Check . Thank you very much we have a terrific panel. To discuss. Thank you very much. We have a terrific panel to discuss. We have the Deputy Director of the middle meet middle east institute. He served in many capacities, including the memory government and Media Relations effort. He routinely briefs major Media Outlets about research and trends in the arab and muslim world including cnn, cbs, nbc, america, andce of numerous other american and international Media Outlets. Here we have christopher hardy, the chief counsel of policy for the National Security admission for the department of justice. Whichves as the chief, provides a legal and policy advice on National Security issues that confront the department of justice. They include use of the internet, previously he served to the Deputy Attorney general. Isaacson, he jason is a longtime analyst of the and Political Institute oversees the political and international operations. Brussels ated and defining moment for europe conference on strategies to combat research and antisemitism. Minister of french culture and communication awarded him the rank of chevalier of the order of arts and letters. In july, 20 2009, King Mohammed vi bestowed on him the honor of chevalier of the order of the throne of the kingdom of morocco. Professore have eugene country road which who teaches at george mason university. He is the director of its new center for International Law in the middle east. He previously taught at northwestern at the university of chicago and is also a scholar at the cohallet policy form which is a think tank. We will hear a brief presentation from our panelists. Lets start with you, elliott. [speaking foreign language] [applause] [speaking foreign language] you make a comment about this, that, what do they do . They have a problem, we have to edit it. We have to make the Video Private because he mentioned the jews. [speaking foreign language] they make a mockery. Some of them, literally. Speaking foreign language] eli thank you, and good morning. You have seen some of the work of my organization. Andsaw men and women, young old, secular and religious, on state media, independent media, and social media from all across the middle east, europe, and america. It was established 21 years ago to bridge the gap by analyzing the media of the arab and muslim world and the religious content produced by its institutions, scholars, and clergy. It is honored to be in the in well,all, that some know including former fbi executive assistant director oliver buck ravel. One of the most troubling issues we have studied, alongside that of jihadi and indoctrinate his 8 in dr. And asian is a phenomenon of antisemitism which is pervasive and deeply rooted in all three of those fears, media, schools, and religious institutions. At the same time, memory translates and amplifies the voices of performance and liberals in the arab and muslim world. Who fight back within their society against this hatred. We work closely with the late , who chaired Foreign Affairs committee. Based on memories researched in our archives, exposing such content, he brought forward the global antisemitism review act of 2004 which created the position of special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism. Archives passing, our were renamed in memory of him. In recent years, we began a project to translate sermons from american mosques, only a tiny sampling of which you saw in the video. In april of this year, following attacks in synagogues by white beganacists, the monitoring antisemitic indictment from that as well. The work focuses on three levels. Ideological, mapping out organizational connections and relationships, and providing actionable information that can and already has led to the supporting of attacks. Memory has been memri has been exposing antisemitism for over two decades. It is painful for all memri staffers to see the content we come across every day. Some of us, myself included, our children or grandchildren of holocaust survivors. Our executive director have a different direct connection. He grew up in pittsburgh attending the tree of life synagogue and knew some of those slaughtered there. We thank you for coming and convening this summit, and for calling upon us to help to display the scope of the problem. Emri. Orgyou will visit m as a resource for the content needed to expose and fight this hatred, and we stand ready to assist in all efforts to do so. Thank you. [applause] chris i am chris hardy with the National Security division at the department of justice. The National Security division oversees among other things the departments prosecution of crimes relating to terrorism. Andork closely with the fbi terrorism investigations and with the intelligence community. These include Crimes Involving international terrorism, such as isis and also domestic terrorism. Terrorist groups like isis and al qaeda are hate groups. They all advocate antisemitic violence. We are committed to using our counterterrorism tools and expertise to counter violence inspired by hate. We work closely with the Criminal Division or Crimes Involving hate also involve terrorism, including domestic terrorism. Panel, howc of this to combat panel, how to combat antisemitism consistent with the First Amendment. Our experience with respect to the First Amendment is on the terrorism side. We would like to offer our perspective on this that we have developed to counter terrorism. Have powerful authorities on the terrorism side