[speaking arabic] [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic make a statement or comment about christians and jews what can they do . We have to edit the video. We have to make the Video Private because you mentioned the jews are [speaking arabic] at the end of the times, we will fight those jews and kill the rocks and the trees. They make mockery, some of them were turned into monkeys and apes, literally. [speaking arabic] thank you and good morning. You have seen the work of my organization at the middle east Media Research institute, men and women young and old, secular and religious on state media, independent media and social media from across the middle east and america. This was to bridge the line which gap between the east and west by analyzing the media in arab and muslim world and the religious content produced by its institutions, dollars and clergy. A hall which the board of member directors know very well including former attorney general Michael Mukasey and oliver buck revell. One of the most troubling issues we have studied through two decades alongside that of jihadist indoctrination is a phenomenon of antisemitism and Holocaust Denial which is pervasive and deeply rooted in all three of those spheres, media, schools and religious institutions. At the same time, memory translates and amplifies the voices in arab and muslim world, in societies against that future. And congressman tom lantos, the only holocaust denier to serve in the house of representatives and chairs the Foreign Affairs committee, the research and archives which is the largest in the world. He brought forward the antisemitism act of 2004 which created a position of special envoy to combat antisemitism. After his passing the archives were renamed in memory of him. In recent years we began a project to translate extremist sermons from american mosques a tiny sampling of which you saw in the video. In april of this year following attacks at synagogues by White Supremacists we begin monitoring antisemitic incitement from that fear as well. Mapping out organization connections and relations, providing actionable information that can it has led to fording attacks. Memory has been identify and exposing antisemitism for two decades, the arab and muslim world and the west and the us as well. It is painful for all staffers involved in these efforts, the shocking content we come across every day. Some of us myself included, children or grandchildren, holocaust survivors, whose families were nearly wiped out. Others like executive director having different directive action, grew up in pittsburgh attending the tree of life synagogue and knew some of those. We thank you for coming and convening this summit and calling upon us to display the scope of the problem. We hope you will visit www. Memory. Org for the contents needed to expose and fight this hatred and we stand ready to assist in all efforts to do so. Thank you. I am chris hardee with the department of justice. The National Security division overseas among other things, prosecution of crimes relating to terrorism, we work closely with the fbi in terrorism investigations in the Intelligence Community. These include Crimes InvolvingInternational Terrorism such as committed by groups like isis and domestic terrorism. Terrorist group like isis and al qaeda are hate groups. They all advocate antisemitic violence. We are committed to using counterterrorism tools and expertise to Counter Terrorist violence inspired by hate. We work closely with the Criminal Division where Crimes Involving hate also involved terrorism. The topic of this panel is how to combat antisemitism consistent with the First Amendment. Our experience with respect to the First Amendment issue is on the terrorism side, offering perspective on the legal and policy frameworks we have developed to counter terrorism. We have powerful authorities on the terrorism side with respect International Terrorism so adhering to First Amendment limitations is an important part of the National Security divisions mission. We not only help prosecute cases involving terrorism but other threats to National Security, we perform an important oversight role with respect to the fbis activities and the Intelligence Community activities under surveillance laws and surveillance statutes. I explain our approach in connection with investigations of prosecutions involving terrorist conduct and explain a little bit about how we look at approaching terrorist use of the internet specifically and those frameworks will hopefully inform this discussion. A core principle guiding the department including the fbi and the Intelligence Community under guidelines that apply to fbi intelligence activities into mystic Law Enforcement activities is you cannot monitor conduct based solely on protected speech speech protected under the First Amendment but we can investigate conduct which may speech online demonstrating threat of violence, other, conduct or a threat to National Security. It is our policy since 9 11 to be proactive in identifying terror threats before they cause harm particularly for threats that would involve violence against groups in the United States. We need to be proactive in identifying threats and support the First Amendment, we cant just monitor conduct online unless we have a reason to do so in a particular case. No matter how abhorrent the we take action were an individual engages in conduct, that constitutes an imminent threat of violence, incitement to violence, solicitation of crime and we have examples