even prior to our affiliation as an actual chapter. it is something if you don't know the work that penn does. it is linked to what we're talking about tonight in many ways. an amazing organization that advocates for authors and freedom of the press and all kinds of important things that are tied to the mission that we have as well. penn is a membership driven program and organization. if you don't know their work i would invite you to go to pen.org. every day something is happening that we would it probably know about were not for the work that is happening here. if you go to the website. you get 20% off your membership. support the great work that these organizations do. tonight, we will be talking about the ceo of penn america. a friend and someone i very much look up to as my leader. i've have the chance to talk to some the authors over the past month i'm always thrilled when someone else wants to take that opportunity away from me. i actually get to watch and enjoy in the event instead of having to run it. my friend dr. john shuman is not only a longtime friends of suzanne. but john is also board member of the tulsa literary commission. is a great all-around guy. advocate for the arts. john will take the reins. we invite you to put those into the q&a here. we will do as many of those as we can. i would say by the way it does something i love. it has something in it that pisses off everybody in the best possible way. to make us question what we think of the freedom and what we believe in at the core of all of this. if you haven't have a chance to get the book. we will do that several times through the talk tonight. i bake big welcome and thank you to suzanne and john shuman. >> welcome suzanne. it's fun to be in tulsa even though i'm not in tulsa. at some point we definitely want to get you here. i really like the book. i was so impressed i'm not in any way a lawyer or legal scholar. but you are. in some ways the second half of the book you cite very many supreme court cases. that was one area you focus on a little bit on the book. as college campuses and freedom of speech and call out culture. i sort of knew i didn't know it was this term call in. could you differentiate each wing the culture and what you hope people do with call in. >> we don't want to work on campuses. they become somewhat alarmed by the witness of the arising generation i can understand why. they tend to hear free speech intervals that are revoked. the professor or the other students it's free speech and the university protects it because it's free speech. but if you hear that only invoked in that context. you can see why someone might become dubious. that's actually one of the reasons i wrote the book. when you believe in the principle of free speech. what makes a society. i think it is extremely important that we find ways to reach this rising generation and when it comes to callouts and call ins. just to ground a little bit. my interpretation of a lot of the controversies is that there is a tension between the drive the students and many faculty had to render the campus a more equal place and to eradicate the legacy. they are so stubborn in this country and we are now reckoning with in a new level. sometimes that effort as noble as it is can veer across the double yellow line into a degree where it comes to seem that the best thing to do to foster a sense of belonging among students and marginalized groups. it would be to ban or punish speech. you can understand why that comes up. they really has to do with how you respond to speech that you find offensive. so as a professor this is a common scenario. they will verbalize the n-word in class it happens all over the country. they may be quoting james baldwin or mark twain. they may be teaching a law school class about the doctrine of fighting words. and try to give an example. what we find. is that they have a very strong reaction to this. they think it's objectionable no matter what. in the doesn't matter what the purpose is. that they didn't mean any offense. the question it doesn't have to be inward. what do you do. and a call out is to publicly shame the person it could be at the petition or through social media. or face-to-face confrontation. but it's something that is visible to everyone. a call and is a different approach. it is the behind the scenes. you're approaching someone privately. luckily you've offended me you may not realize how your words came across. but not to shame. it really depends on the circumstance whether you think you can get through to the person was this intentional or unintentional. were people hurt by the words and do they need to hear your ally. that is a public demonstration of the support. here are the criteria you can use to determine which of these approaches makes more sense depending on the circumstances. you mention apologies. and actually you have a pretty nice short chapter on the includes apologies. what are the components of a good apology or a true apology. i think our culture and our news media. our politicians for example. they're very insincere apologies. it is true. and i think. the result of that is there is very little space for apology and forgiveness and some of the free-speech battles. to me a convincing apology is one that really accepts blamed blame for what you did. you are not apologizing just because someone else was hurt or bothered but rather because you acknowledge that you did something wrong. it has to be encompassing. it can't be clearly it delineated. or drawing sharp lines about what you are waiting for. and