Transcripts For CSPAN First Amendment Hate Speech Debate 20171228

Philadelphia. The National Constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis and the centerpiece of our inspiring Educational Mission is a nership [applause] jeff the National Constitution center has brought these two great organizations together to sponsor a series of traveling constitutional debates across america. This is our third time here at the beautiful chicago cultural center, and we have also hosted debates from washington, d. C. To dallas to san francisco, illuminating. Collaborationl has a great online component, and i want you all to know, if you do not already, about this thatacular constitution the Constitution Center has launched with the federal society and American Constitution Society. Amazingeminary which you canol, download in the app store. You can click on any part of the constitution and see scholars with a thousand words about what they agree the provision means and separate thousand word statements about what they disagree. When you click on the First Amendment, which is the topic of our conversation this evening, you can find Jeffrey Stone from the university of chicago, who is here with us tonight, and eugene from the ucla school of law, with a thousand words about what they think the First Amendment means and their disagreement. It is an online tool that is illuminating and educating citizens across america. This is a really exciting debate tonight because we are here to discuss a question which has riveted campuses and citizens across the country. Namely should public universities have the right to define and ban hate speech on campus. Note that this question is phrased in a legal and careful way. Public universities, unlike private universities, are bound by the First Amendment to the constitution. In the course of tonights important debate, i want you to separate your political views from your constitutional views. That is the central injunction for all of these debates and all of our educational efforts. You might conclude that hate speech is a terrible thing, but the First Amendment protects it. Or you might think that hate speech isnt so bad, but the First Amendment allows it. So when you vote on the motion, do public universities have the right to define and ban hate speech on campus, you are making a constitutional judgment. I have to add Something Else which is that this is a remarkable topic on which members of the federal a society and the American Constitution Society often agree. We will start our debate with geoff stone and eric poser who will tell you that the Supreme Court has construed the First Amendment to prevent the banning of hate speech on campus. They may disagree a bit on where the doctrine should go. And when you cast your vote, you might conclude that the First Amendment doctrine should be changed so that it should be construed to ban hate speech. You will see them both saying that so far the court has protected hate speech. We will broaden the conversation to include three other remarkable scholars, keith khaled bedlong, and susan banish. They have nuanced positions that you will hear and you will vote again. You will vote at the beginning and then you will hear the arguments and vote at the end. The winning team is the side that has changed the most opinions, not the one that gets the ultimate majority. Thats why it is a hard question and people are debating it with an open mind. The other thing i need to say is that todays debate is produced as part of a great series of free speech debates sponsored by the stanton foundation. They are helping us take this conversation across the country. Its now time for us to vote. We will have to talk with eric and geoff and then we will broaden it out and then we will take your questions on note cards. Start thinking about the questions you are going to ask. The question is resolved Public University should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus. You can vote anonymously using these wonderful clickers. Againl ask you to vote after the motion. Using your device, please answer that question. Do you agree with the resolution Public University should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus. If you support the resolution, press yes. If you oppose it, press no. Then hit send. Once you hit send, your answer is displayed back to you. There is only a yes, that would be a very bad debate. The soviet union . Scroll down. When you scroll down, you will see every option. Here at the Constitution Center, we allowed yes and nos. It is incredible hospitality. Press send and see your answer displayed back to you. You cast your vote and now you are about to hear from two of the leading First Amendment scholars in the country. Both are here at the university of chicago which passed some really important principles about free speech that we will talk about. It is my great pleasure to introduce them now. Geoffrey stone served as provost of the university of chicago. His most recent book is sex and the constitution. He contributed to the review board that produced the principles about free speech. Eric posner is the author most recently of the twilight of International Human rights. Ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming geoff stone and eric posner. [applause] jeff geoff, you are one of the geoff, you are one of the latest defenders. Telling us why the Supreme Court has construed the First Amendment to prohibit the banning of hate speech on campus. Geoff the Supreme Court has taken the position that, it in the realm of restrictions on speech, the most problematic are those that for bid the expression of a particular point those that forbid the expression of a particular point of view. For the government to decide that certain viewpoints is impermissible, that puts such a serious intrusion into the marketplace of ideas and the ability of individuals to express their own positions into the capacity of people debate ie ability of individuals to express their own positions into the capacity of people debate openly and fearlessly with one another that restrictions on the ability to convey a particular point of view are basically per , unlessstitutional perhaps they create a clear and present danger of truly great harm in the immediate. That is a general proposition that the court has stated. Context, case in other the application of the general principle applies as well to Public Discourse at public universities. Therefore, in the same way that a Public University cannot for bid speech today that advocates communism or advocates gayrights or opposes abortion, it cannot restrict speech that advocates what is regarded as hate speech. I say regarded. One of the khan said one of the concepts is that it doesnt have any acceptable definitions. That there are instances of what we would recognize as hate flags. For example, nazi yet the court has said that that speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. That institutions cannot prohibit individuals, students,. Aculty or staff and visitors it is not saying that it is not good or bad or indifferent. It is hateful. Thank you for that concise and powerful summary. You told us that the court has allowed hate speech only when it and causingto lawless actions. Do you believe that the First Amendment, as described by jeff, should be construed . Ifferently do you believe private universities, which are not formally bound by the constitution, should be allowed should allow hate speech . Eric let me put aside the doctrine for a moment and talk about what happens on campuses and what should happen on campuses. Hard tomentioned, it is know exactly what hate speeches. Speech that occurs that is sometimes called hate speech occurs in all types of different context. Depending on the context, relation may be appropriate. Let me make a few distinctions. The classroom. In the classroom, students dont have any freespeech rights, or they shouldnt. The professor is a dictator and the Student Speak only if the professor allows them to. Regulation. Ncial if students started saying if they were in favor against gay rights in my financial relation class, i would tell them to stop. And if they did it, i would kick them out. It is simply not relevant to the pedagogic mission. The livings conditions of the students. Students live in dorms. They dont have any privacy. There are not like the rest of us who can withdraw into our homes when we feel battered by the political discourse that is going on. Im quite some prophetic to the view that, in that context, if, for example, a black student is constantly hearing racist comments from his white roommate that the university should step in rather than saying this is an opportunity for educational benefit or useful giveandtake. Complicated setting is speech on campus, when speakers are invited in or when students are debating outside of class. Those are very complicated settings for which a range approaches can be taken appropriately. Im sympathetic to the view that a university could say, look, we have limited resources. We want students to hear from people who