Live stream at the Museum Institute. Org and those of you joining us on cspan2. Id have you with us. The museum and its programs in the Museum Institute comprised the only organization the world dedicated to Free Expression the five freedoms of the First Amendment to religion, speech, press and assembly and petition. We work to ensure fundamental freedoms remain strong and protected both today and for future generations. Exhibit, education effort online and in person. We hope and form and remind all of us have the important thing at the same time the fragility of those basic human rights to express ideas, to express opinions, to worship freely. We hope that we help you at where the freedom and the meaning of freedom in an age of technological innovation. By embracing the role committed to open a robust discussion they engage and we hope the central debates of our time including the future of Investigative Journalism between National Security privacy, role of religious freedom and the role of free press and expression worldwide. We gather today to recall one year ago on june the seventh paris invaded the offices of a newspaper Charlie Hebdo. In the name of the terrorist that punishing the staff for perceived blasphemy a satirical cartoons of the prophet mohammed, 12 people died, were murdered. But in that process, and those murders the concept of Free Expression worldwide is a challenge. After the initial terror attack there were many reactions, most immediately millions in france and around the world adopted the slogan as we see on a tshirt here or sweatshirt here i am charlie is an expression of support for those journalists and others who died in the attack, but also for the concept of Free Expression and also perhaps the right to offend. Elsewhere, those stats were seen as the inevitable outcome if not the appropriate function to a perceived blasphemy. In this past year, dose responses have all continued. Theyve been increased support for Free Expression, but also restrictions on muslims in france and elsewhere in the world and how they practice their faith. Newline some freedom of expression and even immigration. In the u. S. In terms of the First Amendment, a call for a Gold Standard that has kept the government from restraining free speech is there a need to revisit in a time when terrorists can reach out via the web electronically rather than being physically present. Before we move into our discussion, we should also note this is the 75th anniversary of another event, one that marks a more hopeful moment if not. For freedom and Free Expression and that is u. S. President Franklin Roosevelts four freedoms speech delivered january 6th 1941. At the time those freedoms of the freedom of speech, freedom from want and freedom from fear were voiced at a time when the world stood under it to both world war i. America would enter to a little less than 12 months later. But those four freedoms symbolized what the goal of the United States and ultimately the allies than what was to become the United Nations stood for in that fight. Theyve incorporated human rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. A former colleague of ours, paul spero now heads the fdr president ial museum in new york and in a bath this morning he wrote he should once again resort to brutal oppression and terrorism to achieve their goals as democracy and if in journalism are under attack from extremists around the globe and even surveillance and technology threaten individual liberties, freedom of expression, the bold vision of these freedoms is as vital as it was 25 years ago. I would only add this five freedoms of the First Amendment and after the terror attacks are a nation and a city intrinsically tied to liberty. Those cowardly acts still think to diminish our democratic rights and freedom of expression. The Museum Institute reports borders in the Washington Foreign Law Society are pleased to present the program today. Really we hope to discuss the issues raised by this terrible incident one day short of a year ago. It is for me the embodiment of the best response on these attacks that the marketplace of ideas still exist and that we can have a robust discussion worldwide about the very basic rights and freedoms and humanity that held true in 1791, 1941 and again in 2016. But that, let me present our moderator, delphine halgand. Thank you, gene for all of your amazing work and all the amazing work here at the museum and the Museum Institute to champion the First Amendment freedom. Thank you for hosting us in thank you for organizing up with Reporters Without Borders and the Washington Society to commemorate today the First Anniversary of the tragedy. As you know, Reporters Without Borders is the largest press Freedom Organization in the world. All around the World Network of local journalists reporting for us in 130 countries in order to monitor all press freedom violations. Actually, one year ago i was working in paris on january 7 and 1 year after i still dont have the right words to express the shock. We have automatic weapons in paris was something we could hardly mention and paris was attacked again. We were even more hurt just a few months ago. We actually observed that these last years have been marked by an extreme level of violence targeting journalists. We all have in mind the carefully staged the heading of journalists of the attacks or the increase of kidnapping. 