syria. president obama talked about the conflict during his weekly radio address. thousands are marching in brazil as the country marks its independence. union, students are protesting government and slow reform. protestors have been met with force by police in rio de janeiro. >> blockbuster details on the benghazi attack, a new book has the untold story. we'll have the authors. >> who new what when and how will that tragedy affect our embassies worldwide. >> is facebook making a lot of us depressed? could seeing friends happy pictures make people sad? >> it's well known that whites aren't permitted to say the n. word, but how about blacks? is it ok to say the word, even in private? >> welcome to consider this. we begin with benghazi and a new book and report inspired by that disaster. september 11, 2012, dozens of heavily armed militants attacked in what had become an increasingly lawless city. they were trapped in the burning building. a security team fought valiantly to save them. hours later, c.i.a. contractors were killed when a nearby c.i.a. post was attacked. as we reported last night, aljazeera investigative team obtained an independent report produced for the state department that investigated benghazi and security flaws, blaming state department officials, criticizing them for a failure to i had die deterrer rating security conditions and approving benghazi as a temporary diplomatic post at all. long standing problems were identified, including blurred lines of authority, a serious lack of accountability, no risk management model for high threat posties, no on site intelligence analysts at high risk post, inadequate training. for more, i am joined in our new york studio by the authors of a new book "under fire" the untold story of the attack in benghazi. a former diplomatic security agent and sam school katz is an expert on security issues. fred, you both describe in this book, create this incredible atmosphere of this lawless city. it's a den of thieves and spies, where all sorts of danger was present, where the british consular office had almost been attacked. the u.s. mission had a bomb on one of its walls. there were all sorts of things that were screaming out danger. why was the state department still there and why was am bass door christopher stevens there on that particular day no. >> the mystery surrounding by he involved from tripoli to ben goody on september 11 was due to open up an outdoor event for the local community. having said that, the decision to move ambassador stevens to benghazi is one that we really don't know the details surrounding that. for example, as chief of mission, the u.s. ambassador is the president's rep to that country. in essence, that's where the buck stops. he is the commander-in-chief of all official americans in country. >> with all the danger they knew was there, why was that mission even still open? >> that's the thousand pound gorilla that there's a lot of questions that still haven't been answered. there's a term we used as agents in the business of threat fatigue. after so many days of looking at threat after threat, whether it be from the c.i.a. or the state department or an intercept threat, you just get used to living and working in that kind of environment. it's like the frog in the boiling pot. >> again, this mission was not very well secured, and there is a very long and tragic history of events that americans at diplomatic facilities, including the 1979 tehran hostage taking, the bombing of beirut embassy in 1983, bombings in 1998, an attack on our consulate in saudi arabia in 2004, attacks on facilities in cairo, tunik can be kartoum and benghazi, given how often this has happened and how many commissions have been put out there to study and recommendations that occurred, how could this happen again? >> in the book, we speak to a former agent, who is a young agent on temporary assignment in beirut, cabled back to washington during the civil war there, saying that our people are being shot at, the embassy is being shelled, we have to pull out. the cable that he received back from washington was you are in lebanon or a higher purpose, a few days later, they were kidnapped and assassinated by terrorists. this has been going on for years. given that embassies are high profile, high value targets, the odds are that it will continue going on for years. the game here is a chess match. both sides, the terrorist and those involved in counter terrorism try to gauge each other and match each other's moves and figure out and guess where the next strike will come. in ben i can't sey, it was armed men with r.p.g.'s an a.k.47s, material that's available on the markets in benghazi and ultimately, they use fire as the most destructive force. >> part of the problem was there were only five young security agents to cover a fairly substantial compound there. it's hard to imagine in such a dangerous city, a security force so small could really make that much of a difference. >> in essence, there were three agents assigned to benghazi and 22 ambassador stevens protective detail. on the night of september 11, there were five altogether. one has to look at the the history of the