Transcripts For CSPAN2 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Presides Over Sha

will become. it is the affinity group of lawyers in washington d.c. and elsewhere that try to support not only arts in general, but this terrific theater in specific. as you know, tonight's argument is based on the text of william shakespea shakespeare's macbeth, it was on this very stage, a wonderful event. i'm sure many of you attended it. i want to start by thanking as the people that you will see on the stage, the people who are not on the stage, but make this possible. this event comes together in large part because there's a group of people with whom i'm honored to work, who work on coming up with the idea, which play we're going to do, figure out what the legal questions can be. these are the people who year in and year out make this possible and i realize while last winter i thank them in general, i get to be the guy and they do the hard work. thank the following people. amanda, jerry block, greg cook, carol elderbruce, nina dunn, jesse, john, karen wheeler. would you please all stand and let us thank you. [applause] so in a world beset by civil war and invasion, mack beth and his lady in a series of murders designed to further their own admissions only to plunge their lives, as you know, into madness. to ascend to power macbeth kills king duncan, but what caused him to commit this act, or did the three weird sisters, the politically correct phrase for what we used to call three witches, using macbeth as a pawn knowing they would benefit from the chaos. and to borrow from the other well-known play of the bard with the danish cast. could words, words, words, or in this particular case, three people, odd characters to be convicted for murder? we considered the culpability in the death "romeo and juliet." shakespeare's tragedies to new levels, the term that's in vogue in this town, we tonight are really on a witch hunt. [applaus [applause] >> last week we had a sponsored event. will on the hill and in d.c., they're cast as characters in a play to address current affairs. and we asked the democratic national committee and the republican national committee who might play the three witches. the dnc suggested majority leader mitch mcconnell, speaker paul ryan, and russian president vladimir putin. [applause] >> the rnc suggested senate minority leader chuck schumer, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and russian president vladimir putin. so you see, there's bipartisanship in this city after all. at the conclusion of tonight's argument you would be asked to serve as the jury and vote on the following questions, did the trial court err in convicting the three witches of king duncan's murder. if you believe that they were falsely convicted and the trial quote erred, please vote with a blue token. if you believe the decision should be upheld, please vote with a red token. please first welcome, around always to have her participation, supreme court marshal pamela tolkien. [applaus [applause] >> we could get no farther than this podium if we didn't have amazing advocates if we didn't prepare and have them endure. counsellor for the petitioners, the weird sisters, deanna mayna maynard. [applause] >> and knowing if you can defend the interests of the united states in front of the sproek supreme court day in and day out, representing scotland and kingdom should be a piece of cake, welcome donald and his associates. [applaus [applause] >> i want everyone to know that you will see an amazing amount of events occurring on the stage, but many of you know and i want to remind you that you can see another amazing piece of work that these advocates did, which is the briefs they submitted to the judges and justices prior to tonight, which on the website of the shakespeare theater and some of you have gotten e-mail links to it, i invite you, not during the performance, but sometime later to see this amazing work and find it then and let me tell you who will be the judges tonight and soon be seated by the marshal and they are supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg, who will be residing. justice steven breyer, and judge patricia mallet te. the marshal will announce the justices. [applause]. >> all rise. oh yay, oh yay, oh yay, the supreme court of scotland is now in session. ... >> and now we are ready to hear the case of scotland against the three weird sisters. [inaudible] >> may it please the court. this is truly the single greatest witchhunt in scottish history. [laughing] [applause] while others may lay claim to that distinction, believe me, believe me -- [laughing] this is a witchhunt. our clients have been convicted and sentenced to die for their religious expression. this prosecution has been fueled from the beginning by superstitious prejudices. the crown has taken advantage of the popular belief that any gathering of more than two women is a coven of witches up to no good. my colleagues and i would beg to differ. [laughing] while the sisters may seem weird to others, they did nothing remotely approaching the alleged crime. they neither solicited the murder of king duncan nor aided and abetted in it. it was macbeth who savagely murdered king duncan while the king slept in the combats old castle. and if the kingdom were looking for an accomplice, it is not the sisters they should blame. it is macbeth fiendish wife. it was her taunt and challenges to macbeth apparently fragile masculinity -- [laughing] perhaps he has