needs to be. more encompassing. it has to be searching in the sense that you are willing to acknowledge that what you said even if you didn't intend it to be racist. maybe it does reflect your upbringing or background. in some instances it may entail outreach to a group with which you had had limited contact. you don't really know about the lgbt community and there's some work to be done one example just in recent days what i call pseudo- apology alexandria boccaccio cortez was called a misogynist slur by a representative from florida. he called to apologize but in so doing he denied having said it. went on and on about the fact that he has a daughter and wife. he is someone that is good to women. she scared secured that in her apology rebuttal. on the floor of the congress. that was an impressive speech. let's talk more about the broader culture and when we talk about a callout. there is the idea of canceled culture. where we have these tools now with social media in particular. suddenly it 70 does say something offensive. very quickly there can be what feels like a storm of protest essentially there is a cry out to cancel that person. some of this of course is involved in the me to movement. legal calls to try people. there are many examples that you try in the book. how we can protect free speech but also be mindful. the term is used so at last thickly. everything from as you said instances in the me to movement. where they had been convicted of crimes. they get exile from the culture. i don't think anybody takes much issue with that. someone tweets out something that is seen as contrary to the movement to defund the police or is construed with a sympathy towards transgender individuals. and maybe that wasn't the intent. it can in turn evoke this huge backlash. and not only are they stigmatized by anybody who engages with them the stigma carries over. it is enforced isolation that extends to the social circles and professional circles i think that phenomenon is destructive. there is a kind of enforcement where you don't adhere to it. you put your own retention at risk as well. i think that is a level of canceled culture that concerns people. and it's also for an indefinite duration. one mistake that an editor makes publishing a piece. that was highly controversial. and then not only with the editor within a couple of days. but the publications to which he had contributed for years we can't publish you anymore. you became kind of untouchable. in his case i don't think it's permanent. i think it's incumbent on institutions when it does happen create some on ramps so that people are not effectively silenced and marginalized forever. we have a very a current situation in tulsa that i would like to ask you about. around the time of juneteenth president trump is can hold a rally here that was controversial because of the pandemic and the idea of the large public gathering. what happened was there were many people in the black community and also allies who painted black lives matter on a stretch of greenwood avenue. and then it has been there for two months now. it's been a place of healing and gathering until recently. the have of the tulsa republican party. they wanted to paint back the blue or baby lives matter. and then it went on where there was actually some defacement of the black lives matter with the blue line. the city council is stacking the mayor with what to do. could you help us sort through that. it's complicated. it connects to these protests that have happened around the country in connection with monuments and names. the debate over whether to rename the houses. what messaging they should be putting forward collectively and how the statements of value are. who gets to decide what the statement of values are and when they should change. what is up for debate. i think those questions are not really matters with free expression. a community can't change its mind if they no longer want to have a statue of robert e lee. that's not infringing on anyone's rights. i take it with a municipal decision. it's on the street there. i think you as ever in charge of that meant municipality should have the right to decide what expression is can be conveyed in those public spaces that are under their control. if the messaging that you've chosen neglects the role or importance of another institution. we want that reflected in some way. i don't think that is a free expression right. it might be a right of us a sort to be recognized and acknowledged. it may make some sense to try to find a way to do that. that is a discussion here in new york as well. you want a level of equilibrium between the message of black lives matter but not completely under rent cutting the role of police. oftentimes what we find. if you can get people hereby planting the blue line through our message was not as something that is acceptable. and talk through what they are trying to achieve. sometimes you can find a solution that would be acceptable. it's definitely of the moment. i think our mayor in our city council are paralyzed. the city lawyer has actually declared its illegal point of street art and graffiti. that's where some of the trouble lies with the city ordinance. see mac mike that is the different situation. nonetheless the city may want to decide. this is not the moment. that is symbolic given the history of tulsa. that's not the right answer for this moment. i went to turn to this whole idea of information and state control you talk both your work at penn america and also in the book about china. i was not aware of the