Transcripts For CSPAN First Amendment Hate Speech Debate 20171228

The u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis and the centerpiece of our aspiring Educational Mission is a partnership withmtwo great lawyers with to dubya a great lawyers associations. [applause] the National Constitution center has brought these two great organizations together to sponsor a series of constitutional debates across america. This is our third time here at the be a full chicago cultural center, and we have also hosted debates from washington, d. C. Ted dallas to san francisco, educating and washington, d. C. , ted dallas to san francisco, educating at to francisco,an educating and illuminating. Using this amazing free online tool, which you can download ads in the app store, and which i want you to download at the app store not now because i am talking but after the debate, you can click on any part of the scholarsion and see 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 volatile from the ucla school of law, with a thousand words about what they think the First Amendment need means and their disagreement. It is an online tool that is illuminating and educating citizens across america. This is exciting 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. Noted 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 you tont debate, i want 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. 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 jeffs down 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 hate speech. Ban th then we will broaden the conversation to include three other remarkable scholars, keith long, andn, colin bed susan banish. They have nuanced positions that you will hear and you will vote again. You will vote at the beginning and that he will hear the arguments and then vote at the end. The winning team is the side that has changed the most opinions, not the one that gets the ultimate majority. Questiony it is a hard and people are debating it with an open mind. Another 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. Ill say you finally 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. Resolved is Public University should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus. You can use vote anonymously using these wonderful clickers. We will have you vote again after the motion. Using your device, please answer that question. Do you agree with the resolution public use of 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. The constitution center, we allowed yes and nos. Then press send and see your answer displayed back to you. Now you are about to hear from two of the leading First Amendment scholars. Both are here at the university of chicago which passed some really important intervals about free speech that we will talk principles about free speech that we will talk about. Stone served as provost of the university of chicago. Sex andrecent book is the constitution. He contributed to the field about free speech. Posner is the author most recently of the twilight International Human rights. Gentlemen, join me in welcoming geoff stone and eric posner. [applause] geoff you are one of the latest defenders. Why the Supreme Court has construed the First Amendment to prohibit the banning of hate speech on campus. F 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 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 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 supremacists, 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. Mr. Rosen do you want the last word on the university of oklahoma . Mr. Beydoun 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 or 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, asianamerican 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. Mr. Rosen great. This question of video going viral is now the table. And where most people speak is not in the classroom, who are in the dorm, but online, and they speak on facebook and google. But facebook and google are not bound by the First Amendment. If facebook and google 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 religious leader. That is because the policies were not written to conform to the First Amendment. Should facebook and google voluntarily embrace a first amended standard . Do you believe it would be good for Free Expression . And what do you say to those who say that videos are more likely to go viral makes them more likely to cause harm, incite violence or misunderstanding than speech that is not online . Mr. Stone it is true 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. But the question about what institutions like facebook should be doing is a complicated one. On the one hand, if they dont in some ways police what goes on on their websites, then the speech we dont like becomes potentially quite pervasive. On the other hand, for them to be policing it is very dangerous. Because 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. And for them to start getting involved in picking and choosing what will be allowed and not allowed empowers 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. Newspapers or magazines can be held liable if they allow something to be printed that is a threat or invasion of of privacy, bit congress enacted 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 fora so the individual could say what they wanted to say and facebook and twitter would not 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. And that is worrisome, particularly in realms that do not involve illegal speech. I do not trust Mark Zuckerberg to decide what i want to see in terms of the most powerful entity in which americans get their news and information and discourse on. 