Kochs belief in a free and Prosperous Society. And going back to some of the last panel which i thought was excellent as well talking about removing obstacles for opportunity talking about disadvantaged, the poor. If you want to help the poor, as we do, i think probably everybody in this room does, everybody on this panel does. Theres no better way than to reform our criminal Justice System because they are the most adversely impacted by that system that is so broken. So thats one part of it. The other part is we had some negative experiences ourselves with the criminal Justice System. Back in the mid90s. That we learned from. And we wanted to see whatever we learned and how the process went for us. If its happening to a big company with a lot of resources like us whats happening to the Small Business owners whats happening to the average citizen, whats happened to the average joe in the street out there, and so that got us involved working with the nacdl, National Association of criminal defense lawyers and others, and then personally from me, im from worcester, massachusetts. And i worked in a jail when i was in college. I worked in a jail. I wasnt in jail. I worked in a jail. Lets be clear on that. But when i worked there it was the best job i had until i went to law school by the way. Tells you about some of the jobs i had. But i saw many kids i went to school with who werent the best students, who were poor, who made mistakes and then ended up in the cycle and criminal justice because they were drug addicts, some mentally ill. That left an impression on me. So for us at koch its all these things plus get back to why were all here, the bill of rights, the constitution, the first ten amendments, all of them. At least four of them deal with criminal justice issues. And they deal with between the Fourth Amendment, the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment and the eighth amendment. And then also the First Amendment because if you dont have the First Amendment, the other nine dont matter. Its all about free speech. And its all about our natural rights. Its all these rights. Our Founding Fathers may not have got it perfect, but they knew the greatest encroachment to individual liberty and freedom would come from the criminal Justice System. And they were right. Thats why were very proud and happy to partner with Anthony Ramiro in aclu, center for American Progress freedom works, you name it across the board. Well work with anyone and anybody on these issues. Beautiful. You have drawn a connection between the first and Fourth Amendments in a way i hadnt thought of but then you send us back to history. You cant have the criminal Justice System without. And the framers are clear about free speech. Mike lee when he came this was incredible, check it out on youtube, talked about the main case that enflamed the framers was the case of john wilkes who criticized the king. He wrote pam presented to criticize the king. The king writes a general warrant that doesnt specify the place to be searched or seized, identified wilkes as the author of this anonymous father and charges him with libel. The greater the truth, the worse the offense. A jury acquits him and George Camden writes paper search of private diaries o offenses both of rights of searches and seizures and freedom of thought and political dissent. I had not made that connection. Youve now laid the table for what im going to ask you, greg lukianoff. Focus more on speech off campus and weve had a great debate here, one of my tremendously fun. Tremendous debate about the european and american conceptions of free speech. And i want to set those up in a s. E. C. But take a beat on what mark said about the connection between the criminal justice amendments, the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment and to what degree that might inform fires work to stand up for free speech on campus. Sure. So im the president of fire. And we also defend due process. And i had someone who honestly i think should have known better. A professor at yale saying why are these things even connected, twie do you do these two completely unrelated things . And it was a bizarre idea to me. If you get to the fundamental liberal idea, kind of what Jonathan Roush talks about when he talks about liberal science, its about you have limitation, you have biases, youre not omniscient. We need restricting people from censoring recognizes. Its a great sense to my one fancy term i like to use ep stemmic humility. It makes all of the difference. Im afraid universities are failing to teach that wonderful and important habit. Bill mar smal, you teach at the university you teach and i i teach too. You teach too. Youre not forced to go to faculty meetings however. Talk about overincarcerations. Bill, the hate speech debate is hot right now and liberals are on both sides as we begin to tease in the last panel some traditional civil libertarians think there are due process violations in banning on popular commencement speeches and speakers, more sympathetic to the dignitary rights to use a phrase Arthur Brooks talked about. Of offended minorities and vulnerable speakers. Which side do you come down on . I come down more on the freedom of expression side, but i dont do so easily. I think if you walk into a classroom and theres a student and being subject to all kinds of ridicule because of who you are or youre being made fun of for who you are, its hard to participate in that Academic Climate in the same way you would if you were a part of the privilege class that comes in with all the power on your side. So i think a lot of these efforts are really to sort of equalize the learning environment. Protect people from hostile environments