with respect to international terrorism. Adhering to First Amendment limitations is an important part ensuringthat the mission. We not only help prosecute cases involving terrorism and other threats to National Security, but we perform an important oversight role with respect to the fbis activity and also the intelligence communitys activities under surveillance laws and surveillance statutes. Approach inin our connection with investigations and prosecutions involving terrorist conduct. And also explain about how we have looked at approaching terrorism using the internet specifically, and hopefully those frameworks will inform this discussion. A core principle guiding the department, including the fbi and intelligence community, under guidelines that apply to fbi and intelligence activities and domestic Law Enforcement activities, is you cannot open an investigation based solely on protected speech. Investigate individuals for their conduct which may include a speech online that demonstrates violence, other criminal conduct, for a threat to National Security or a threat to National Security. It is our policy to be proactive in identifying terrorist threats before they cause harm. Thatcularly so for threats would involve violence against groups within the United States. We need to buy what balance those two things. Conduct,just monitor unless we have a reason to do so in a particular case. Laurent howp abhorrent, we can take actions, if it constitutes an imminent threat or solicitation of a crime and we have examples of cases where we have pursued those cases over the years including the revolution muslim case in 2012 and others. The respect to social media, this has been a significant focus of not just the department of justice but the government overall. Isis, therese of was a lot of attention paid to it in 2015, we are seeing the same policy and legal issues coming up in the foreign interference context with respect to russian interference online and those issues. Not justproblem a terrorism problem, we are seeing groups using social media and the internet to foster violence and to build their networks and their groups. Communications, networks they are using are largely domestically based. It raises important First Amendment and legal policy issues about the scope of our investigative authorities and the proper role of the intelligence community. That is something we are seeing acrosstheboard. ,ur terrorism investigations they also often involve social media together with encrypted messaging apps, the model that isis perfected in 2015 and on, was broadcasting messages, exhorting members to violence using public available social media, and encouraging potential operatives to go offline through encrypted messaging channels. Byare seeing that playbook other groups including domestic groups. In addition to investigating potential crime, and consistent with the First Amendment as i discussed, we have worked with given the limitations on our authorities and the proper role of the government, we work with the tech sector to help the government and public combat the problem of terrorism. Social Media Companies, they are not limited by their First Amendment in a way that government is limited. There terms of use will prohibit a far broader range of conduct then can be prescribed under criminal laws. The approach we have developed with respect to terrorism is to develop close working relationships with of the major providers and that is something, that model, is one we would likely follow with respect to foreign interference using social media and other types of problems that raises similar types of issues we confronted in the terrorism context. Where we have, information from a predicated investigation, we can share that information with providers. We can provide threat to breed it briefings to providers and it helps the providers use their own efforts to enforce their own terms of service to improve their own algorithms for identifying content that is threatening. That is something we have been doing, it is something that we will be doing in connection with foreign interference as well. Effective. Has been we have seen providers taking down we do not generally make requests for providers to take down specific posts or content. But we will provide threat so that they can more effectively monitor their own systems, consistent with their own terms of service. But we have seen success from encouraging providers to be responsible in respect to monitoring their platforms. Twitter last year took down Something Like 106 of 5000 accounts associated with terrorism. Facebook, the report last year, they removed Something Like 14 million pieces of terrorist content related to. Now we have seen facebook enforcing policies with respect to white extremists, nationalist groups. That is the framework which we approach terrorist use of the internet. Ispoints to, whether it terrorism in the internet using domestic platforms like facebook and twitter, or foreign interference, the policies we ourront is historically, authorities on the intelligence side are constrained because they look outside the u. S. At groups outside the u. S. At groups. , if you haveg surveillance on a group outside the u. S. , you are seeing connections that may identify individuals in the u. S. That could lead to a predicated investigation that may lead it information you can share. The issues are very different when you are talking about domestic groups and domestic conduct in terms of the