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. Mr. Rosen eric, you have argued that speech should be regulated. If i understand your argument thatargued for something would allow the restriction of more speech than the current First Amendment allows. This is a good example of the limits of the First Amendment. If you apply the First Amendment analysis facebook is a private , institution. Its users are using the service. Congress cannot regulate facebook, period. It may be the case that congress should not regulate facebook in the end. But i think it is a dangerous way to think because this is a new world we are in. If facebook has a monopoly, in the sense that people got to use it if they want to communicate in certain ways and other forums and platforms kind of fall away, then Mark Zuckerberg decides. With all the problems of the political process, i would rather have the political process based on the democratic principles, decide what we can say on facebook, not Mark Zuckerberg. On the other hand what the rules , should be, i think it is too soon to impose rules. It is too hard to know how this is going to work 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 until you see what happens. The thing that you are mentioning, it is a matter of principle. We should discuss the possibility that cherished incitement that 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 people see or Facebook Messages that millions of people see. We need to rethink about the proper contours of these rules should be. 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. Whats the actual regulation to the or if there should be any regulations at all, i am not sure. Mr. Rosen eric just mentioned regulations in europe. Europe has just embraced the right to be forgotten online. If we were in europe and someone was tweeting 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 the tweet was in the public interest. Google is liable 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 itself. Susan 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 . Or if the First Amendment allowed it or not . Ms. Benesch no, in a word. You have already beautifully described part of it. It does not work very well. First of all the right to be , forgotten is a total misnomer. It gave rise to the right to be forgotten is now better known all around the world even though that is not what he was dreaming, if you write about him, then that article is easily searchable and discoverable online, and so he is a great demonstration of the fact that it simply does not work. Also, he was not asking for the right to be forgotten. It is actially the right to curate your own reputation. That is what him and the europeans, including others, are seeking. It is a fascinating idea. To be discussed on another panel. I think the key point is it the it does not work. Many demands for regulation of the internet are coming out of a panic about various forms of bad content online, including hate speech. Germany passed in july and has just 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 in germany, including youtube, twitter and facebook, must take down illegal content 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, including insult and a long list of other speech crimes. The result is 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. The problem is, first of all that would be completely secret, not only to all of us, but it is leading to an enormous system of secret, automatic censorship. Censorship not even properly , understood by the people at facebook because it is already being driven by Artificial Intelligence methods in which algorithms train themselves. That gets a little complicated. In other words there are very , serious threats to freedom of to freedom of expression, driven by good intentions, but caused by the separation of the intentions from likely successful outcomes. Mr. Rosen secret automatic censorship is a powerful phrase. You have made a case about the practical the vehicles difficulties a restriction of speech on these platforms. But i want to put this on the table on whether the platforms are right to allow the banning of heat speech that denounces a religious group. You cannot on facebook say i hate muslims. You can say that i hate the prophet mohammed. I can report that because when google was asked to remove the innocence of the muslims video, couple years ago, which criticized the prophet and not the prophet and not a religion, they left it up. If it denounced the religion, they would have taken it down. It is distinct and powerful about the distinctive aspect about the university and its purposes. Do you believe facebook should ban hate speech against religious groups . Mr. Whittington social media serves really crucial functions in a modern socient. We need to recognize the value they bring to the table, while recognizing at the same time that there are lots of cesspools on the internet. 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 heavy handed. It would likely lead to lots of errors and will be influenced by regimes we might not find attractive, but 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 large and influential, it is also true that it is the free market. People can come off and on these platforms. And if one of the social media sites decided they wanted to pursue a purging of disturbing content so that everybody feel family friendly, lots of people would leave that site and go someplace else. And likewise, other social Media Outlets become known purveyors of disturbing content. 