Will have to get back to you. Hasrter general kelly become a political conversation. We believe the last few minutes of todays White House Briefing to go to the Heritage Foundation for a panel on freedom of speech, what does it mean . Oflysts will debate if vincent van names should be allowed to receive the federal trademark as one example. Introduction are being made. You are watching live coverage on cspan. Hosting our discussion this afternoon is tiffany bates, legal policy analyst. She researches and writes about records, judicial nominations, and other constitutional issues. She is also cohost of heritages 101 podcast. She was a regular contributor to the daily signal, heritages multimedia organization, and she also coordinates a pellet advocacy program. Please join me in welcoming tiffani bates. Tiffani. [applause] thank you, and welcome to the Heritage Foundation, and thanks for joining us to celebrate free speech week by highlighting recent First Amendment victories. I look at my remarks and introduction short so we can get to what we are all here for. [laughter] the summer, the Supreme Court protect thehat we freedom to express the thought that we hate. While the freedom of speech as long been the core of our free society, it has really come under sharp attack. The courts however have pushed back over the last few years, continually extending First Amendment protection to what some call free speech. About ae rea will hear brewery after his application was denied to register a beer label. We will then see a short video from the bass player of the band afteraseed the Trademark Office refused to trademark their name. In a unanimous win, the Supreme Court found the disparagement clause violated the First Amendment. Judge elio wrote that such a law offends bedrock First Amendment principles. The speech may not be banned on the ground that stresses ideas that offend. Finally, we will talk about the fate of the Washington Redskins trademark that the government canceled under the same disparagement clause. As the Supreme Court handed down its opinions in june, all parties to the redskins case and the department of justice sent letters to the Fourth Circuit control to the case position and the court must enter judgment for the redskins. It has been four months, but the Fourth Circuit has not been so. If the court taking its time or try to distinguish the case in order to rule against the redskins . We will explore the future of free speech with our great panel of experts. Jim is busy general partner of Flying Dog Brewery jim is the ceo and general partner of Flying Dog Brewery. Is known for its worldclass beers combined with distinctive art. Jim is as passionate about the First Amendment as he is about the beer he produces, and he has been an advocate for the freedom of speech since the 1970s. In 2015, using damages awarded by michigan after its court battle, jim founded First Amendment society, a nonprofit Whose Mission is to raise Public Awareness about First Amendment principles. Recipient of numerous awards for his business prowess and dedication to the First Amendment. In a bachelors and masters degree in economics from the university of missouri, and he holds a degree in brewery science. Trevor is a Research Fellow in the cato Institutes Center for constitutional studies and managing editor of the Supreme Court view. His Research Interests includes constitutional law, civil and criminal law, legal and political philosophy, and legal history. His writing an Academic Work has appeared in many news outlets and journals across the country. He is also the cohost of free thought, a weekly podcast that covers th topic the libertarian theory, history, philosophy. He holds a ba in philosophy from the university of colorado and a degree from the university of denver. Appellate litigator. Since starting his own practice in 1997, he has been involved in appeals on a broad range of legal issues, including the first, second, fifth, and 14th amendment and other state and federal constitutional and statutory matters. He has been involved in over 100 Supreme Court matters, including petitions represent half a dozen parties and filing iefs. 60 bre he holds a ba from Dartmouth College and a degree from columbia. He served to Doug Ginsburg on the d c circuit and just as commerce on the Supreme Court. We will hand it over to jim. Thank you, tiffany, for inviting me to be on this panel and thank you to the Heritage Foundation for the fine would you on a day in and day out basis. As most of you know and probably better than i, free speech as we know it today did not really exist before the 1960s and yet i am a child of the 1950s, so i observed the development of First Amendment law, and by the 1970s, it was passionately committed to the principles of the First Amendment, both as one of the most basic human rights and the First Amendment as the rockstar of the constitution as floyd abrams ascribes it. To master freedom, the financial freedom, or intellectual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. One of the First Amendments in my business intersect and was in 1955 when we released a beer, road dog, with an original label by the internationally famous ralph stedman. He was painting the slide on the bbc. There is a fun back story behind it Robert Bentley in an effort to poke the bbc a little bit and as it related to an essay that hunter wrote for the release of this beer, he scribbled on there in his fountain pen font, good beer, no. [laughter] we received the label and loved it. We released it in denver , colorado. Got huge press, both for the beer and the distinctive label art. This was back in 1995. But a competitor complained to the Colorado Liquor Commission that the word was an of obscenity. The commission