110 journalists have been killed in 2015, 110. The countries where syria, iraq and france. So i look forward to our discussion today. I really want to thank you for being with us via skype from paris and of course i would start with her today to hear from of course. So in a sense today, we want to discuss what has changed for freedom of expression, freedom of the press and in the u. S. And around the world. The religion of what are the difference between freedom of expression and france and the u. S. . What are the red line, how has the national how should we respond to the information were launched by social media. That is some of the question that i look forward to discussion. I want to introduce you to a very well renowned journalist. She is the editor of Charlie Hebdo. And Salman Rushdie, this is a really book. So actually, the book is available in english so i invite you to read it and its really important to read it. So actually, just after the attacks, Charlie Hebdo has been portrayed by some people as islam a photo. When they came here and the u. S. , actually they pointed out that in 10 years between 2005 and 2015, it is approximately only there were a related to education. So i just think it is important to start by seeing what itd and how the staff is today, are they still under Police Protection and then i will ask you to talk to us about how the french press react. The first, yes, can you explain briefly what is Charlie Hebdo. Thank you so much for giving me the possibility to speak about this newspaper. All the religion before. So it is not only the newspaper that use new that is islam a fallback all religions including islam. Charlie hebdo is also noted in france as one of the newspapers during the 80s and 90s because before all the movement within and they took from [inaudible] from people that are there today. What is private is this is incredibly painful. When i has to expand again and again, they are openminded and strongly, strongly open to the most brilliant, talented guy ive ever known. People can twist out of the context. This is actually what those people are doing. I really want to insist on not only unprofessional it is not only wrong, it is dangerous because this world with the security attention and the newspaper wants to be able from judaism and christian is on and by calling them his it is really, really dangerous. It is putting a target on the head. It is hard kill those people. It is maybe going to kill tomorrow the other islamaphobic. And how is Charlie Hebdo living today . They are living in because the prediction of Charlie Hebdo has been targeted by al qaeda and now today, but also the very famous politician for everyone who is going to kill him. We are in the situation today just again the islamic islamaphobic of who they are. If you want to target the real racism, it does exist the one fighting against not only you should face antimuslim. It is not a phobia against islam. It is something we all want to fight. Thank you. I want you to go into more of what you explain in your essay. But you can translate. Can you tell us what you mean exactly . One of the most dangerous journalists we face today in the world is not only some intimidation coming from states. We know that. We know how to react to that. But it is probably even worse. The intimidation coming from movement on the ground or maybe like isis terrorist state and will kill to silence you, to forbid you to treat and today among those who died that you did mention, most of them the groups. So we are really in the middle because we are facing and being freedom, freedom of speech, freedom also to fight against the freedom to fight against terrorism. But at the same time, our First Priority is to stay alive. When youre a journalist and many papers on the Salman Rushdie affair as a capitulation, i did follow so many accusation. But what did change this year as before i was used to the life and pakistan between actually using india, which is facing the threat in london. So you see more and more it is not only living in the democratic adventures. I would add that which is more painful as it is so well explained. What is the more painful part is not only that she have to face this threat and to that the Police Protection and not be able to free any more. But when youre hearing commands from the democrats, not only the fanatics played their role. The democrats are helping. They are being provocative and necessarily i think it is a great transition point to the point i wanted to raise with robert cohen river. It recently you worked on many cases related to the limitation of free speech on american university, which could seem very weird from friends to hear about that. But actually there is a lot of free speech and is last years. Would you say that the u. S. Are becoming excessively politically correct or how dgc freedom of expression and freedom of depressed evil in the u. S. This last year . Great question. Thank you for that. I think there is a real connection between what is going on on american campuses and what we see is a global phenomenon and discussions about the meaning and extent of freedom of expression. The question comes down to the right to offend or do you protect the right not to be offended . The First Amendment to the u. S. Constitution is predicated on decisions that have reinforced the notion that we dont have freedom unless there is a freedom to offend and that has been decided and cases involving many different scenarios over the years that all of our freedoms depend on being able to protect the rights of people who offend us the most. But i think it is important to stress that freedom of expression is a much bigger concept of what the First Amendment provides. The First Amendment is a local ordinance in United States. We are very proud of it. We think it is a model for how to attack freedom of expression. It is a broader concept and just let the law provides chemical systems around the world have various kinds of protections for freedom of expression including the one and the European Convention of human rights which provides other interests against the primary concern in freedom of expression. To measure the