Petition the government for redress of grievances. Floyd abrams you are book is entitled the soul of the First Amendment so what is the soul of those 45 words . Guest the sole is basically an anticensorship soul thats basically keeping the government away. Applies only to the government, not private people. The government cant do these things. E. Go cant limit freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. F at the core of it is to limit the governments role or two and then avoid a serious governmental role about what people say, how people think and the like. Host why did you think you needed to write a book about the soul of the First Amendment now . Guest i have been writing it for a few years so its not a response to the new administrator and as such. I really thought americans dont have a good enough idea of the First Amendment on how different we are than other democratic countries and the degree to which we protect freedom of speech so this book doesnt compare us to russia orrussia venezuela or ecuador. It compares us to england and canada, the countries that care about free speech but not to the same degree as a legal matter is we do. We allow speech and protect it. That would be criminal in most of the democratic world. Host use of the book wasnt written in response to any single event but are you worried about the firstout amendment when it comes to the Trump Administration . Guest certainly President Trumps said things which are worrying like the very notion of paraphrasing the press is the enemy of the people and changing libel law for example or worrying last in the sense that i think the libel law will change, more in the sense that l think it may indicate that the president is prepared to take steps in who knows what direction with respect to potentially limiting or threatening freedom of speech. The biggest concern i have now is the potential use of the espionage act which is 100 years old, phrased very broadly and could be read to significant limit or threaten coverage of National Security issues, intelligence issues and the like host and the president s first 100 days have you seen steps towards doing that . Guest certainly there have been reports that an indictment is likely of Julianne Assange and wikileaks. My hope is very critical of mr. Assange and wikileaks but i think it would be a veryry dangerous thing if we started down the road of the espionage act prosecutions however irresponsible they may be because of their use of information that they werent entitled to get in the firsthe m place. Host some of the competing interest to freedom of speech that you underscore in your book, one of those is National Security. Able lim so what is a reasonable limit when it comes to freedom of speech when it comes up against National Security . Guest look, certain types of words have never been protected. Spying is not freedom of speech and other things are not freedom of speech just because people say things. Lying in court is not freedom of speech. Its perjury. Pe people go to jail for it. The National Security area seems to me very important to keep open the means of communication to let people have their say even if sometimes it could interfere or potentially interfere with National Security and yet if its a secret of how to build an hbomb, if its a secret of weapons and the like thats a different story. Host we are talking with floyd abrams the author of the soul of the First Amendment, his new book out about the First Amendment. If you want to join the conversation democratsts 202 7488000 republicans 202 7488001 and a dependents 202 7488002. Guest personal reputation,be privacy, being left alone in that sense. There are always other examples which are real and which other countries protect a lot more than we do in this area. Europe, they have adopted a new approach which basically says if something has been written about you in the past, some real long time ago, and you are not a public official or someone running around eking election or Something Like that seeking election or Something Like that, and it is no longer relevant, whatever that means, google cannot carry it. The effect is truthful and accurate speech is banned from the one place that they get most of their information from their isp or those entities like google that provide information to a person who was involved as the driver of the car which resulted in the deaths of two passengers was written up at the time that a belgian newspaper it was over 10 years ago takeout my names and google has to do that that would be unthinkable here. We dont punish truthful speech even if it hurts or is painful. Accidents happen and it was a private person but it was a matter of Public Interest and a think here the courts would have the slightest difficulty to say thatth speech is protected by the First Amendment. When did they go up. Second half of the 20th century me and tell the american law with mike english law which was 57 states having their own libel law but more or less it was like the english with extra protections based on the First Amendment. 