They are the only institution, chartered by congress, to increase awareness of the constitution among the American People on a nonpartisan basis. We have a series of exciting town halls coming up and i want to plug them. A new book, the virginian dynasty. On october 1, the National Constitution centers drafting project. We have commissioned three teams, team conservative, team libertarian, and Team Progressive to draft a constitution. Its an Amazing Group of scholars that will tell us how they think a constitution from scratch should read. I cant wait to share that with you. We have great programs in october on immigration and the new book, the upswing. I hope you will join us for them as well as tuning into our weekly podcast. Now it is a pleasure to introduce the amazing panelists for this program tonight on the First Amendment, journalism, and the protests. We will be taking your questions throughout the program, so put them in the Community Box and i will introduce them. Now it is time to introduce our guests and i will do that in alphabetical order. Congressman steve cohen has served as the representative from tennessees 9th district since 2007. Since 2019, he has been chair of the house judiciary subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights and civil liberties. Rich lowry is the editor of national review, selected to become editor in 1997, and is the author of four books including lincoln unbound and the case for nationalism, how it has made us united and free. Suzanne is the chief executive officer of pen america the , leading human rights and freedom of expression organization. She has recently published a new book, dare to speak, defending free speech for all. And congresswoman mary gay scanlon serves as the representative from pennsylvanias 5th district, she currently serves as vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee as well as serving on the House Committee and select committee on modernization of congress. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having us. Congresswoman thank you for , convening us because it was your insight that we should indeed convene a group of thought leaders in america to discuss a problem or a question that you flagged in a resolution do introduce in congress in june of 2020. That was a resolution you introduced with congressman ship. You denounced violence against the press in the u. S. , you called on Law Enforcement to protect freedom of the press and refrain from targeting journalists. You expressed the need for accountability when Law Enforcement violates the constitution law. The centrality of press freedom. Your resolution identifies a series of specific incidents against journalists for media workers being targeted by Law Enforcement with teargas, pepper spray, or pepper balls. On may 29, police shot a rubber bullet into the face of a photographer, permanently blinding her in eye. Oneyou have examples and you know as well that the leading ss watchdog organizations he said as of 4, the freedom june press Freedom Tracker managed by the freedom of press foundation has received ports up or than 300 reports of press Freedom Violations against journalists covering the demonstrations in the wake of the murder of george floyd nationwide. Tell us, why did you introduced a resolution, what are the specific incidents that concern you and lead you to introduce the resolution, and what you think congress should do about it . Rep. Scanlon thank you so much for providing us with this forum. I have worked with the Constitution Center and Constitution High School for the past 14 years. It is such a powerful organization and having the ability to convene people on a bipartisan basis to discuss central issues to our nation is such a valuable service, so thank you for bringing everyone together. In the wake of George Floyds death, we did see a series of protests. Early on in this protests we saw opportunists come out and there were incidents of violence and incidents of looting. In philadelphia, we had a althoughhat has ended, protest for Racial Justice have continued throughout our region. It was really striking to see in philadelphia and elsewhere that police were explicitly targeting journalists, journalists who were identified as journalists, they had press badges, many of us saw the detention of the cnn reporter live on camera during the morning news. Here in philadelphia, we stopped we sell reporting regarding we saw reporting regarding the detention of multiple reporters from the philadelphia inquirer, the wilmington papers. You mentioned the reporter who was shot with a rubber bullet and lost her eye. We so vividly occurring on camera a series of attacks and detentions of the press which is not something we have seen in this country on the scale that we did and this is a country that has experienced a lot of protests, so something had shifted. That is why i felt we needed to have a resolution that this is not ok and this is a deviation from the norm and we need to put an end to it. I got into drafting the resolution because congress does a lot of these resolutions , talking about the integral role a free press place in a democracy but it has not had to do one of these resolutions regarding u. S. Police forces in recent years. Congress has done resolutions talking about violations of the free press in other countries but until the past few years, it has not been an issue in the United States of america. That was the impetus for this resolution, if anyone wants to look at it, it is House Resolution 999, but that was the genesis for it. The fact that something very important had shifted and given the role in the free press on reporting on what is going on so the citizenry has accurate information. If our press are being detained being in some cases targeted with rubber bullets and pepper spray, etc. That was an , important thing we need to take note of and stop that action. Many thanks