authorities we can bring to bear. It raises different policy issues about what the proper role of the government is. Ofis very important in light some of those limitations for the government to have strong partnerships with civil society, private sector, it is very important to the work that memri is doing. We can be partners and there is we can message providers as we do, so long as we are not being threatening or coercive or demanding that they take action. That is the proper role for the government, we have been doing that in a terrorism context. That can inform the approach domestically. There are more significant First Amendment issues and limitations on the government when you are talking about domestic speech than international terrorism. That is the framework we have been following in those areas. [applause] jason thank you and good morning. It is a privilege to be here. Before i begin, i wish to acknowledge the work on this issue of my colleague, chief activates key chief advocacy officer. Now,two hours or so from government officials and some of the leaders from around the world will participate in a candle Lighting Ceremony at the u. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and will tour the museum in the Opening Program of this weeks second ministerial to advance religious freedom. We begin todays very Welcome Department of justice and posy on combating research of antisemitism, the neutrality of the humble of the holocaust continues to hunt many of us, continues to be invoked, continues to remind us of the dangers of hate and inaction in the face of hate. Jews to ask themselves the question of whether history is repeating itself. Later on. O return the answer is no. There are a host of reasons while todays challenges are different from the historic and unique tragedy faced by european jury during histories darkest hour. One difference is the existence of israel. Perhaps an equally important reason is that people in this room. Given,ctures have been and much ink has been spilled that has allowed the holocaust. In the end, there are simple reasons. It happened to simply because no one cared enough to stop it. Not england, france, not the United States of america. Czechoslovakia was not defended. The tracks to oust which were not bombed. It is perhaps not fair to say that the world do not care at all, but somehow there was always something more important to prioritize. Yet today, we sit in the department of justice, a room dedicated to the ambassador of london at the start of the world war ii devote a full day of the business of Law Enforcement apparatus of the most important and powerful nation in the world to seeking ways to fight and my antisemitism. We will be addressed by some of the top of ms. Top officials in the administration. This is worthy of reflection and celebration. Not 1939, but it is the but is it the year 2000 when an ugly and violent wave of antisemitism struck france and government officials refused to acknowledge the issue and instead labeled it hooliganism. Is a 2015 when the u. K. Labour party which for generations have been the traditional political home of british jews, morphed into a Political Party so rife with institutional antisemitism that the majority of englands jews say they would consider fleeing the country where that party to take power. Is a 2019 where in germany, a nation that has done everything right to make amends for the holocaust, a senior official said jews should be framed for wearing identifiably jewish items because it could endanger their safety. Here at home, after the events of last year from pittsburgh to power way, to poway, it is not 1939 but it is 2019 and that is cause enough for concern. The stakes for what we do now as a nation are enormous. Consider this state of european jury where one in three say they have been harassed at least once in the past year and 80 say they do not report incidents to the police because they feel that nothing will change. Consider one third of European Jews will not wear items identifying themselves as jewish out of fear for their safety. America has always been different, and our Jewish Community feels differently from our brothers and sisters in europe. The topic my fellow panelists and i have been asked is how to combat antisemitism. While protecting the right to free speech. Perhaps our most cherished american freedom. I would like to touch on the sources of antisemitism today, from a global and domestic perspective and reflect on the balance between protecting jews and political speech excuse me, protecting speech. We have identified three primary sources of antisemitism from the far right and antisemitism from the far left and antisemitism that emanates from extremist ideologies, propagated in the name of islam. I will go over each one briefly. Thanks charles lindbergh, henry ford, jews are powerful, jews in not loyal americans, pittsburgh and power way we have witnessed the deadly consequences of this ideology. In a divided political atmosphere, bigotry flourishes and social media and the internet allow this information to spread rapidly. Cloaked in the anonymity the internet provides, people who once did not dare to share their foreign views in Polite Society have formed farflung communities targeting jews and other minorities for bigoted derision and aching on the violence and disturbed. Many White Supremacists see jews as their primary enemy while other minorities are secondary targets. In this white supremacist