fact that china in its constitution as you point out in practice. they can be further from that. at penn america you have the list of 80 or so examples of how china oppresses people artist, journalist. people who try to tell the truth. you don't see that getting better anytime soon. this morning i was woken up by a message where last night in hong kong they arrested a major media tycoon. it's part of the crackdown that is happening in hong kong with the in action of a new national security law. if you go there or went there at least a few years ago it feels like a very open place has wonderful universities. human rights lawyers. it has been the place where all the western media organizations would have their staff headquartered. it was so much freer than china. in beijing right now is just creeping down in a very harsh way. i was called about how journalists could get lawyers in international legal assistance. it's a very sad situation. beijing's arm is getting longer and longer. beijing and the chinese government had semi- fatal investors that are now powerbrokers in hollywood as well as through access. the world's second and soon to be the world's largest. hollywood studios want their movies to be shown in china. and they're willing to give up a lot. that means surrendering the right to criticize. it's a bargain they are willing to make. how the same thing goes on in the gaming industry. chinese students who pay full freight and become a major source of revenue. there are strings attached to that. not just what goes on inside china which at penn america we had been can turned with for a long time their growing influence around the world as a superpower and an economic force. and in this approach to free expression that really takes the words on the page of their own law and the cans all meaning from them. sticking for second with the china example. they are willing to make that compromise in order to access the chinese market. our technology companies agree also to chinese censorship in order to enter the chinese market. you talk at some length about the technology companies and how both we can hold that accountable. i wasn't really aware i know a lot about the criticism of facebook but i wasn't aware that he have in 2019 put forth the oversight board. forty people to be on this. that is their preferred term of a citizen where this board could essentially decide almost offloading in the sense the responsibility to have facebook not propagate false information for example. where is facebook in the discussion. the four big tech companies all testified remotely. has that been moved ahead at all. those major u.s. tech companies are not in china in any meaningful way because of the constraints that were on them. the power that holds to requisition any user data that it may choose. it happens ten or 12 years ago when the companies were in china in the early days. there was a case of yahoo. the requisition. the person was sent to jail. they were not able to figure out a way around that. they had exited china for now. we've done a lot of work at penn america. underscoring that there is no way to have a shred of credibility on free expression issues. while operating inside china. now that's become an issue for hong kong as well. on the one hand we should be leery of these massive companies that try to control. they were once performed by newspapers and magazines. with the 70s or 80s. they are rolled up in one. family album. i think we do need to be leery about giving them unfettered jurisdiction. their algorithms. they can elevate the most provocative outlandish spear c theory. other kinds of within the platform. there is a lot about this platform that we can't trust and need to keep a very sharp eye on. we do need to hold them accountable and asked them to do more in terms of addressing the way in which online content is so harmful. this information. in the context of covid-19. it is undercutting is undercutting our democracy. suppressing the vote. all sorts of things. we do need to play a stronger role. in moderating them. from regulators. now on both sides of the aisle. with that. we need to create failsafe. in a corrective so as inevitably there are more false positives it is they get taken down. people that believe that. they can actually get a human being on the line to make their case. it does not exist today. almost no customer service. you ask about the content oversight board. what it will do is look at the most borderline questions. should that be taken off facebook. in the line drawn situation. so that they are not forced to render all of those decisions themselves. and they have a measure of deniability. has the potential to be positive. they have not started. they haven't started the work yet. i think the most important aspect of it. a jurisprudence. the public decisions that you and i will be able to look at. what's can happen next with the given area of context. how much content is being taken down. this is one small step. on the part of the public into researchers. i'm assuming you finished a manuscript for this. you wrote an article title that was given the title. a coronavirus casualty. i'm wondering what your thoughts are about this. we've have a difficult time community public health. in there is so much misinformation. and in fact misinformation about that. it is the science is going on in real-time. what would you like to see in a robust democracy. i want to put words in your mouth. we would all fight for truth. and we just quash some of these falsehoods. i think there's a couple