for giving the name of the resolution so viewers can read it. Representative cohen, you chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on human rights it home journalists , to assess the state of media, freedom. The hearing noted there had been nearly 500 reported press Freedom Violations since the beginning of the black lives matter protests. On may 26, there were witnesses including christian almond poor of cnn on the right to freedom of opinion and other witnesses, tell us about the hearing, tell us about what your conclusion if attacks on the increaset represent an from historical levels in the u. S. , and how do we compare to what is going on around the world . Rep. Cohen it was a successful hearing. One of the Amazing Things about it in my perspective, i had been on the Helsinki Commission for quite a while and we go to hearings and meetings in vienna and other places. What we always hear, in governments and generally formerly soviet bloc, newly freed in the last couple of for three decades, suppressing media. Sovietrussianstyle tactics you see in hungary and poland and the Czech Republic and other places. You think of it like, they do that. That is so bizarre and so outlandish and sad that that goes on over here. Organizations for security and cooperation in europe, the Helsinki Commission is concerned about that and keeps an eye towards protecting press freedom and First Amendment rights. We hear from people in the ,ommunity, activist groups civic activist groups. They were all concerned about i have been twice the belarus. They were all concerned about the lack of freedoms that lukashenko was taking advantage of. He just gets rid of his opponents. It is the first layer of opposition. Said it wasmanpour shocking that there are 500 allegations of police and other attacks on the press in america. She said what was shocking to her from her base in england to see this was happening in america and shocking to me, it is amazing and it all comes from trump. He started off with fake news. He did he said he had the largest crowd in the history of the washington mall, it was bigger than obamas, then the press caught him on it and his press secretary had to live for lie for him and the press showed where he was wrong and he called it fake news. From there on it has been 20,000 lies and he keeps calling it things toand puts of encourage people to attack reporters and have people at his rallies look at the press and he says nasty things about cnn. They look at them and jeer. It is chilling to think how much it is like the 1930s in germany. It is not that was different. The hearing was good. Now it has come to america through donald trump it came to donald trump through vladimir putin. The same things we saw in europe, which came from russia and the old soviet nations and his people who emulate him, it is the same thing in america. I guess that goes back to putin, not so much to trump, because he gave us trump. We the constitution and journalism, free press, both under attack. Those were two of the most important things. Benjamin franklin signed the constitution, helped write it, was a journalist. And was a big advocate of the first postmaster general. One of the three things most under attack right now, the press and the constitution, and the press partially because and hes mad at bezos sees it as a way to control the post office and get them to raise rates on his amazon business because he does not like what he says that the washington post. It is astonishing one of our Founding Fathers who nobody has any problems with, one of the few people that escaped the cherry of the masses charity of the masses and has reflections and statuaries standing firmly and without enemies, is being attacked on all fronts, the constitution, and it is just so sad. And the post office at the same time. Thank you for those comments. Rich lowry, strong words from representative cohen, accusing the president of inciting violence to a degree, he said we had not seen before. You heard representative scanlon as well saying attack on journalists are occurring at a rate we have not seen before in the u. S. Your writing has defended the First Amendment and police and Law Enforcement. What is your reaction . Thank you for hosting this event. Thank you for what the Constitution Center does. Pleasure to be here with my fellow panelists. I was a couple of things. If police delete target and harm journalists, they should be held accountable and charged if appropriate. I think we need to be aware that these are chaotic environments. Police are often being attacked. The riots have not been as limited as the congresswoman portrayed it at the outset of her remarks. I wish they are they havent. My question about the resolution would be, if attacks on journalists are always wrong, which i believe they are why , wouldnt the resolution also highlight the attacks on the journalists by black lives matter protesters and antifa protesters . Those seem to be just as bad, just as malicious just as much , of a threat to the First Amendment. Somehow that is beneath notice or the congresswoman and congressman are not concerned about those attacks for some reason. I take it as a given that the congresswoman and congressman are extremely sincere in their concern over this issue, so i wonder if they have talked to the democratic mayors, Democratic City Councils who run these cities, who have run them for decades, and one the police run the Police Departments. These local Police Departments do not report to donald trump, they report to these mayors and these Municipal Bodies controlled by democrats. In one case portland, the mayor , and Democratic Police commissioner are the same person. I appreciate the heated and hyperbolic rhetoric and slams on donald trump, but that seems to be beside the point because if local police are targeting journalists, that is an issue for local officials in for fellow congresswoman