worldview, africanamericans and other minorities are the tools used by the jewish puppeteers to demean, denigrate, and to file the white race. Arthur jepsen, the professor of sociology at the university of dayton, has said antisemitism has been the most enduring component of the white supremacist worldview from its creation. It must be said that the murderous i antisemitic attacks in america in the last nine months were rooted and nurtured in the sector. Antisemitism from the left also played on the notion of jewish power and dual loyalty. Jews were seen as the para despisedommunity of elite. Israel like any nation, excuse me, it must israel like any nation does not deserve any special protection from criticism from the policy decisions that its government makes. Yet, when friends of israel in this country have their loyalty as americans questioned, when impossible standards are implied apply to in to israel, or when cartoons that would not have looked out of place into sumer, appear in the new york times, then something more nefarious than simple criticism has taken place. We see this in many aspects of the bds movement which i know we will discuss later. While i recognize some supporters of bds believe themselves to be advocates for the palestinian cause, at the heart of the movement is the notion that there should be no jewish state. Increasingly, enemies of israel employ describe israels behavior toward the palestinians as they search for the most hateful way to attack the worlds only jewish state. Anyecomes only natural for on the left to ignore the rights of speakers to speak up for the country. These radical activists seek to exercise the hecklers veto on college campuses. In the most extreme cases, we have seen echoes of europe and a some jewish students have chosen not to associate with israel for fear of ostracism or even their own personal safety. One cannot have a serious and honest conversation about antisemitism without talking about antisemitism propagated in the name of islam. The is in the name of violent extremist interpretation of that sister faith. Since 2000, every murder of a jew for being jewish on the european continent was committed by an islamist extremist. I spent time in muslim majority countries, have friends and families, and i have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of muslims want nothing but to live in peace and harmony with their fellow citizens. Let me repeat, i have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of muslims want nothing but to live in peace and harmony with their fellow citizens. Yet the lesson from europe over the last 20 years is that we must be absolutely clear about posed by radical islamist ideology. Width of the of antisemitism now outlined, let me draw three principles that should play a role in our discussion as posedl islamist ideology. We seek to balance fighting antisemitism and protecting free speech. First, there is no community that has benefited more from the values and freedoms provided by the First Amendment than the Jewish Community. Indeed, it is a First Amendment that has allowed the jewish people and other minorities to flourish in this nation as full participants in the american experiment. With our nights are rights guaranteed, we are not tolerated by benevolent rulers. We have enshrined right to freely exercise our religion, speak out against injustice and avoid having religion established upon us. Every assertion of free speech protection is correct, and these topics can and should be debated carefully. Get the discussion cannot and should not be framed as choosing between protecting jews or the First Amendment. For one, and ironically feeds into the antisemitic notion of jews controlling speech. Far more importantly, the active protecting the First Amendment is an act for the protection of minority rights. Next, the best answer to bad speech remains good speech. What we say matters often more than how we legislate. In order to capably combat antisemitism, those who would seek to call out their political opponents for hating jews must be similarly willing to criticize their allies on their own side of the aisle. Leaders need to lead and conclusively demonstrate that antisemitism within their own ranks is unacceptable. That is why groups like the Bipartisan Congressional Task force to combat antisemitism are so important as unifiers and bridge builders. That is why there congressional black jewish caucus is vital to addressing the issues between these two communities. We here can and should discuss antibds laws, educational standards, the working definition of antisemitism, laws, and standards are important. In the end, this is a battle for ideas and a reassertion of common values in a very real way, we are fighting for the soul of our nation. Finally, we must recognize other nations have different conceptions of speech and take that into account in this global struggle. As quinton lowe beno, a french diplomat who was visiting a fellow in International Studies recently wrote in the hill, and i quote, we must each acknowledge a conception of freedom of expression differ among democracies. Every country in the world admits that some limitations to free speech may be necessary to protect other freedoms and dignity. For historical and cultural reasons, european democracies have always conceived this balance differently than the United States. The public promotion of nazism, racism and antisemitism are considered illegal in most if not all european