of cases where we pursued those cases over the years including the muslim case in 2012 and others. With respect to social media, significant focus of not just the department of justice but the government overall after the rise of isis, a lot of attention paid in 2015, the same types of policies and legal issues in the foreign interference context with buil groups and Communications Networks they are using are largely domestically based or reach a domestic reach policy issues about the scope of investigative authorities and the proper role of the Intelligence Community so this is something we are seeing across the board. Our terrorism investigation involves these social media along with encrypted messaging apps, the model isis perfected in 2015 and on was broadcasting messages, exhorting members to violence involving publicly available social media and encouraging encrypted messaging channels. We are seeing that playbook replicated by other types of groups including domestic groups. In addition to investigating potential crimes consistent with the First Amendment as i just discussed, we given the limitations of our authority, and the problem of terrorism. They were not limited by the First Amendment and the way the government wanted it, their terms of use commit a far broader range of conduct then could be prescribed under criminal law, the approach we developed with respect to the use of the internet, develop close working relationships with major providers and that is something, that model would likely follow with respect to foreign interference using social media and other types of problems that raise similar issues in the terrorist context. Where we have information from a predicated investigation not just monitoring the internet we can share that information with providers, we can provide threat briefings to providers and help providers voluntarily use their own efforts to enforce their own terms of service to improve their own algorithms and processes for identifying content that is threatening. That is something we have been doing since 2015, something we will be doing in connection with foreign interference and i just discussed, that model has been we think effective. Weve seen providers taking down, we dont generally do not make requests for providers to take down specific posts or specific content but we provide threat briefings and information to the providers so 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 for monitoring their platforms, 160,000 accounts associated with terrorism. They removed Something Like 14 million pieces of terrorist content related to isis and al qaeda and we have seen facebook enforcing policies with respect to the white extremist nationalist groups. That is the framework we approached terrorist use of the internet but it points whether it is the internet using domestic largely domestic platforms like facebook or twitter or foreign interference, the policies we confront, historically our authorities on the intelligence side are constrained but a particular designated group, so you can share information but not based on monitoring the internet in the United States but if you have surveillance, you are seeing connections to that group and their activities that can lead to predicated investigation leading to information you can share but the issues are different when you are talking about purely domestic groups into mystic content, the authorities we bring to bear that raise different policy issues about what the proper role of the government is. It is important in light of those limitations for the government to have strong partnerships with private sector, the work that memory is doing and we can be partners and to providers, we can message providers in the context as long as well not being threatening or coercive or demand they take action and that is the proper role for the government. We have been doing that in the terrorism context, that can inform the approach domestically, but more significant First Amendment issues and limitations when talking about domestic speech and International Terrorism and that is the framework we have been following in this period. [applause] thank you and good morning. It is a privilege to be here. Before i begin i wish to acknowledge the considerable work on this issue of my colleague, the chief advocacy officer who was prevented by flight delays from being with us and being on this panel this morning. Two hours from now Government Officials and Civil Society leaders from around the world will participate in a candle Lighting Ceremony at the Us Holocaust Memorial Museum and will tour the museum with survivors of religious persecution in the Opening Program of this we second ministerial to advance religious freedom and major state Department Initiative as we begin today, the department of justice symposium on combating research and antisemitism. The centrality of the holocaust, the expression of illumination 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. Family experienced hot used to cautiously ask ourselves the question of whether history is repeating itself. 