greg: yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, yeah. happy monday. oh, thank you, thank you. please, just hand your gifts over to the usher. so when the presidents of harvard, mit and the university of pennsylvania are exposed as dumb, dumber and dumbest s a great day for all of us. in case you missed it, these three leading educrats were grilled by bratwurst at a tailgate by congress on the issue of genocide. specifically calling for the genocide of jews does that constitute bullying or harassment? if it is directed and severe it is harassment. so the answer is yes. it is a context-dependent decision. calling for the genocide of jews does not constitute bullying and harassment. i have not heard the calling for genocide of jews on our campus. you heard chants of infa at that time a. i heard chants which can be anti-semitic depending on the context. at harvard does calling for the general side of jews qualify as bullying or harassment yes or no. it can be depending on th
restrict you. on the practical side, however, there are companies out there that want to hear feedback. it s going to stifle. yes you are going to get rid of the obnoxious. without a real name. criticized italian restaurant across the street. how do you know it s not the italian restaurant working for business. if i choose popular science for example has gotten rid of all comments completely. put your real name on it? put my real name can i lose my jobs. it can have he negative connotations on it. how manly is it in your world to post that you have got a defective product. big deal. that s not what we re are talking about. we are talking about the people who say vial, offensive hateful things. they shouldn t be allowed to be anonymous doing it say how are or don t say those comments. the problem is the ones you restrict you restrict. you are restricting everyone. i agree there is no question the vial immature comments shouldn t be on.
balanced legal debate now. joined by defense attorney jonah spilbore and richard ross. good to have you here. good morning. we have all done things publicly. we tend to, you know, raise the bar when it comes to people attacking us. i sometimes read these things and go you know, person put a name on it but i never do that of course, that s your feeling about this? when you are in the public eye you will have people who love you and hate you. the problem the people who hate you are fewer but they are louder. when you get to post things anonymously online, they can say the most hateful, vial, defamatory things which isn t protected by the first amendment. the target has no recourse because we don t know i eat controls trols for breakfast. you can t find them. there is a way to do that if they choose ton hateful vial. i disagree. there is a difference between a legal obligation and practical implications. legal side absolutely the private company can do it.