which is a very legitimate goal, one that should be followed because we need to think about the fact that the classroom doesnt effect everybody the same. The workplace doesnt effect everybody the same. When we see attacks on peoples dignity that go on, to use that language from the former panel, it weakens the educational structure. It weakens the work structure. And thats why there are protections against it. Brad, this word dignity has come up. And there is a great clash between european and american notions of free speech on the one hand and dignity on the other. And the debate is surfacing around incredible fight over what the europeans call the right to be forgotten. And this comes from the french, right of oblivion, which is very french, sort of right out of star trek. The french want to be for goaten and the americans want to be remember. If youre in europe if im in europe and one of you is tweeting right now during the panel that im doing a boring job moderating this panel, i could object that this violated my dignitary rights and google and yahoo would have to decide if im a public figure or not. If they decide im not or if the tweet is not in the public interest, they have to remove it. If they guess wrong theyre liable up to like 2 of their annual income. Which is i think 50 billion in googles case last year so were talking serious money in the case of google. Describe well, i think i want to ask you this, whos right, the americans or the europeans . [ laughter ] well, i wouldnt want to betray my country on National Television here. I think there are differing approaches to privacy and some of these issues. And, you know, i think one thing that americans are sometimes forgetting actually of late is that hard fought right to privacy. So i dont know whos better but i think theres a balance that needs to be struck and i think we may be going in a direction thats further than we would like to go. I see in the area where i work most often which is Campaign Finance, its interesting i believe in france. I dont want to be quoted on that, but i believe theres some European Countries where they say we need to know whos financing all these ads. There they say, no, you cant disclose whos financing all these ads. Its the exact opposite in order to protect the privacy of those engaged in political speech to preserve certain social interactions as well. You know, if were going to demand to judge everybody on their politics, i think society becomes a very unpleasant place to live. So i think theres much to be said for sort of keeping a greater wall of privacy around what people do. And say at any one time. Im not sure if that answers your question, but my thinking is that whichever way is the best or maybe the europeans have gone too far, i think we may be at a point now where weve gone overboard in a sort of, you know, everybodys got to know everything about everyone. Im into the sure im not sure that is healthy either. I want to focus on that in a moment. But first maybe a response. Do you want to defend a little bit of American Free speech imperialism . Absolutely. But i also want to Say Something about the academy. Because there is this idea that all of this censorship that takes place on campus, at least its done with good intentions. There are very few times when human beings act with a single intention ever. And theyre very rarely completely commendable or completely pure. I get the argument, well, campuses are trying to make places more welcoming, more inclusive. Okay. Were about to file our tenth lawsuit in a free speech Litigation Campaign and were not a litigation organization. And we have dealt with case after case where administrators have told students that they cant, for example, hand out copies of the constitution in order to honor Constitution Day without getting two weeks advance notice from a state administrator. We had a case in california, a school controlled by the First Amendment, was told not only did he have to restrict his protest to a tiny free speech zone that he had to apply for in advance to use, he had to wear a tiny free speech badge in order to use it. I understand the argument that are good intentions, but sometimes we just cant blindly trust in the good intentions of power. Bill. Well, i have to agree we cant always trust the good intentions of power. On my campus one of my faculty members has written a number of critical editorials against the governor of our state and theyre trying to take away his center and do whatever they can against him. And thats another example. Thats the mike nichols case. That is another example. I dont think we can say one side or another has a monopoly. The idea of freedom of speech we believe in it strongly until it breaks down. Then it is free speech for me and not for thee. When we really need to be able to apply it across the board. But where i have to disagree with you is where i do not think College Campuses are anything close to bastiens ofsen sorship. Are people cannot say what they want to say. At the classes i have in North Carolina and my colleagues have and elsewhere, there are open forums and people say all kinds of things. Differences of opinion are extraordinarily welcome. There may be a few instances but i dont think they give any sort of sense of climate on American Educational campuses. Mark, is it your experience that american campuses are incredible hospitable to american diversity . Diversity of opinion . No. Well, may that be an understatement. Working at koch theres a Campaign Going on run by student groups, so to speak. Im a bit cynical on it i must admit. But its called unkoch my campus. Because Charles Koch Institute and foundation are working with some educational institutions across