2019 just a return 80 years on of 1939 . The answer is no. There are a host of reasons todays challenges the we are materially different from the historic and unique tragedy faced by european jury during historys darkest hour. One obvious difference is the existence of israel but an equally important reason is the people in this room. Many lecturers have been given and watching has been spilled on forces that unleashed and allow the holocaust but in the end there are simple reasons. In a way it happened simply because no one cared enough to stop it. Not england, not france, not the United States of america, czechoslovakia was not defendant, the tracks to auschwitz were not bombed in the early nazi laws were received with the feeblest of international protest. It is not fair to say that the world did not care at all, but somehow there is something more important to prioritize yet today here we sit in the department of justice in a room dedicated to americas ambassador to london at the start of the Second World War to devote a full day of the business of Law Enforcement apparatus, the most important and powerful nation in the world to seeking ways to fight antisemitism. We will be addressed by the top officials in the administration, this is truly Something Worthy of reflection and celebration. It is not 1939 but it is 2000 when an ugly and violent waiver antisemitism struck france and Government Officials refused to acknowledge the issue and instead labeled it will begin is a or, quote, the regrettable importation of the arabisraeli conflict in france. Is a 2015 when the Uk Labour Party which for generations was the traditional political home of british jews morphed into a Political Party so rife with institutional antisemitism that a majority of englands jews said they would consider fleeing the country where that party to take power. It is 2019 where in germany a nation that has done everything right to make amends for the holocaust, senior Government Official said publicly that jews should reframe from wearing identifiably jewish items because it could endanger their safety. Here at home after the events of the last year from pittsburgh to rhetoric from some elected officials, it is not 1939 but it is 2019 and that is cause enough for concern. Consider the state of european jury where one in 3 say theyve been they dont report incidents to the police because they feel nothing will change. Consider the one third of European Jews wont where items identifying themselves as jewish out of fear for their safety. America has always been different and our Jewish Community our brothers and sisters in europe. The topic we have been asked to address is a Malevolent Force that runs counter to our nations values while protecting the right to free speech, our most cherished american freedom. I would like to touch on the chief source of antisemitism today from a global and domestic perspective and reflect a little on the balance between protecting jews and political speech and protecting speech. At h a c for 15 years we have identified three primary sources of antisemitism, antisemitism from the far right, 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, antisemitism from the right is something many of us recognize easily, charles lindbergh, henry ford, jews are powerful, jews are clannish, jews are not loyal americans, in pittsburgh we have twice witnessed the deadly consequences of this type of ideology. Increasingly divided political atmosphere bigotry flourishes on social media and the internet allows this information to spread rapidly. Cloaked in the anonymity the internet provides, and in polite society, have formed farflung communities, for bigoted derision and egging on the violent and disturbed. Many White Supremacists in the United States see jews as their primary enemy, others are secondary. In this white supremacist worldview africanamericans and other minorities were the tools used by the jewish puppeteers to demean, denigrate and defile the white race. Arthur gibson, professor of sociology at the university of dayton has that antisemitism has been the most enduring component of the white to premises worldview and its creation. It must be said the murderous antisemitic attacks in america in the last 9 months were routed and nurtured in this sector. Antisemitism from the left also played the notion of jewish power and dual loyalty, again jews were seen as the paradigmatic community embodying the advantage and to be clear is real like any nation must as criticism of the state of israel to be clear, israel like any nation does not deserve any special protection from criticism for the policy decisions that its government makes was one need only read the Israeli Press or watch its robust political process as the country goes through elections for the second time in 6 months to see such criticism. Yet when friends of israel in this country, want their loyalty of americans questions, when impossible standards are applied to israel that are not applied to any other country or when cartoons that would not have looked out of place including sinister power to the israeli Prime Minister appear in the new york times, something more never responsible criticism is taking place. We see this in many aspects of the bds movement the we will discuss today. I recognize some supporters of bds believe themselves to be simply 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 not the analogies to describe his relapse behavior toward the palestinians as they search for the most a way to attack the worlds only jewish state, democratic israel branded as fascist it becomes natural for many on the left to ignore the rights of israeli and proisrael speakers to speak up for their country, and these radical activists seek to exercise the hecklers veto on college campuses. In the most extreme cases we have seen troubling echoes of europe as some jewish students have chosen not to associate with israel for feral of ostracism or even their own