small lands. [laughing] [applause] -- hands. that ultimatelydrove him to commit the murder. it was lady macbeth who, with wine, knocked out the kings chamber. it was lady macbeth who left the daggers ready when macbeth could not miss them and it was lady macbeth who said, who -- spent the sleeping room with blood. such a nasty woman. [laughing] [applause] so how did we end up here? with the true murderer beheaded and is fiendish wife and driven to death by insanity the newly proud king malcolm had to punish someone to fulfill his promise to drain the blog. [laughing] >> but the prosecutions case is full of sound and covfefe -- [laughing] signifying nothing. [inaudible] they are applauding, why? to challenge macbeth's stand, to make out what is fair, to lead him on, to lust for the throne. they conjure an image and an apparition that tells them to be bloody, bold. all that is in the record and it seems that you are ignoring it. [laughing] >> no, your honor, not at all. all the sisters did was inform him of a prophecy. they told into things. that he would be saint of calder and sometime in the hereafter he would be king. but if making such political predictions were enough to be subject to prosecution, that which had at most of the industry in this town. [laughing] the sisters prophecy is part of a long and valued tradition of truth sayers actively "speaking truth to power." but in all cases the profits are mere messengers. you can't shoot the messenger. time and again this court has made clear that for profit speech is equally protected. [laughing] >> before we go on i just he declared by something for your break never gave me the names of these three weird sisters. are we talking cam, chloe and courtney kardashian? [laughing] >> your honor is correct that the text that started it by the solicitor we prefer to go by sister one and sister to in sister three. that's of my clients prefer to be called. i think that at times the text does label them which is, but i think it's important to keep in mind that whether it's william who wrote the record or thomas as the king suggesting either way it was william r thomas and they are both men -- [laughing] and essentially this prosecution is based on sex stereotyping. >> ms. maynard, compare the witches early uttered words, there is foul and foul is fair, with king to be macbeth bright line so foul affair -- so foulest day i have not seen. the parallel between these lines is plain. does this not prove beyond a reasonable doubt a link between the two? i welcome your reply in poetic meter, too. [applause] >> i cannot do that on-the-fly. [laughing] i will give it a try. i think that the sisters here do not control the environment, and many of the charges against him essentially i think macbeth isa climate change denier. [laughing] so macbeth suggests that the hap the seas, made the final fair but you can't blame climate change on the sisters. we are for past melting ice caps here. we are talking about the woods moving. >> the sisters are followers of the goddess of the moon, and she chastises them for doing it on their own. she says, let's see, what did she say? he said they traffic in macbeth's affairs without her presence. so you raise some question of religious freedom, but does devil worship or moon god worship qualify as a religion? >> well, to point about the princes of the question, your honor. first, you are relying on material that was stricken from the record which the kingdom and probably relies on interbreed. but if one does look at that one will see hecate they actually says that macbeth is acting for his own desires, lust for his own ends, not for you. so i think if the passage is taken in context know it doesn't support any proof beyond a reasonable doubt about the sisters. >> we can't and all of this on macbeth, can we? is and he knew d to this, new to government? [laughing] [applause] [laughing] >> he is new to government but i think if this court were to look at the tweet that he said -- [laughing] it's pretty clear what he's trying to do is affect a a complete and total shutdown of witchcraft. >> did your clients, did the sisters even find the right person? the reason i'm asking is this. the lines that uses the art in rhymes and i'm no poetry expert bubut i think the words are supposed to ryan. aligns with the first identify the person who was there target go like this can where's the place upon the east there to meet with mac beast? [laughing] >> your honor makes an excellent point. [laughing] however, according to that really authoritative legal source, wikipedia, when shakespeare, or thomas, wrote this play, it did indeed rhine and a do believe they have identified the right man who was, however, driven to do what he did ultimately by his true accomplice, his wife lady macbeth. macbeth at times his true nature would come through but no, nevertheless, she persisted. [applause] >> your client went way beyond mortal religious practices. they were sinking ships, destroying crops and falsely announcing that lala land won best picture. [laughing] >> i don't remember that last. but as to the first bit, again, i do believe that macbeth is somewhat of a climate change denier. and secondly, my clients, they want to be taken seriously but not literally. [laughing] [applause] >> ms. maynard, ms. maynard, as a strict textualist, i think it rather obvious that under 18 usc section 373, the sisters never give command macbeth nor solicit him to cause welcomes death -- malcolm -- but did not