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 already. Mr. Rosen so much of your work is focused on antihate speech. The move here on the part of facebook and other media platforms are responsive to proliferation of hateful chat groups, hateful facebook pages, which are committed exclusively to defaming religious groups, engaging in low value depictions and discussions around muslims and religious groups and so on, and there is an economic component. The response to this proliferating presence of these pages, what is happening is facebook operates on a global scale. Many muslims who 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. I think it is more economic that they want to maximize the number of users they have. Coming out of their platforms on a daily basis, and less so of making a moral judgment of if it is right or wrong thing. I think if you were limiting the scope of the conversation to what has happened here stateside i think it is a good thing in , the short term because of the current impasse we find ourselves that. In the longterm, i hope some of that will become entrenched, and 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. Mr. Rosen geoff, back to the really hard questions on campus. So the charlottesville protest included really hateful chants from the altright folks and ultimately led to violence. If those protests had taken place on the uva campus, and uva knew they were coming, should they be able to ban the grounds thathe they were likely to incite violence . Mr. Stone we are talking about a Public University First Amendment. One thing the Supreme Court principle ofs the the principle 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 speak, 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 in that context said if you allow this coming you are giving up on the principle of free speech and turning over individual rights. The court has accepted the proposition that government cannot forbid speech unless the university or a city has exhausted all reasonable staff steps it can take to avoid violence. That does not mean they have to actually fall down and let the violence occur. It means before they stop the speech, they have to demonstrate that they have exhausted all reasonable steps available to them to protect the speaker rather than to yield to the obstructionists. The reason for that, if you do not do that, you are inviting people. It could be gay rights, womens rights, white supremacists. You are inviting people who do not like what you say to shut you down by threatening anonymously to do you violence. So that is the basic principle. Mr. Rosen thank you for putting on the table the principle. I will ask a question from the audience for you. If the speaker, without logical arguments, is disinvited because the University Public or private falls into that category question mark for example, a black lives matter activist while others deem it a crucial voice. Mr. Posner this goes back to criticism of a number of people about the notion that the University Administrator should have discretion in an arbitrary way. I do not think we should assume that about the administrators. Sometimes they might and we should criticize them if they are arbitrary about it. But to make a concrete, lets suppose this person is known as a provocateur who gets people angry and does it basically for selfpromotion purposes. The university should make a judgment whether the presence of the person on the campus advances the mission of the university or retards the mission of the university. It will depend. It could be for some people that it is good, and in other cases 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 of different views on these matters. And they will have ideological biases, but 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 never reason for not having rules or giving people discretionary authority. Yes, my position is, that is fine. I am sure there will be errors. I am sure there will be bad outcomes from time to time, but i think the university has to be able to do that if it wants to function as a university. Mr. Rosen keith, do i take it from your book that you disagree that administrator should not be in the business of deciding what speech is high value and what is not . Mr. Whittington i would disagree and would emphasize one element. Choices about who comes to campus. The first effort has to be setting up a system where you are going to extend invitations for various purposes to bring people to the campus. And what is the best system that will result in the most Productive Exchange of views . If you set up a system where only Department Chairs can invite speakers into campus, lots of students will be this fattest ride will be dissatisfied because 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. They may authorize student groups to make their own invitations. Students have long invited speakers to campus is that they find interesting. From the perspective of the faculty, many of those speakers are not only interesting but full of hot air or provocative and not contributing usefully to the College Campus. But 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. Universities should ultimately be willing to engage with people. And at the same time, you want to advise students, even given their interests, who would be productive and who would be less productive to bring to campus. Mr. Rosen this question is significant. Who are you with, eric, on if administrators should discern which speakers should be invited . Mr. Beydoun i would lean towards erics position that there are certain circumstances where universities assess which speakers depending on context, which comes during moments of crisis. Richard spencer, for instance, 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 disinvite a speaker of this character. Mr. Rosen we have two nominated speakers disagreeing. I want you to adjudicate. Why do you believe that is the case . Mr. Stone i think it is more subtle than that. I cannot imagine a scenario in which a university decides that we have limited space, limited time and we only one speakers only want 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. We do that. In this context it is much more because thed, conflation of quality and viewpoint is risky. But in 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. But what makes me uncomfortable is i do not trust us to do that without it depends on the circumstances. If you talk about mathematicians, not too much. But if you are talking about people making judgments about political values and ideas that are highly controversial among students, citizens and faculty, i do not trust us to do that in a neutral way. In theory, eric is right. Mr. Rosen much diversity on the panel. Susan, many analysts observe a breakdown of norms in our political system. If longstanding norms in that const x in that context have fallen by the wayside, how can we trust