personal safety. Finally one cannot have a serious and honest conversation about antisemitism without talking about antisemitism propagated in the name of islam. That is in the name of violent extremist interpretation of that abraham asked faith. Every murder of a jew on the european continent was committed by an islamist extremist. I spent a good deal of my time in muslim majority countries, have friends and family with adherence to that faith and have no out 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 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 we must be absolutely clear about the danger posed by radical islamist ideology. The sources of antisemitism outlines, let me briefly throw out three principle that should play a role in our discussion as we seek to balance antisemitism and protecting free speech. First there is no community that is benefited more from the values of freedoms provided by the First Amendment than the Jewish Community. It is the 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 rights guaranteed we will no longer merely tolerate it by benevolent rulers, we have the enshrined right to freely exercise our religion, speak out against injustice and having religion established upon us. This does not mean every assertion of free speech, protection, is the discussion cannot and should not be framed as choosing between protecting jews or the First Amendment. For one, ironically feeds into the antisemitic notion of jews controlling speech. More portly the act of protecting the First Amendment is an act for 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 conclusively demonstrate antisemitism in their own ranks is unacceptable. That is why groups like the Bipartisan Congressional Task force combat antisemitism are more important than unifies and Bridge Builders as why the newly formed congressional black jewish caucus is vital to address issues between these two communities. We can and should discuss antibds laws, educational standards, working definition of antisemitism, laws and standards, this is a battle for ideas and reassertion of common values. In a 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. A french diplomat who is a visiting fellow in the Europe Program at the center for strategic and International Studies recently wrote in the hill, quote, we must each acknowledge conceptions 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 human dignity. For historical and cultural reasons european democracies have conceived this balance a bit differently than the United States was the public promotion of nazi is him, racism and antisemitism are considered illegal in most if not all european countries. It is no longer sufficient to simply say that america is different from europe, the global struggle against antisemitism and hate, we need to spend more time talking with other nations about finding common ground. These conversations will not be easy but the defense of democracy demands no less. I dont suggest we change our own conceptions or trample on the First Amendment. Hac and i would argue against many european ideas, you global struggle requires a global strategy and these conceptions cannot be ignored. Thank you for the special invitation. I look forward to participating in the, my most and your thanks to the Justice Department for convening this important program. [applause] i want to thank the attorney general and the Justice Department for putting together this daylong conference on antisemitism. Im going to speak to what has been one of the largest and most successful policy initiatives to combat on certain manifestations, manifestations that are not like the ones we saw, truly scary calls for death, manifestations that in some ways are more difficult to deal with because they come cloaked in the mantle of human rights discussions. In the past four years, 27 american states have adopted socalled antibds laws. What these laws say is this does not ban boycotts of israel or prohibit anyone from boycotting israel. What they do say is boycotts of israel are a form of bigotry and discrimination. 27 states of classified such action discriminatory, bigoted and thus the state will not do other 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 wave of legislation, almost a groundswell. There has it shows a deep recognition by american policymakers of this close connection between bigotry, antisemitism and boycott of companies and individuals based not on what they personally have done but based on their affiliation, connection, presence in israel in 2015. This with the nation an extraordinary ways. What has been pointed out about these laws at a moment when so many things including matters related to israel and pretty much Everything Else are seen as polarizing, divisive, drive republicans and democrats apart, thats not just israel but everything in the city. These antiboycott laws have been extraordinarily bipartisan, introduced an extraordinary policy. In all 27 states that have enacted this, measures have been overwhelmingly bipartisan, and passed by overwhelming majorities and sometimes often near unanimity. Republicans and democrats in statehouses across the country, in red states and blue states and purple states of lined up and said refusing to do business with someone, a discriminatory refusal to deal with a person or entity because of their connection to israel, that is discriminatory enough but we will not prohibit it necessarily but we dont want our state taxpayer money going to subsidize that kind of activity. Invest in