agreed and commanded that we remove the product on the shelf or our license is suspended. We pulled a quarter Million Dollars worth of beer from the shelf, released the beer with good beer, no censorship. [laughter] theot surprisingly, sued Colorado Liquor Commission, and six is later, the colorado Supreme Court overruled the Colorado Liquor Commission. The word is not an obscenity. In 2009, we released a beer, art, with original label and the name of the beer is raging. As some of you may or may not know, most states require some sort of submission of labels before you sell the beer. It is a routine administrative process. We do hundreds of these a year. On but announced to me, this beer was not approved for sale in michigan. It was rejected. We had shipped some. It was a mistake. Michigans response was clear and immediate. If we do not remove the beer from the shelvews within 24 lves within 24 hours, the state police will be sent out to remove it, and i could be charged with a felony. We removed the beer. [laughter] i appealed the decision of the Michigan Liquor control commission. And for all of us who are concerned about and cherish our constitutional freedoms, we should be somewhat concerned with some of the reasons they gave for not liking this beer. The name, the art, or the label copy. But some of the reasons that the appeal hearing were that Oprah Winfrey does not allow that word on her show. Wonderful. [laughter] i am waiting for a reference to the constitution because they have already assured me this was not a First Amendment issue. Another thing that they told me was that the Westminster Kennel Club no longer uses that word to refer to female dogs. Ok. I get it. They also said that it has to be removed from the shelf because ce ofere passive observant this beer on the shop will incite violent action. For use, the commission years, the commission rejected any beer with that word in it because they did not like the word. The bedrock rentable of the First Amendment is the government cannot control or suppress speech just because they do not like the content of it. Not surprisingly, we sued the state of michigan. Michigan Liquor Control Commission and commissioners as individuals. It was in the western district, the first hearing. Of theing was in favor Michigan Liquor control commissioners, and the court extended to them both quasijudicial and judicial immunity. Not really sure if this is a violation of your First Amendment rights, but it does not really matter because they were immune from being sued. That was appealed to the sixth circuit, and after four more years of waiting come in the sixth circuit ruled unanimously in our favor with the dissenting but concurring opinion further liablenot only are they to be sued for their violation, a possible violation of the First Amendment rights, but it is a clear blatant violation of flying dogs First Amendment rights. We went back and settled with michigan. I used the proceeds of that to create the First Amendment society. It is a nonprofit. It is rather new, but we have a Speaker Series that we have constitutional attorneys talking about everything from fcc regulations to the First Amendment. Scholarshiporing a for Investigative Journalism at the university of maryland working in conjunction with a lot of liberty oriented groups to speak at free speech events and College Campuses, so this is a big part of what we do. In short lies a brewery here talking about the First Amendment because i have spent 12 of the last 22 years in litigation or in court suing states because they personally did not care for a beer label. Thank you. [applause] next, we will watch a short video from simon, who is sorry he cannot join us in person. Hello from sydney, australia. My name is simon, founder of the worlds first all automation dance rock band. I am sorry i cannot be there in person joining you today. I started this band over a decade ago because i wanted to create something that would empower Asian American communities, but it ended up me tosomething that took a legal battle that lasted eight years against the u. S. Trademark office. I originally chose the band name so long ago because i wanted to change something that was a point of shame for me as a kid to a simple empowerment as an adult. The story of me surviving being would resonate with marginalized communities also have a difficult time with their identities, so we wanted to read wordpriate this outdated and what made it popular to begin with. Eyeds used as slant against asianamericans, but it was a term that our community struggled to use in the 1980s and 1990s as a part of private instead. Pride instead. We recently applied for the trademark eight years ago because it is something that is really important for bands to do. It is a known part of the career as you are making national headlines, you go ahead and register the mark so you protect your brand. The whole point of the trademark system is to protect consumers. It would not help people if they were 10 bands out there all with the exact same name, so we created a system where people can apply for intellectual rights and make sure there are not imitators. That way if you are buying concert tickets to see a band coming can be assured that it is the right band. Traditionally a place for government to decide morality on. It is more of a filing system. If you dont have the requirement to be a business that you should have a legitimate business and protect come about ass simple process changed into a much larger fight when the government decided that they would know what is best for the asia Asian American community. They told me the name the slants is disparaging to people of Asian American dissent even though we had no complaints for from our community. For