induce hithem to do the crime by tellig him he will be king? i welcome your reply in poetic meter, too. [laughing] >> i'm not sure that i can do it again. [laughing] >> well, just answer the question. >> yes, sir anna, of course, always. they did not induce him. even if, all they told him was that someday he would be king. they did that suggest he taking actions to make it so. >> webster defines induced as to arouse by indirect stimulation. >> well, your honor, even if they had said that he hoped he would be some taking, that would not be enough. [laughing] [applause] first, hope is not a plan. and second, hope is not a directive. so simply saying i hope you can see your way clear to taking some actions to be king, that actually, if they had wanted him to do something, they would've been really, really clear about it. >> we are going to meet maccabees and tell him to kill king duncan. that's what he says right here in my copy. [laughing] >> but right after that macbeth knew that it gave him no cost to murder king duncan. this is what he says. if chancel have making, while chance the crowning? >> that's the name of the which. [laughing] >> one, your honor, point yet you are male, they are -- [laughing] they did not accept the label, witch. two, if they wouldn't have been interrupting them they would have contained on make that they were just saying let life go pick in fact, what they also told hi me he was going to be famous call door and he did. he did become a famous call door picky should just waited but no, his vaulting ambition which overlooks itself took over. silva put, macbeth is a bad hombre. [laughing] >> what about the dagger that he seized just before he does the desperately deed? >> the sisters can't be blamed for the alleged offense of a floating dagger, your honor. first, that's fake news as i've ever heard it. [laughing] indeed can even macbeth recognizes it was a phony. the evidence shows that he says it was a dagger of his mind, a thought gratian proceeding from the heat -- but even if you thought it happened, the only other person in the trial record is all that dagger, crooked lady macbeth. [laughing] he's the only other one who mentioned the dagger. i correct myself that she mentioned later in the play, and so isn't it just as likely that the vision was drug-induced and that just like she had drugged that chamberlain she drugged the profit? >> why do your clients call themselves weird? >> we have called ourselves in our papers, our clients have called them so simply the three sisters. the weird is also another label that society has placed on them. >> i think they said themselves in the script that we have. [laughing] >> it is good sometimes to -- >> weird is an old english word, isn't it? it means i have a chance. that's what it means sometimes. end of meeting, let's grab macbeth and get into kill duncan. [laughing] >> thank you for that assistant i'll take the first step always looking in the dictionary. >> the witches can be taking a word usually meant to disparage and using it as a badge of honor. >> absolutely, your honor, and i would like to be back to my point about the prosecution being a son sex stereotyping. the sisters are would have to work double double toil first. [laughing] and apparently the crown has committed and because it thinks they are not feminine enough because they are withered and abuse. if i may i would like to reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, ms. maynard. [applause] >> we will now hear from mr. marelli who is representing the kingdom of scotland. >> madame chief justice, and may it please the court. complaining about a witch hunt is no substitute for a sound legal defense. it makes no difference whether those complaints prop up an angry tweet at five in the morning or appearance with square quotes in a brief to this court. whenever you're someone bragging on and on about the single greatest witchhunt in scottish history, you can be sure of one thing. something wicked this way comes. [laughing] [applause] >> so don't let these weird sisters ensnare you with their charms like they ensnared macbeth. focus on what's real, not what's fake. and in particular focus on these two keys. first, the weird sisters do not have a religious liberty defense. remember, they testify at trial that they were mere mortals who had been scapegoated just because they enjoyed thumbing their long crooked noses at social convention. now they come to this court and say exactly the opposite. it's all paganism this and devil worship that and religion this. the eye of the nude and the toe of the frog cooking in the pot, and the trial they said they're just trying out their latest hose a entrée recipe. [laughing] now, it religious exercise, the wild spinning around like acid trippers at a grateful dead concert. [laughing] a trial they said they were auditioning for dancing with the stars. [laughing] now, it's religious exercise, the beards, the withered and wild attire, again religion. i mean really? do you know with that argument is like? that argument is like enacting a health care law a regulation of interstate commerce and then coming to this court and arguing it ought to be upheld as a tax. [laughing] [applause] >> i mean, you know, really. really, who would fall for something like that? [laughing] now, the second key, the second key. there was plenty of evidence implicating the weird sisters in king duncan's murder. it's all right there in act one scene three of the record. macbeth-ish