the norms will be effective in regulating hateful speech . Ms. Benesch 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. Mark zuckerberg and his colleagues talk about facebooks community standards, implying that all i cannot remember how many one billion and some people 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 together at a university, after 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. What i am trying to say is that norms do operate remarkably well in some contexts and communities and very poorly because there are bad norms or poorly enforced. In other situations and other communities. Generally 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 because they have been enforced from above. Even reddit, there are subreddits operated by thousands of voluntary moderators. Subreddits see very effective, but enforcement of and compliance with their rules. There been some very interesting experiments, like a platform that was started by a few colleagues that was dedicated to discussion of controversial topics with people who disagreed with each other. As far as i know, it is the only platform that was started with that goal and with the explicit norm of civility. 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 . If you are like my students, you are zero, and many of you do not even know where to find them. By the way this is law operating , in total ignorance of law, in which case it is quite difficult to consider that law as an effective set of norms. By i digress. Coming back to other experiments, although we cannot see them or talk about them much, there are increasingly experiments to form communities and places online and offline in which norms are explicitly and clearly declared and enforced, not necessarily by means of formal law. Nonetheless, they work. Even on University Campuses, after all, as keith and others have said, University Campuses or other campuses are not homogenous places. They include places where students live. They include classrooms and other spaces others have called professional spaces on campuses. And then arguably 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. If people can take refuge in 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. Mr. Rosen great. We have about 15 more minutes. You have to be thinking hard because you have to vote again. You they want a theory for why that should be. The next question gets to that one theory has been 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. That is what this question gets that. It says there have been studies that have shown that hate speech can have negative effects on Students Health and academic performance, if you support no restrictions on speech, how do you recognize the universitys duty to provide all students with an equal opportunity to learn. I will freeze this question to you. Do you believe that universities should be able to ban speech that causes emotional injury . Backat question harkens and reminds me of an article specifictheorize that forms of hate speech might spur emotional harm on the targets of that speech. It should be police. Claimstion, the report to intentions of Emotional Distress claims, one thing i think about is the free exercise. If the campus has a robust folks, thatislam a might have the effect on the part of Muslim Students do not want to freely express their religious identity conspicuously for fear of backlash. There iso the claims, also a detrimental effect on free exercise and a political dimension to that. The free speech of specific groups which partake in hateful light which an activity might silence the political views in organizing of other groups. Justink about blm, which designated by the fbi, as a black identity if she missed groups. And you have propalestinian organizations as well. The range of tensions where speech can give rise to , it can also exercised of other elements and other forms of speech. Mr. Rosen thanks for that reminder that the forms of speech may not effect emotional injury, but the free exercise of religion and might rise to tort claims as well. This is important enough that i will ask. Speechght do you think should be banned if it causes emotional injury . Yes, if it does. I do not know if it does. Maybe it does in traditions. I have no idea. In principle, if i know if i Say Something to the person in front of me that it will cause this person to have a nervous breakdown and i do it knowing that the person has a notice nervous breakdown, it does not seem to be different from touching the person of that on the chin, in that it is a deliberate infliction of injury. A lot of people believe in the harm printable and liberal ideas that only regulation should kick in to prevent harm, that what people are really talking about is defense and dad manners are being translated into emotional harm in order to get some rhetorical power to these complaints. Before,as i said private universities and potentially public universities do not need emotional harm in order to regulate hate speech if there is some other good reason. And for example, it simply interferes with education. You could articulate that as some kind of emotional harm, but you could say the chance we are talking about, lets say the right outside the classroom before a class on africanamerican history is not going to disrupt the class if people have to walk through a gauntlet for they sit down. I think it is going to disrupt the class, and the university is within its rights to restrict people who are being provocative or trying to make an argument of some sort. Even if the students are top enough they do not suffer any Emotional Distress whatsoever, there is a reasonable case for speech regulation in that setting. Powerful argument for the research of speech on cap is that would cause emotional harm. Keith, do you agree that picketing outside and africanamerican studies class that might cause emotional harm but should be restricted to the university . Im trying to imagine the various ways in which that might be applied. The point is the correct one is that we are