the government to deny you rights based on this complaint, they have to see that it is a substantial composite that a group finds it offensive, but they did not find a single Asian American who was offended by the name. Websitesthey relied on and quoting from anonymous folks on message boards. When we decided that they want to strip the agency of our ability to determine what is right for ourselves, we decided to appeal and continue fighting. After we brought independent national surveys, linguistic s experts, in over 3000 asianamerican leaders standing up and telling the government they were actually run on the issue, we still lost. The government decided they knew what was best, wit so started asking questions. Slant is an inherent racial slur like you think it is, why have you registered it so many times before, literally thousands of times . There are hundreds of applications for the term, but many of them being registered. Mine is the only case in u. S. History to be denied slant on of friends that it is a frien s offends asian people. Therefore, there is an association of the disparaging term. They said we are too asian. In their mind, you go to our website and look at our pictures and clips of live concerts, people would automatically assume the racial slur because of our ethnic identities and not any other possible definition in the dictionary. But it is really more of a convoluted way of saying anyone can register slants as long as they are not asian. Once i heard that, i decided we need to continue fighting because the government, even though its intention was to protect marginalized communities, was actually using peoples race against them. Political identities, sexual orientation, gender, and anything that was considered controversial by the government would be grounds for them to deny us rights. And so we appealed. Eventually won the federal circuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was being used against us was unconstitutional. Nine of the 12 federal judges agreed that we should have the right to register our band name. Beyond that, we kept fighting eventually went to the Supreme Court, were we were victorious. One of the few unanimous rulings in Supreme Court history. 80. Every single justice agreed that the law was unconstitutional. Not only was it unconstitutionally vague, but it was also engaging in viewpoint discrimination. For me, this experience has been exciting, inspiring, and incredibly frustrating. They reminded me how important it is to protect free speech. A lifetime stop people present this false dichotomy that you need to have civil rights in one corner and Civil Liberties in the other, but the reality is that if you want to protect civil rights, you have to begin by protecting Civil Liberties because those tend to be the rights that marginalized groups do not enjoy the most. We can have the government winners and losers in terms of who gets protection, who gets to have the Fire Departments serving them when a house is on fire, who gets protection during a protest, or even who gets to register trademarks or not. The government is there to protect us, not infringe upon our rights. So i am thrilled that the decision was made and unanimous, striking a resounding chord. It was bipartisan. We all have a vested stake in the rights of the First Amendment and how important it is to fight for those rights. For me, i believe i will continue fighting on behalf of marginalized groups because that is what i am most passionate about. If and when those skirmishes and issues intersect free speech, i definitely know where to stand on that, so thank you so much for listening. [applause] thank you, everyone, for coming. Thank you to heritage, tiffany, for the beer. I know flying dog is actually from colorado, too. This is the brief that i got signed by simon. I will be auctioning it off later. I wrote a good part of this. It is on behalf of gedo and a basket of deplorable people in favor of the band. I had a particular expertise writing for this group because i have been in offense of bands and i know a lot about offensive music. They came to me and said you could write all of the band names and every thing you want to put in here. That is what i did. It is important because we are talking about what bands are communicating with their band names, and i think this is an underappreciated part of this case. The slants communicated an these those that they approached an ethos that they approached. , queen isof bands another one where they are trying to take it back. I spent a lot of time trying to tweet to get them to sign on to our brief, but they did not return my calls. We have other band names that communicate what kind of thing is going on. Man, i pistols, rape highly suggest that one, a 1970s r b band, dying fetus. Here is an important thing about this. Dying fetus is not a cover band. I am sure you are not surprised. There is not a string quartet. The slants could have called Asian American men who are respectful to our diverse city as an american nation. If you went to their concert and saw them play chinese lyrics in one of their songs, you might be very offended that a band called 4 very respect for Asian American who are respectful of our diversity as an american nation. That is an aspect to naming your band the slants, which simon did a good job. Not just the slants. Many organizations have adopted and taken on the names that were given to them by other people. This includes the jesuits, the mormons, the quakers, the yankees, impressionists, suffragette, that was an insult also back in the day, and the appropriatio of words, all these things. And brings very interesting questions of how we deal with this. We have some footnotes, whereing the Seinfeld Jerry suspects