is going about his business having disemboweled a traitor or two, and what happens? the weird sisters appear out of nowhere by, like sean spicer popping out of the white house shrubbery. [laughing] that was not an accident, your honors. the weird sisters admitted that they had wound up their charm, their spell so that they could sprint on macbeth at that very moment which of course they did. my friend says it's an idol, while it is idle prophecy on their part, pure applesauce as a great jurist once said. about an argument i made. [laughing] [applause] >> the prophecy was altogether accurate. it's well known i think in scottish law as well as the law of great britain, that every man is king in his own home. so macbeth was on his way home, and there he would be king. nothing false about that prophecy. >> that's of these weird sisters worked, your honor, the fact that it is subtle doesn't excuse it. the key was at that very moment they cast a spell. it's not just the words. it's the spell they cast. >> what does it even mean? aching. i looked it up on the internet. maybe it is king who side, maybe it's king kwong. maybe it was king, the mexican rapper. [laughing] king gizzard the lizard wizard. [laughing] i mean, king what? [laughing] >> that's a very long question your honor. i just wasn't sure if you are finished or not. [laughing] i think both macbeth and lady macbeth knew exactly what they were talking about. lady macbeth talked about the metaphysical eight. they were quite clear about which team do talking about and about the king that macbeth would become. i don't think is any doubt about that in this record. >> mr. verrilli, of 35 recorded executed witches, both in scotland and the u.s., a measly six were missed. is this not proof that crying witch in truth is merely pretext for controlling any woman than perceived as weird? [applause] >> so speedy you, too, i welcome to reply in poetic meter, two. >> and i, too, will respectfully decline but i will say this. i think the very fact that your honor describes prudes are . a full 15% of everyone burned at the stake for witchcraft in the kingdom of scotland was a man. so what that tells you is that this is not sexism. this is national security. [laughing] >> i would like to follow up on judge -- >> i thought you might. >> this smacks of sex discrimination. you say you're opposed to witchcraft bu but i don't see gg after the washington wizards. [laughing] >> all in good time, your honor, all in good time. but let me just say i do think this rings up a critical point. of course the weird sisters were not prosecuted for heresy. they were not prosecuted for witchcraft. they were prosecuted for murder, and it does not matter as far as the crown is concerned what their motivation was. did the devil make them do it? or would you just mad because they king would let them develop their golf course in the scottish high lands? [laughing] a matter of pure indifference. >> macbeth was not trustworthy either. for example, didn't he claimed that the biggest coronation crowd in history? [laughing] may be he showed otherwise. >> well, you know, fake news is rampant these days and we understand that, your honor, we understand that certainly. >> but what do you make of the word from macbeth own mouth? he said that if the lab making, chance must crown me without my stern pixel at the moment, at the moment when he is with his three which is, he thinks of them as much as people listen to -- >> but then what comes next, your honor, and what comes next is the moment of the bloody dagger at exactly the moment when macbeth loses his nerve, the bloody dagger appears. now, does anyone really believe that that is a figment of macbeth's imagination? maybe if you live in lady conway fantasy land of alternative facts you would believe that. [laughing] >> but there was no one else who saw it, it isn't that the problem, that all of this was in macbeth's mind? macbeth it tells us about the witch is stirring up the wind. he has a companion with him, lennix. lennix doesn't even see the witches. >> but, your honor, the evidence be damned the witches comes out of their own mouth. i refer you again to a key moment in act one scene three just before they cast their spell on macbeth. what happens? one of the witches is bragging to her sisters about how she had cast a spell to make a poor sailors life a living hell, and for what? because the sailors wife wouldn't share her chestnuts. that was right out of the mouse of the witches themselves. so that's proof right there and all that you got from macbeth is corroboration. >> why would you like another set of macbeth himself, after the deed was done he says of this, i have done the deed. not somebody else but me up to the deed. he says i have done the deed and if one thing we know about powerful or want to be powerful men, it's that they're are willing to blame anything on women. [laughing] >> well, your honor, he certainly did the deed, and his wife was certainly deeply implicated as well, but that doesn't exhaust the gamut of criminal responsibility. this all started on that -- phon[phone ringing] [laughing] >> why are you calling me? no, i don't want your bloody dagger. i don't want the dagger. fine, okay. sorry, goodbye. [applause] >> if i had any since i would rest my case right there. [laughing] >> what was the point about the chestnuts? i didn't quite get that. [laughing] >> mr. verrilli, i have a follow-up. before he killed the king, macbeth, and made a lengthy speech, recounts