and congressman, for their fellow democrats. They brought this up with a mayors, they told them they are running fascistic Police Forces that are cracking down on journalists like 1930s germany . Thats a pretty heavy charged and it should be raised with the people responsible for these Police Forces. If i could keep in order. We will follow the Supreme Court, chief justice roberts, we will have a chance for the rebuttals. Pen has been involved in important lawsuits defending the First Amendment and there are two lawsuits pending is not involved in. I would love you to talk about them. E versus the city of minneapolis. The aclu filed a lawsuit against minnesota Law Enforcement officials to Keep Police Officers who target journalists accountable for their unlawful actions and there is also a case portland, index u. S. Newspapers versus the city of portland. A u. S. District judge issued a restraining order blocking the police from arresting or planning to arrest or using physical force against journalists or legal observers. In the ninth circuit stated that august, order saying the other side was likely to win. Or show success on the merits. If you could tell us about those , or other lawsuits. Let me take a step back and acknowledging that this issue is first not entirely new. We did a report in 2014 on press Freedom Violations in the context of the ferguson protests and documented 53 violations. It is important to recognize that these tensions are longstanding and you could go further back than that. The other piece i would bring in is this is part and parcel of a Larger Campaign against protest and freedom of Assembly Rights and we did report we issued inmate just before George Floyds murder called arresting dissent. It talks about the 117 different bills introduced in state legislatures across the country to curb protest rights in all sorts of different ways. Limiting protest on federal facilities, highways, 23 of those have passed. There is a climate of adversarialism against protests in general. That is what we are seeing spill over into the press and to give the latest, it is up to 746 press Freedom Violations in the context of the protests as of today. 102 arrests, 185 physical attacks. Two richs 80 of those attacks point, documented are by police, state troopers, Law Enforcement and 20 are by protesters , themselves. That is an issue, but the proportions need to be recognized. I think what this represents is a loss of respect for the role of the press in democracy. As police sometimes overreach in their approach to managing protests, there is no sense of boundaries when it comes to the press. We have seen this in cases in the arrest of omar jimenz from cnn when he is hauled away on camera and he is peaceful and not disorderly in any respect and yet he has handcuffed followed by his cameraman and , finally his producer. These two lawsuits that you referenced are targeting the recognition that First Amendment violations are taking place and we need to make more distinctions between protesters and the special role the press plays in these incidents. Minnesota issued a class action against the state patrol, the police, the city. The plaintiff was shot in the face by a rubber bullet. It is recognizing that journalists are there to protect the protesters, document what is happening, hold officials accountable. If they are interfered with, then Assembly Rights as a whole are in jeopardy. Then in oregon, this request for injunction that would prevent police from dispersing journalists, threatening or targeting journalists, requiring journalists to relocate. During the trial judge in this stirring opinion upheld that request for injunction. It has been overturned temporarily by the circuit court, though it is going to be reviewed again and it is not clear how that is going to wind up but what we are seeing is rights that we thought were secure in this country are not and we need new kinds of legal protections, including the measure adopted with the leadership of representative scanlon as well as measures on the state level to guarantee rights that a lot of us thought were well protected but have seen otherwise. Thank you very much. Thank you for giving us a sense of the Legal Framework for these cases and helping us understand and minneapolis, the claim is state officials were in fact targeting journalists and interfering with their right to cover Public Events by refusing access to events for where events were unfolding. Rightshe constitutional of reporters. To all our panelists, we are getting Great Questions , including a request from several of our listeners that we focus on the law. Try to avoid partisan politics. Let us focus on the Legal Framework. Representative scanlon, you have spoken eloquently about the history of protections for journalists. Trial in with the philadelphia got some appropriate attention but there are other cases that you think are more relevant in establishing the modern framework for evaluating the rights of journalists. Tell us about zinker and other cases. You are a Public Interest lawyer before you were in congress. How courts should evaluate these claims hitting the rights of journalists against government officials. Rep. Scanlon i dont think it can be overstated just how central the free press right is to our american system of government. In 1735, this is preconstitution, we are going back before the constitution. He was a printer in new york and published articles that were critical of the british governor and the british governor, having the british governor had engaged in practices and he was accusing the british governor of misconduct. The british governor had him arrested and tried for sedition. Sedition being making fun of the king or his designee. Is in jail. He is not able to do his business, and some of the people of new york decided to hire the best lawyer possible and that was a philadelphia lawyer, this is