have something valuable to say. So, students, if you want to invite a provocateur who is just going to call people names, you cannot use university facilities. You can do it offcampus. You can do it online. And then other universities might take other approaches. And i think universities should be free to experiment. University bodies are different. Universities are in different parts of the country where norms of civility and behavior are different. As long as different universities are expert mentoring different regulatory maybethe students over time, we would get a sense of how to better regulate speech. Im not willing to take the position that hate speech under all circumstances should be allowed. I think that is far too extreme. My personal hand, view is i like what has happened at the university of chicago, thanks to geoff. Work on this. Fs but i wouldnt say that what is right for the university of chicago is right for review or berkeley or the universe right for you or berkeley or the university of texas. Respond to eric. Tell us what the chicago principles are. They allow what eric has endorsed, including the invitation of controversial speakers . Do you believe the chicago principles should be adopted by all universities are not . All, when i of describe what i thought the inst amendment is to mean public universities, you will notice that i said in Public Discourse. Eric is completely right. In the classroom, universities clearly determine what subjects can be discussed, what is appropriate on a given day, and similarly in deciding who gets appointed to the faculty. We evaluate the quality of the work in a way that is essential to the functioning of the university, decide who gets tenure, grading exams. You are evaluating the quality of ideas and how they are justified and that is not part of the basic contours of free speech. So the public aspect of directly, that is controlled by the First Amendment. The dorm situation is a complicated one. I agree, again talking about public, not private. The dorm situation, the argument can be made that a captive audience is there and students have to go out and look at the Bulletin Board and so on. The question is can the resident head or some other official in the university decide which messages are permissible in which are not . The difficulty with that is exactly the point about what hate speech who defines it . What does it mean . Does a hate speech have a swastika . Does hate speech have a noose . Does hate speech have a sign that says people who have abortions are baby killers . You can go down that line. Nobody knows were to end it. To put resident heads in charge of deciding which of those messages are ok and which are not trump should be impeached, is that hate speech . What about the trump supporter . The solution is to basically t neutral rules. You cannot put signs in the dormitory Bulletin Boards. In the question of private universities, i agree with eric that private universities have the right, indeed a First Amendment right, to decide for themselves free of Government Intervention what speech they ,ill allow, not allow promote, not promote in their facilities. They are not restricted by or governed by the limitations of the First Amendment. Chicago principles for a private university, like the university of chicago, which has a long and extraordinary tradition of commitment to Academic Freedom and freedom of expression in 2014, the president of the university being aware of the factor that some institutions around the country, these issues had begun to percolate, appointed a committee of seven faculty members with the charge statement of principles for the university of chicago on the question of free expression. The statement we drafted to the theat universities universities committed to the free, open, robust expression of peoples points of view. That the purpose of a university should be to encourage discourse, debate, argument, the teach people how to deal with ideas in a fearless, in a courageous way and it is not for whatniversity to decide ideas should or should not be permitted. If people dont like ideas, they should challenge them, expand why they are wrong, discuss why they should be rejected and exercising the skills are at the center of what university is about. And our responsibility is to train students to enter the real world where they will not be protected from ideas they dont like, from speech they find hateful, to train them to be able to deal with that speech in an effective and powerful way. Of the chicagoea principles is to celebrate that notion, to recognize that there are limitations on speech, even in the Public Discourse. There is speech that is illegal. There is speech that constitutes real threat, rossman tedbased privacy harassment to base privacy. It is up to the individual student, the individual faculty member to defend themselves. On the question of what university should do, as i said, eric is right. Institutions are free legally to decide for themselves what they want to do about this issue. And a private university could say, for example, in the same way that we will pick faculty and pick students based upon their ideas and their values and their viewpoints. We will have our university will only allow people dedicated and supported donald trump or dedicated and support abortion. They are allowed to do that. My view is that is not a university. What makes a university a university is the fact that it is open to all ideas, to challenge all ideas, and it should not be playing the role of sensor in that manner censor in that manner. My own view, when they do that, they sacrifice a core part of what should be their aspiration to education and to create knowledge, to test ideas in the fiercest way possible. Jeff great. Thesegeoff basically says chicago principles are not only right for chicago, but right for all universities because they get to the essence of what universities are about. And our audience in voting on this important question is deciding how they think the First Amendment should be construed, not how the Supreme Court has done it. Can you make a case for why you public and private university should define and then hed speech . Define and ban hate speech . Universityung universities that engage in Significant Research and valuable teaching. It is possible to have an Educational Institution which is committed to research and teaching, but also has certain bright lines they dont let people cross. I find it hard to believe personally this approach at notre dame will produce better ofolarship at the University Chicago to be provincial about it. Im not willing to rule that out. I like competition. I like him petition in the same way that we allow newspapers to take a single position. Is basicallyes liberal. Wall street journal is basically conservative. Thats fine. We could have better public debate if all newspapers had both liberal and conservative debates within their pages. That may be true, but it may also be better if we have a diversityof cross across institutions, not just within an institution. The point that geoff makes that it is difficult to draw lines come i dont think it is difficult. The employers have the same problem that universities do. Their employees might want to talk about politics and when they do, they might upset each other and call each other names and get angry. All employers have various rules that they use. Sometimes they say no politics. Sometimes they have vague guidelines. If people get upset, Human Resources will its will address it. I think universities are capable of doing that sort of thing. This sort of thing for a long time until this issue polarized. Logically i think the universities were going along fine until all this tension was directed on them. So in terms of the first more sympathetic to the view that public universities should not engage in speech regulation. I dont really trust state legislatures to allow universities to operate the way they should. But im not going to be i do think the First Amendment should be interpreted flexibly in the case of public universities to allow them to regulate speech to a limited extent while at the same time, in the case of private universities, i think they sperm and tatian should be much more should be allowed to flourish much more. Says it is important for the students to learn how to defend their ideas and to criticize people and so forth. But the really important part of what the university teaches is civility. Its not just that you need to be able to defend your ideas. You need to defend your ideas in a way that doesnt offend other people, make them angry. It has on people get angry at each other, they become unable to have debates that we value. We see this in lots of institutions. The most successful institutions, including universities in the area faculty, they encouraged civility. They encourage civility. And people who get emotional and start calling people names, they are not very successful scholars. Ofre are strong norms civility legislatures because it is necessary for people who disagree with each other to cooperate in many