diplomatic security service. a very small agency that doesn't get quite a lot of press and exposure. because of that, they've always, one of their cashing san francisco is they've always done very much with very little, done what they can with what they have. >> when i saw the report saying take the state department should put these best practices in place, including: i guess that's the issue with what was happening. you guys talked about it and the report talks about it, calling it a diplomatic outpost. is that what the issue is, where you have to create a diplomatic mission out of nowhere in a dangerous situation, that there's only so much securing of it that you can do? >> that's the real issue. i was hired after the beirut embassy bombings and inside the organization, we were known as the inman hires, admiral created standards, basic physical security standards that were required. >> after the beirut bombings of 1983. >> and the bombing in 1984 and we had the embassy inca wait a bombed. there were procedures mandated by congress, so what's happened over the years is the state department has by passed those congressionally mandated requirements by creating temporary waivers, in essence, signing off on authorization for official americans to work in these buildings, but they are substandard facilities. and that's to meet the needs of the diplomacy that the state department model has moved to, much like last week, we opened mogadishu. >> no governments are coming into place as a result of arab spring and catching up with that requires construction plans and site locations, and a lot of work. sometimes, for that higher purpose that i mentioned earlier, it is important that there be a u.s. presence and sometimes that presence requires that there be a temporary facility. you're kind of trying to catch up with the curve, while trying to maintain standards that in certain parts of the world as certain times and rushing into it are very difficult to maintain. >> part of the problem was you simply couldn't trust anyone on the ground. the libbens, themselves, police force, no one responded. people who were supposed to help were not around and not willing to help. >> that's one of the issues that i don't think people understand in this environment, it is the host nation's responsibility first and foremost by the vienna convention to provide adequate security for all official diplomats in country. it was the libyan government's responsibility to protect the officials in ben goody. the challenge becomes is there is no ability to train quickly enough a loyal force in order to protect your perimeter. how does the state democratic work around that is we put our special agents on the perimeter looking for bad guys, looking for preoperational surveillance activities, to be the hue and cry if you see something forming. >> some of the bad guys in this case may well have been some of the people we thought were supposed to help us? >> right, and that's just the nature of the business in this line of work. you're dealing at times in hostile environments, where you're dealing with foreign staff that for the most part is loyal to the americans they've been assisting for many, many years. occasionally, you get the bad apples in the group and move into these volatile areas that have this jihadist kind of of network, it becomes problematic. you have zero capability to do really good background checks on the people you're hiring. in most cases, you go to the foreign police and say what do you know about this person and there is nobody to go to that has intelligence. >> fighting a struggle and giving pushback, the whole point of these diplomatic missions is to be open to the people of the country they are going to and if they are behind fortresses with no access, then their mission is substantially curtailed. >> the case in point on am bass store stevens hits that point directly. he was one of those that didn't believe in sending emails and cakes out. he loved to press the flesh. he loved being in libya, and he was well beloved by the libyan people, because he really was a flag bearer for the united states of america, but with that old style of diplomacy in this day and age comes high threat. >> danger. >> sure. >> when stevens called for help and of course, all this played out in washington in the days afterwards, of course, there was the very notorious comment by then u.n. ambassador a few days after the fact that has caused controversy. let's listen to that. >> our current assessment is what happened in benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in cairo, almost a copy cat of the demonstrations against our facility in cairo, which were prompted of course, by the video. when we think transpired in been gassy is opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. they came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary libya and escalated into a much more violent episode. >> since then, it's become fairly clear that she wasn't responsible, that that's what she was told to say, that's the information she got. can you understand how it got to that point, how she got the faulty information so many days after the attack