a pension fund in such companies and some do both. The understanding, other than actual effect is the message they send. Because too often those who wish to discriminate on the basis of israeli origin, Israeli Nationality try to take for themselves the language of human rights, we are not discriminating, we are boycotting, supposed to make some kind of different, we are doing this because we dont like they are doing bad things, they are doing bad things, we disagree with the conduct. Recently germany, canada, france, and spain have concluded that treating is release, people present in israel, have a fixed class, refusing to do business with them, what is called boycott is indeed antisemitic, a form of discrimination, we had regionally strong expressions by the german Canadian Parliament and 27 americans are saying the same thing, the same thing. Was crucial is these laws that do not in any way penalize companies for their views about israel. It is not the views about israel these laws target but economic conduct aimed at israel. Let me give you a couple examples which of the company paying the banner from its headquarters, down with is really apartheid, and a palestinian flag, they are entirely eligible for state contracts and state investments under all 27 of these laws. On the other hand if they company, not because it has any opposition to israel but because it is bleed and intimidated by boycott activists chooses to refuse to deal with israel even if they have nothing in particular while they do it they are subject to the laws, that is the case of air b b which made it completely clear a partial boycott of israel was not based on opposition to israeli policy and no ideological basis whatsoever but based on years of bullying and intimidation by boycott activists. One of the insights of the laws is 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 language i personally 02 ian anderson, lead singer of the rock than just hotel. He plays often in israel and in an interview he decried musicians who cancel their concerts because of boycott pressure. He said many bad words about that i will not repeat in the grand hall but he said they are not rocking the rules. How were they targeted . The boycott activists dont start with phonebook of rock musicians and work their way up to zz top. They see who is doing things in israel, and they target them. People who succumb to boycotts are those who already performed, done business in israel and planning to do more, they dont have a problem with israel but the social costs are so high they give up on it so that is not rock n roll. The same with Companies Like air b b which was targeted because it didnt have a problem doing business in israel and the west bank. That is why they were doing it and the goal of these campaigns was to make the costs greater then the benefits but decisions to boycott israel are not necessarily ideological decisions. When we talk about First Amendment concerns, israel is the vote to the plurality of the world choose, the only country in the world with a jewish majority. Actions taken on the basis of israeli affiliation or identity are a clear proxy for antisemitic action. It is true there are jews living elsewhere but we do not find it to be a defense does commentary conduct to say i only discriminating against the Minority Group in this one place and the rest of my business i dont discriminate against them. Partial discrimination is discrimination. I want to say how do you have a model . 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 fate will not do business with you. At around the same time the laws were being passed, 20 some states past, the federal government through an executive order propagated against president obama, past measures saying companies are free to not hire, to disseminate, to boycott people on the basis of Sexual Orientation but if you do so you are not going to do business with the federal government, youre not eligible for federal government contracts and state laws provide similar restrictions for a wide variety of status, veteran status, marital status and other status but most daily only today there are dozens of state laws and executive orders structured exactly like the antibds laws. You cannot do business with these people but we consider that bigoted and as president obama said we dont subsidize this with federal taxpayer dollars. We get into what i find perhaps the most frightening level of antisemitism in the discussion, some of the very same organizations that lobbied federal and state governments to adopt rules with groups that boycott gays are the exact same groups, challenging the constitutionality of the state antiboycott laws. It is the subject of significant litigation in 5 states to Federal District courts. One has concluded the opposite. There is no speech issue here. Deciding who you do and do not do business with his not a form of speech. There is no speech being regulated. It is refusals to deal were a form of speech all antidiscrimination law would be called into question. It is a politically motivated refusal, if we are boycotting Israeli Companies for a reason, it is not true and is not a distinction. Most of the company is pressured to boycott israel, those who these laws certainly have no explicit or implicit political agenda whatsoever and they say so. It is not to the boycotting is inherently political. It is done to win favor in the arab world as the ceo of orange telegram, the french Telephone Company with a hot mike at the chamber of commerce. In the case of