that somebody converted to judaism so he can tell the jokes. He makes fun of catholics. He is to be catholic so he can do that. You can tell just about anyone, which winds of discretion. Because they are Asian American, this is particularly bad. They could not name themselves the slants. This brings up a south park seen that we quoted about how do who decides for the community of color like asianamericans or africanamericans that we are offended . Pto was trying to say we think asianamericans are offended. That is a great episode called with apologies to jesse jackson. I want you to know that everything is cool now, i the apologize to jesse jackson. Jesse jackson said it is ok. He told my dad he was. You have these problems about who can validate one of these disparaging remarks, and it is definitely not going to be the pto. To talk about the decision itself, it is an interesting decision with multiple parts. Three decisions. From one interesting point, we got Justice Alito, was my biggest concern in that case, coming out for free speech. If you know about his jurisprudence, he has not been very good on what we generally called offensive speech. Part of the Westboro Baptist church case, he wrote a profound commitment to debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. In a case about videos about animals being crushed, he said the Court Strikes down in its entirety a statute that was enacted to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty. Alvarez, a case about a guy like that he won the medal of honor and several other awards, he said the lies covered by the stolen valor act have no Intrinsic Value and merit no First Amendment protection. You see Justice Alito has not historically been good to free speech. For him, he saw this as part of the Political Correctness movement. I put this in a line with walker versus confederate veterans, which is a case about whether or not be state of texas can deny a Confederate Flag in license plate in a robust license plate system. And is not always turn into a balancing and proportionality test. He did not have a jurisprudence of portion only. Freeform balancing test. A case like reid versus talbert, he rejected the mechanical use of categories for basic analysis, which is a balancing test that is hard to predict. The justice came on and said we will protect this and not have a multifactor balancing test. The course did not fall to Political Correctness, which is a very big thing we talk about now, but i think this is important because i did feel the redskins case hanging over them in this question with a very heated time where people do not like a lot of what people are saying, and they get upset. That did not affect their decision that this was not unconstitutional. We have the government speech doctrine, which is another important part about this. One of the arguments the government made was it is hard for me to say this industry face, somehow trademarks were a government speech. You know that the texas license plate case, that is what the court ruled in that case, a strange association of Justice Thomas saying license plates are government speech. This could push a very scary free speech doctrine. S allowed to be this is a thing Justice Alito quoted that the government was putting up propaganda posters or things telling you to save water ii. Teel during world war they are under no obligation to let people put up posters saying the opposite of that. That would expand government speech. Walker seemed to do that because it was very strange. I am a big oklahoma sooners fan. You can get an oklahoma sooners license plate in texas. [laughter] you are a texas fan, right . They do. 4 00. You can get an oklahoma sooners license plate in texas in which means apparently that the state of texas is endorsing the oklahoma sooners, which is probably not going to be the case. What happened in the decision is they did not even entertain the fact that a trademark could be seen as government speech i think it is very because walker. Seems to be the outer limits of the government speech doctrine, and that is a very good thing there, too. In general, we had a very good assertion that the court offensive speech is protected, hate speech is protected. They did not look twice at that. Court once again affirmed that, which continues a general trend that in terms of agreement over the last 20 years in particular, we have seen free speech get more protected by the Supreme Court in a lot of cases that were even more extreme than simons cases. I am excited. It was a great teaching case, and it is always important to teach about the First Amendment. I have already done one session with a group of High School Students who were to run this with their class and have them pretend to advocate on both sides. I was teaching them the facts. It is a great teaching case. If there is one thing we definitely need now, more teaching and discussion about the First Amendment and how important it is for people to protect their freedoms. Andffensive speech disparaging speech is not protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not mean anything. Popular speech does not meet need to be protected. If you Say Something popular, you do not need protection from the First Amendment. We are goinght say to shut down your speech in some way, but tomorrow its going to be me if you let that happen. In general, its a very good thing the court did, and hopefully, we can hold the line. I congratulate assignment band. Tulate simon and his thank you. [applause] well, i been given the incredibly brief task of telling you about the redskins case. I assume anybody who was in the vicinity of washington, d. C. , understands the pto attempted to cancel six of the redskins that theyhe grounds were