all concerned with emphasizing and creating environments in which everyone can come and gain an education. Universities want to be open to to comerange of people to them and they need to create environments in which that is possible. You want to restrict activities that interfere with the normal population of the university. If you had a protest outside a classroom such that people were that would be a protesto move the away from the classroom, and that is what universities do about removing activities far enough away from classrooms so they do not interfere. The concern is simply that if you have to walk through a andtlet to get to the class as a consequence you find it disturbing, that is an argument people should make that you should not be allowed to have a protest outside a covers real speaker. If i want to hear Richard Spencers become i should not have to run through a gauntlet to get through him because i will find that disturbing and emotionally damaging to have to hear people yelling criticisms of me as i go through. I would be very reluctant to authorize administrators to intervene in protests on very expansive plains on what kinds of harm they might do. A never claim of interference is reasonable, but you want to keep that sphere as narrow as possible. Mr. Rosen great. I am hesitating with closing statements because we have three , and morees questions. I think i am going to ask for more questions. Offf, does the concept fighting words provide guidance or accepting political speech in a discourse . The doctrine of fighting words, which the court thatnized, basically holds when one individual hurls an epithet at another person in a facetoface encounter in circumstances in which the person who hurls the epithet knows that a reasonable address the will respond addressee will respond with violence, then the person who hurls the epithet will be found liable. 1940 saide court in it is consistent with the First Amendment. It has never upheld the conviction for fighting words over the many years it is now since then. I suppose you can imagine a scenario in a bar where two people are in the middle of an argument and the other one calls want a hateful name and the person response with violence. You might want to punish the person who does that. It is a rarely invoked principle. Mr. Rosen great. The reason i am not asking for closing statements that the speakers will not be able to do it quickly. You will be able to vote in one moment. That is not a luxury you have. I think is the last question, and it is back to the question of disinvitation. What should be the role of students on campus with speakers with him they disagree . How would or should private institutions decide on a definition of a good or bad argument . This you have answered question, but i will give you eoff justword, as g made the antiregulation case. If you were a university that about how to define a good or bad argument, what division would you use . Charles murray is fine. Demic, but iiva would want him to be allowed i am not sure allowed. I am not sure if you could articulate a rule. Administrators need discretion. So i accept the words of people who think that discretion might be abused. I would say Something Like if you believed that the speaker has nothing of value to say, you know, has nothing of value to state based on the standards the universities use to thyroid tion,arship and educatt and collegiality, they should make the same sort of judgments when they are evaluating speakers. I agree that the standards should have nothing to do about politics. Be uld not the a the speaker should not be allowed to Say Something that anybody disagrees with. It should be the method, whether the speaker has shown if he or she is willing to answer questions in a goodfaith way, there are procedural standards that could be used to evaluate potential speakers. Mr. Rosen great. That is an excellent closing, because you were arguing that public universities should be able to reject speakers if they believe they have nothing of value to say. It is up to you. Having heard this illuminating debate, cast your votes again. Please take up your clickers, which you now know how well to use, and vote again on the same question i asked at the beginning of the debate. Do you agree with the resolution, but universities should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus . Highlight yes or no, and hit send. Send, your answer will be displayed back to you, which means your answer has been recorded. After you have cast this vote on which the nation is hanging to hear your response through our friends at cspan, your broadcasting this debate, i will ask you to answer the second question, which is important and encapsulates the purpose of these great cooperations between the federalist society, the American Constitution Society, and the National Constitution center. Yes or no i know better understand the opposing view. Nowor no i know better and understand the opposing view. Your answer will be displayed back to you, which means it has then recorded. Been recorded. All right, you have cast these momentous votes, and the team is now going to tabulate them and prepare them in a way that it is intelligible for me to read back to you. Let me tell you how meaningful it is to be able to convene these debates. Isnt it inspiring, that these two great lawyers associations have nominated these people who disagree among themselves about where to draw the line, confirming this is not a partisan issue. Try to figure out how do you draw the First Amendment should protect is a difficult question involving classes of values that divides and unites people with different political perspectives. And modeling this kind of civil discourse about an issue that is shutting down campuses is precisely what our free or is three organizations exist to support. Once you encourage citizens to separate your political views from your constitutional views, not to get into the details of a particular controversy, but make a judgment about what you think the First Amendment should be construed