang who won supreme court on free speech, butube, the judge kicked it out, got it on appeal the part of the ruling was the judge that you can't have a first amendment case because this isn't a government or state actor. >> the best analogy i can give is if delta or american or united announced we won't allow anybody on who carries the wall street journal on board. they are a private company, they can make their own rules but everybody understands when you're the conduit for millions of people and there are only three major airlines you are not just a private country -- company with idiosyncratic rules and same holds with these people, they control more information than anyone controlled in the history of mankind, that is a big deal. shannon: it is personal for you but you are worried about broader implications. you are on appeal to the ninth circuit. what do you think your chances are? >> there are chances because the judge did not dismiss the case. we can appeal. she did not say without prejudice. likewise she said it was mere p

makes me want to laugh though because when we start having these conversations i remind them of the westborourch which has some of the most inflammatory things to say. they won their case h-1 in supreme court. >> and also, it's not meant to protect speech that everyone agrees with, but is controversial. they are teaching people to give up their freedoms and pursuit of feelings and that is a noble cause and it's hard, and it's rude. but when you apply it to practice you are taught that your speech only goes so far and does not make others uncomfortable. we should be teaching students to protect other people speech, go out on a limb and have those tough conversations. that will begin to make civics and government courses mandatory and make people realize how important these guys are. >> shannon: these are college age students. did you feel like they were diverse on this or did they really feel like if you are hurting someone's meetings feelings that's where it's at. >> when put into practice i said, how far should i be able to go to hurt your feelings? monday said it's all about your intent. i

supreme court in westboro, it does or at least it can. so, anyway i come back to the conflation challenge, i'll call it and if any of the panelists can comment on that a you shall, and whether they see that as part of the challenge and part of the problem, particularly if we are targeting hateful speech above and beyond the other two. >> so, i think, you know, to synthesize, is there-- are we missing important differences between offensive speech, hateful speech and harmful speech and maybe is that part of our difficulty in crystallizing some of these issues? >> i think my answer is no, we're not. i think first amendment doctrine as it exists is very clear and it's easy to define a threat, it's easy to define incitement. and the kind of offensive speech that is ubiquitous in our society and 0 around the world is generally not a threat in terms of first amendment doctrine. and generally is not incitement in terms of first amendment doctrine. for me that's not a question. the question for me is whether the doctrine is wrong. if you just --