disparaging. , proone in the case agreed football agreed, and even the challengers agreed that it is unequivocally controlled, and that was in june or july that was in july. I suppose that begs the question of what is the Fourth Circuit thinking about . One can only hope are distracted by something else. I called the lawyer in the case, the lawyer for pro football in this case and asked why they were not giving her the order, and she said she had no idea. By the way, just a shout out to lisa spectacular appellate produce. Lisa does a certain type of appellate law better than anyone, which is basically to poke her finger in peoples eye, tell him they are wrong, and she does not care if they dont like it. Litany ofught her trademarks and then names was bad, just go read her briefs. Her litany of trademarks that are offensive was really something. Lets speculate. Unabashedly speculation on what in the world could be going through the Fourth Circuits had. I suppose theres two reasons why you might delay issuing the obvious order, which is remand with instructions to reverse. One is because they think they can remand about having to reverse. They clearly have to remand because the rationale were clearly wrong, but is there breathing room to some outcome with the same result on a different theory . I suppose i see two possible paths. One of which is a function of the unappealing commercial speech discussions in Justice Alitos opinions, which, fortunately, Justice Thomas fortunately rejected outright, and the other justices effectively rejected, but Justice Alito attempting to distinguish the disruption of commerce the a discrimination, well, even if that were true, it is not narrowly tailored, but of course, that can be fixed potentially by the pto issuing a new ruling saying they construe the statutory command in light of the Supreme Courts ruling to only reach this tiny, narrow area of offense given to minority groups the are subject to traditional versions of discrimination. The reason i worry about this a little bit i dont actually worry about this because i think the Supreme Court would smack them in the head if they did it, but i worry about it a little bit because the implications of it arguing arguably apply to hospital environment discriminations as well. Is it now a hospital environment for me to post a cover of the slant album in my cubicle at work or to have redskins or, god for bid, some more offensive sign in my cubicle that would offend various and sundry groups at work . I think that is a closer call under the current law. In my free speech world, the answer is obvious. You cannot fire me for having offensive signs, even if it is at work. But that is not todays law or probably not where it majority of the court could go, so why is it you could make a similar argument about the redskins that it is offensive to native americans who might attend sporting events, much like you would attend any other public restaurant or public event . Why is it not potentially to people who work for the redskins to have a hostile that calls them redskins . You certainly could not have the. Ike Baseball Team maybe they are thinking of remanding with instructions as to if you could remainder it and address Justice Alitos instructions that it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to a more direct antidiscrimination purpose. The other way you could go there, though i do not think they will, is let me press this by saying i hated the discussion of government speech in the case. I think the whole line of cases is wrong, and i think the First Amendment applies to government speech. It allows it in many inns is is because it wins the ballot, but i do not think it is categorically immune, but i am a minority of maybe one and a half. The logic of government speech, even as described by Justice Alito, was in part that the pto did not exercise sufficient editorial control and discretion over what trademarks they allowed on, and one might imagine the pto saying fine, we will just of our game and since her a little more. Consequently, they are exercising more control. The other thing i did not like about the government speech portion was is sort of ignored it treats speech as endorsement when we have a good line of cases in the free speech area that gives free speech right to editors who do not necessarily endorse but can at least provide a range of acceptable alternatives while excluding others. The classic example is hurley and the st. Patricks day parade. Nobody imagined they were endorsing every group, many of which might not have agreed with each other, but they certainly could limit the field as editors. To the extent the government is acting as editor, not a direct speaker, i do not know why they would not be exercising their government speech rights. I did take some encouragement from the fact that alito apparently did not want to go there and try to narrow it down but in a very rehnquistlike way. Oh, that is different. Period, thank you very much, and of opinion. Sometimes, as my wife reminds me, sometimes things are not eat. Nd clean and sharp the only thing you can say is i have to draw the line somewhere. I felt that alito did a lot of that in the government speech area, the government subsidies area, and his attempt to distinguish the union cases. The fourtht is what circuit is thinking about. One can only hope that they are not and that its merely an administrative tasks they lost track of, but that does not sound like a very credible explanation either, does it . I fear that maybe they are trying to come up with some way to remand it and give an opening to the pto or just give time to lawgovernment to narrow the. That would be all i would have to say about the redskins case. I dont know that there is a lot