why i have to tell the story as a philadelphia lawyer. That lawyer was Andrew Hamilton johne came up and defended peter zanger and there was not a good Legal Defense at the time because the british king could charge someone with making one of him and have him locked up. But what zanger said was, wait, if it is true what zanger said about this british governor, that should be a defense. Truth should be a defense because people have the right to know what their government is doing. This was a new concept, this was not part of the british system. The british constitutional system would have locked up zanger but Andrew Hamilton persuaded the jury to let him free because truth was a defense. That became embedded in our constitutional view with respect to the free press, it is one of the reasons the First Amendment contains free press. That has been part of our National Conversation ever since. The idea that you can call out the government for misconduct so long as it is true and that you dont do so with malice. That does have some resonance today when we hear claims of fake news or the price being the press being the enemy of the people and that is why it was important that Congress Come forward with a resolution reaffirming the free press. Because as suzanne said, it is a new have this loss of respect for the importance and the role of our press and democracy, and we can point to causation for that being undermining of the press. So Congress Needs to step in and say this is a core value of our constitution and it is important to our system. That is the basis for the Free Press Rights in america and it has gone through a lot of iterations. New york times versus sullivan. There is a big body of constitutional law and it now. But basically, if it is true, the press can print it as long as it is about a public figure. If you are a private figure, there are other protections. Thank you for telling that wonderful story, for teaching us that it was andrew and not Alexander Hamilton who was the first philadelphia lawyer. Our great cause additional prep informs me that there actually was a subsequent case where Alexander Hamilton argued, it was called people cromwell that, in fact established in the case that truth could be a defense, which zanger was not able to do because the jury refused to convict. Thanks to our prep team. Hamilton right before his death gave what is called his greatest effort ever, and it was a young federalist journalist who printed in charge made in hamiltons newspaper about president jefferson, and hamilton basically said that truth should be a defense, zanger was a bad case because it hadnt established that principle. Deadlocked and in the end, took a law passed by the New York Legislature in 1805 to make the defense and that was in the new york constitution in 1821. Great details. Congressman cohen, you were a very distinguished Public Interest lawyer. You have been closely involved in First Amendment cases. , but asstrong charge you of course know and have to ben, in america, protected by the First Amendment to be unprotected by the First Amendment, speech has to be intended to and likely to cause imminent violence, a strong standard. The Supreme Court held in 1969, someone standing up at a ku klux klan rally, engaging in a speech in hate speech would still be protected because the speech, although reprehensible, was not intended to cause imminent violence. Do you think the president s statements qualify as incitement and would be unprotected as speech under legal standards, or not . Rep. Cohen mary gay is a scholar on these legal arguments. I am not as good on alexander and Andrew Hamilton. Journalists distinguished from politicians in hamilton. But mr. Lowery and his predecessor, mr. Buckley, he was a star. Geledged us on what challenged us. I need to respond, the fact is i dont think we had a president in mr. Buckleys time or in your sent to the cloak room by a president for asking questions. I dont think we have had a president in mr. Buckleys time or your time who has called on the oan network to get softballs on a regular basis, and to have them travel as the press representative on trips. He has had other people travel as representatives. He has done all he can to denigrate the press. That itet the climate is uniformly seen, but maybe it is the climate that has been created from the top, telling the police from new york to beat them up and treat them not so nice, punch them around, etcetera. Ventas say they can use, enemy of the people and their they are point them out at crowds. You cant take away using the bully pulpit not like the way Teddy Roosevelt would, but in a way that is unique and in a way that does not put our democracy at risk. Our democracy is definitely at risk. [inaudible] it is setting a tone in our country that is dangerous for all of us and dangerous world of our rights. Jeffrey thank you. If we could try to focus on the , claims we are in the thick of it now. [laughter] congressman, you dont have to get me to defend many of the things donald trump does. I am on the record as a it is wrong for him to call the press of enemy of the people and many of the other things he says and does. We ran an article attacking it a few issues ago. My objection is, this hyperbolic, historical rhetoric of 1930s germany. What we are talking about specifically this evening, which is police. No one addresses this point, but police are answerable to local authorities. So what democratic mayor out there is directing his or her Police Department to act like 1930s germany . I think you should call him or her out right now. You have a national forum. Do it. It will have more resonance you are a fellow democrat. I am a conservative who is willing to criticize a republican president. You should be a democratic congressman who is willing to call democratic mayors, but i havent heard from you tonight. Jeffrey i would like to avoid a cross talk