interesting things going on. one thing i find alarming the president has played a big role in this. there has been a really glaring erosion. i think that's part of the reason why there has been so much confusion on what the advices. people just don't trust that the doctors in public officials were saying our schools can take over. we're in great danger nonetheless. the showing of distress and institutions. the considerable undercutting of health authority. in the leaders. you can kind of feel the pain in their grimace. he says something outlandish. under normal circumstances. they would be exiled. in trying to shape the policy. i can understand the bargain bargaining that they make. i think people do not know where to turn. some error on the side of caution. there is no consensus about who you can trust. more of a qualified success. where the platforms had been very aggressive. they were relied heavily on algorithms to do it. in part the moderators can't. they also elevated credible information if you search on facebook or google you will see the information coming up to the top of your feet. it's demonstrated that they have a greater ability to control content on their platform than many people previously believed. there are difficult line drying questions. children are immune from the virus. you can draw a direct link. they will now take it down. it may go too far. what if there's a dr. and they witnessed a particular type of treatment working. it hasn't been verified by the who at this point. i think a lot of it should be there. you know what you hear on facebook is an entirely definitive. there are some there's some difficult line drying questions. what is missing from the picture is the recourse for people who believe their content is unjustifiably been taken down. they have taken down reams of covid-19 related misinformation. by and large very good things. we ought to have a failsafe to make sure it doesn't go too far. one of the main themes that runs through the book is the first amendment. i'm curious. you are a trained lawyer and prior to your work with penn america would you have considered yourself there. with the first amendment scholars. until i read the book i never really thought it would be that way. you're certainly doing an excellent job in marketing all of the case law. so good in terms of what were grappling with. or safe spaces on campus. some of our battles today actually barely implicate the first amendment. that's how we were all trained in elementary school. the first amendment's prohibition. it is very important. it doesn't solve many of the issues that were grappling with today. i argue as we as citizens actually need to take up the mantle of defending free speech. we can't rely on the courts or the lawyers in cases where government and prevent intervention is not the problem. it's the nature of the social media. or excessive will goodness in the classroom. and the chilling effect that can have. as an important -- and important amendment into how we understand our free speech rights and what it will take to uphold them. it is not enough to simply rely on the first amendment. there are a few things if someone is not a scholar that has come up against this. very important things for me to understand. including a simple inventory of what the exception for the first amendment is. there is libel and defamation. a number of other categories that are well developed. particularly for young people to feel free speech and doesn't do enough to protect them. if you can argue that we should allow for more encroachments on free speech. that's helpful to understand which ones are permitted under the constitution in the case law as of today. that's something i set out. this is the first amendment. several categories of important inception. it follows part of that. and doesn't read like a 20th centuries american history. those well articulated exceptions. it was having no legal backgrounds. they actually wrote another book. called presumed equal. i thought it was so interesting. you and a colleague if i understood correctly you queried many female attorneys about what their experiences were. and i was wondering if you could to share about that experience. it seems like ancient history at this point. it is embarrassing to admit. basically before the internets. we did a mailed in a survey of women at large law firms. we asked him about sexism and and opportunities for advancement. we would wait and link these firms. into taking a look at these issues. and making change and doing better for their women employees. it was quite effective. it was very simple. we later ended up publishing as a book. we rated and ranked these firms. they can of sartre's gambling. i would say the lesson of it though. the law association which is what we were a part of. needed to commit to and be funded to do that project every two or three years. we actually ended up doing it twice. could you ever carry it on forward after the work. they did it one more time. it is students. it's like a club like that is adamant. and how much energy is they have. it's not something you can dictate into perpetuity. they go over the top. the harvard seal of approval. you had have a fascinating career of course your career is the ceo of penn america. you have a lot of government experience as well. i was wondering if you could share with our audience. you worked with united nations including this amazing thing that you did. i still cannot understand. when you think about the word arrears. one of your jobs became rectifying the arrearage at