when so many people did know that it was a terrorist attack? >> the famous author has a great line where he says a desk is a dangerous place to watch the world. that's what happens inside the belt way and specifically inside washington. most people have this understanding inappropriately that cabinet level officials, individuals at the rank of susan rice or even the president is setting around making all those tactical decisions. the system is not geared to that level. the system is geared for the agents like i was to tactically deal with the problem, make notifications and at a very low level, usually in the office directive level, you have decisions that are made. in essence, whenever you get the bosses involved in these kind of issues that have snow balled to this kind of event, there's going to be these problems. >> let's go back to what happened in the mission that day, and there was true heroism on the part of the diplomatic security personnel who tried to save ambassador stevens and tried to get him out of there at great risk to themselves. >> in law enforcement, it's often said when a police officer needs backup, he calls swat or other officers and they can be minutes away orr a mile away. for many of the diplomatic security agents in hot spots around the world, assistance is an aircraft carrier that's 6,000 miles away. as a result, the agents learn to live by their wits to survive, to maximize their surroundings and to buy time. the whole embassy philosophy of security is all these doors and windows that are blast resistant that buy time so that they can wait until help comes. these five young agents that were relatively young, waged a cat and mouse game. it was a decision that they had to make, either engage the terrorists or try to save the lives of the ambassador and foreign service officer. once the attack subsided and they had the time tog in and look for the ambassador, the agents risked their lives, some suffered horrific smoke in halation in search of the ambassador. >> the c.i.a. officers that were based in tripoli got there and they got into an unbelievable firefight. >> the notion that there was no response is incorrect, because once news of the attack reached the embassy in tripoli, the c.i.a. contractors, as well as several jsoc operators did not hesitate and volunteered immediately, suited up, grabbed their gear and made plans and arrangements and coordinated their trip to benghazi. they were held up at the airport for almost four hours, but they were the only good guys in that country that could be summoned. >> by some accounts, they killed 50 militants and injured 100 others, and two of them of course died hours later on the roof of the annex when they were hit by mortars. we have a question. let's go to our social media producer. we have a question. >> that's right. fred on twitter asks why were dozens of c.i.a. agents at the benghazi consulate the night stevens was killed? >> that's one of the unsolved mysteries. one of the issues that i think that we need some help with from congress is to call c.i.a. personnel up for testimony. so far, there's only been 1v.i.a. officer testify behind closed doors that was actually in benghazi. >> they were at annex, not at the mission itself with the ambassador. >> but they did responsibility to the actual villa to help with the rescue. that's one of the points that is nothing more than speculation. it's my assessment, having worked in this environment and looked at a lot of terrorist attacks like this that this was a c.i.a. base. this is what the c.i.a. disaster, they have security officers that watch the case officers backs during those meetings. that's the g.r.s. crew. they're multi-tasking. they're training in emergency medical gear and equipment and first aid, looking for man pads and some of the surface to air missiles that had been lost. >> you say that the true story of benghazi is not one of failure or cover up. the true story is that men and women volunteered to place themselves between a bullet or a bomb in america's diplomats and interests inside one of the most dangerous and volatile locations in the world. do you see the dedication, the courage, the commitment of these diplomatic security officers as the true legacy of benghazi? >> i do, and i think it was a very honorable move on the part of the department and the administration to award the agents that were involved there for their courage and hero. >>. they did it very quietly, but i think the agents are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives. >> secretary of state john kerry has gone to visit one of the team that was severely wounded. >> that is correct. thank you very much for being here tonight. >> thank you for having us. >> we will be back with more of "consider this." >> how many times have you checked in on your facebook page? maybe you saw friends celebrating without you or someone who had a for more exciting weekend. whatever you saw schooling through your news feeds, a new study suggests the more you look at facebook, the worst you feel about yourself. why do 699 million of us worldwide log on every single day? here to discuss what's going on with facebook is