lets just stick to the dust the idea that the right to protest is under threat in this country seems otherworldly to me. Four or five months, marches all the time some of them peaceful. Places like portland, every night you have marches and then you have a Splinter Group learning buildings, graffitiing buildings, harassing the mayor condo. Idents of his so the idea that this is a police state is the opposite of the truth. In many places, the protests are not only just happening and havent been suppressed, they are running out of control. So, with all due respect to my fellow panelists who are knowledgeable and sincere, the idea that we are living in a country where you cant protest or have your voice heard is manifestly absurd. Anyone who is following what is happening in the streets, the right,ve media coverage, we are talking about the stupid arrest of a cnn reporter that shouldnt have happened. He was immediately released. We are not talking about reporters getting jailed and tried with treason. That is a whole different phenomenon. Nor are these Police Officers exercising prior restraint on what anyone is saying or writing on tv. I think in their sympathy with the protests and their enmity trump, i feel the panelists have a completely distorted view on this. Jeffrey thank you so much for that area suzanne, in your new speech, youing free have a series of suggestions for how people can maintain a commitment to free speech while also ensuring civil discourse. Your book is called dare to speak defending free speech. The principles, changes of language, principles for listening, principles to follow when debating freespeech questions and considering principles to follow in considering speechrelated policies. About thise of question of incitement and hate speech. The american standard, as you note in your book, is more protected than anything else in the world, but you include that the president s statements would not qualify, according to the standard, they have to be intended to cause imminent violence. Is that standard one you defend in your book, and how, given the great protections of even hateful speech that all short of incitement, do you think americans can balance interests like dignity and equality against the First Amendment protection of free speech . Susanna thanks for asking about the book. A relatedhe book with worry that i have which is really that we are in danger of losing a rising generation that is becoming increasingly alienated from the principles of free speech. You and i have talked about issues of free speech on college campuses. We have talked with some Young Students who have seen freespeech in both freeze each invokes free speech invoked in hateful speech. My goal is to create an antiracist society. The best answer to hateful speech is bans and prohibitions. In the book, i try to set out that the principles of equality and freeze each must be reconciled. They actually are mutually reinforcing. We need an enlightened approach to free speech which i spell out in the principles which include a measure of voluntary strings on the part of speakers being conscientious, being aware of the sensitivities of your audience. If you have a big platform, that is a larger obligation. I support the constitutional standard for the protection of hate speech. It is the worlds most protective. Democracies that take a more restrictive approach. But the kind of linea drawing exercises you get into when you empower governments to Police Speech are difficult and when have that power in their hands, they will use it in a selfserving way to attack critics suppress dissent, and , preserve their prerogative. So i prefer our system which curtails their ability to encroach on speech in those ways. I do think we need to double down on other solutions in response to a speech including counter speech, dialogue, education among in some cases kind o, condemnation. Speaking out against political leaders to reject hateful speech. It is not a matter of just saying it is the First Amendment and throwing up your hands, but rather extralegal, nonlegal approaches. I think it has become a more serious problem over the last several years. Jeffrey thank you for that. I think this is a good question for the other panelists, and i wonder whether we will not agree on this constitutional question. Scanlan, does the standard that speech can only be banned if it is intended to cause imminent violence, do you think that is the correct standard or would you change it to allow the suppression of more hate speech . I think you are muted. Rep. Scanlon sorry. I had a dog barking in the background. Wanted to exclude abby from the conversation. [laughter] i might agree with abby. Maybe she will agree with me here tonight. Rep. Scanlon she is barking mad. [laughter] at[laughter] any rate, i think the classic democratic solution is that you counter speech with speech except when there is an incitement to violence. I dont think that we need to do that. And i am sure, jeffrey, you will agree that one of the things we need to focus on is Civics Education and making sure people are critically evaluating the mass quantities of beach that we have to sift through now. If you are on the getting your talking points from one source, you are probably going to get a and thinks for example that philadelphia is in flames every night, which, of course, it is not. Being it was to assess and critically evaluate speech is important for everyone. Being able to weigh different viewpoints. I dont think we should change the standard. But i do think that people need to be aware of the sources of ther reach and look at trustworthiness of different news sources, etc. Jeffrey thanks for that. Congressman, i know you want to respond to rich lowery, but before you do that, maybe just answer the first question. And congressman congresswoman scanlan have endorsed the standard, speech should only be banned if it is likely