impact on free speech overall, gets to the issue of global intimidation that we heard about. That is bigger than a legal issue and to really assess the health of freedom of expression, you have to look first at the legal structures, but secondly at the level of courage that citizens are willing to exercise. There are very frightening unintimidating fact yours. What was known in america and one of the hecklers veto has become the assassins veto. That was a terrific concept that evolved during the civil rights area where people were threatened to silence. And they are trying to make their point. But now its become much more sinister and much more deadly with the notion of the assassins veto. I think it is a natural question to ask how courageous are we being when it comes to those expressions. It is one thing to whether Charlie Biden is quite another. If your Editorial Board decides not to publish any of the images as most u. S. Newspapers have not. In the wake of all of the events in paris. And so, i think it is important how do you explain that . People are scared. There is a global intimidation. You can see it not just in that example, but an example like the disruption of a premier of the film the interview after north korea threatened retaliation if this silly parody made american theaters. I bought a copy of the cd. I figured it was my duty to do so in light of everything. Not a great movie, but im glad i saw it. You know, you have to ask yourself, what if other basic freedoms were threatened by threats of violence. Foreign powers or individuals in Foreign Governments decided that other aspects of the First Amendment were simply things they couldnt tolerate. What if, for example, a Foreign Government or foreign terrorist decided it really offends them as people attend Church Services in the United States. Or anywhere. How would we assess the behavior of people if they decided im sorry, i cant go to church. They said they would hurt me. It is understandable to be afraid when there are real threats and there are real threats. But if we dont find them kind of collective courage, we lose freedom of expression regardless of what the law says. Thank you both. I would maybe turn now to sunday, the other frenchy at the table with me. You are an adjunct professor at university of Washington College and the French Institute of studies. You recently translated into french by religious book and i guess with your background they would have been married of legal matters. I would come to the professor a new and nasty to explain to us the differences between freedom of expression, freedom of the press in france and the u. S. Tell us about the prosecution we are seen in france and been Charlie Hebdo has been prosecuted many times. The beginning is actually to look at to detect themselves. If you look at the First Amendment, that is very unique way of expressing freedom of speech. When you look at the declaration of the rights of man, you have a very different form of expressing speech. No one shall be discounted in the policy of decision. However [inaudible] it is more the actual freedom of speech ends to speak right and frame with freedom. And will be designed in very different ways to express the basic freedom. And then the facts you have, 1981 which was the framework statute and freedom of the press. What you see is that it has remained quite unchanged and one very important date is made teammate team. It is the statute and the statute and is so creative and the form of 1991 and racist hate should. Adult perceived as with dairy good intention. It explains freedom of expression. It creates a situation and we went to a situation which is not what we face with the plumber phobia islamaphobic. It is and to express her political acts. The Chilling Effect of the islamaphobia, they criticize me. It is not labeled racism. In fact. , the whole unique community in a way that is what we see. The expression of racism. In fact, it is more leftism. It is the Chilling Effects of people that say you cannot criticize then you add on top of that another tendency, which i think is something from the Global Attitude and the American Post europe, which is the speech of many. When you see money is equated with speech, you have basically what flows, which separates freely around the world. In fact, it is considered the movement. You need to limit the flow that comes from saudi arabia is in fact freedom of religion. So we see it is a slippery slope. So would you say there is no limit to the First Amendment freedom. And some critics will say people are too interested in an absolutist view of the First Amendment. It is more pejorative than it is an argument because i dont know of Court Decisions, and the Court Decisions that defend the First Amendment as an absolute freedom. Frankly i dont know of any serious people who defend on that basis either. You cant go into a bank and handed no to the tellers as does give me all your money protected by the First Amendment because after all, all you have done is use your words. There are limits by the rule of law. The way that line has been charmed by the courts has typically been whether it is a threat of violence. So the test for incitement, for example, is whether or not the speaker intends to bring about an immediate violent breach of peace and whether or not those words are likely to cause that immediate breach of peace. There are certain very specific categories that the court has said are unprotected by the First Amendment over the years. Cases have refined that list and narrative quite a bit over the years. That is in sharp contrast to what you see under human rights, for example, instead of having a limited list of words that are types of speech not protected, you have sort of an amorphous and possibly at any list of concepts