peter and dr. gary small, professor of psychiatry and author of i brain, surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind. good to have you both with us. the thought of the alteration of the mind is a shocking one at times, i think and conventional wisdom tells us that being more connected to people is good for the mind, good for us. >> our brains are complicated, our minds are complicated and clearly the new technology is at her complex. we are social animals. we love to be connected. what social media allows us to do is to remain connected all the time. it just puts our urge to be close to others into high gear. now, we may crave that, and it may tweak the reward centers of our brains, but it isn't always successful in making us feel good. >> do those broader connections that constant connection also lead to shallower relationships. >> the big issue is that we're communicating in a two dimensional world. it doesn't have the same emotional impact as a face-to-face discussion. our brains have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to have these face-to-face discussions. we maintain eye contact, we notice non-verbal cues and it really causes a lot of emotional reactions that can be positive and negative. with facebook, it's a really different kind of arena, where you're constantly seeing feeds, it's a bit impersonal, doesn't have the same emotional impact. even though we're craving that connectiveness, it makes us more isolated. >> you think that facebook is essential to modern life at this point and important for businesses. you don't see it quite as negatively. >> there is a negative aspect to it. if all you're doing is staring at a screen and not interacting in the real world, and that's as simple and getting a coffee and talking to a person next to you in line, there's a lot of cues that you miss from other people and a lot of people that miss your cues, you might be depressed. there might be signs of potential violence that you don't see in front of a screen. there is a tremendous advantage to having a network and being able to utilize it for whatever reason, whether personal work, famous psychiatrist once said we covet what we know. we will go to the people we trust and ask for advice on who we should talk to, who have series to see, what job we should take. we do find people through they got works. we are a very -- we like to talk to people. we like to brag when something good happens to us and not to them, and when something bad happens to us, we like to complain and make everyone around us miserable. we do that very well. when we're at a concert, we're taking a picture and saying look where i am and where you're not. when we are on a flight and it arrives late, we tell everyone how horrible it is. >> studies can't explain why facebook can't make us happy. do people see others as make happy make them sad? >> they are just reporting the news. we can try to interpret it. yes, that can be one explanation. facebook has a tendency to have us put our best foot forward. everybody likes things. there are lots of thumbs up. that makes us feel good, but we don't see the other side of it. behind all those feel good displays on the screen are conflicts, struggles. it's human nature, items to feel better and more connected when we can share those struggles with each other. i think the media, the way it's set up, doesn't really allow itself to present those kinds of negativities. >> doesn't it present a keeping up with the jones at a higher level? >> no question about it. this was designed for college students 10 years ago, to connect and hook up and to get together. it's essentially come from dude, look at this new poster to my dorm to look at my new car. the more people you connect with, i posted last night that i'm working on slightly becoming a vegan and that i've lost weight and feel good. for all the great job, great job, it's you're not going to get enough protein. there are people who like to be miserable and have this wonderful outlet. it comes down it's a very useful tool, but it is a process. if the process of connecting with someone becomes more about the act of connecting than going out and doing something, you have a problem. when it was just about hey, do you want to meet tonight and have dinner that kind you had dinner and that was the act, great. but if the act has become hey, let's get on facebook and talk about our day back and forth, that diminishes it. if you're out with a friend and posting picture of you and him or you and her to all your other friends, the friend your out with feels less than. it's like this is supposed to be our time. >> another interesting thing found in the study was that people actually felt better on facebook when they were on facebook if they were looking at their own page, at their home page, while they were depressed using facebook at other tiles, when actually on their home page, they actually felt good. >> it's an interesting phenomenon. i don't think facebook is all bad. it does some wonderful things for us, keeps us connected in some marvelous ways. for some of us, it kind of takes over. we're not in command of it, and a very interesting study found