countries. Tois no longer sufficient say america is different from europe. In the global struggle against antisemitism, we need to spend more time talking with other nations about finding Common Ground through our approaches. These conversations will not be easy but the defense of democracy demands no less. I do not suggest that we change our own conceptions or trample on the First Amendment. We would argue against many european ideas, get a global struggle requires a global strategy, and these conceptions cannot be ignored. Thank you once again for this very special invitation. I look forward to participating in the panel. My most sincere thanks to the Justice Department for convening this important program. [applause] eugene i want to thank the attorney general and Justice Department for putting together this daylong conference on antisemitism. In my comments, i am going to speak to what has been one of the largest and i think most successful policy initiatives, to combat certain manifestations of antisemitism. Manifestations that are not like the ones we saw in them memory video. That, buty calls for manifestations that are in some ways more difficult to deal with because they come cloaked in the mantle of human rights discussions. 27the past four years, american states have adopted socalled antibds laws. Want to these laws say is that the state the laws do not ban boycotts of israel. They do not prohibit anyone from bro from boycotting israel. What they say is boycotts of israel are a form of bigotry and discrimination. The 27 states have classified sucks such action as discriminatory, bigoted, and is boycotts of israel are a form of bigotry and discrimination. Thus the state will not do certain kinds of business with companies that choose to Boycott Companies or people simply because of their affiliation with israel. Simply because they have a connection with the state of israel. This has been an extraordinary almost aegislation, groundswell. There has been a deep it shows a deep recognitionthus thy american policymakers of this close connection between bigotry and antisemitism and boycotts of companies and individuals based not on what they personally have done, but based on their affiliation, connection, presence in israel. Starting with South Carolina and illinois in 2015, this has really swept the nation in an extraordinary way. One thing that needs to be pointed out about these laws, at a moment when so many things including matters related to israel but also pretty much everything else, are seen as polarizing, divisive, drive republicans and democrats apart. That is not just israel, that is everything in the city. These antiboycott laws have been extraordinarily bipartisan and produced an extraordinary policy consensus. In all 27 states that have enacted this, the measures have partisanwhelmingly i and have passed by overwhelming majorities and sometimes near unanimity. Republicans and democrats and statehouses across the country in red states and blue states and purple states have lined up and said, refusing to do business with someone, a discriminatory refusal to deal with a company or a person or entity because of their connection to israel, that is something that is discriminatory enough that we will not prohibit it necessarily but we do not want our state tax money going to subsidize that kind of activity. These laws, to give you a few more details, some say states will not do business with companies, they will not contract with companies that engage in this discriminatory refusal. Others provide that the state will invest a pension fund in such companies. Some do both. The understanding here, and i think one of the most important things about these laws other than their actual effect is the message they send. Because too often, those who wish to discriminate on the basis of israeli origin, on the basis of Israeli Nationality, try to take for themselves the language of human rights. They say we are not discriminating, we are boycotting. It is supposed to make some kind of difference . We are doing this because we do not because they are doing bad things. We disagree with their conduct. Germany, canada, and courts in france and spain have concluded that treating israelis, people present in israel, companies present in israel, as a fixed class and refusing to do business with , is indeed antisemitic, a form of discrimination. Now 27 american states are saying the same thing. What is crucial to stress is of these laws do not in any way penalize companies for their views about israel. It is not the views about israel that is targeted, but economic conduct aimed at israel. Let me give you a couple of examples. If a company hangs a banner from its headquarters, down with israeli, hangs a big palestinian agilethey are entirely book eligible for state contracts and state investments under all 27 of these laws. On the other hand, if a company, not because it has any opposition to israel but because it is bullied and intimidated by boycott access, chooses to refuse to deal with israel, even if they are singing while they do it, they will be subject to these laws. That is the case of airbnb which made it completely clear that its partial boycott of israel was not based to israeli policies. It was based on years of bullying and intimidation by boycott activists. One of the insides of the laws is that companies that boycott israel typically do not do so out of ideological conviction. They do so because they have been exposed to various