else to say. Theres not a lot to distinguish other than that quality of Workplace Environment and public accommodation, but beyond that, it is hard to see. There is much to be encouraged about the cam case as it applies to things like campus speech. We talked about a good marker for hate speech that just because you are offended does not mean you cannot ban it, but i worry again about the hospital environment competing line of cases and where that would go. I guess i will stop there and let you guys have a chance for questions. Theres lots more i could say about government speech, but if anyone cares, we will talk about it in the questions. [applause] questions . Two questions, although i do not want to put you in a bad position with the second one, so you dont have to answer if you dont want to. The members of the michigan licensing board who made that obviously idiotic decision are they still in their jobs . Are they still there . The second question is my trademarking is the office and these licensing boards, theres a third problem, which is a story came out not too long ago about a single bureaucrat inside the u. S. Department of the treasury who has to approve has the power to approve every single beer label in the united states. People say he makes very arbitrary decisions, but that everybody in the Beer Industry is afraid to criticize him because he has such absolute power. Do you know his name . [laughter] name. O know his he recently retired. This is the first time where i have after trevors recitation of these band names feel like my names are sort of boring. You should see what i left out. Do not know if they are still in that position. I think they are not. We build our marketing into our label. Theres nothing misleading or unlawful or deceptive about it. These are just liquor commissioners, and this has been decades, for deck since prohibition and the states took over of the regulation, sale, importation of alcohol. They have exceeded their authority, but it is expensive and difficult to sue a state and you put yourself in an awkward position when you sue your regulators, so that was those are the challenges. , used to be the atf the alcohol, terror, and trade bureau theres a person who looks at the labels and determines if they meet requirements, statements about health and so forth, and to make sure they are not obscene the arriff, and trade bureau. After about six years, when he would see these labels come true, his comment to staff was just let it go. But its a rather arbitrary, capricious process. For decades, commissioners across the country have taken it upon themselves to reject labels and it isdont like, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Be almostld personally unconstitutional. The rule of bob. Bob smith is the law here or whatever his name was. Smithk in the day, craft was new. We viewed beer as art, and we wanted it to have original art on the label. It is a real infringement on my ability to communicate to my customers if the government is saying you cannot call your beer what ever name you want to call it, and by the way, raging bitch has been our number one selling beer since we released it in 2009. Flying dog and Ralph Steadman are part of the basket of deplorables. We are. Thank you. , and ourice is blind judges are supposed to rule blindly, not judging who is on either side and not putting their personal opinions into the courtroom. Do you feel that now that we are not allowed to bring phones into the courtroom, not allowed to bring computers into the courtroom, there are no cameras in the courtroom, our judges are hiding behind their benches and in their chambers making a lot of orders, that these cases ended up the way they did because the judges inflicted their own personal feelings into them . You know more about court process. Sure. No is the short answer and the longer version is theres audio and transcript of every argument in front of the court. They have to write an Public Opinion justifying their behavior. They get criticized from every direction on the planet, and if i had to guess, im not sure the case isin the necessarily the way many of them on a matterome out of personal offense. Im guessing a number of them byht have been disturbed those names. Im certain they would have been disturbed by the gazillion other examples given both by the pro football and in an amicus brief. Im sure none of those justices were fond of those names. I do not view this as them hiding behind [inaudible] Fourth Circuit, once again, all that audio is up for grabs. Many Circuit Courts actually do have video where you can watch video of that, and once again, they are subject to massive criticism. I thought you were meeting just the lack of cameras in the courtroom in the Supreme Court. [inaudible] the federal court where the case began, and did the judge i mean, he overstepped his boundaries because you have to take it to the Supreme Court, and it was overturned. I did not litigate either of these cases. The district level judge, while been a littleave more aggressive in defending the First Amendment, at least sort of said, theres the statute. Yes, District Court judges let their generic views of the world and of the law influence things, so i think it is a bias. Obviously, you bring your background to any decision you make, and i would have wished that a person with a more libertarian background would have heard the case in the first instance, but be that as it may, i do not in peer that to the lack of publicity or lack of public scrutiny or sunlight. That judge got hammered for these decisions. The Circuit Court, i think, came around and did the right thing. In the redskins case, while the Circuit Court did not rule yet, do i think the bureaucrats might be subject to