that when somebody likes your page and this is relevant to your question, there's actually a part of your brain, that record system part of your brain lights up. the more you use facebook, the more activated that part of your brain becomes. we know the brain is very sensitive to this kind of mental training. if you repeat the process over and over again, those neurowires get very strong. my concern is that it can enslave us sometimes from going out and sitting down and having a face-to-face conversation. >> very apt title to your book. we've got a poll we conducted. >> we asked our viewers on social media this question. overall, do you think using facebook makes you less happy, 83% of you said yes, it makes you less happy, and 17% of you said no, using facebook does not make you less happy. dr. small, on that note, it is asked does facebook make people unhappy or is this external force directing unhappy people to facebook? >> that's a tough one to answer definitively. i think botherries hold. however, i've got to say this new study really tried to get behind that. the way they did their research, it suggested that facebook may very well be having that effect on people. you can always argue that unhappy people are drawn to it and misery loves company, but i think the researchers can be a negative effect. >> the researchers found no evidence that people turn to facebook when they are already lonely and depressed. >> it is a possibility. other to dos have found that those who are socialphobic will turn to the electronic media, because it's more comfortable. it's less anxiety provoking, so they're searching for this fix in their brain reward system and really not getting it. >> a study was done with 82 young duties with an average age of 19. i don't know if adults are less susceptible, but lets look at the numbers. 40% of americans, 128 million people visit facebook every day. 43% of people who ever access to the internet in the world, 1.5 billion people visit facebook every month. peter, despite those numbers, obviously, because of those numbers, despite whatever it may be making people feel, this isn't going anywhere. >> it's not. the interesting thing about it is that every once in a while, you get a bunch of people saying we're going off facebook, maquetting. they do it in sort of like i'm taking my toys and going home and the heck with you guys type of attitude. there's a joke, i'm quitting facebook and i'm going on facebook to tell everybody i'm going on facebook. they leave, go away, off for two days. going ok, i have no one to talk to. it becomes that thing if all of your friends, acquaintances, relatives are on facebook, where are you going to go? >> so i think we've reached that tipping point in terms of there really is no place to go. you're not going to have fun on linked in. you're going to go back to facebook. people going back wind up being more active than in the beginning. it's actually very true when you get a text, when you get a tweet to you, when someone tweets to you, the brain hits dopamine. the brain hits you with dopamine. it's like whoa, a tweet, you want that. >> appreciate you both being with us tonight. facebook not going anywhere. >> several states are balking at any push for tougher gun laws. voters will go to the polls to decide on recalling lawmakers who did call for stricter gun control. missouri is trying for nullification. they are poise said to enact a law that would circumstance up vent federal power under guns. federal agents could be prosecuted for trying to enforce federal gun laws. joining me is former montana governor. he signed the firearms freedom act. governor, thank you for joining us. >> great to be on. >> great to have you. you are known for being a gun loving straight talking democrat in a deeply conservative state managed to be reelected. what do you think of the efforts by missouri and other states to make federal gun regulations unenforceable in the states? >> well, what we said in montana, i guess we went first and many are modeling their law after us is simply this, if you make a gun i have not montana, sell that begun r. gun in montana, then federal gun laws ought to not apply. this goes all the way back to the federalist papers, there have been discussions about the overreach of the federal government, the commerce clause applies to this and not that. we are a nation of laws, our law has been challenged, we lost in the ninth circuit. it will go to the u.s. supreme court. if they say montana overreached, we will not be able to enforce our law. >> they used the commerce clause to shoot it down, pardon the pun. the act was fairly limited compared to what some of the other states are planning on doing with this nullification. if montana's law was stricken down by the ninth court of appeals, what chance do most of these laws have? >> probably a snowball's chance in hell, but you can't say to a state legislature you can't try. you can't pass a bill. you can't say to a governor, you shall not sign a bill. you can challenge it in the courts. that's what a count i of laws and give and take and checks and balances does. >> you know, and when you listen to what missouri plans