to protect, you are thinking like a citizen in the highest sense. Anymore. Have to vamp the quotation of louis brandeis. I will recite it anyway, because it is so inspiring. And now i have no views whatsoever on this question because i am the moderator. I have a great affection for and admiration for the great justice brandeis, whose of the following by the purposes of free speech. Those who want a revolution believe the purposes of government was to make men free to develop their faculties and that in its government delivered of forces is should prevail over the arbitrary. Liberty to be ecigarette secret happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They relieved the freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are indispensable to the discovery of the political truth and without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile, but with them discussion protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine the public discussion is a political duty and this should be a fundamental principle of the american government. Publice engaged in the duty of political discussion, and i thank you for the indy. I want to thank the foundation for having supported this series of debates, and were looking forward to our next acs debate which will take place in dallas on november 28 on the question of whether or not hate speech should be protected. That will pair david french with Shannon Gilliam from wake forest who believes that emotional injuries should allow the restriction of speech, and it will be a great discussion. I have the results. For the debate, 24 of you voted for the motion. Your grade 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. [laughter] mr. Rosen the exact same result. Congratulations to nuance because none of you obtained any change of mind whatsoever. There may have been some strategic vote trading, but i have a wonderfully affirming second vote to report, and i am so pleased to share that you you now of you said better understand the opposing view and only 15 said no. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for keeping your mind open, for participating in this great debate, and please become involved with the National Constitution center. Download the interactive constitution. If you want to volunteer, let us know, and let us spread the light across america by convening that best scholars to debate the meaning of this pitiful to document this beautiful document, the u. S. Constitution. Thank you very much. [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] cspan,g up today on Sebastian Gorka talks about Foreign Policy and National Security in the trump administration. That is followed by this years western Governors Association winter meeting. They talked about National Disaster response and job growth in westerns dates. Later, a discussion about dismantling oppression and ending discrimination. Post,e new movie the we will show you an interview with katharine graham. She talks about her book personal history, an autobiography on the history of the washington post. Other topics include the watergate scandal. 5 00 p. M. Eastern time on cspan. Tonight on prime time, events from 2017, featuring celebrities talking about issues they care about. Jennifer garner talked about visiting a young boy and mother with save the children staff. Here is a portion of what you will see tonight. Was stagnant. Boy the save the children cordon writer came in and brought something in for this child, including a bag of books, a log. This little boy had never seen a book. Imagine your own children with their first ball. And looked at his mom and his mom was putting up with this, in the save the children coordinator said role that all to your son. She did. And he looked at it and could not believe what was happening. And he rolled it back. Sat there and the coordinator said he is playing with you, do it again. She rolled it to him again. Soon there was [sound] is that my time . It is just like the oscars. You make it so scary. All right. Can i tell you what happened with the mom and child . The mother, the baby made a noise. The baby made a noise. And the coordinator said, he is talking to you, and she said he is not talking to me. She said, it is. Said something back. And the child says back. The nesting you know they were battling back and forth. I saw a light switch go on with that little boy that day, and i know because we visited that mother a week later, that light switch was turned on just love enough for us to capture a week later and the week after that, and there was a connection made, and the mother knew she could play with her child, knew she could speak to her child and expect a written test in response. That kid had a chance to go to kindergarten ready to learn. Atpart of tonights look events of 2017 looking at celebrities talking about issues they care about. You will see Michael Phelps on actor,in sports and an a supporter of donald trump. Tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan. Cspans studentcam. Studentcam in action. This group showed us how it is done. Two interviews in one day. These students asked questions about Immigration Reform and the dream act. Were asking since to choose a provision of the constitution and create a video illustrating why it is important. Our competition is open to all middle school and High School Students grades 6 through 12. 100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. The grand prize of 5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. The deadline is january 18. Get details on our website at studentcam. Org. A formerian gorka advisor of trump, talks about the threat of isis and how the president s counterterrorism strategy differs from that of his predecessor. He also talks about russia, the iran nuclear deal, brexit. From the heritage foundation, this is 55 minutes. [applause] welcome, everybody, to the heritage foundation. Im delighted to introduce Sebastian Gorka. He will give a lecture on the topic of defeating terrorism in the age of trauma. Gorka is a National Security