1964 total changed with thesu Supreme Court opinion with now President Trump or a senator would suit not onlywe do they have to show that information was false andst nei damaging but the journalist suspected what he was saying was not true in the greater interest in having more information out. To be involved in the i Supreme Court cases with Citizens United here to talk about the protections of the First Amendment new york from the line for a democrat caller good morning. Ion is my question is the declaration of independence says all human beings have inherent rights but because it is written as a limit on government powers it does not grant rights but says the government cannot take away the inherent rights son why is it that the government treats citizens differently than on citizens . As you sit there m all human beings that they have inherent rights and that is inherent from the government taking that awayso w so why does it all the sudden have more power dealing with the noncitizens . I am not sure that is true to the First Amendment in the way of rights but a noncitizens who speaks outhinko that uses what we think of as the First Amendment rights something with freedom of the press wesc dont discriminate on that sort of level but we do said those that live abroad or foreigners as a genuine at general would negative general proposition for anybody that is here. Nt good morning thank you for taking my call i do agree completely with the gentleman right now the First Amendment and all of the other amendments that we have learned i think that is very much an attack and they dont say i agree but people like ucberkeley protesting what someone is speaking about even though he has radicle crazy views we should not stop him and tell he incites people to do harmrm on others. I take what you say is exactly consistent with that First Amendment it does give them the right to protest theyre not allowed to shut them down or keep them fromp speaking and if they do and that could violate criminal laws but the wouldbe and has been a violation of the right of the speaker fore someone who invited the speaker. Those who are struggling w on a college campus. First i express my i said that the. As the last one was indicated but its with advice to present that once they start down the road youanna cannot make it entirely onesided those students that invite a ann coulter to speed the university that allows them you cannot make political distinctions. Ot do or content distinctions. Llow or for those outsiders to come here to speak it would be constitutional so once you start down the road that basically we have an open forum to allow them another mechanism so then as a generality no democratic or republican line it means it applies to everyone just the same. I believe freedom of speech that there is so much paranoia in our culture it is not practice to the degree that it could be but for the general public. What would work better . Ill think on paper and a think anything could more beautiful than our constitution and amendments but cultural psychology is incredibly powerful and as a people, going back to the 50s i think as a general psyche there is too much fear within the individual citizen and technology has added to that because people dont feel they can speakwithout without it being tracked or trace for retaliation andhi without losing things that are dear to them. It is very sad and one of the worst economies of our c country. I do think it is very serious even only one of the effects of modern technologygy for the first time in its history more people can speak through the internet or communicate with each other at the low or almostit i no cost and it is a mechanism that now makes speech available to everybody in a way thatnkable blood had been unthinkable throughout Human History and tell the development of this technology. That doesnt answer your concern about people being chilled in the exercise of their rights by what other people may think about themen d. Or say about them or do to them. Host what do you think . Could that be helpful in the United States . Basically now all European Countries are enforcing the statute of limitations on speech that is harmful to peoples reputation. So the theory is if you have done something in the past or newsworthy and that was long ago and no longer relevant to an the entity such as google should not be able to carry that. I think that is essential in that also think that one of the key components of freespeech is that that includes the right to anonymous speech although many will not allow something to be published without a name and i take to have that constitutional protection for anonymous speech to exercise that without fear is another dichotomy to put the average citizen in a terrible position. But the reason they impose these limitations and, they are limitations limitations, because theres so much anonymous speechs that has been a mood, offensive, threatening and often racist orm aiding. Terrorist introducing that they decided they needed a standard in one way to do that is asking people to identify themselves but the price tag of that is the limitation of anonymity. The soul of the First Amendment his new book is here with another 25 minutes answering your questions the you have on the First Amendment and right to free speech good morning. Caller i am an immigrant from i iraq win i lived there and i really appreciate the freedom here in United States it is totally different for me. But i have a question that i would like to understand that is considered under freespeech but what about making fun of jesus is in cartoons . Or disrespecting the flag of the United States . But that is something i dont like and many people hold the United States that is something personal and i would like to know how should someone understand that the group of people with their free speech . That is a terrific question real look forward to becoming a citizen because we protect everything you talk about all of that offensive speech insulting religious leaders leaders, burning the american flag, of we protect a great deal of things that were deeply offensive. Sometimes even a courageous all for the same reason that from the beginning of the country there has been the enormous unwillingness to allow the government to play a role of sensor. If somebody wants to attack the government