to do, this blocking of federal agents, penalizing agents, not letting their agents cooperate with federal agents, you're talking about that balance between federal power and state power, that certainly seems to go a little bit too far, does it not? >> well, listen, when you get law enforcement that are pointing guns at one another, we certainly have gone too far. i'm not going to criticize the mississippi legislature for what they pass or don't pass. it depends on that how they enforce it and what moves forward. even in montana, people said this is nullification and on that basis, we shall secede from the union. no, we're not. that's crazy talk. we're not going to nullify federal law. we will challenge it in the courts or they will challenge state law in the courts. >> nullification is a big buzz word this year and has a lot of connotations that go beyond guns. we have two dozen states that have condoned marijuana, some allowing recreational marijuana all in di if rance of federal laws that say it's a schedule one dangerous drug. you also have at least 23 states considering bills that nullify obamacare. what do you make of that movement in general? >> i don't believe the federal government can require a person to reach into their pocket and pay an insurance company. a citizen can choose to sign up for a single pair with the government or opt out and buy private insurance. i signed a bill that we're not going to enforce the insurance mandate in montana until there is a public option. >> you're not sounding like much of a dealt. i got to tell you, there seems to be kind of a double standard here, where conservatives think these nullification laws when it comes to gun control are just fine, but democrats don't, and he then you've got the marijuana side where you've got democrats who kind of loved the state nullification laws, which would allow for marijuana legalization in some way or another, but oppose gun control legislation or nullification. >> wait, hold on there cowboy. in montana, we by referendum passed a medical marijuana bill. we had a circular sent by attorney general holder that said you states that have medical marijuana, we recognize that you will be regulating by state law and then a couple of years later, a bunch of federal thugs came and locked up a bunch of people who had been letting malty in the medical marijuana business here in montana. we get this h ebb and flow from washington, d.c. we get you are the lab stories of democracy. then they hit our petary dish. we are 50 separate states all combined in a federal government. >> what about people condoning nullification on one side depending where they are politically. you have to have some sort of consistency. >> if you take the hip credits out of politics, there ain't nobody left. just understand that. so the right gets their panties in a wad over guns and the left gets their panties in a wad over marijuana. just expect that. how about if we pass a law that says if you grow broccoli in montana and they eat that in montana, then the e.p.a. and f.d.e. have no jurisdiction. maybe the departments and republicans can come together on that one. >> the courts are going to tell you exactly what they said with respect to the guns that interstate commerce gets affected and you're not going to be able to do it. let's get back to gun control. it's taken on a whole different complexion in colorado, because they suffered from the columbine high school shooting, the aurora shooting tragedy. they supported a stricter gun control law and face reelections. >> john morrison and angela heron out of touch. gun owner a sickness from our souls. >> cleansing it doesn't come easy. >> when what do you think about what's going on in colorado. >> shocking! >> go ahead. >> shocking that east and west coast interests, in a the n.r.a. and mayor bloomberg and their money are clashing in colorado, and using it as a proxy battle for this country. if you've paid attention, in every small state, when you have a u.s. senate race, 90% of the money comes from the east and west coast and every one of these states are used as a proxy battle. it's happened before and get ready, it will be in the future. >> who's really pulling the strings there, we've got billionaires michael bloomberg, eli brode putting money in. >> john morse thinks hearing from thousands of his constituents are toxic. he'd rather do the business of new york city michael bloomberg. >> demonizing liberal money play in colorado or demonizing the n.r.a., or should they decide this on their own? >> it helps to some extent, but people in colorado will decide this on their own. what people need to know and i actually have a bachelor's degree from colorado university. colorado is the most urban tate in america. there's a higher percentage of people of colorado who live in a city relative to the rural population than any state in the union. when it comes to this discussion about guns, it usually is about urban versus rural. the culture that we have in a place like montana, we have more guns per cap at capita and less killing. >> what's the number one issue that's most important to you, gun control, obamacare, or medical marijuana? >> i