areas. Theynts need to learn that have to choose their words carefully when they make arguments. If they learn every well, they will be well prepared when the graduate. Jeff please respond to these excellent points. Eric says public universities are not all the same. Byu is different from the university of chicago, that they are perfectly capable of making these decisions these distinctions. I wonder what you think of the bills proposed by a handful of tennessee,inois, colorado, and arizona, that would require universities to remain neutral on issues and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with speakers. I am fettig lee agree with eric about the responsive agree withically eric about the responsibility of the university to teach civility. That is part of what a university should do with students. ,hat is part of the mission unimportant part of the mission, but i dont think you do it by censorship. You do it by education and by example. With respect to the question about diversity among i agree that notre dame and byu, private institutions, can define for themselves what they want to be. But i dont think in a sedition that, for example and i dont know that byu or notre dame does this but any student the defends roe v. Wade, you are out of here, i dont think that is university. I think they should be able to say that and should argue about it and that is what universities about. But that is my definition. That is not the Legal Definition of what universities. What university is. I find it troubling. Realm, the public because that is what we are talking about, public universities, further legislation to get too involved in interfering with administration and management of universities and their leadership by dictating what the rules should be for free speech on their campuses. That worries me. Leaders ofh more the the universities, public universities as well as private, to make those judgments because of their experience, their training, their depth of understanding of what education is much more than i do politicians, whose motivations are often highly colored by political advantage and disadvantage. Even though though laws might be theird or ones that on face i dont necessarily disagree with, as a matter of principle, in the absence of a real crisis, i prefer that legislatures leave their hands off these things, because i just dont trust elected officials to make judgments there. The other thing that makes me a comfortable about it, to be honest, and this is quite candid, is that what you have now is an odd distribution of between of views traditional liberals and traditional conservatives on these issues. Traditional liberals are divided now on this question of free speech on campus. There are those liberals who see themselves most committed to equality and what they see as justice and feel that should override the liberal tradition of defense of free speech. On the other hand, you see traditional liberals who see the commitment to free speech as an existential importance given our history and the way free speech has been restricted historically by people in positions of power and do not trust anyone, including themselves, to have the power to choose what points of view should be espoused and not espouse. In the conservative side, in all most every episode of american history, efforts of suppression of speech have been driven largely by political observers whether it is in the, 19th century, where it is about religious moralism or whether it is opposition to darwinism or the turn of the 20th century with punishing faculty members and students for criticizing wealthy donors or world war i who criticize the war or the draft could be thrown out or during the mccarthy era, for example. It has always been conservatives on the side of restricting free speech. Even in the Larger National ofmunity, with the exception Campaign Financing commercial speech, it has been conservatives who have been much more restrictive to speech. I find it annoying, to be honest, that all these republican legislators are suddenly championing free speech in a situation in which the people who are being silenced our Milo Yiannopoulos and ann it is reallyhat about for them is not the principle of free speech as it is the particular that is being born. Its a matter of principle in terms of what this is really all about. One more. Geoff is taking some potshots against conservatives. What is wrong with thes bills that are largely derived from the goldwater institute, a libertarian think tank . Would you support those principles as a policy matter . Since you said you think universities can define and ban hate speech, if you are defining hate speech, how would you define it . Lincoln, woodrow wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt all supported censorship. Afterin roosevelt went the rightwing populist, got the sec to withdraw the Radio License he was operating under, threatened to do so. Theseaw, you know, gosh, public universities sometimes i should just this invite people if it if the person should not be speaking in the first place because he has nothing to offer, he is just a provocateur who doesnt have good arguments, maybe doesnt really believe what he says, by all means, the person should not be invited. And if a Student Organization invited him, id see no reason why a university would want i see noike that reason why a university would want someone like that. They are not advancing education. You want someone who wants to make a serious argument. I dont see any problem. I am also a little wary about this law and the implications it might have. I guess i would be skeptical about it. Finally, the idea about defining hate speech, think part of the is taking, when geoff about hate speech, he is thinking they are thinking roe v. Wade is wrong. When i say hate speech, and thinking about racial and but thats and confederate flags. Thats part of the problem. Review sure what geoffs is on those sorts of cases come as i assume he thinks the university should allow that as well. As i said before, it should be open to universities to ban racial epithets used in anger to humiliate people as opposed to discussing a book or something ,ike that or confederate flags swastikas, under certain circumstances, it might be appropriate for the university to regulators speech. But when you talk about constitutional law and moral values, that doesnt see my kate speech to me. I dont think that is what the debate is about. If there are people who think defending abortion or attacking abortion is hate speech, then i disagree with them. I dont think that is hate speech. If you make that argument in a civil way and you have good reasons, even if they are not right, or you provide evidence, that is not hate speech. That is legitimate speech and universities should allow it. Jeff great. Ladies and gentlemen, although we recognize that the Supreme Court has protected hate speech as a First Amendment matter, you have heard arguments on both sides about where precisely the line should be drawn. We are ready to bring in our colleagues. The University Detroit mercy school of law. He currently serves at the uc Berkeley Islamophobia documentation project. Benish at harvard. Whittington, wilson cromwell professor of politics in the department of politics at princeton. He has just written i can say it because i read its a a wonderful new book that is about to come out called speaking freely. Welcomingc me in colin, susan, and keith. Gei ust heard eric and off. I wonder what you would say to the audience, whether you amendment. First the culture at different universities and colleges is distinct and diverse along a range of lines. First of all, we see emboldening of White Supremacy and racism and islamophobia, essentially emboldened by the state, state policy, state rhetoric from the various high offices of the land. Also, especially with regard to public universities, currently there is this intersecting moment of eroding affirmativeaction. Is plummetingc considerably. Specifically at his situations where people of color are far and few between, it is an equal because students typically cant burden the responsibility of the collective interest of the community they represent and so on. On the other end, because there between, this few emboldened violence from typically elements from the right make their vulnerability a lot more intense and more pronounced at this converging moment of declining affirmativeaction. Michigan,me from, affirmativeaction has been abolished. This implied animus that has been spurred by the state. Conceptualizet to what is going up contextualize what is going on politically in the current moment. Jeff thank you for that very important context. Thatust reminded us affirmative action may affect the kinds of students who are able to learn and that the Political Climate may affect the way speech is received. Keith, your book makes a passionate and concise and intense i would say the best sort of concise distillation i have seen of the argument that the purpose of universities is to disseminate and produce knowledge, and that that withedge