they are allowed full free speech and there is a price tag for that. Ot make fu one does not make fun of hurt feelings but the way best to would finance freedom in the United States not to suppress the. Republican line. I am space for democrats. My question is you spoke earlier about a scenario where trump could have sued the New York Times if they knew they were lying at the time. Paula deen these situations of fake news better flying all over the airwaves and i am wondering is this projected by the First Amendment . With those to liberalize are not protected and libel law in particular even if they say about it a public official and it is harmful over it is about the person and it is not true true, and they know or suspect with they saying is not true then there can be aib libel case per rigo boehner liable we do have what in america but it is simply more are protective of speech than any place else in the world. So that Norman Rockwell painting on the screen can you explain that . First president Franklin Roosevelt gave the speech early of rolled whereto of freedom of speech and that was first on the list and the artist Norman Rockwellt a tn was at a town meeting in vermont a man stood up andnd to basically oppose with everybody else thought and disagreed with everyone else and theyre ready was taking him seriously. Nobody said said down and he was very impressed with that and that is the painting that he did to illustrate the nature of freedom of speech somebody speaking out alone, expressing his own views and being permitted to do that. Host he would go one to do paintings of the others and is published in the saturday evening post. , the cover. Good morning thanks for taking my call. Int i wa obviously donald trump is Proof Positive freedom of speech is alive and well i am 7d i m. Of federate i remember when kennedy was assassinated i think we see some history now that willt palin comparison to what we have already seen that mr. Trump that said the thing about veterans, john mccain pod and the heather candidates and the democratic party. It is like he proves freedom of speech is alive and well. So i believe the history we see right now over the next four years will be i opening and mindboggling at the same time. I just to believe it is alive and well. Nobody would doubt that president traduces freedom of speech. Of sp and sunday that could lead to a libel suit against him as there are people who believe strongly that things he has said, not just policyui , but when you attack individuals and say very critical things if they are not true and he knows theyre not true. President obama two weeks ago for example, would be interesting for a lawyer could he had it within his power to bring a libel suit to say that he wiretapped him . But he would have to prove president from new that it was not true or suspected that but the law listenable in a situation like that. Water for other practical reasons but it is there. Ve host the republican line. Caller good morning. And listen to the representative of the use he california berkeley defending to cancel the end poulterer speech along with other conservative speakers to say vetted san institution of learning on the battlefield but that was interesting choice of words because so Many Americans have died on the battlefield fighting to defend our rights and liberties and i would be curious to know and willing to fight for freedom of speech is there anything they are willing to fight forward just rely on others . If any place should be a refuge it should be colleges and universities referred to as institutions of Higher Learning in a fair never exposed and they never have the opportunity to learn something new. I agree. They think universities and state universities bound by the First Amendment make decisions on the Educational Value of speech and they would hope that theyon wouldnt but they have their forum to individuals to come speak they cannot bar other individuals because of the disagreements so they could have a variety of views like ann coulter or any other controversial person but in the fact is impeding access is a grave error of the university. The book is the soul of the First Amendment. Caller good morning. T in massachusetts at one point those that were assassinated on the internet a young irish stick it committed suicide. And as a Roman Catholic well as an essay roving catholic were guided by our. Conscience but the ruling on that can you inform me of your opinions . But particularly in the religious area it is fraught with difficulty then has led to opinions that is highly controversial in beecher whether individuals that not only disapprove of abortion but does they hold their deeply religious views could be asked to fill out a form and that issue is if you ask them to do anything they should not have to say or do anything. We should be able to stand in not respond even with the clarity of the language Congress Shall make no law abridging freedom of speech with the same sort of language of religion that will continue to be close and difficult issues. Can there be limits tore freedom of speech of the internet communication andhe people being able to say what they want . They are allowed to take to tell the truth but those hard questions like revenge borden. We dont know the answer the of the statutes in that area are constitutional or not because that seeks to a bay and certain types of speech so we say that is the most volatile ill so in areas in which children are tauntede been or are subjected to mistreatment verbally and are yet to be decided with all of the presumptions is in favor of free speech and government control andre limitations of the espionage act and maybe therell be a narrow exception