the united nations. can you tell us about that experience? the very end of the clinton administration and have been accumulated over the years through various congressional withholdings and basically a refusal to pay certain dues that we owed. the big bill had built up. every meeting we went into. you would pay your dues on time in full and without conditions. before we could open up our mouth and talk about a rock or any other issue. we are in the longest time of sustained history. we have a law that have been passed that said we could pay back the bulk of our arrears only if we could get the un membership to agree to rewrite it system basically said we would pay less or a lesser share of the u.s. budget going forward. we have to get that a meat agreement. it was not a popular policy. and the challenge was to get this agreement. it was sort of a professional challenge. it literally had to be consensus of a hundred 92 countries. especially to last pay less. we have to sort of get it through by hook or crook. and figuring that out. i traveled all over the world. you just got to work with every single delegation at the un big and small because there was all affection. we succeeded in the end. we got the deal. it was very exciting. that is just amazing. you can get three or four countries to agree on something. i still think that should go down in world history. i still get calls of when the u.s. is thinking about the arrears schedule is up how is this done. there is some institutional memory about it. let's come back to the current book that were talking about. i'm wondering if you wouldn't mind you can ask this in soundbite interviews. what's nice about the book and a nice edited feature. at the end of each chapter you have really good bullet point summaries and then the outline is flushed out. could you just give our audience some of the general principles of that you recommend for daring to speak eventually. it is important that you be open-minded. but put yourself in the position of the listener. be sympathetic and apathetic. what are some of the bullet point principles that you get ask about and every one of these interviews. i think you had put your nail on the head. with the idea that living in our increasingly diverse society. a big part of that. you have to be cause neck net of who is in the audience. it's not the 1950s where you are writing for a newspaper that has a readership that consists of the 20,000 people in your town and the demographics of him. that is not how our system works anymore. as cannot go to a much more diverse audience. with people of all kinds of backgrounds or interests. you have to think through. particularly most of us are not intentionally trying to offend people. you actually need to go out and understand something about this audience. with the competent competition is. being your own editor. you think about the role that they have historically played. in pointing out where things may be subject to interpretation. well had to internalize that function for ourselves. when were speaking take that extra level of care. the duty of care. it escalates the larger the platform you have. what you say around your dinner table might be one thing. or you're giving a media interview it's quite different. you are representing the aforethought and awareness you're talking about. where you're not an expert. when one is speaking about something. that is not your bailiwick. or a community that you're not part of. i think the burden is heightened in that situation. maybe you want to run it by somebody who has that expertise. to make sure that it's can the land in a way that is intended. i think exercise free speech responsibly in this reversed world. and does require an extra level of care and forethought. we need to be willing to do the work of making difficult arguments and putting forward unpopular ideas. there are ways of doing it that can help you get your message across without it being imputed by misperceptions. people being offended and you can neutralize a lot of the hospitality. if you anticipate the counter argument. if you avoid unintentional offense. there are ways of making this argument they give you a better shot at being heard and actually persuading someone. what i don't want to see is people retreat. it's too difficult. too much risk of blowback. no one appreciate my wayne in police reform. were israel palestine. or even electoral politics. it's kate quite understandable that people turn the other way. the risk of getting into the interaction seems so high. that we support one another to make it difficult arguments. and we are willing ourselves there. even when we know they may be controversial. you mentioned the pulpit for the podium that one has. it's important to think about. where you are in terms of who your particular audiences i couldn't help but think of larry summers who previously was president of harvard university. if you could just share what he said and why it was important that people are calling for him to resign from the position. >> he basically called into question whether women have the same natural aptitude as men when it comes to math and science in suggested that some research. i believe firmly that type of research and conversation should not be off-limits. i don't think the best interest to bury answer is to bury it and never be talked about again. i think people should be able to debate it. it's hard to meet for me to believe that that is really that persuasive. he spoke as the president of harvard university. and carried all of the authority