think health care, of those three, health care is the most important issue. i don't believe obamacare got it completely right. it was a sellout to the insurance companies, total sell out to the pharmaceutical companies. it's going to be a better health care system, but it didn't challenge the costs. we pay more than any other industrialized country and rated 27th in the outcome. we can do better and we most certainly will in the future. >> we'll see what happens with that recall election. we thank you for your time tonight. we'll be right back. >>ure peep men are growing in stature, literally. the average male is 4 1/3 inches taller than 100 years ago. researchers compared 21-year-old men born between 1870 and 1980 from 15 european countries. their bigger height involves fewer illnesses, better sanitary conditions, improved social services. the tallest europeans, dutch men at six feet, the shortest, portuguese at 58th. researchers focused on men because there isn't enough data on women. it seems we're getting bigger in height and weight. how big a factor is height in relationships? >> 2012 study from the netherlands looked at 50,000 men and women. the ideal substitute at your is 6'3" for a man and 5'9" than a woman. females prefer someone eight inches taller and men three inches shorter. how did dudley moore become such a ladies man? one final note on height. 14.5% have all american men of six feet or taller, but among c.e.o.'s, 58%. i guess that does leave a tall order for shorter americans to overcome. >> we know the n. word is forbidden for whites, but what about blacks? a judge's decision is adding to the debate over whether it's ok to say the n. word behind closed doors. real money. victoria azarenko >> rob carmona who found the strife in east harlem in new york and helped people with troubled backgrounds get back into the workforce is paying the price after using the n. word on an african-american employee. >> both you [bleep] and i'm not saying using the [bleep] derogatory, but sometimes [bleep] act like this all the time. >> a new york jury found that rant to be hostile and discriminatory and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. he argued that the use of the word was ok because they were both black. the question we asked tonight is where do we draw the line. joining me is the director of the university's project humanity initiative. thank you all for being with us tonight. i want to start with you, lester. we listen to carmona justifying himself in court. he justified himself in court saying that the n. word tirade he had was appropriate, arguing that it can be used as a term of love and endearment when aimed at a black person and he sometime would put his arm around him and say this is my n. do you believe it's ok as long as he's using it that way. >> the context of this particular moment does not seem to be a context where his employee is being very friendly with him, so con effect means everything, and he may be able to do that behind closed doors with his buddies, but i'm not sure that the person who raised the concern is one of his buddies. >> is there a context in which the word should be used at all, kelly? >> i don't think so. i actually think this case settled that once and for all. one thing i found frustrating about this, including my own family is that you don't have the right to make that choice for me. when you say in our community we use it as a term of endearment. i don't consider it so. the fact that it's so nuanced is precisely why it's too complicated to keep it in culture. we have so many issues, aids, poverty, in equity in the educational system. i don't understand why we spend money defending a word used to degrade us like we have nothing else worth fighting for. >> i think that from a perspective of the right to for free speech that it's ok for people to use that word in private, particularly for african-americans, because they have co opted that word as a term of endearment in many ways. in the workplace, it has no place at all. i think the jury decision was absolutely spot on to that end. >> once you accept the word in any context, then it becomes a very slippery slope there, as to what it can be used and when it can't be? >> i don't know. i think that's exactly what kelly said, it's about nuance and context. if i'm talking about a slave narrative or my classroom, i teach about poets. use of performance of the word is part of the lesson, that doesn't mean we're teaching to say it. when we talk about minstrel talks of the 1800, there is a need to see the word. if you look back at some of those early documents and see that changing the spelling doesn't change the history that is associated with that word. >> $280,000 for using the word in that context, do you think that's appropriate? >> sure, because if the person were white, it would probably be more and we wouldn't have a segment on it. that's why i'm so glad this finally happened. i feel it settled the issue once and for all for everyone who said it really is ok, because we're not black. you don't get to make that choice for me. >> this was actually harassment, this was an employer harassing an employee. that