air b b. It is not a distinction. We know it is not a defense to be made ineligible for federal and state contracts the one boycotts on the basis of Sexual Orientation, to have an ideological problem for Sexual Orientation, what they do problematically, the political position is problematic, harmful effects, that doesnt help at all. That does not in any way preclude the application of those state laws. Sometimes they are ideological and sometimes not. The Supreme Court clearly held in rumsfeld versus fair, simply choosing not to do business with people is not speech. There are many reasons you cannot do business with them including you are not interested in their business and many other factors. If you need to have a special explanation, at the aclu, one of these cases, the plaintiff is not buying a hewlettpackard printer. Even an informed observer would not know that is a decision that would have anything to do with israel and with hewlettpackard, the action tells you nothing. It is only the explanation because hewlettpackard that is protected speech. The aclu lawsuit against these measures threaten to undermine all antidiscrimination law. All foreign sanctions law, choosing to not do business with a country or Companies Based on the country is a natural way of expressing opinion about that, isnt doing business based on the country, a natural way of express and approval of that country. All someone would have to do, im not doing business with iran because i want to make one in the oil sector. That i support the iranian revolution. Such an idea was never suggested, it goes against everything we know. The antibds laws provided valuable protection and valuable message boycotting based on israel is antisemitic and discriminatory. There is a conscious effort to buy major organizations to do something even scarier, to create a second class tier discrimination. All dissemination can be protected from denial of state contracts with connections to the jewish state. That would create the most dangerous double standard of all. [applause] i want to pick up on what you said and do you believe boycotting is First Amendment protected political speech . I am hesitant to weigh in on that. It is outside my lane but i think it raises difficult issues. You can see some context in which a decision to take some kind of action would be a reflection of belief and for the government to prohibit you from engaging in a particular conduct where it is reflective of a believer theres an issue but on the other end, federal government generally has broad contracting authority, a line of cases that affirm that. Jean makes a strong case for his position but i think it raises significant and interesting issues and i would need to look at it more carefully. I want to ask you now, eugene. Respond to something from an aclu former aclu attorney who wrote this on jack waltons blog and i want your response as well. Ordinary public accommodation laws regulate routine economics, buying and selling of goods which is not generally antibds statutes, a key form expression with political boycotts because of its message. You address the broader point but i want to nail down this idea that isnt there a difference between boycotting an individual american citizen for their sexual preference, their gender, their race, their religion and boycotting a country which happens all the time . Certainly i am sure i think there ought to be more boycotts of iran or china. There is a question whether there should or shouldnt be and another question could the government regulate it. I want to Say Something important about these laws. These laws are not about boycotts of the state of israel. These are boycotts as the laws themselves say, persons or companies doing business in the state of israel and territories under its control so because of that characteristic, under the laws people are not going to be disbarred from state contracts because they dont want to enter defense contracts with the state of israel is that is understood. It is not the state of israel that is on the protected end of these laws, it is for example take air b b example, one of the more open and publicly discussed issues. Who was on the other end of the air b b boycott . People who own small rental units, 200 owners of small accommodations listed on air b b, how is that different from boycotting people on the basis of Sexual Orientation . Just so i understand, the primary boycott would be fine, the secondary boycott is a problem. Defend how you define primary and secondary. In the bds movement the primary target is people because of their connection to israel. That is exactly the target. Unlike the Arab League Boycott which sought to Boycott Companies doing business with the companies in the state of israel, hear the first order target are companies that happen to be operated or doing business in that have an Israeli National character. Right. I guess, let me ask you this. Do you believe boycott is political speech and should be protected by the First Amendment . Boycott is another word for refusing to do business. The Supreme Court told us the answer to that in rumsfeld versus fair, and association of law schools had what they called a boycott of military recruiters. Why do that . They disagree with the militarys policies and they said we are boycotting military recruiters. The Supreme Court said your position on the military recruitment of homosexuals, that is free speech, whatever you say about that but you are not inviting them to your job fair. That is not inherently