and the ways of that position. how could women in the university not wonder whether he thought they have the equivalent talent and aptitude of their male counterparts. his ability to run the institution. equal opportunity to women on the faculty. i think it was called into question. when you have an institutional leader through something they say undercuts the confidence that they can leave the university that the institution stands for. i was in his case kind of fatal to his leadership. it's a very harsh consequence for speech. i think the stakes are higher the more lofty your position as. the duty of care has to be stronger. back when he was on the faculty. but he have to recognize as the university president that you no longer head that leeway. and it can be construed in a way that could undermined a significant segment of the population that you serve and represent as president. lets and on one other example of the college president and this is one i actually wasn't aware of until you brought it to my attention either was or is the president and the university of florida. he handled an incident where richard spencer was invited to speak on campus. as a public university in the university of florida they could not elect to bar spencer from speaking but they gave it as a shining example. of how leadership should respond in the situation. it was a set of controversies a couple years ago where you had richard spencer he was just a garden propriety provocateur. insisting on speaking and sometimes where possible they have to list an invitation from a student group. sometimes they would just booked an auditorium where they could. their purpose was to be shut down. what they wanted more than anything else and this happened to milo was for the university to call it off and insist that they couldn't speak so that they could then become a great champion of free speech and sue the university. grandstand and rally their followers. this is part of what gave free speech a bad name on many campuses over a. of time but what we advocated in pen america and i think where they did while was to avoid falling into that trap. and not give the spencers in the annapolis says of the world a ratification of being shut down but instead say okay you come speak on campus let me make plans. in no respect constitutes the a ratification of you or your message. when they tried to characterize it that way they shut him down. and then he did his own campaign. to reject the message. to be crystal clear. the administration and institution condemned his message. there were two things that the university leadership and this has to be able to do at one time. they have to both uphold first amendment rights. i think he did that while. this has been great. the book is absolutely fascinating. i think it comes at a very timely moment in our nations history from magic city books. in the chat there are several links you can go to. if you want to go. you can get this with pen america friends. and listen, congratulations on your book and think you so much for joining us. please stay safe with you in your family during the pandemic i note that you have an extensive virtual book to her. we were delighted that you made this virtual stop in tulsa. we hope to see you when circumstances allow. it was great to see you. i feel like i had visited your house and made a little foray into your city in your life. it is a wonderful store. we are so proud to have at chapter pen america in tulsa. >> think you everyone have a good night. here's a look at some books being published this week. chris murphy of connecticut offers his thoughts on the role of firearms. and how they affect public safety and the violence inside us. the first lady senior advisor. and why she left the administration. in her book blood and oil. they report on the life and leadership style of the crown prince. also being published this week. they were called the experience growing up gay in the midwest. and his marriage to the former democratic candidate pete be to judge. in her entertainment in government. and how to lead. carrie arsenault investigates how the hometown. affected the financial into physical well-being of the residents. with the pacific theater during world war ii. in twilight of the gods. find these titles this coming week. and watch for many of the authors in the near future on book tv. on c-span two. under weekly author interview program. new york times reporter jennifer stein our chronicles the first year of the largest class of women. there had to be a gender focus women often you didn't. many of them have to be talked into running. if that is the case with women and juergen have to recruit women directly. i talked to a woman who had run in the primary of north carolina and she was sent to see how many women especially at 50 didn't believe another woman should have this job. some of that is very regional. it's gonna take concerted effort i think. it's not just can be come on and run. there's can be we structural changes in place for that. visit our website. click on the afterwards tab near the top of the page. book tv is television for serious readers. all weekend every weekend join us again next saturday beginning at 8:00 a.m. eastern for the best and nonfiction books. .. .. congressman will hurd a a republican from texas, former cia officer and a cybersecurity expert. ashley gold of axios is our guest reporter. congressman, first off why are you not running for reelection? >> guest: i'm not running, i'm looking for to working on topics i care about. there's more than w