was not a term of endearment. >> that's an important distinction. >> he's also a guy, 61 years old, he's worked very hard, apparently helped 50 those people from troubled backgrounds to get jobs, this is a guy who has kind of walked the walk. is that context relevant? >> no, not on excuse, that's not an excuse and not a pass, because he was harassing a person. there's also a gender dynamic, the power dynamic between employee and employer. the context that this is a workplace and a person who has the power to fire or determine something about the livelihood. the person as i read the details from the account here says the person felt offended and embarrassed and hurt. that's not colorized. >> why is there such an issue in the african-american community when you have other ethnic communities that there are also slurs in those communities, but nobody uses them as terms of endearment. >> i'm not the professor teaching the class, but there is no other word sharing this history. >> doesn't that make it more dramatic, that it has such a horrible history. >> and that's the decision in the federal court. >> why do you defend the use of the word? >> i'm not defending the word, i understand it. it's something people have to decide for themselves. kelly said you can't make that choice for me. other people feel they can make it for themselves. >> the whole argument of you can use it at home, children can't make that distinction. the reason i know is because i was walking in my neighborhood and i heard a group of kids tossing the word around. they heard it somewhere, and from someone who feels like i'm only saying it at home so it's ok. the kids don't understand the difference. >> talking about children, i want you to listen to a young boy, jonathan mccoy, an 11-year-old advocate, who believes everybody should stop using the word. >> i'm sending a message to everyone who knowingly or ignore rantly using this word to describe our people, whether gang also sta rap or those who look down on us. whatever the case, we should discontinue the use of this word. i'm petitions you to join me from eliminating this word from our vocabulary. >> how powerful is that, right? it's like the bible says, the young shall lead us, a child shall lead us. to that end, i think it's actually quite important to highlight kelly's point, we are teaching younger generations a derogatory term that was used against us 100 years ago. >> and still is. >> and co opted that in ways that are not progressive. to that end, i applaud the young boy. >> i hope it's gone in 10 years. i think we're on that road. i think this case was just the beginning. >> let's go to hermela. >> we asked our viewers should we eliminate the n. word from our vocabulary no matter our race and 82% of you said yes, we should eliminate it. 18% said no. whether we decide yes or no, i did should be across the board. what do you think about making the rules the same for everyone, no matter their race, where they are or who they're talking to? >> i guess what i don't know is how you would legislate that, because the word is not just about the word, but the word is about how we treat each other and how we feel about ourselves and each other. it really has to be about choice and the extent to which we know and understand our history, a history that cannot be rely gated to the past but that is in the present. once you know, i find it impossible to unknow that. >> what about, its use in the artistic word, it's so common in hiphop music. people can take a stand a understand not buy that. >> oprah winfrey said you cannot be her personal friend and use that word around her, period. you have to take it a step further, which is to say to your friends, jay-z, you have a responsibility to stop using this word. >> the most important thing is it's been settled in the workplace and that is a great start. >> that's true. >> we appreciate you being on and discussioning this important topic. the conversation continues on our website, facebook or google plus pages and twitter. we'll see you next time. >> welcome to al jazeera, i'm jonathan betz. secretary of state john kerry picks up where president obama drops off, in kenya, political violence forced them out of their homes but five years later they're going back. >> and the olympics will turn to japan. we'll have more on the announcement for the 2020 games and the reaction in tokyo.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Montana , East Harlem , Japan , Istanbul , Turkey , Tokyo , Missouri , Brazil , Mogadishu , Banaadir , Somalia , Madrid , Spain , Portugal , Tripoli , Tarabulus , Libya , Syria , Lebanon , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mississippi , United Kingdom , San Francisco , California , Beirut , Beyrouth , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Egypt , Kenya , Rio De Janeiro , Estado Do Rio , Netherlands , Tehran , Iran , Colorado , Saudi Arabia , Vienna , Wien , Austria , Kelly Point , Americans , America , Portuguese , British , Dutch , Libyan , American , Oprah Winfrey , Michael Bloomberg Eli , John Kerry , Dudley Moore , John Morrison , Christopher Stevens , Michael Bloomberg , John Morse , Jonathan Betz ,