pressures. This is an insight which i o2 ian anderson, who is the principal flautist and lead singer of the rock band. He plays often in israel. In an interview, he decried musicians who canceled their concerts because of boycott pressure. He said many bad words about them that we will not repeat. He said they are not rock n rollerswhy . Because of how they were targeted. The boycott activists, they do not start with the phonebook of rock n roll letters and work their way up to zz top. They see who are already playing in israel and they target them. People who succumb to boycotts are those who have already performed, we have done business in israel and planning to do more. Cost is so high that they give up on it. The same with Companies Like airbnb. Airbnb was targeted because it did not have a problem doing business in israel and the west bank. That is why they were doing it. The goal of these campaigns is to make the cost greater than the benefits. What this shows is decisions to boycott israel are not necessarily ideological decisions. That is a point that will be relevant when we talk about the First Amendment concerns. Israel is the home to the polarity of the worlds jews. Is the only country in the world with a jewish majority. Israelitaken against affiliation or identity are a clear proxy for antisemitic action. It is true that though that there are jews living elsewhere but we do not find it to be a defense to discriminatory conduct to say yes, i am only discriminating against a Minority Group in this one place in the rest of my business i do not discriminate against them. Partial discrimination is indeed also discrimination. I want to Say Something about how they are modeled. These laws are not the only laws that say if you discriminate against a certain group, if you refuse to do business with people because of their membership in a group because of some characteristic, the state will not do business with you. Cut around the same time these walls were being met, 20 some states also passed and there was an executive order by president obama. Past measures saying companies are free to not hire, to discriminate, to boycott people on the basis of their Sexual Orientation. But if you do so, you will not do business with the federal government. You are not eligible for federal government contracts. State laws provide for similar restrictions for a wide variety of statuses. Veteran status, marital status, and many other statuses. Most salient lead today, there is a, state laws are structured exactly like the other laws. You cannot do business with these people but we consider them bigoted and has president obama says, we dont want to subsidize this bigotry with federal taxpayer dollars. Here we get into what i find perhaps the most frightening level of antisemitism in this discussion. Some of the very same organizations that lobbied federal and state governments to adopt rules barring state contracting with groups that gays are now the same groups, the aclu in particular, that are bringing lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of the state antiboycott laws. They are the subject of significant litigation and at least five states, to Federal District courts have found that they unconstitutionally restrict speech. One has concluded the opposite. There is no speech issue here. Deciding who you do and do not do business with is not a form of speech. There is no speech being regulated. Indeed, if refusals to deal were a form of speech, all antidiscrimination law would be called into question. In attacking these laws, they aclu says this is different. Here is a politically motivated refusal to deal. People are boycotting Israeli Companies for a reason. There are two things to say about that. First of all, its not true, and secondly, it is not a distinction. As we said, most of the companies pressure to boycott have no explicit or implicit political agenda whatsoever, and they say so. So it is not true that boycotting is inherently political. It can be done to win favor in world, as was said at a hot like at the Current Chamber of commerce. Or because of pressure from ofineers as in the case airbnb. More important, its not a distinction, because we know it is not a defense to be made ineligible for federal and state contracts because one boycotts people on the basis of Sexual Orientation, to say i have an ideological boss, i find their political positions problematic. That doesnt help at all. That does not preclude the application of those state laws. All of these boycotts are sometimes ideological and sometimes not. Has held thaturt simply choosing not to do business with people is not speech. There are many reasons you could not do business with them, including your just not interested in their business, and many other factors. If you need to have a special explanation of why youre not doing business, as we see in many of the cases the aclu has brought. Even a very informed observer would not know that the decision could conceivably have anything to do with israel. The action tells you nothing. The nonpurchase of a hewlettpackard printer. Its only the explanation. That is the protected speech. The explanation is protected, the action is not. The aclu lawsuit against these measures threaten to undermine all the antidiscrimination law. All foreign sanctions law. Because it is choosing to not do business with the country or Companies Based in the country is a natural way of expressing opinion about that country. Also aoing business