to cause imminent violence. Do you support that standard or do you think it should be relaxed . Rep. Cohen if it is encouraging genocide, another holocaust, hateful speech that is encouraging the death of a whole sect of people because of their race, religion, Sexual Orientation or gender, i think that maybe an area we should get into prohibiting. I appreciate free speech, but there is a time you need to kind of may be close the door. Ack to rich lowery i accept your challenge. I dont approve of moving or arriving and they dont approve of burning federal buildings. I didnt even like it when they took down grants and some other characters, an individual out in san francisco. They have gone too far, i think. No question about it, but i havent called democratic mayors nor have i called republican mayors, where crime is up in their cities just as it is in democratic cities. Some of the protesters go way too far and the press maybe you see like in lafayette park, a place where the right to protest was definitely stopped, and the First Amendment, that was a peaceful protest. And bill barr went and put them aside so the president could pick up his bible. In front of the church. That was just wrong. It was an instance where free speech was obliterated and stopped for political purposes and that does smack of the 1930s. Jeffrey thank you. Rich, respond as you like. I have read you on this, i think you and or suffered commitment standard, speech should only be banned if it is intended to incite violence. Tell us why you think the rest of the world, including europe, which includes greater banning of hate speech, including online, is wrong, and that leads to your recent defense of Mark Zuckerberg where you said he was correct to insist on trying to reinforce standards that look more like the american standards than the european ones. Rich fish well, freedom of speech is a core liberty. The exercise of conscience. That is written into the constitution. We have much more robust protections for free speech and other advanced countries. It is one of the glories of the u. S. I would very much opposed moving off that incitement standard. What you get is dwelling definitions of what hate speech is to seventh the other side and vice versa. And why we have the First Amendment. I would hate to see any softening of the First Amendment. Exchange withmy the congressman, the question i was raising is that of the of that, you seemed to suggest that the police are assaulting like the were tactics in 1930s germany and soviet tactics and my response is these Police Forces are answerable to democratic authorities. So if that is the case, you should go after these democratic mayors, get them to rein in their Police Forces. Instead, you make partisan points against donald trump because that is what is convenient to you. Your position, i find, with all due respect inconsistent and , opportunistic. Jeffrey thank you for that. Suzanne, we have to three airgas yeas for maintaining the traditional incitement standard, and a dissent from congressman cohen. I want now to return to a penn is involved with, it is actually, you are inamed plaintiff. Penn america versus trump. A judge ruled that your lawsuit proceed. In the lawsuit, you identified at least five situations where you allege the president has used or threatened to use regulatory and Enforcement Powers of government to punish the speech of journalists. Directed d. O. J. Enforcement actions against Media Companies including cnn, interfered with White House Press access, threatened to revoke broadcast licenses among other things. Tell us of the current status of the case, and why you believe those actions violate the First Amendment. Suzanne sure. You touched on this conversation, the president s verbal attacks on the press. The president has a First Amendment right as well. Denigrate people, he can call the press that enemy of the American People. But what he cannot do is invoke the power of the federal government to retaliate against speech. Particularly unfavorable, coverage, like when people ask questions but he ddlesome. Ame that is what he does repeatedly. In each of the instances in outland, he has either threatened or taken action in retaliation against the press. That is to us, and we think to any court, it clear violation of the First Amendment. That is brought up in a different context in these lawsuits, those in minneapolis and in portland, which is the idea that the police where retaliating against coverage, they were concerned about how they would come across on camera and in the stories that these reporters were filing, so they constricted from journalists the ability to carry out their work and her job as a way of exacting reprisal against that. Inthere is some parallel what we see. For us, this is a clear violation of the First Amendment and we think it is extremely important to call it out. Case only because we havent had a president who has done this so brazenly, who makes clear his animus, and who takes action on the basis of it are. Appeal the case right now is under an interlocutory appeal. The government has tried to challenge the judges determination that we have standing to proceed on the basis of these claims. So she is evaluating whether to certify it as a kind of immediate appeal that would go up to the second circuit. We are waiting for an answer on that. But we think it is extremely important to establish the principle that no government official, be at a police officer, University President , or even a president of the United States has the authority to retaliate against constitutionallyprotected speech. For us, an organization that values the work of the free press, the fact that it is press freedom involved makes that principle all the more important. Jeffrey thanks for that. This is our last round, i think, in this vigorous discussion. [laughter] are tellingatters us that they are injuring as that they want