the country as they have for many, many years funding free market courses and things on Prosperous Society, free and Prosperous Society class call liberal type. And its led to a lot of foia requests and professors teaching free economics. They want private mails and they want to know this and that. Im talk about free speech, im pretty much free speech absolutist in a lot of ways because i think they are natural rights and really the government cant restrain them because they didnt give them to us. Theyre certain unalienable rights weve been hearing about from the declaration of independence. Im fine with the student groups financed by Many Organizations that oppose koch politically and thats their right to do it. Amen. I support it. Its First Amendment. But its hypocritical when some of these student groups say when were doing it its not just because of koch, we want to point out other big interest business on campus. And theres a lot of groups on the left, a lot of wealthy people on the left that have business that are Funding University projects and programs. I dont want them to get attacked at all, but it doesnt seem anything but us is happening. I think its wrong to attack either side quite frankly. I dont think theres a lot of tolerance at least what ive seen the past few years. Brad. If i could chime in briefly. I would be i guess more skeptical than bill. I think there are things students know they cant say on campus and they do not say. As a conservative libertarian in a law School Setting where in some cases almost never hold those sorts of views ive become used to over the years to a certain ritual that occurs midway through the first semester. There will be a group of students and theyll appear in my office, four, five, three students, Something Like that. And theyll come in and its not quite clear what they want. They kind of talk about class a little bit. And they kind of do this, but they dont have any seeming objective. And then finally somebody will Say Something like what did you think about, you know, x, y or z or whatever. And i say its a load of hogwash and you can see them go we thought there was somebody we could talk to, we thought there was somebody on our side. And it starts pouring out the way they feel stifled in class that certain opinions are in fact not allowed to be authored and that theyll be ridiculed by professors and targeted by professors. I think it goes into more broadly why i think most people and most professors on campus are very good and do welcome diversity of opinion. A few people can really spoil that atmosphere. And i think in too many cases weve given heck lers veto to many places. I think in most places where Commencement Speakers are run off campus, my guess is most students would have been perfectly happy to hear them. Rather a relatively small group allowed to issue a hecklers veto and i think sometimes we need braver administrators, braver faculty who will stand up and say no this is a university and you can be exposed to different ideas that you dont agree with, even ones from the kochs. I want to interject the data in here. American University College has asked 9,000 professionals, including professors. Theyre asked this question, is it safe to hold unpopular points of view on campus . That is an incredibly soft question. Is it merely safe to hold unpopular points of view on this campus . And only 16. 7 of University Professors strongly agreed with this statement. Jonathan heit and phillip talk about how social sigh kol ji asking them to raise their hands about how many are conservative. Theres about 1,000 people in the room, only three of them raise their hand. Thats a ratio of about 267 to 1 when you subtract the other people who rose their hands. What he realize ds statistically speaking there are certainly more than just three in this room. But the fact that theyre afraid to raise their hand speaks volumes. Bill, what can explain this . You and i we teach in law schools. And i think those stats seem vaguely right in terms of the fact that conservatives seem to be a minority on faculties. Why is that . I could make an easy cut here, but im not going to on the basis of why. But i think part of the answer is people coming into academic s is do so with a certain sense of idealism that leads to left of center kind of positions. But just because people might be left of center on particular issues doesnt mean theyre intolerant and dont want to hear other ideas. I think most teachers, the ones i work with, are aware the best way to have real conversations in the classroom are to have conversations with the types that were having here in which somebody might be outnumbered threetoone, but thats okay. You want to stand up for your position, you stand up for your position. And thats a good thing. And you actually learn. I went to a very conservative law school at a very conservative time. I certainly got a lot of grief from certain faculty members on the positions i took. And i think it made me stronger in my ability to be able to articulate my views. Nicely said. All right, speaking of threetoone, the question anonymous speech has been flagged and we have to talk about Campaign Finance issues, which cut in unexpected ways. Anonymous speech, brad smith, raised it the framers were obviously centrally concerned about the main thing they wanted john wilkes to be able to have was the ability to write an anonymous pamphlet. The number was number 45. As mike lee said that number 45 was so galvanizing to the framers that they held parties where people would eat 45 ham sandwiches and drink 45 steins of beer and write 45 on the sides of their taverns. So this was an experience for them. Lets see, mark, anonymous campaign speech. Why