read . Yes, if your question had been doing think named bureaucrats in the executive branch or independent branches think they can get away with stuff because there is less scrutiny on them, the answer to that is definitively yes, but do i think thats true of judges . I guess i spend so much of my time jumping up and down and yelling about why some Trial Court Judges and Circuit Court judges not it so completely wrong that it boggles the mind, i think theres plenty of sunshine that gets poured onto their bed decisions. Bad decisions. First of all, its a great panel. Thank you for being here. Im trying to understand the conflict you are seeing a terms of possible hostile Work Environments. The case talks about the a center anding choosing sides when it does not involve government speech. That seems clear. It seems to me that even involving the government, if you take it inside to a workplace setting, even a government setting, the government could set reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Theres a lot of stuff that a thatnment could not center would have to go into a Public Library that very clearly would create a hostile Work Environment if you took photos out of a magazine or excerpts out of a book. Im seeingte sure why the governments inability to censor this stuff when it is out there at large. The government censoring it poses a problem to people in a Work Environment. Of athink in the prospect government saying to a private employer, you will be punished for allowing your employees to display things that are hostile to a particular race or religion or nationality it would not be the government as employer because they are not acting in a regulatory fashion. It would be employers opposing and employer own, controlling their own civility, but where you have an employer who says it is fine if you put up redskins posters, and i the boss love the redskins, and i have redskins posters all over and a native american comes up and says thats a hostile Work Environment, the government does not come in as regulator in the Public Sector and say if you do not take that down, you are liable to be sued for discrimination against native americans for being hostile to them. The reason i worry about this is because of alito seemed to be hedging his bets about this. When you get to the last section of his opinion, it seems like he is holding this off on the side because he does not want to say anything that might threaten hostile environments based upon speech based upon offensive. Peech, so pick your group arabs, jews, catholics, you know, blacks, hispanics. Whatever it is, you could come up with a dozen examples of someone being offended by a poster in the workplace that the boss does not force to be removed and the government steps in. Is restrictive behavior by the government that we presumably are going to continue alitos version of this at least recognizes the tension and does his best to try to preserve it, it seems to me, and thats where i think you could treat the redskins not as a speaker but as an employer or manager of public accommodation, a stadium. At that point, you have a public accommodation that says down with native americans, native scalping are terrible, i think you would get sued. How does that play with native americans . Could you go after their trademarks and claimed that the use of their trademarks is hostile to their employees and customers . I want to ask us something that is related. There is another provision that is still out there that prohibits immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter. Except for the deceptive part because thats part of trademark law, but the immoral and scandalous is probably just as bad as disparaging. Thank you very much for a great panel. Mr. Caruso, just wanted to ask you, as a Business Owner, you mentioned you were threatened with criminal prosecution by a government actor. How does that affect your business practices, and how to these burdensome regulations that are obviously a violation of the First Amendment affect you as a Business Owner and ociety as a whole . I sleep like a baby i wake up every hour crying. I did make a mistake, so keep in mind, what we received from michigan was a letter without a Registration Number for the beer, so it just slipped through. We did not know it was not approved. The log on the books are if you , with 50er to michigan or 60 liquor licenses, and as you correctly point out, individuals making these decisions, theres a lot of risk out there in the liquor industry, absolutely. And a lot of cartels. Sure. Question . Lse have a please wait for the microphone. Be a bigk it should concern to everybody what you are stating about how people could around their own little workplace all of a sudden create a situation for an owner of a business. Do you think there is a way to say that each person who has an office within their space has the freedom to do what they want . I think that is a real issue that i could see people bringing different places and trying to create bigger issues because of the climate we are in today. I think from their perspective, the answer is even in your private Little Office space, if other employees come into it, you do not have complete freedom. Necessarily put up a playboy centerfold or whatever it is you would care to put up. Not put up your blood signs. L poster or worse they would view that as a hostile Work Environment and go after you. Does that have free speech applications . Yes, absolutely. Run past those in the last 50 years . Yes, we have. Will we revisit them in the future . Maybe. But i have my suspicions, and i think that is ultimately what little last piece was about. We are not going to open the can of worms again because once you open that can of worms, that