the words witchcraft celebrates the offering. do these five words not prove to all who hear that hackett, not her witches, bears the guilt? >> are joined fight me to respond? [laughing] i would declined again, yes. >> no. i think what that shows us is quite the opposite. at this key moment again, macbeth can see the difference between fake news and a genuine effort to subvert the light of illegitimate line of succession in the kingdom of scotland. macbeth understood that this was witchcraft in operation. and lady macbeth understood it was witchcraft in operation, metaphysical aid, and the jury understood that it was witchcraft in operation. and was on that basis that they had an absolute justification to convict the weird sisters of soliciting this crime and aiding and abetting. >> i am still suspicious of this whole prosecution under much a know why you are not going after the people who have leaked all this information about the three sisters, including the former saint of the fbi, sir comey. [laughing] >> again, your honor, all in good time, all in good time. [laughing] >> i didn't get that point about the chestnuts. [laughing] >> it's right there in act one scene three your honor. >> it all depends what kind of -- >> no. you're right in her lap. she had a nice bunch in her lap and she refused to share them which i think you understand under the circumstances, and what does she get for that? she had her poor husband tossed from stern to bow they after day, week after week based on the use of witchcraft. it's right there out of their own mouth's. >> thank you. i understand the point about the chestnuts now. [laughing] >> what is the act that the three sisters did that renders them culpable for murder? as far as i can tell all they did before he commits the crime is plant a seed in his mind that he might become somebody great. if that's enough to get somebody convicted of murder, you have a pretty expensive life as a prosecutor. >> which would be just fine, by the way. [laughing] but again, it's that key moment, the whole case hinges on that key moment before they encounter macbeth, they go into their wild anaya coal jig three times at this wickham 33 times it that way, three times back around again. because they are in their own words winding up their spell. they are coiling it up so they can spring it on macbeth, and that's what happens. that's the key moment of culpability right there. >> arthur murray. [laughing] >> that the key moment. that's when the spell takes hold, and at that point they know that they have got them right with you want it. they plant the idea in his head, and the rest is tragic history. >> we have the best evidence probably i thought macbeth tweeted out that the three sisters had better hope there are not any tapes. either tapes? [laughing] >> well, there are of course the memos, your honor. [laughing] [applause] >> if instead, if instead of on the blasted heat the sisters did their prophecy bequeath on meet the press or fox and friends, would their predicted punditry suffice to convict these three of sorcery? >> well, it's not the prophecy. it's the spell. [applause] >> it's the spell. it's not the prophecy. the prophecy just worked its way tthrough the spell. >> one thing that's inconsistent,mr. verrilli, the -- >> only one thing. [laughing] >> is critical. we know for sure that the witches engineered macbeth's death. macbeth's death at the hands of -- that is, we know they dc-10 so that he would fight with mcduff and lose. so hardly seems, then punishing him for his misdeeds, not putting him up to them. >> no, your auto. that is exactly how radical satanic terrorist work. [laughing] they need chaos in order to thrive and prosper. and so they're just great at chain of chaos, first macbeth kills duncan, then the engineer macbeth's death. that's the whole plan. that's the whole plan to take over the world right there, and that is why it was imperative that we prosecute them and convict them. >> the normal method used to execute a witch in scotland is to burn her, but does that not offend an inmate eight? >> so your honor, we have of course in the eighth and ninth centuries that was how we did it. [laughing] but there has been a great humanizing tendency, and by now as i would hope your honor would know, that the way this works is that yes, we do high the witch to the state, but then we first strangle the witch. it's quick, relatively painless, it's over in a very short period of time. the witch feels almost nothing. then of course we do burn the body, but we are just doing that to make sure that we've taken care of the whole evil spirit thing. that in flicks no cruel and unusual punishment on the witch. as my time is drawing to a close, if i may just offer these final words. so now your honors must decide, free exercise? no. regicide. a verdict for the kingdom then, let's make scotland great again. [laughing] [applause] >> you have five minutes. >> thank you your honors. i would like to make three quick points. first, fundamentally, if this prosecution is allowed to stand it will kill speech in the kingdom and it will result in kings being surrounded by a bubble of feigned to sit around the kings table and offer praise on cue. [laughing] [applause] second, the crown points to some of the chatter and dancing that happened at times, but that is just common room talk -- common. you can make anything of it. and finally the crown points to the contents of my clients cauldron. but part of freedom is being