that are not protected by the First Amendment. The governments ability to regulate speech in the United States based on content discovered by a standard called strict screwed a which puts the burden on the government to prove various a compelling need to restrict speech and requires the government to use the least restrictive means of restricting speech whereas in europe the concept is called proportionality and you have a measure of appreciation were the European Court of human rights also read air on the side of government being able to enforce laws and whatever the National Interest was. There are different ways of looking at the two. We are on the side of protect speech rather than air on the side of government power. So its not an absolute view. There is a more speech protective you and the rest of the world. Baby lets go to the immediate reporter here. You covered the industry and the political work. Im curious if your views on how religion is being covered during the campaign. Two religious correctness. Where are we . How do you see this debate . Before i start i want to say if you want to read an expert, politico. Edu, we actually just today published it. I highly recommend, but also by the ebook as well. It has been an incredibly fascinating time on the campaign trail, things you never thought would be sad and fed by candidates and candidates that would somehow still be candidate. It has really been fascinating. In a way you find yourself it is almost like weve said a catch22, where on one hand obviously a lot of these candidates want to protect free speech and freedom of religion, but they are calling for a database of a certain religion and in terms of how the media covers it, granted i am done. I have a cover that many elections. I dont think the media has ever been put in a situation where they find themselves wanting to be object. But having to cover something with a straight face that they might find it seen and only in the last couple months and the media start to react and what some people might consider a spade a spade get you still see that restricting themselves, holding themselves back a little bit because of the sanctity of the object goodness of the press in the United States, which is different from europe where people were reporters feel like so much more willing to state what they view as ridiculous or not whereas in the United States we have you could almost consider journalism , the subject of journalist of religion. Some people adhere to it to say i am an objective journalist. I will never say who i vote for, whether registered. I can say some say it is ridiculous. And then you have this new journalist who we have seen. The editor in chief has said you on social media as a reporter are allowed to call donald trump are racist if you believe so because what he has said is racist. Do you think donald trump could have been prosecuted for hate . Gene, you are i am a big fan of gene. Gene is now the head and the chief operating officer did begin institute for 45 years. You are one of the founders of the usa today and the National Column called inside the First Amendment. Lets go inside the First Amendment. How do you see this adventure of religious correctness in the media. We have freedom to offend. The i mentioned certainly the region boasted here to provide lifetime. We started out and the First Amendment was adopted to these vitriolic editors who sometimes find that the other candidates themselves. I disagree just a touch on the idea that editors didnt publish the cartoons either in 2005 in 2006 when they first came to the danish press in europe and began around the time of Charlie Hebdo. I think that the editorial process they are in the First Amendment freedom to publish that almost in a perverse way allows you not to publish good if we are honest in 2006, after the initial publishing in denmark about the muslim prophet mohammed, much of that publication came about to show that you could to stand up to laws that were in place are laws that have been in place of repeal that someone would fear will come back. There is almost a lack of a journalistic reason, but there is something more of a statement tuesday i could publish for obvious reasons. Having the right to publish gives you the freedom not to publish. How you tell the story without publishing the cover of Charlie Hebdo . Again, after the killings, you have to show the cover. I participated in a discussion. Many did not. The decision initially and to some degree with the cover would say what editors always do, which is that while offend a sizable or some portion of my readership. I can describe those original cartoons in a manner that let people understand without having to necessarily publish them. I also draw the distinction between cable news where this was repeated over and over again for an utterly familiar with those cartoons. There was no need therefore understanding. There was no benefit of understanding. So the First Amendment exactly says to editors and still does in the United States, you have this right to make a decision about what youll published yet when it comes to blasphemy, we have no effective blasphemy laws in the u. S. And i think the solution has been unlike in europe where there is it worries me a little bit about this call to reexamine the presentday standards that there is a necessity for the lott to step in. We relied on the marketplace of ideas no matter how offensive, no matter what the repugnant repellent language or imagery that might be put out, absent a clear and present danger, the immediate realistic threat, the answer is more speech, not less. The restriction inevitably to me produces this pushback may glorify the speaker. It has shown effective and you will not stamp out an idea. If i didnt publish that cartoon as