is inconsistent any restrictions on speech. Can you tell us what . Kate tell us why . The goal of universities in general is to try to advance knowledge, which means often working on the very edge and most controversial ideas, to disseminate that knowledge, both the people inside the university and outside the university, and try to create a climate on campus in which difficult ideas can be addressed headon and directly and people can feel have those difficult conversations. Part of the concern in this context of hate speech is not necessarily the content of some of the things that might be designated as hate speech or valuable to that, but i am very concerned that it is hard to wew the line and trust that can successfully empower somebody to make determinations as to what ought to count as hate speech and therefore can be driven out of the university aerovironment and what can be allowed University Environment and what can be allowed. Empowering legislators to uate content of speech addtimes that means they from a conservative direction and tried to drive a speech from the left. Sometimes that means they act from a laughing perspective and try to drive at speech from the right. I am skeptical about empowering administrators with that kind of authority. On the other hand, for professors in the classroom, for example, and other kinds of context, it should be very much be our goal to foster a nurturing environment in which students dont wind up leaning toward speech that is merely provocative, merely hateful, but how do you have conversations that are sometimes difficult sometimes im very sensitive topics, but nevertheless be productive. Jeff thanks for that. Susan, your dangerous speech project introduces an important distinction between hate speech broadly defined and what you call dangerous speech. And some of it should be restricted online and others not. Tell us what dangerous speech is and what dangerous speech online do you think be restricted. Susan and how. Jeff lets put that in there, too. Speechi coined dangerous from simple observation in the course of writing some legal scholarship. I dont recommend it, but i spent quite a bit of time looking at the sort of language that has been used by awful civilians, political leaders usually, in the months and years before an irruption of intergroup violence. T is uncannily similar there are techniques that they all seem to know. You would think there is a school for this. Dehumanization is one where we are already familiar. There is a number of other hallmarks are telltale signs of dangerous speech. It is a theory that there is a particular, much smaller category than hate speech that is this rhetoric that gradually breaks down normal social barriers that get silenced. Becauseerested in this well, for a number of reasons. Preventing intergroup violence is a tremendously important goal for me. Also, i think one can get a large majority of people to goal. On that at the same time, i am tremendously interested in protecting freedom of expression. First, because it is a fundamental human right. And second, it also must be protected in order to prevent intergroup violence. People need peaceful means to express grievances or the result of violence. Hate speech by contrast is a large, highly subjectively , overbroad come vague category in almost every case. Overbroad, vague category in almost every case. How strong, how serious is hate . The only Common Thread among most definitions is to denigrate a member of another group because of that Group Identity or group membership. You, asns to say i hate so many teenagers do to their parents, for example, is not hate speech. Then one more distinction and i will stop causing so much trouble. Whose hate is it when we say hate speech . Is that hate in the mind of the theker, in which case question is a mens rea problem. Speech referred to expression that can make someone else hate or make them hate more . Or a third possibility, is hate speech expression that make people feel hated in Practical Application . If you look at discourse about hate speech, it is often the unexaminedmpletely assumption. Insufficient on the contrary, overbroad and ineffective regulation, which is one of the reasons why i am very skeptical of regulation of hate speech in general and even of danger speech in practice. I think that social norms, informal norms are remarkably speechl at prohibiting and therefore indirectly prohibiting behavior. They certainly can change frequently. We have lots of examples for that. You for your distractions and your work. You have defined dangerous speech. Theseid five of indicators must be true. A speaker with a high degree of influence over the audience. The audience has fears the speaker can cultivate. A social or Historical Context that is propitious for violence. And the means of dissemination, influential in itself because it sourcesole or relevant for the audience. I think we should put a concrete example on the table. We should start with one of the most controversial at the university of oklahoma. A number of students were videotaped on abbas engaging in some extraordinarily offensive engaging in a bus some extra nearly offensive speech. What were the circumstances of the case and why do you think the university was wrong for expelling the students . He didnt tell me he was went to as with us. To be clear. A group of students in a fraternity had rented a bus and were going in this primary goal private vehicle to a party, i think. Chante fraternity had a that basically said no africanamericans, using the and word, were welcome in the nword,ty using the were welcome in the fraternity. It was videotaped on cell phone and it went viral. The University President , who was the former governor of the state, expelled the students. Is that,bout that first of all, this was not intended to be imposed upon anyone that wasnt voluntarily in this particular place. Second of all, it was words that were particularly offensive. On the disagree offensiveness of it. Speech. Is just free the Supreme Court held, for example, you could not punish theone for saying fuck draft on a jacket in a public place because it offended people and it was profanity. It is protected by the First Amendment. It is committed to the argument. You cannot take words and make them illegal. The Supreme Court was right in that case. The university of oklahoma was wrong in this case. That doesnt mean i dont think that the use of epithets like that could be punished. They could be punished if they are on a facetoface encounter and using it as a direct personal insult, in a dormitory, for example. But this was not that. These words were not being hurled at an individual as an epithet. Whether it was meant to be funny or not to be funny, thats not my problem. It seems to me this was within their rights. Jeff i think i would like everyones use on the university of oklahoma case. Now i think geoff and i are in agreement. If we alter it with students on campus with black students. Lets say they are not yelling it at black students, but they are in a fraternity ritual. I think they should be punished. I dont im not sure expulsion should be the right punishment. They are not making an argument. They are not advancing research. They are not educating people. They are not resizing roe v. Wade. Is an action that demoralizes other students for no reason whatsoever. I think that is an easy case for some kind of punishment. If i am right about that, that is hate speech regulation. I echo eric. What value are these racist slurs adding to the vibrancy of the institution . Very little. You can protect speech as speech generally, but its not an enriching exchange on campus. Second, it raises another report in point. We caricature as hate coming from the fringe right or the fringe left. But this fraternity illustrates that it also arises from spaces and gradients along the political spectrum that are not on the fringe right and the fringe left. I wonder what kind of role these fringe actors on both sides of the extreme are actually activating fraternities, other organizations on campus to partake in racist activity or spew these racial slurs on campus. It might have some sort of process where they are inspiring or endangering some organizations on campus, especially in a place like oklahoma i didnt look at the demographics but the black student population may not be that significant. Keith i think it is totally right that this is a difficult example in the sense that this is not speech that is particularly valuable. It is not part of the core mission to worry about fraternity chance on buses on field trips. Theres no significant intellectual content. The university is not concerned with setting up an environment and speech they are concerned with protecting. I go back to the point that concerns me about these cases that is empowering administrators to go after students who they find have done something offensive. Its questions about how clear were the rules ahead of time and is expulsion to dramatic . I think this Case Highlights one of the dangers, which is the only reason the students