able to put in your cauldron whatever you want, and to make your soup with whatever ingredients you wish. and if you allow this to stand, the next thing you know, he will be here telling you that we all have to make our soup out of broccoli. and if that's not enough we will all have to buy insurance for bloodletting. >> ms. maynard, you think you have a very strong case but here's what worries me. it we reverse and will instead that which is served a term of death, would they comply with the use their magic to escape? >> we have prepared a response. >> roundabout the cauldron go and the poison entrails, under a cold stone days and nights has 31. swelter did then sleeping, boyle arthurs in the charmed pot. >> double double toil and trouble, fire burning cauldron bubble. for our clients on the double or this kingdom willbe rubble. [laughing] [applause] >> all rise. the honorable bench will now deliberate. [inaudible conversations] >> please be seated. as the honorable bench deliberate the scottish jury, our audience can will cast the vote by placing a red or blue token in the baskets that will be circulating. the question is, did the trial court erred in convicting the weird sisters? please vote yes -- vote blue for yes if you believe the weird sisters were wrongly convicted and the trial court erred. please vote read for know if the trial court decision should be upheld. again, vote blue for yes if you believe that the three weird sisters were wrongly convicted and the trial court erred. please don't read for know if the trial court decision should be upheld. as reminder please vote only once. [laughing] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome at the lowell for two nights discussion. [applause] it is a great honor and pleasure to also app for this interim while the justices and judges are deliberating a friend of mine, a scholar can somebody you all know of and heard of and if seen come in and talking about jonathan turley, professor of constitutional law turkey putting up a good deal about them. these welcome him right now. [applause] as you know jonathan teaches, comments, writes amazing number of articles, dozens very law journals and other publications pic.i didn't know this and telli was asking him to indulge us by did realize you with the junkies chaired professor at the school of history. quite remarkable, and thank you for coming. [applause] >> so let me set up what we want to talk about. where doing an appeal the conviction of the three weird sisters for words that they spoke about macbeth for which there are convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder of duncan. in the news last week michelle carter was convicted by a judge in the state court in massachusetts of involuntary manslaughter. manslaughter is the killing of one human being by another that is not premeditated pick in massachusetts, involuntary manslaughter occurs when someone unintentionally causes the death of another when the defendant is engage in some type of reckless conduct are while committing another serious batter of the person. in massachusetts, voluntary manslaughter is killing of another person that is intentional i do some kind of mitigating factor. the circumstances can include the heat of passion, the reasonable provocation or being in witchcraft. maybe not so much about. this is to be assisted come unstuck of this is be distinguished from the states that have laws that prevent assisting somebody in suicide, which 37 states have by statute, three by common law. these are often and form of a manslaughter of some kind or another usually in the voluntary or involuntary. with that background given that we are here tonight to talk about whether the words of the sisters can be held as the means by which the conviction should stand or fall, let's talk about that in connection to the verdict against michelle carter. so let me start. do you agree or disagree with the verdict? >> i disagree. i believe that the courts took a human tragedy and turn it into tragedy as well. the implications of what the judge is saying are really chilling. it's sort of surprising, i guess this is why juvenile courts don't normally become the found out constitutional theory. this case truly is chilling in terms of what it could mean for free speech. >> primarily, as your view of what made it wrong, is that if it constricts by any amount the amount of speech that it occurs, that that is enough to make it an unconstitutional verdict? >> i have to confess, i unabashedly am an absolutist in terms of free speech. governmental limitations on free speech are justified. like many people in the free speech community i believe the solution to that speechis more speech. maybe the three sisters we can just add a whole bunch of other sisters, and it would all balance out. but i think history has shown that when courts or when governments, through legislative means, restrict speech, it really achieves what they at least state as a purpose. and it often reduces speech in a way that it's hard to get back. that's the weird thing about constitutional rights. it's easy to lose them. it's very, very hard ever to get them back. >> speaking of the word weird, they ask you this. if we know that the court after generations is at the famous phrase that we've all been taught in school that trying fire in a crowded theater can be actionable. then why is it when somebody is in the midst of his truck where fumefuture coming in and he fees ill and he leaves the truck and you