natural way of expressing approval of that country . All you have to do is say im not doing business with the run. I support the iranian revolution. Such an idea has never been suggested. It goes against everything we know. I think what is most dangerous it provides valuable protection that boycotting based isisrael connection discriminatory. Now there is a conscious effort by major organizations to actually do something even scarier, to create a secondclass tear of discrimination, that all discrimination can be protected byy the dollar denial the denial of state protection. It will create the most dangerous double standard of all. Thank you. [applause] we have a few more minutes to get into the discussion. I want to pick up on what you just said and i want to ask you, chris, first. Do you believe that boycotting estate is First Amendment protected political speech . To weigh in ont that. Its about outside my lane a bit outside my lane, but i think it raises difficult issues. You can see context and where decision to take some kind of action would be a reflection of belief and its for the government to prohibit you from engaging in a particular conduct where there could be an issue. On the other hand, states, the federal government generally has very broad contracting authority. There is a line of cases that confirm that. Eugene makes a strong case for his position, but i do think it raises some significant and interesting issues and i would look at it a lot more carefully before offering much more than that. It does not generally trigger First Amendment coverages. Contrasta statutes by specifically aim to silence a key form of expression, political boycotts, because of its message. I know you have addressed the broader point but i want to drill down on this idea that isnt there a difference between boycotting an individual, an american citizen for their sexual preference, gender, race, religion, and boycotting a country, which happens all the time. Im sure i think there are to be more boycotts of iran or china. You can go through the list. First, theres a question of whether there should or shouldnt be, and then theres another question of could the government regulate it. I will Say Something very important about these laws. The laws are not about boycotts of the state of israel. There boycotts as the laws himself say of those companies doing business in the state of israel and territories under its control. So its boycott of persons because of their characteristics. Under these laws, people are not going to be disbarred from state contracts because they dont want to enter into a defense contract with the state of israel. That is understood. Take the airbnb for example. This is one of the more open and publicly discussed issues. Who is on the other end of the airbnb boycott . People who own small rental units. Some 200 owners of small accommodations that are listing them on airbnb. How is that different from boycotting on the basis of Sexual Orientation . So i understand, its a secondary boycotts of individuals in israel that is the problem. Its how you define primary and secretary. The primary target is people because of their connection to israel. That is exactly who is being targeted. ,nlike the arab league Boycott Companies doing business with the state of israel. Here the First Quarter target or companies it happened to be operating or doing business or have Israeli National character. Thats who they are going after. Right, but let me ask you this. Do you believe that boycott is political speech and should be protected by the First Amendment . Another word just for refusing to do business. The Supreme Court already told us the answer to that. An association of all schools had what they called a boycott of military recruiters. They were boycotting them for an inherently expressive reason. They disagreed with the militarys policies and they said we are boycotting military recruiters. The Supreme Court said your position on the military recruitment of homosexuals is free speech, whatever you say about that. It is not inherently expressive because it doesnt tell us anything. Thats why you had to explain why you are doing it. Why are some employers not at the job fair . They have to make a special point to say we are not including them because we disagree with them. But the actual conduct itself tells you nothing. Thats the case of any kind of discriminatory conduct. Do you think about this question of boycotting and political speech . To one ofting next the countrys greatest experts. I have to endorse what the professor said. I think it is possible to express your opposition to the policies of any government, including israel, but when you start engaging in the kind of behaviors where you cross a certain line, if you are imposing penalties on companies who engage in business with israel, and i think the lines have been clearly drawn. What do you think . From somewhat far afield the expertise but i would say taking one small step aside from the boycott and the negative ,einforcement relationships theres a lot the government can behavior and the type of speech that is more healthy, things like engaging with civil society, engaging with those who speak out against hatred of specific people, specific countries, both in the region as well as here. That is hopefully not too far from what you ask but more line with what we see and promote and what we believe in, that government can more safely and effectively do as well. I want to switch for