an editor and a logistic ty, no reason to do this other than molding, illinois. But if you didnt, you did that with the certainty there is absolutely no barrier to 95 of your audience see the industry. Some editors chose to take the issue we wont put them on the front page image or an image that is static that youre not a willing recipient but well give you a link to a website where you can be an active person. Again, some people criticize that is cowardly for ducking the issue. There was some purchase from some editors who said some editors to satisfy them in the in the wrapper on a table or invisible, people can be an unwilling person seem not. If you make the decision to look, fine. We will provide it for you. If i could just pick up on your point, first the notion of whether or not journalism much must have the pretense of objectivity. I wonder where its a show make up now that we need him so desperately. Can you imagine covering this president ial campaign . It would be priceless. The closest thing weve had to this is johns direct and sadly he is no longer on the daily show. With respect to the right not to publish, obviously the right to speak and to write not to speak. And eight of these countries are members of the european union, but, of course, we think of bangladesh, saudi arabia where the blocker was sentenced for insulting islam to 1000 lashes. Were talking about these against our selfcensorship which is lest we forget in the last, just and this year we the people in bangladesh hacked to death in different circumstances for raising questions about religion. The intimidation is not as you would really note, limited to just journalists being afraid but theres this larger threat of anyone who speaks out. Thats not just focus on islam because these sort of the antiblasphemy notions infect all kinds of national laws. In october of this last year osha Supreme Court upheld a 1200 euro fighter against she said the bible was written by people drunk with wine and smoking some stuff and she believes more in dinosaurs than in the bible. That by the way was a failed as being a perfectly acceptable law. The monty python classic was banned in certain countries. As a matter fact it was banned in norway and sweden they ran it so funny it was banned in norway. So yet is kind of off that exist, and the kind of malleable protections of freedom of expression on the European Convention uphold this kind of laws. Again its not confined to just islam. Round in my observations about why, i think that as these threats increased as we see this isnt just the threat of the moment i think it is probably the more necessity to simply to publish. I think im generally in favor of publishing everything but i suspect editors would say balancing the idea of a pending some in the audience. Its such an ongoing, continuing and growing threat across the line to thank editors probably make some different decisions that he might have made a year ago because the context is so different, this necessity to stand up to what is clearly now not just an isolated incident or twotime kind of but not this constant push to restrain can restrict and intimidate. And i ask caroline a question . Guest. Caroline, in your opinion to a u. S. A. Newspaper such as the new kind of publishing the cartoons . Or do you feel as though in the aftermath, i know you refer to this i end it is said that you feel in the aftermath they should have as this will get you as a show of solidarity . Or as you said they would link to coverage of it elsewhere so as to not to publish it then sells . No. I would ask that [inaudible] when we decided 2006 to publish it was for the pleasure just for you to know, my since ive seen those cartoons before the prophet mohammed were what appeared because an iranian colleague of my ditch of his cartoons and asked me if Charlie Hebdo wanted to publish them. I didnt go to them at the time. Maybe its really for the debate but in Charlie Hebdo we have our own publication. We dont need to publish those captions. But three months after that when a campaign to kill the cartoonist, the Death Threats against the person started worldwide when some embassy was burned in syria, and i ran it at all actually they were under death threat because of those captions. Our decision in Charlie Hebdo was journalistically, it was just as they were going to speak about this, but how we can speak about it without showing the caption . Its just not showing any sense, from the journalist point of view. One of my colleagues had been killed in the name of [inaudible] to see the cover of Charlie Hebdo is going to enter back. When i did see the cover was really the sweetest one in the world, i meet again, mohammed saying, crying and saying everything is forgiven. We did see the cartoons they did start to treat without showing it. Sorry, this is my cat. I found myself in a strange position after very, very hard day being interviewed, hearing from 1 million times more critics about this caption that no one was showing. That you did not have judgment about that. And when i tried some additional because i want to just to suggest that people have their own idea on the caption. This one saw me and plus they did express they did express they apologized not for printing allies but for the believers who could be shocked by the almost a Charlie Hebdo. Can you imagine what is the message out that . The message is what Charlie Hebdo is doing is wrong, theyre doing so horrible that you cannot even see come we cannot show with him tv. New york times the is the caption out there about again mohammed. Unbelievable paper against the Charlie Hebdo. [inaudible] it was completely what we have done. They refused to show the caption of course. For example, when there is another blasphemy case, we did a second painting. Wicked