us to focus on the First Amendment rather than partisan politics. For this last round, let me ask each of you a version of this question. Congresswoman scanlon, you convened as for this important discussion. You have introduced your resolution. Tell our friends in the audience what is typically you think that congress, the course, and other institutions can do to ensure the freedom of the press and protection for journalists at. His polarized time rep. Scanlon as i said before, the purpose of the resolution was to reaffirm the importance of the free press at a time when it has been undermined. As suzanne said, the president , like everyone else, has a First Amendment right to speak. But the problem is when the president speaks, if he talks about a particular company, well, their stocks may tank. Or if the president denigrates a particular individual, people may attack that individual. We expect a higher standard. If the president is not going to reaffirm the right of the free press and the centrality of a free press to our free and democratic government, than Congress Needs to step up and speak to that importance, because that is what makes the american way and gives everybody the right to make their decision information, not having one arm of the government put their thumb on it, whether through preexisting limitations or arresting members of the press, etc. We have seen, particularly in philadelphia, we have seen our mayor and our Police Department step up and step into some of those incidents and make sure that it was reaffirmed. We have seen that around the country. In phoenix, attempt five, to put some limitations and hold the press to curfew loss and it was pushed back. The press institutions there said you cant put the press on a curfew law because they are there to report on what is going on in your city. The act government and people of how important this is is part of maintaining the freedom of the press. It is up to all of us to recognize when the press is being curtailed and to do what we can in our respective capacities. Jeffrey thank you so much for that. Jeffrey congressman cohen, you also believe that congress should step in, as indicated by your resolution. Tell us what else you think can be done by judges, and the institutions like the constitutional center, which is trying to educate the public about the sedition. One of our commenters trying to educate the public about the constitution. One of our commentators says what the First Amendment requires is an important part of the solution. What else can we do . Rep. Cohen the question that is the First Amendment is so important. I see behind do the we the people on your building. It reminds me of the Beautiful Museum that we lost in washington. So sad that they took that down. I guess Johns Hopkins wants to put Johns Hopkins up. Jeffrey the museum is working with us. We want to bring that beautiful tablet to philadelphia and put it outside the constitution. Enter rep. Cohen i am a big supporter of the First Amendment even though i have concerns. In germany, they banned people from having nancy materials. The germans have seen it up close and personal. As a jewish person i was in germany, that i had ancestors that were killed in the concentration camps by naziism, and by all of that genocide talk. But is why i think there could be an exception for the type of speech that leads to genocide. It is a fine line to drop what a fine line in any constitution. I am a supporter of the First Amendment and the press. It shines light on public misdeeds. We have lost so many newspapers in the last 20 years or whatever. Its is the first year used to be a big deal that you would get the endorsement of a newspaper. I had a democratic primary and there was no endorsement. They have taken over the newspapers in tennessee. They have become almost like shoppers news. There was no endorsement in the primaries. That was something the newspaper used to do, [inaudible] that is not because of any government action, it is just the public going to television. Tried toowery, i refresh my memory marketing to reverse or rewind. I dont think i said the police did tuitions refer gestures was like not t nazi ger. I think what i meant was that trump directed at his rallies to cnn and News Reporters and put their focus on them and people on the ground started jeering at them and jostling them, and probably put them in danger. That is different from the police. That is a president who purposely takes the press on as his foil. I think that is what i referenced. I believe your suggestion about me and the police was wrong. That is not what i see as a police state. Not what i see as a 1930s germany. Rich i accept your jeffrey let me just set up your closing, mr. Lorrie, if i may. The debate between you and the congressman, which is illuminating, is striking to me that three of the panelists have argued for maintaining the that hate speech should be banned if it is intended to incite violence. What would you say to our audience about what congress and citizens can do to defend that standard, which so many of you agree on . Rich first of all, to end on a relatively warm note, i will let you off easy, congressman. You are not criticizing police conduct, which is what we were talking about at the outset, i misinterpreted you. I thought you were. I still think any comparisons to nazi germany and the soviet union are completely insane, but we will take that up over a drink sometime. I think what congress can do for most is no harm, dont pursue Campaign Finance that is blatantly in violation of the First Amendment. Dont pursue hate crime laws. Hate speech laws that are politically in violation of the First Amendment. Most important question goes to citizens, and it goes to something suzanne was saying earlier, speech that you disagree with, that makes you he even feel that is hateful is not a physical threat to you. You dont respond by