wound up leaving campus was because the video havent happened to go viral. It was embarrassing to the university and he had to step in in order to establish the universitys public reputation or generally. Case, it is speech that is not valuable. Faculty cases, it is sending a distressing tweets and damaging to the University Reputation and we have to find a way to fire you. What really is motivating them is often not the larger Educational Mission of the university, but instead improving the brand of the university. Kahled susan, you studied this. And it went viral. According to the present pose, is there a case for restricting videos that go viral because they are more likely to lead to imminent violence . Should that university of oklahoma video have been restricted or punished . About the whole gamut of possibilities for both whichment and regulation, are not the same, after all. When a video or speech, but more often ava to like that surfaces, what is the most effective way of dissuading other students from doing the same thing . That should be the question. After all, we dont have prior restraint for such content. We certainly dont want it. Incidentally, it is impossible online anyway. Fortunately, we dont have to think about it. If i remember correctly, after the oklahoma case, at least one of the students apologized. I think perhaps the parents also apologized. Undoubtedly, there were other denunciations from many people other than the family members and those who had been recorded making this chant. University had not dismissed to those students, they would have been punished, believe me. Had they stayed on campus. And others who sympathized with their views and the practice of chanting in that way would have been keenly aware of it. Im thinking of another case even further back of a young woman at ucla who recorded herself making a disgusting, despicable rant against asian students in the library specifically. It was met with a whole series an anonymous amount of criticism on that campus and around it, and also a series of that, let me just say, very effectively quashed her arguments thats a very polite way of putting it. One of the parody videos in particular was viewed more than a million times, many more times than the original video. I dont want to be pollyannaish about the possibilities of counter speech in the marketplace, but we do observe effective responses that i think may indeed be more effective than kicking somebody out. The same thing is true in many cases. White supremacist, they appeared in charlottesville in public. That is when it became impossible for a living, breathing americans not to know what they were saying. But it wasnt that they started saying those things at charlottesville. Its that that is when we first on heard them. Jeff do you want the last word on the university of oklahoma . Kahled with these two cases, the oklahoma case in the ucla case come in both instances, the video went viral. Is the school taking punitive action to protect its brand of the students . If it didnt go viral, with a have been punished at all to protect the black students in the case of the oklahoma situation, asian students in the case of usually. I think not. It makes me think what the interest is in taking action. Typically, the interest is predicting brand and appearances to the public, not to protect prospective harm to students who are targeted by the hate speech. Jeff great. This question of video going viral is now the table. Where most people speak is not in the classroom, who are in the dorm, but online and they speak on facebook and google. By facebook and google are not nd by the First Amendment but facebook and google are not bound by the First Amendment. If they do allow the banning of hate speech. On youtube, you cannot say that you hate a religious group. Although you can say that you hate a particular religious leader. Should facebook and google voluntarily embrace a first amended standard . Do you believe it would be good expression . Of and what do you say to those who say that videos are more likely to go viral but they are more likely to cause harm, incite violence or misunderstanding than speech that is not online . Geoff in the world of social media, the fact that anything can go viral, it gives it much good of potential, power than otherwise would be the case in a small town where someone handed out a leaflet. Whathe question about institutions or facebook institutions like facebook should be doing, on the one hand, if they dont in some ways police what goes on on their websites, than the speech we dont like becomes potentially quite pervasive. On the other hand, for them to be policing it is very dangerous. Theres never been, in society as a whole, entities with the power to control and to influence what we hear, what we see, what we read at the level that Something Like facebook has or twitter has or whatever. For them to start getting involved in picking and choosing what will be allowed and not and powers them in a way that is almost as scary as the government doing it. What is interesting is, when these social media entities came into existence, the government treated them differently from newspapers or magazines. Or that is a threat or invasion of privacy congress and active legislation provide entities like facebook and twitter could not be held legally responsible for what was put on their website. The idea was to make them completely open forum so the individual could say what they wanted to say and facebook and twitter would not consider. Censor. The person who puts it up may be held responsible, but you will not be held responsible. Now they are moving more into this realm of getting involved and picking and choosing and censoring. That is worrisome, particularly in realms that do not involve illegal speech. I think that is a real threat to democracy. I do not know what the answer is to it, but it is not something i am comfortable with at all. Jeffrey eric, you have argued that speech should be regulated. Wouldrstand your argument allow the restriction of morse each in the First Amendment currently allows. The firsteech in amendment then the current First Amendment allows. Eric facebook is a private institution. Ts users are using the Service Congress cannot regulate faced look period. It may be the case that congress should not regulate facebook in the end. I think it is a dangerous way to think because this is a new world we are in. ,f facebook has the monopoly other forums and platforms kind of fell away. Zuckerberg decides. Of thel the problems political process, i would rather have the political process race on the democratic principles. Decide what we can say on facebook, not Mark Zuckerberg. What the rules should be, i think it is too soon to impose rules. It is too hard to know how this will be working out. We can observe what is going on in europe where there has been some effort to regulate internet platforms. That might be a disaster, it might work you do not know. We will see what happens. The thing that you are mentioning, it is a matter of principle. We should discuss the. Ossibility in the old days, we would feel it is protected by the First Amendment. It is not a big deal is people send letters to each other or talk in the street about it. It can change completely when you have youtube videos that millions of peoples the people see. We need to think about the proper contours of these rules. Im more about trying to prevent people from shouting First Amendment and closing off the conversation. That is what i want to stop from happening. If there should be any regulations at all, i am not sure. Jeffrey eric just mentioned regulations in europe. Engaged the right to be forgotten online. If we were in europe and someone was reading that jeff is doing a terrible job as a moderator, after the show was over, i could do google and yahoo and demand the removal of this appalling, if perhaps true tweet. Google would have to decide if i was a public figure and if it was in the public interest. Google is viable up to 2 of its annual income, which last year was 60 billion. Google has received it includes removing articles about the right to be forgotten if the. You have studied online speech more deeply than anyone else on the panel. Is the european right to be forgotten a good policy, and should it be embraced in america . No. N you have already beautifully part of it. It does not work very well. The right to be forgotten is a complete misnomer. Rise to the right to be forgotten it is better known all around the world. Even though that is not what he was dreaming, if you write about , that article is easily searchable and discoverable online areas he is a great demonstration of the fact that it simply does not work. He was not asking for the right to be forgotten. It is the right to curate your own reputation. ,hat is what the european including others are seeking. It is a fascinating idea. To be discussed on another panel. I think the key point is it the blade of not work. For regulation of the internet are coming out of a forms ofut various content online, including hate