second, this is about the First Amendment, which is really a sort of check on what government can do. Then there is a concept of free , and this is ae topic of this particular panel. Is there a point at which you have to tolerate some kind of antisemitism because free speech is too important at that point. Where would you draw that line, and how would you address it . Would distinguish quite sharply between actual conduct, which isnt speech, refusing to deal, and speech, no matter how unpleasant. Context,n the campus one is required to and when tould be vastly tolerant speeches and demonstrations which make jewish students feel uncomfortable, which make them very unhappy. Activity carried out on campus is typically pierced speech because students dont have any money to boycott with. That kind of activity while it may make people extremely and happy, is something which is not just in the name of the First Amendment, but in terms of values of discourse and protecting ourselves from vulnerable that we need to toughen ourselves against. When it crosses the line into youness refusal to deal, stand on worse footing. Xo was taken by the remarks by mr. Harding of the responsibility of social media platforms especially to be much more assertive in imposing certain guidelines and what is and is not acceptable. I recognize there are First Amendment constraints to going in that direction. Ithink we understand that will be social pressure, the actions of sister communities, of the general public that will exert the kind of influence against the haters that we have to rely on, but its going to be a combination of the culture rising up against hate and social media platforms being responsible and the leadership of our government, knowing where the lines are, but encouraging that kind of assertive behavior by these platforms that will make a big difference. It will also be important to our friends around the world, when we complained to governments in europe especially about the levels of hate that are inciting actions against our community, they often throw this back at us and say there is something about the social media platforms that are based in your country. Im glad to see the United States is taken on a serious stab at this key problem. Thatme of the points eugene raised, an issue that weve seen more broadly which is , when you have really divisive issues, whether its foreign an interference, election interference, antisemitism, boycotts of israel, what is the proper role of the government . Speak, theent can government can approach social Media Companies to disclose information about things that are happening on social media to the public and disclose information about election interference in those types of issues. There areve seen is very difficult lines to draw to determine when the government can play a productive role versus when it might play a counterproductive role. When the government singles out incidents of election interference, it is a significant issue for the government to consider, like what is the blowback going to be. Exercise,gage in that the government has to be in a haveion going into that to the confidence of the public to be operating under consistent frameworks and guidelines that are consistent with the First Amendment. So i think this is just a theme we are seeing across a range of issues. I think it is also relevant to this context as well. With that unfortunately we are now at time. Sorry about that, elliott. One minute. There are many reasons why sociological, historical and others, why america has been the greatest safe haven for the jews in world history. First amendment protection culture. However, when hatred comes from Foreign Government backing and is mixed with social media and current messaging, there are many points of legal intervention that the u. S. Government can play, its not about somebody on the Street Corner shouting something, its not about someone with a mimeograph machine making a pamphlet in passing it out. In any case its Foreign Governments based in the u. S. And we believe the government has a role to play at many points within that. With that, please thank our panel here. [applause] 1 the poll showed little interest among americans and exploring the solar system, going to mars or traveling to the moon. The science space and Technology Committee will join us from capitol hill to talk about u. S. Space policy and the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing. Our guests include a california congressman, Florida Republican congressman, California Democratic gresswoman, texas for watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 eastern this morning. Join the discussion. Washington journal mugs are available on the cspan online store. Check it out and check out the washington journal mug and see all of the cspan products. Former special Counsel Robert Mueller is on capitol hill next week testifying in backtoback hearings about possible obstruction of justice and abuses of power by President Trump and interference in the president ial election. Three,ive on cspan online or listen with the three cspan radio app. This week the house considers a resolution that would hold attorney general william barr and commerce secretary wilbur ross in contempt of congress for failing to comply with subpoenas related to the 2020 census. And the trump administrations efforts to add a citizenship question. The House Rules Committee met monday to consider the rules before debate. This is 45 minutes