expressive. Why not . It doesnt tell us anything. That is why you had to explain why you were doing it. They came to a job fair, not all employers, why are some employers not there . You chose not to do business with them. They have to make a point to say we are not including them because we disagree with them but the actual conduct is itself tells you nothing. That is the thing about this, conducts, refusal to deal is not expensive. What do you make of this . You cross a certain line if you are imposing penalties on companies that engage in business with israel and the lines have been drawn. What do you think . This is somewhat far afield but i will say taking a small step aside from the boycott, negative reinforcement of relationships. Theres a lot you can do to promote behavior and the type of speech that is more healthy things like engaging with Civil Society and those who speak out against the trend with specific people, specific countries, in the region as well as here. That is hopefully not too far but more in line with what we believe the government can more safely and certainly effectively do as well. This is about the First Amendment which is a check on what government can do but there is the concept of free speech, and this is a topic of this particular panel so i want this to go down in the last few minutes so is there a point at which you have to tolerate antisemitism because free speech is too important . Where would you draw that line and how would you address it . I would distinguish sharply between actual conduct which is in speech, refusing to deal a speech no matter how unpleasant so i think in the campus context which we will address later, one is required to and should be vastly tolerant to speeches and demonstrations which make jewish students very uncomfortable and very unhappy, that is carried out on campus, pure speech because students dont have money to boycott, that kind of activity may make people extremely unhappy. Something not just in the name of the First Amendment but in terms of values of discourse and protecting ourselves from becoming overly vulnerable safe space inhabitants the we have to toughen ourselves against but when it crosses the line, they stand on now worse footing than anyone else. I was taken by the remarks of mister hardy about the responsibility of the social media platforms especially to be much more assertive in imposing certain guidelines. I recognize there are First Amendment constraints to go in that direction. There will be social pressure, actions, communities, the general public and influence on haters and against the haters the we have to rely on but it will be a combination of 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 assertive behavior of these platforms that will make a difference and also important to our friends around the world, when we complain to governments about levels of hate inciting actions against our community they often throw this back at us and say do something about the social media platforms that are based in your country. Im glad to see the United States is taking a serious stab at this. Some of the points gene raised, an issue we have seen more broadly which is when you have divisive issues whether it is foreign interference, election interference, antisemitism, boycotts of israel, what is the proper role of the government, the government can speak, we have the government can approach social media companies, disclose information about things happening on social media to disclose information about election interference in those types of issues, a very difficult line to draw to determine when the government can play a productive role versus counterproductive role. When the government singles out election interference that could be controversial, it is a significant issue to consider the blowback. By disposing that is going to make it better or worse and even engage in that exercise the government has to be in a position going into that to have the confidence of the public to be operating under consistent frameworks and guidelines consistent with the First Amendment and so i think this is just something we are seeing across a range of issues and is relevant to this context as well. We are now out of time. There are many reasons sociological, historical and others, america is the greatest safe haven for the jews in world history, chief among them the First Amendment protection and the First Amendment culture which flourishes but when hatred comes from Foreign Government mixed with social media, there are many points of legal intervention the Us Government can play. It is not about somebody on the Street Corner shouting something, not about someone with a mimeograph machine, in many cases Foreign Governments, foreign entities with modern communication based on what the government does have a role to play. Please thank our panel. Into thins three president ial leadership surveys taken between 2000, and 2017, Grover Cleveland drop 17 to 23rd pl. Ulysses s grant makes the most erratic rise of all the president s going from the 31st of the 22nd spot. Learned that and more about the lives and leadership skills of 44 chief executives in cspans the president s. It is great vacation rating available, and cspan. Org the president s. The u. S. Census director testified before the House Oversight committee on preparations for the 2020 census. This is an hour and a half. Good afternoon, welcome, thank you for coming, welcome to the subcommittee hearing on the status of the 2020 census. I want to welcome a new member