speech. July and hasd in put into effect on october 1 a Network Enforcement law, which requires internet platforms, including the ones you just mentioned, essentially any platform that is operating on a reasonably big scale. That includes youtube, twitter and facebook. Think within 24 hours. The timing is very key. If not, they face a fine of 50 million euros, which is a number not in the billions, but i can still catch the attention of facebook. That law specifies 22 provisions of the german penal code, insult andn full a long list of other speech crimes. That facebook, like the other platforms is not relying on Mark Zuckerberg or any other human to make these decisions but is automating them. That should terrify us. It is the only way to get content down within 24 hours. That would be completely secret, not only to all of us, but it is ofding to an enormous system secret, automatic censorship. Not even properly understood by the people at facebook. It will be it is already being driven by Artificial Intelligence methods in which algorithms train themselves. It gets a little complicated. There are very serious threats to freedom of expression, jordan by good intentions, but caused by the separation of the intentions from likely successful outcomes. Automaticecret censorship is a powerful phrase. Want to put this on the table on whether the platforms are right to allow the banning of denounces athat religious group. Iu cannot on facebook say hate muslims. I hate the that prophet mohammed. When google was asked to remove the innocence of the muslims video, couple years ago, which criticized the profit and not the profit and not a religion, they left it up. If it denounced the religion, they would have taken it down. And powerfult about the distinctive aspect about the university and its purposes. Deeply facebook do you believe facebook should ban hate speech against religious groups . Crucialt serves really functions. We need to recognize the value they bring to the table, while recognizing at the same time that there are lots of i recently joined twitter. I think it is telling and useful. If government intervenes and forces the hand of facebook or google to start trying to purge certain kinds of speech, that is very heavyhanded. It would likely lead to lots of errors and be influenced by regimes. Also apply a wide range of platforms which i find disconcerting. One of the advantages have now is that while face book, google or others seem extraordinarily and influential, it is also true that it is the free market. People can come off and on these platforms. If one decided they wanted to a purging of disturbing feelnt so that everybody familyfriendly, lots of people would you leave that site and somewhere else for you somewhere else. Lots of people will leave those as well. We want that ability to move across these kinds of platforms area we have seen platforms come and go. Jeffrey so much of your work is focused on antihate speech. Khaled they are exclusively committed to defaming religious groups. And josh there is there is an economic aspect. Thatis happening is obviously facebook operates on a global scale. Many muslims that are seeing this when they scroll through facebook are choosing to quit facebook and go on to other spaces, where the presence of these kinds of hateful depictions are scarcer or not as visible. It is more economic that they want to maximize the number of users they have. Less so of making a moral judgment of if it is right or wrong thing. I think it is a good thing in the short term because of the current impact we find ourselves that. Longterm, i would rather that these private platforms not police this kind of speech. I think it is driven more by economic considerations on the part of facebook and their competitors. Jeffrey back to the really hard questions on campus. The charlottesville protest included really hateful chance hants and ultimately led to violence. Should they be able to ban the . Rotests we are talking about a Public University First Amendment. Is theey figured out principal of retail. The principal is basically that if you allow government to restrict the right of someone to speak because others threatened to be violent or disruptive, if they are allowed to week, he basically turn over their right to free speech to people who do not like what someone is saying. This came to a head for the court during the civil rights movement. In that era, there were white southerners who were becoming violent in the face of peaceful civil rights marches. The Supreme Court not context said if you allow this coming you are giving up on the principle of priests each and turning over individuals right. Court has accepted the proposition that government cannot pervade beach forbid orech unless the university a city has exhausted all reasonable staff can take to avoid violence. That does not mean they have to theally fall down and let violence occurred. Speech,hey stop the they have to demonstrate that they have exhausted all reasonables that available to them to protect this feature, rather than to yield to the obstructionist. The reason for that, if you do not do that, you are in writing people. It could be gay rights, womens rights, white supremacists. It is the basic visible. Jeffrey thank you for putting on the table the principle. Eric, rather than asking you whether you think the principle is to arduous, i will ask a question from the audience for you. If the speaker, without logical arguments, simply sunni to be provocative being provocative, like a black lives matter activist eric this goes back to criticism of a number of people about the notion that the University Administrator should in an arbitrary way. I do not think we should assume that about the administrators. Sometimes they might come and we should criticize them if they are arbitrary about it. To make a concrete, lets suppose this person is a known known asor provocative who gets people fory and does it basically selfish purposes. The university should make a judgment whether the presence of the person on the campus advances the mission of the university or is against the mission of the university. It will depend. It could be for some people that it is good or it may not have any value. The universitys resources may be better used inviting another person. As i said before, partly what is driving this is there are several thousand universities with different administrations with different views on these matters. They will have a ideological. Iases as long as there is a diversity across universities, that is fine. People are going to make mistakes and be biased. Outside the First Amendment, that is not a reason for not having rules or giving people discretionary authority. My position is, that is fine. I am sure there will be errors. I think the university have to be able to do that if it wants to function as a university. Keith, do i take it from your book that you disagree that administrator should not be in the business of deciding what speech of highvalue and what is not . They would emphasize one element of air point. Choices about who comes to campus. Has to beeffort setting up a system where you are going to extend invitations for various purposes to bring people to the campus. What is the best system that will result in the most productive way. If you set up a system where only Department Chairs can invite speakers into campus, lots of evidence will be dissatisfied. The Department Chair of science gets to decide who comes to campus to give talks relating to politics. Lots of students will find that less than interesting. It is important that they bring some figures to campus because faculty will find that important. May authorize student groups to make their own invitations. Invited have long speakers to campus is that they find interesting. From the perspective of the faculty, many of those figures are not only interesting but full of hot air or provocative and not contributing usefully to the College Campus. That does not mean we want the faculty to be able to veto those decisions, if the students they are valuable for their own purposes. University should ultimately be willing to engage with people. At the same time, you want to even givenents, their interests, who would be productive and who would be less productive to bring to campus. Isfrey this question significant. Are you with eric on if administrators should discern which speakers should be invited . Khaled i would lean towards erics position that there are certain circumstances where universities assess which speakers it comes during moments of crisis. Amhard spencer, for instance a coming onto campus will not bring intellectual value. With the lower scale value that he brings with the peril he might incite. You might want to diss invite beaker of this character. Nominatede have two acres disagreeing. I want you to adjudicate. Why do you believe that is the case . Geoff i think it is more subtle than that. I cannot imagine a scenario in which a university decides that we have limited space, then the time limited time and we only one speakers who can contribute in a useful