trying to shut that person down, by chasing him off the podium at a college campus, or, god for bid, assaulting them, you respond by stating your contrary view. That is debate in a free republic. That is what makes this country great. The viewers out there might agree with me, they might agree with the congressman, but we have demonstrated to tie a bow around this, we have demonstrated the benefits of living in a country where people can have vigorous argument and try to persuade. That is at the root of the American Republic and should be defended at all costs, not just by congress, not just by elected officials or the judiciary, but by every citizen in the country. Jeffrey of vigorous argument in trying to persuade a vigorous argument in trying to persuade, our inspiring words. Suzanne, you can send us off with your final thoughts, and you are perfectly equipped to do that because, in your great new book, i have to mention the title one more time so the folks can check it out dare to speak, ending free speech for all. You both defend the first talkment standard but also about how folks can vigorously persuade. Suzanne sure. 1. I would add to this conversation is something i devote a chapter to my book, which is the idea that we have to avoid politicizing free speech. I was disturbed when i heard donald trump jr. At the Republican Convention claiming free speech as a squarely and purely republican value. And i understand where that comes from, but i think this is a value that ought to be above politics, and it is extremely important as we engage with the rising generation that we instill in them and another chapter in my book is devoted to the idea that speech and violence must not be equated. That equivalency is dangerous and inimicable to free speech, but if we want to bring around this rising generation to accepting that, we need to acknowledge the arms of speech and be conscientious of language. As we wrap, i am struck by your question about what we should be doing about press freedom. I think there are three interlocking dangers we havent talked much about that i think are part of this larger equation. Representative cohen touched on the crisis in local news and the fact that, 50 of staff at local newsrooms across the country have been slashed over the past several years. We have seen more than 20 of all local news outlets shut down completely. That to me is a crisis of democracy and one does that does require action in washington. Part of the answer, not the whole answer, but part of the answer is reexamining our system of public funding, to ensure local news remains an avenue that people across the country, citizens, trust the most more so than national news. Fraudulent news and disinformation, which is a deepening crisis intensified both by the covid pandemic and the upcoming election. And the blurring of lines between actual responsible, professional journalism, and propaganda, whether foreign or domestic, information that is deliberately intended to deceive and mislead has been blurred. Our is a crisis for whole news ecosystem and for press freedom rights. And then finally, relatedly, this deepening media partisanship and the blurring of the lines between journalism and opinion, and sort of Talk Television that looks like journalism, but really is something different. I think we have got to look as a citizenry and institutions like the Constitution Center at how we address all of this. Thanks so much. Jeffrey thank you for that. Thank you for all you are doing pen america is doing to promote valleys of constitutionalism and nonpartisanship. I am thrilled to share that you can continue your constitutional education in a series of live classes on the constitution that my colleagues and i at the center have launched. We just started this week on friday. David coleman of the College Board and i will be talking is important to study the constitution and the founding documents. Three times a week at noon and 2 00, if your kids are learning and watch us in live or watch the archived videos. We believe the central solution to the partisanship afflicting america is constitutional education. We are trying to do our part to provide this free service and we hope you will join us. Thanks to all of our friends in the audience for their great question, and thanks to our panelists for a vigorous and illuminating discussion where we if we did not persuade each other, we suddenly spread constitutional light. Thanks to all. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. Goodbye. Take care. President ial candidate joe biden is traveling to kenosha, wisconsin today, where there have been protests over the shooting of 29yearold jacob lake. We expect to give you live coverage of the remarks here on cspan. Later, President Trump hold a Campaign Rally in pennsylvania that begins live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Today, the Harvard Kennedy Schools Institute of politics host a discussion with political reporters on the 2020 president ial campaign. Live coverage begins at 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Contenders, about the man who ran for the presidency and lost, but changed political history. Tonight, minnesota senator and Vice President of the United States hubert humphreys. This week atrs 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Former Federal Reserve chairs ben bernanke and janet yellen took part in a discussion on Monetary Policy and the federal response to the pandemic. The event is hosted by the Brookings Institution and was held by videoconference. Welcome everyone to this event. My name is stephanie aaronson. I am the Vice President and director of the Economic Studies Program here at brookings. Thank you for joining us for todays event organized by our center on fiscal and Monetary Policy on how the fed will respond to the covid19 recession in an era
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.