is a big can of worms, not just for free speech but freedom of association. We have a lot of big statutes that have some constitutional , not that it is the wrong view, but he think we would be unwilling to undo the work of the sixth. Thank you. I think its great that you set up this First Amendment series or program after your experience. There appears to be a bit of a disconnect in terms of and i realize this is opening a whole new area of free speech on campus, and i wonder if the group that you are now heading up for this program that talks about the importance of the First Amendment, if you ever engage with students and kind of what their views are. I do on a regular basis. Earlier this week, i gave a keynote speech. I participate in key speech free speech events. , and ireally big issue fuzzysere it gets students not understanding the principles of the First Amendment. Its not as if they truly understand the principles and what the five freedoms what note are if they do understand it. The second is this blurring among students of the right to ofe speech versus the value civility, courtesy, and respect and try to balance that out, and you see that as very blurry in the mind of students. What is encouraging, even on campuses that are liberal open to is they are better understanding rights versus values and you cannot equate the two by balancing them out. I basically never turn down the opportunity to speak on a college campus. Its inspiring, in spite of the fact that it makes me feel like im 100 years old. It is an inspiring activity. Thank you. Please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] more life programming coming up tonight here on cspan. Federal reserve chair janet yellen will speak at the National Economist club dinner. She met with President Trump yesterday about her possible reappointment as fed chair. Live coverage of her remarks begins at 7 15 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Cspan recently sat down with Hillary Clinton to discuss her happened. What during the interview, she spoke about a recent speech given by former president george w. Bush on the current state of american politics. Bush thursday talked about the cruelty in american politics. He did not mention the president by name. Your reaction to what he said. I thought itnton was an important speech, and i appreciated president bush delivering it. He covered a lot of ground and talked about how White Supremacy is an absolute blasphemy to the american creed. He talked about the importance of listening to each other and working with each other. I did not always agree with president bush, as i think any democrat sitting across from me would say, but i never doubted his patriotism. I never doubted that he worked really hard all day, went to bed worried, wilco concerned about what he would do. I was in the oval office with him to do days after 9 11 as a senator from new york two days after 9 11. I understood a lot of what he was having to face, so i appreciate him coming out and ofing a thoughtful critique where american politics is right now because we are on the wrong path. Entirecan watch the cspan interview with Hillary Clinton talking about her book what happened this sunday at eastern. And 11 05 p. M. On booktv on cspan two. This week and on booktv on cspan2, former Vice President looks at the effects of Climate Change around the world with his book an inconvenient sequel truth to power. We in our civilization not me, but technologists and engineers are learning how to manage atoms and molecules with the precision they have toonstrated they can use manage bits of information. Co2 emissions have stabilized over the last four years, starting a downward trend, and we are going to win this, but the remaining question is if we will win it in time to reduce the risk to an acceptable level that we will cross some point of no return. It is a dangerous race between hope and the catastrophic consequences that we are creating. On sunday, and author discussion on political diversity and free speech on College Campuses with professor sam abrams of Sarah Lawrence from columbiad university, april kelly wagner of elizabethtown college, and the former president of the aclu. I do not want to demonize and disparage these protesters the way i think too often happens. What is positive about what they are doing . They are passionately committed to social justice and racial justice, so i want to thank them for that, but i would love to have the opportunity to persuade them that freedom of speech, especially for the talk that we hate, is their most essential ally. For more of this weekends schedule, go to booktv. Org. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable and satellite provider. During an event yesterday, cia director mike pompeo mention Intelligence Community determines russias meddling into the 2016 president ial election did not affect the outcome. Afterwards, his agency had to clarify those comments. He also talked about threats from iran, russia, and north korea, and cyber security. [applause] good morning, everybody. Hope everyone is doing well. Fornt to thank the team posting this incredibly important and timely National Security forum. Obviously, i want to thank director pompeo for taking time out of his incredibly busy schedule to take time to reflect on the National Security issues of the day. Theres no secret here i am not an unbiased journalist. I am a fan of this director. I worked on his transition. Frankly, i love the man. I believe in the bavarian concept of putting your biases out front before beginning the questions, but, mr. Director, welcome. Its great to see you again. Thank you for taking the time. Director pompeo its great to be here. It was not a requirement that you be moderat