way. To the extent that they are able to do that without making judgments about whether they like or dislike the points of view of the speakers but making judgments about the quality of the intellect and quality of the ideas, i think that is ok. We do that all the time when we decide who to hire and what students to admit. It is much more complicated. The conflation of quality and viewpoint is risky. Principle, i think eric is right. If you can only have so many speakers on campus, i think it is not inappropriate to decide which ones add and which ones do not. What makes me uncomfortable is i do not trust us to do that. If you are talking about people making judgments about political values and ideas that are highly controversial amongst students, citizens and faculty come i do not trust us to do that in a neutral way. In theory, eric is right. Much diversity on the panel. Susan, many analysts observe a breakdown of norms in our political system. If they are falling by the wayside, how can we trust the norms will be effective in regulating hateful speech . Susan that is a tough question. They are and they are not. We have so many different real and virtual spaces and communities. Each of which is regulated by a set of norms. His zuckerberg and colleagues talk about facebooks community standard, implying that all, i cannot remember how people one billion or so now on facebook, implying that they constitute a community. They do not, of course. However, usually the people who live in a dorm on a College Campus could be said to constitute a community. The people who take a course , afterr at a university the first class or two, also begin to constitute a community and come into that classroom with a large and detailed set of norms, to which they are already conforming because of their previous training. Well do operate remarkably in some context and communities. Very poorly because there are bad norms or poorly enforced. In other situations and other communities. Speaking, there are lots of cesspools online. There are also places online in which norms operate quite successfully, either because they have emerged from a community or they have been enforced from above. Reddit, operated by thousands of voluntary moderators. Enforcementve, but of and compliance with their rules. There been some very interesting platformts, like a by a few kylied aboutas colleagues controversial topics with people who disagreed with each other. The explicit norm of stability. In order to join, you were required to read the rules, which is something none of us have done regarding facebook, twitter or youtube. How many of you have read the rules . You do not even know where to find them. In totalaw operating ignorance of law, in which case it is quite difficult to consider that law as an effective set of norms. Coming back to other experiments, although we cannot see them or talk about them much, there are increasing experiments to form communities online and offline in which norms are explicitly and clearly declared and enforce , not necessarily by means of formal law. Nonetheless, they work. ,ven on University Campuses they are not homogenous places. They include places where students live, they include classrooms and other spaces others have called professional spaces on campuses. There are also fully public spaces on campus where one would expect norms to operate less effectively and free speech to run rampant for good and for ill. That is not necessarily so bad. Refuge incan take some places where they know the norms and expect them to be in force, in various ways they can withstand existing and in other places, where the norms are not as effective. Jeffrey we have about 15 more minutes. You have to be thinking hard because you have to vote again. They want a theory for why that should be. The next question gets to that one theory that speech can cause emotional injury, and therefore rather than only being banned if it is intended to cause imminent violence, it should be expanded to include emotional harm. There have been ready is that have shown that hate speech can have negative effects on Events Health and academic performance. Health and academic performance. Do you believe that universities should be able to ban speech that cause injury . That question reminds me of an article written, words that wound, that theorize that specific forms of hate speech might spur emotional harm. But it should be policed, to an extent, right . Claims tied to Emotional Distress claims, i think about the tension between free speech, hate speech, and free speech excercise. Muslim students might not want to express their emotional identity conspicuously for fear of backlash. There is also a detrimental effect on free exercise as well. There are political dimensions as well. So, protecting free speech, specific groups, which partake in hateful language and activity might also silence the political views and organizing of other groups. We think about vlm, which was blackated by the fbi as a identity extremist group. Have onecond you campuses propalestinian organizations as well. Speechre tensions where can diminish the free exercise right, and the tension between specific kind of speech and other forms of speech. Thanks for that. A reminder, the forms of injury of speech might also affect religion and give rise to toward claims as well. This question is important enough that ill ask, eric, do you think speech should be banned if it causes emotional injury . I dont know if it does. Maybe it does in very narrow conditions. I have no idea. At least in principle, if i know inay something to the person front of me that it will cause the person to have a nervous breakdown and i do it knowing that in the person has a nervous breakdown, it does not seem to be that different from punching a person in the chin a deliberate infliction of injury. I do think that is a bit of a dodge. A lot of people believe in the harm principle and the traditional liberal ideas that regulation should only kick in to prevent harm. What people are really talking mannors being translated into emotional harm to get some rhetorical power to these. Complaints as i said before, in private and public universities, they dont need emotional harm to regulate hate speech. If theres some other good reason. For example, if it interferes with education. You could articulate that as emotional harm, but you could just say, the chance we were going tobout, is it disrupt the class if people have to walk through a gauntlet before they sit down . Yeah, its going to disrupt the class and the university is within its rights to restrictive speech of the people being provocative. And even if the students are tough enough that they dont suffer any Emotional Distress whatsoever, there is a reasonable case for speech regulation. That is a powerful argument for the restriction of speech on campus that could cause emotional harm. Picketsgree that tak outside of an africanamerican class could cause harm and therefore, be restricted . I think the starting point is correct, which is we ought to be concerned with treating an environment in which everyone can gain an education. Universities want to be open to a broad range of people. They need to craig and diamonds in which that is possible to do. To createed environments in which that is possible to do. That would certainly be a reason to move the protests. In fact, i do that, moving loud enough away from classrooms and resident halls, so they dont interfere. But if you have to walk through, as you characterize it, a scarlet, and it is disturbing of people are saying, we should not be allowed to have a protest outside of a controversial speaker. ,f i want to hear richard speak should not have to run through a gauntlet to get to him because i would find that disturbing and emotionally damaging. Yellingto hear people criticism of me as i go through. We need to be reluctant when authorizing demonstrators to intervene. I think a narrow claim of interfence is, we want to keep that sphere as narrow as possible. Great. Im hesitating. But closing statements, we have three more minutes. And more questions. Ask morem going to questions. Fighting wocept of rk when distinguishing hate speech . Fightinge doctrine of words, which the court recognized, basically holds that one individual hursls an epithet at another person in circumstances in which the person who hurls the seventh the person will respond with reasonable violence. That was a concept that existed in common law. The Supreme Court in 1940 said it was consistent with the First Amendment. It has never upheld that since then. You could imagine a scenario in a bar when one person calls another hateful names, and the person responsible violence that you might want to punish the person who did that i dont make it takes it that far. Great, the reason im not asking for closing statements is that think the speakers positions are nuanced enough they will not have to do it quickly, but you will have to vote in one moment. Thats not a luxury you have. I think this is the last question. Its back to the question of disinvitation. What should be