in your times . They did speak about the polemic and, of course, the ditch of the painting, which is having blasphemy are blasphemy the homeless catholic extremist. So my question is, why the New York Times issuing a caption, a painting when they do often catholic extremist . And white is not doing it when they do offend muslim extremist . The explanation to that is fear. The fact that you can be killed for that. I dont have any problem that it didnt show the cover of Charlie Hebdo. My colleagues have been killed [inaudible] they are so afraid. But at least they admit they didnt show the cover of Charlie Hebdo because they are too afraid. This is the only honesty. Were asking for actually. I just want to say we received some criticism when we posted that cover the day after it was published. The only explanation, or not even explanation, but after i had was that understand where publishing this for the information of the purpose of defamation, not console. We post front page at the front of rebuilding every single day that are newsworthy. And particularly which is the International Publications and this was clearly newsworthy and we felt it was a necessity to do that. Thankfully weve not been subjected to at least get to the threats that you faced and your colleagues have faced. I thought that was an important distinction to make, but our intent was information to whether it was satire, whether to provoke discussion, it was a legitimate purpose to inform people and we dont have to be out there all the width of the front pages of the world reporting the incident. Actually theres one last issue i wanted to discuss with all of you which is kind of National Security instincts and impacts the consequences weve seen since the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the terrorist attacks in november attacks with the New York Times yesterday published an opinion piece expressing these extreme concerns towards the push to Civil Liberties in france and we want to ask the question of, are we going into war french patriot act . Did we learn anything from what happened in the u. S. With serbian flows . And have you seen influx in the u. S. , National Securities abusing freedoms and how it impacts of journalists . Should we start with caroline, bob . On trees in terms of the election, since recovering candidacy. Weve seen this, some candidates come out and say they would restore some of the now limited surveillance proposals. I suppose all over the map but is there a general trend in what candidates today, do they feel what they must say by National Security, even at the cost of limiting some freedoms and . I think the trend i think the trend i see result is that they reduce whatever is mr. To keep people safe. Thats the theme of this election is fear. That is, its fear of the unknown, fear of muslims. Its fear of black lives matters, activist. Its just fear. Fear which translates into anger. Thats the overall theme weve seen is like it, well do whatever it takes to keep you safe. When you get into the nittygritty of thats when candidates and voters get uncomfortable because they said i do want to touch me but after an attack happens they said how did we not know this is going to happen. Why are you not tracking them as opposed to the . The . Fear always the roads First Amendment values. Weve seen at a number of National Crisis that was what after 9 11. The National Security agency apparatus that was built up into vacuum in all of the metadata from phone records. While it look like were on a course towards some direction towards that, we still added Current Administration those issuing subpoenas for journalists and any in history of threatening prosecutions under the espionage act. Finally, the nsa program has ended. That debate has been refreshed by the attack in paris and other events so that you now have president ial candidates saying its absolutely mistake to rein in the nsa, that we need to all kinds of limits, including having registration for people of a certain faith and so one. Fear definitely is the theme and it has an adverse impact on Civil Liberties. What did you see the debate in france and the french press of like National Security forces basic freedoms . As you said, we love to debate. Be sure that we debate a lot about those measures. Its kind of on see most of the french are really more concerned about facing the next attack and preventing. Because we know that terrorism, problem radicals, almost 3000 in syria we can come back and get a terrorist attack. And we know that the cat again [laughter] terrorist attack. Cat. Only for guys into more than one of the people. So also the First Priority of most of the french is to have a better intelligence service. We can present that. But on the left, mostly on the left of course we are very concerned about not going too far in the name of this. No, visually important security situation. For example, there is the debate about shall we honor, but emergency state measures inside the constitution . So yes, we continue to debate. From a journalistic point of view, we are quite well protected. Today if i can put my situation to the situation of many friends i have, i know in the 90s they were under the stress of the terrorist. And at the same time they were with this totalitarian state, under the hedge, we can do a lot of abuse in the name of fighting terrorism. We are not to do in that situation. We can trust the state to be quite [inaudible] the situation where more word about of course is if one day you can imagine that if that terrorist attacks are continuing every month, in the few years i dont know if we can be able to continue to stop the rising of the extreme right. I dont know. Causing people to really exhausted. [inaudible] donald trump just entered the campaign, he