the role of students on campus with speakers . Hey disagree with how should private institutions decide on a definition of a good or bad argument . Ic you have answered his question, but i will give you the last word because jeff does maybe antiregulation case. Were using a definition on hate speech, what would it be . Charles murray is fine. Hes an academic that uses academic reasoning. I might disagree with him, but i would want him to be allowed. Im not sure whether you can articulate a rule. I agree, the impetus traders need discretion. Administrators need discretion. I would say Something Like, if you believe the speaker has nothing of value to say you of value tonothing say based on the standards universities use to value education and collegiality. Universities make these judgments all the time. They have to. And they should make the same sort of judgments when evaluating speakers. I do agree. The standard should be nothing to do about politics. It should go more to the method the speaker uses. In thee is evidence past. There are procedural standards that could be used to evaluate potential speakers. Great. Thats an excellent Closing Argument for your side. You are doing a public universities should be led to restrict speakers if they have nothing of value to say. Ladies and gentlemen, it is up to you, having heard this sophisticated and nuanced talk today to cast your vote again. Please take up your clickers, and vote again on the same question i asked in the beginning. Do you agree with the resolution that public universities should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus. Highlight yes or no and hit send. Once you have hit send, the answer will be displayed for you, which means it has been recorded. This you cast consequential vote, on which the nation is hanging to hear your response through a friend from cspan we are broadcasting this debate i will ask you to answer the second question, which is important it encapsulates the National Competition center and the society. Yes or no, i now better understand the opposing view . Hit yes or no and hit send. Once you hit send, your answer will be displayed back here. Which means its been recorded. Right, you have cast these momentous votes. The crack Constitutional Center team will now tabulate them, and prepare them in a way that is intelligible for me to read back to you in one moment. As they tally, let me tell you how meaningful it is to be able to convene these debates. Isnt it inspiring, ladies and gentlemen, that these two great lawyers have nominated this variety of speakers that have disagreed amongst themselves on where to draw the line, confirming this is not a partisan issue. Try to figure out where to draw the First Amendment line. It is a difficult question involving flashes of values that divide and unite people with different political perspectives. And modeling this kind of civil discourse about an issue that is shutting down campuses. It is whatever three organizations exist to support. Once you are encouraged as citizens to separate your political views from your constitutional views, not to get into the political controversies, but to make a judgment about what you think the First Amendment should be construed to protect, you are thinking like a citizen in the highest sencese. I dont even have to vamp anymore. I can spare the quotation from the we brandeis. What the heck, im going to say it anyway. I have no views on this because i am a moderator, but i do have great admiration for justice brandeis. He said the following about the principles of free speech. Those who want revolution believe that the purposes of government was to make men free to develop their faculties and libertyovernment the should be valued as an end and means. They believe liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believe in the freedom to think as you will and speak as you think. Without free speech and Assembly Discussion would be futile. Adequatethem, protection against the dissemination of thoughtles sness. Political discussion is a little duty and there should be a fundamental principle within the american government. You have by convening here engaged within your public duty of political discussion and i thank you for it. Heso want to thank t foundation for supporting this great series of debates. Were looking forward to our next talk asc debate, which will take place in dallas on november 28, again on the question on whether or not hate speech should be protected. That will pair with the National Review institute with sean gillis, who believe the emotional injury should allow the restriction of speech. Please tune in for that. I have the results. Before the debate, 24 of you voted for the motion. You agreed that public universities have a right to define and ban hate speech. And 76 voted against the motion. After the debate, 24 of you voted for the motion. Its the exact same results e. At means this is a ti congratulations to no one, because none of you changed any minds whatsoever. [laughter] [applause] that. Ont knwnow there could have been some strategic vote changing. Im pleased to share the second result. You voted 83 of you said yes, you better understand the opposing view, and only 15 of you said no. Thank you for keeping your minds open. Please, become involved with the National Constitution ce nter. If you want to volunteer with our three groups, let us know and help us spread the light across america to debate this beautiful meeting of the document that to debate the meaning of this beautiful document that unites us, the constitution. Thank you so much. [applause] tomorrow night, public appearances by celebrity accident activists in 2017. This includes actor Ashton Kutcher. He is part of his testimony. Here is part of his testimony. I am here today to defend the right to pursue happiness. , the right toion pursue happiness. It is bestowed upon all of us by our constitution. Every citizen of this country has the right to pursue it. That ithat is a is incumbent upon us to bestow that right upon others. Upon each other and upon the rest of the world. ,he right to pursue happiness for so many, history the way. It is rate. It is abused. It is taken by force, fraud, or coercion. It is sold for the momentary happiness of another. This is about the time when i start upon Start Talking about politics that the internet trolls tell me to stick to my day job, so i would like tos talk about my day job. As the chairman and cofounder of a Software Company that fights Human Trafficking and the sexual act with vision of children. My other day job is that as a father of two. That job i take very seriously, i believe it is my effort to defend their right to pursue happiness and to ensure a society and government the defensive as well. Of my antitrafficking work, i have met victims in russia, india, traffic from mexico, new york, new jersey, and all across our country. Ive been on fbi rates where i have seen things that no person should ever see. More from Ashton Kutcher and other celebrity activists tomorrow night at 8 00 eastern time on cspan. Up, saturday at 8 00 p. M. , north Korean Refugees describe life under the kim regime. In china, tens of thousands north korean defectors are living without papers, under the shadows, and are being physically or sexually exploited while the u. S. Should continue urging china and russia to support more economic sanctions, it should also do more to stop repatriating defectors back to north korea. P. M. , theat 6 30 intelligence community. We call that immaculate collection. I mean its semihumorously. It makes a point about the difficulty of being so precise given the global interconnection represented by the internet. Its where everybody indicates. Sorting out good people and bad people. On monday at 10 00 a. M. , a summit on the self driving revolution. Former clinton officials on the legacy of bill clinton. He got there every day. He knew the people he wanted to help. When times are good and times were bad. All he cared about was could he deliver for the people who need a government to be on their side. Watch this weekend on cspan. Every month for the past 20 years, one of the nations top nonfiction authors has joined this program for a fascinating three our conversation about their work. Just for 2018, we are changing course. Invited 12 fiction authors. These are authors of Historical National security thrillers, social commentary. Joey brooks and many others. Their books have been read by millionsand the around the country and the world. Plan to join us for in depth on book tv. It is an Interactive Program the first sunday of every month that will let you call in and talk to record your favorite authors. It kicks off on january 7 at noon with david ignatius, a Washington Post columnist and the author of 10 National Security thrillers. You can join us live. Or watch it on demand. Law professors, students, and the talk about free speech rights on College Campuses in a hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee. They talked about protests and the limits of defensive speech in classrooms. This isr hearing