things because theyre muslims. Of course, he will be under persecution from its just something you are not seeing any campaign today. It is just insane. [laughter] you studied pretty precisely the danger of the new security laws in france. So what are your main concerns . First, i mean, its massive whats going on right now because you have a project of reforming the constitution which basically was announced a couple of days after the attack in november 13. That project contains two important measures. One which could strip citizenship, and another which i think is even more important which would screen, shield the search and seizures at night. That was a taboo and french law. No search and seizure between 10 p. M. And 6 a. M. And they want to shield those search and seizures from them. This is really something, something, its heavy. If we look at the number of statutes that have been passed on antiterrorism, i mean, its actually one statute of antiterrorism per year. And we have anyone which is announced next year, but we have statute and intelligence that was passed in april which basically amounts of the french government to place a secret, couldve called for a black box for internet provider. Basically to have access to all the metadata of, i mean, all the french public. Then you have the statute indecent or 2014 which was passed because a lot of youth, young radicals are going to fight. That statute that created the offense of individual terrorism, which basically for an american audience is basically to say that conspiracy equates to only one person. Thats how inventive the government is. And if you look, you had another statute after the case in france that was company, those assassinations of soldiers and Jewish Population in 2012. You had many, many, many statutes, not as, at least, me, i think youre for just on antiterrorism. The common point between all those statutes, and thats where we see the biggest threat is, in fact, more and more we are moving to criminalize not activity, but intention. This is where you are. I meet this is where we are engaged on a very slippery slope. Its changed from criminal law which was based on the retribution to a criminal law which is based on some form of what we call try to basically preempt, so its a productive criminal law. This is really the trinket if you look at all those statutes its always the collecting more data to preempt the action. In fact, we translate, its that we use in fact for example, in the law, another statute, november 2014 which extends the state of emergency until february 26. You have change of term from the prior order on 1955 in a state of emergency. The important term is to substitute the behavior. You have serious reasons to determine that an activity, a behavior is potentially dangerous, you can therefore search and seizure. This is much more important. I think will have to say goodbye to our cspan audience, but, of course, now we can welcome us gems from the audience. If theres any questions. We would invite you to come to microphones on either side of the room, if there are questions. If id perhaps, you mentioned activity versus intention. And yes, i think we phrase it conduct versus ideas. Beyond touch of a continuum from conduct towards to thought. I think again one of the examples that are of history going back to the sedition act but attempts by the great liberator lincoln to restrain newspapers bursting ideas around world war i, world war ii, we see these tend to respond to fear by this sort of governmental intention to limit somehow the idea by preventing or jailing or imprisoning or banning the practitioners of the people who proposed those ideas. Again and again was on the best idea we dont like us to express the ideas would you like it has some currency. We did a program in this room not long ago on battling isis in terms of the ability of isis to capture the attention of the world through the internet. Weve done a program with the fbi director here in about the catechism efforts. You come back to what the subject i. For more information that is posited, at least truthfully, is the best counter to all of this. Thats restrain, to ban is either ineffective in the short or in the longterm. We learned that their history. I think thats one of the great things that as we take the lessons of Charlie Hebdo, even facing these tragic murderers, and act by terrorists, is we cannot surrender the idea of safety over the idea of freedom. It has to be our ultimate defense. We know from history that ultimate is what triumphs. That translates beyond just safety but also to the question of offensiveness. I think you take the notion of the antidote to bad speech be more speak and take an example like the Westboro Baptist church. This, of course, the people who were not aware of this this cold from kansas simply that all of the ales we face as a nation or to the fact that were too tolerant on homosexuality and so the method of combating that was to protest the military funerals and other been using very hateful things. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether or not their speech was too outrageous and horrible to be protected. It takes that notion that you cant hate speech and distills it into a pure form. The question is how you deal with that. To begin with you to ask yourself arguably persuading anybody of anything . You take those messages and its osha the market place of ideas isnt just the message that goes out until. The market place of ideas is not just what they say but what other say in response to what the audience hears and comes away with. And so allowing these people to spew this hatred didnt slow the drive in the United States ports america called the. It didnt cause people to be less tolerant. Instead people solvin solve ther what they were and make their own decisions. And in terms for the best answer for hate speech being one is whenever they would protest we see people with signs saying really fun and outrageous things in response. But more importantly when the page youre of that church died, outside his funeral you at protesters not in protest of the people stand with signs saying we are sorry for your loss what that response could there be speak with i think will take the question and then ask you do some Closing Remarks for the last point you want to make today. Im a fellow at the Newseum Institute and a professor at Catholic University law school. I wanted to ask you about, most of the discussion debate has focused on the victims. And what id like to ask you to address is why havent we seen more coverage of the criminals . I believe the professor mentioned question about these are criminals who are doing, they are murderers. They attack the same weekend, they attacked a jewish grocery store, and so why are we sitting in depth coverage of the isis is . The assumption appears to be that they are right wingers but we dont really know who they are. What i wonder is why the press is about recovering the isis is. I would argue the press has been covering the isis is. Maybe one of the Biggest Barriers perhaps it is the access. Its very difficult to get into syria and iraq were a lot of these militants are but i would argue there hav has been some gt coverage. One that pops to mind maybe because conference of the author, the Huffington Post published an investigative piece into the mothers of some of these europeans and to have gone, the become isis militants and how that process happen and why it happened. I think we are starting to see more of it but i think you are right there should be more coverage of the but think a lot of it is just the barriers to being able to go there and live through it and be able to go there and get access to the. I think certain outlets has done a lot of great coverage, getting in there, buzzfeed as well. Spewing the atlantic has a big investigation with isis really wants spent and also theres a real change in the culture of the building of journalists to function across the planet. Terrorism is a thing 40 , people were murdered directly up with good call terrace. And that is a journalist in the past where the mechanism by which your message got out. And so they were sort of a neutral party even if they were naturally neutral but they were seen as a way to get your message out, particularly if you were an Insurgent Group we did have the power of the government to control or to always insert themselves into the meat of the country or region. You needed those reports to come in and talk to them. Reports could go into an in camera of the rebellion or to a Group Company of a terrorist group is invited and because i was i got your message out. Now was not even in neutral scrums dance anymore. It mightve been needed in the past. They are not an attack against your inability to control the message about a group of to go directly via the web to take that message out. One of the limitations has come up ironically as was living in the committee more information faster to greater audience is the stability of individual terrorist groups or whatever to get our message out. The majority of working churlish or no longer that necessity. Youre really a threat. I think thats also prevented a number of people from going into places where the ultimate violence is occurring. At reporters at Reporters Without Borders we describe how isis has a book in nigeria, restricting the access to journalist, controlling the media, developing their own media actually journalist becomes targets and files how ve becomes the message, special violence against journalists. And i do in this published the kind of command of isis toward journalist, special work in the zone they control. One of the First Amendments or commandments, journalist will write against the islamist state are considered enemy soldiers. That just put you in the perspective of this group. Group. And i to say that the fact it was only propose within the pentagon on how to have what we would, critical embedded journalist actually identified journals as potential combatants because of the potential for them not to write on script. That was withdrawn and summative proposed that an abusive develop its own Media Relations guidelines. Was a lot less pejorative and a figure only banned from going. There was no intention of our but still it was that attitude that can be is not an antagonist and the data flow of information from the free flow of information is somehow to be feared. You have had a lot of portrait of a lone wolf, particularly. [inaudible] in fact what i would say is the obstacles about who is a candidate for radicalization. He identified that, in fact, i mean, to say that its not radicalization of islamism but the islamization of radicalization. You have to particular groups that are concerned from french people actually in new york that do more like the second generation, and the converts. Which already converted in the 19th. They were large part of those who are going to fight in global jihad. So i think this is for a while very interesting in this respect. So i think it will be time to conclude that i want to thank you again for staying with us through sky. I wish you wouldve been with us but i know you are really very demanded these days and i really to give my best regards and all the best for the days to come in france. Thank you again. I dont know if you have a few words to say but i want to thank hadas, bob, gene and renaud for being here today. I want to thank all of you for followed us today for this discussion, and hopefully we will continue to discuss these freedoms actively. Thank you. [applause]