tell the person to get back in the truck, doesn't that trigger where free speech ends and criminal liability begins? >> if i had a time machine i think my first visit would be before oliver wendell holmes before he uttered those words and say stop. it's one of the reasons why soundbites don't work well in constitutional doctrine. anyone who wants to restrict speech says that just like screaming fire in a crowded theater. holmes did not meet him as a sweeping justification, but what you're really saying is a result of the court chipping away through exceptions on the right of free speech. brandenburg is the ultimate example of that. in 1969 the nine the supreme court ruled in brandenburg v. ohio that you could criminalize speech. it was a nursing decision because they struck down the ohio language, which it was incredibly broad. but in striking it down, they endorsed the idea that you can have violent speech. for many of us we had a hard time accepting the concept of speech as violent. and what you see in this tragic case is how words can be treated like a murder weapon. and what that implies for us as a country. what you had in this case, which i think was abundantly obvious, was not in my view a crime of murder. you had to teenagers, both of whom had emotional difficulties. both of whom had diagnose problems that they were struggling with. and they were brought together in a moment of tragedy. that tragedy was multiplied by the court, not resolved by the court. >> i heard what you said as a qualifier and i guess he enough of the audience in a second will ask a question. so you think that there is no amount or quality or lack of quality of words spoken as words whether orally or in writing or in a text or in an e-mail that can ever be actionable in a criminal context is a leads to somebody committing a violent act? >> my answer is probably no. there are plenty of crimes based on words. you can have conspiracies in terms of your words being part of a criminal act, but what's different about this is that the words themselves are treated not just as an act but as a weapon in terms of -- >> let's make sure everybody does understand what you are sick because i was researching for tonight, th, the differences in the manslaughter category you have to have been involved in creating the act and the weapon, if you will, to be involved in what is the death. the question is whether words in the context can ever be quote the weapon. whereas, this is my jump off to the next question, what about, therefore, the assisted, the assisted suicide prohibitions in those 37 states? so there is a requirement is that you are saying more than words, it has to be a provides us a ranch, provides the hose, revise whatever. is that -- >> i'm not a big fan of those thoughts either. but the problem with the assisted suicide laws is they have been extended to people on the internet who have given advice to people you are seeking to end their lives, including how they can do so easily or humanely. we've had a couple of charges to that effect. for those of us concerned about free speech, the implications of what has happened in this case can easily be seen by just looking over the ocean or over the border to canada. free speech is being eroded all around the world, is being eroded in the west. the west is falling out of love with free speech. as if it became tiring at some point. you look to england and france that are criminalizing free speech at a rate that a never thought was possible, and it's important to note that those laws have terms like inducement, that you can criminalize speech if it is viewed as inducing hatred. you can criminalize speech if it's viewed as insulting or harassing. all of those are some value that we would all accept, but what has happen in this country is what we've known throughout history. once you begin to criminalize speech, it develops an insatiable appetite and seeing other people want to silence the speech of people they don't agree with. >> so i hear you saying and staking of the position of the value of free speech and the precious right it is in our country that you wrote in other countries, i get that. but what you have done is saying that if you accept the verdict in massachusetts, i guess what you argue for us either the chink in the armor of the slippery slope. and once that goes come nothing else goes. >> that's correct. here you got two kids who both are struggling with problems, and you have this common tragedy. but the result of this judgment is to create a new type of crime where words themselves are the weapons. and the question for us is, as angry as we may be at the show for what she did come at idle think anybody reading this story didn't feel repulsion by what she told her friend, the question is, does it help to make this a crime? >> is a going to stop the next mission from doing that. >> was let me ask you three quick question because i know our judges will be ready in a second. first, do you think this, i take it from what you said, what do you think yes or no, it's going to be a crime to should be done by common-law judges with opinions or done by a legislature? >> i don't think it should be done but either. i think if the legislature makes speech about a should because at that viewed asunconstitutional. i'm concerned with judges do that. there's a concern of what's called super legislature problem where judges go before a legislature that it's notable that in massachusetts this type of suicide is not a crime. so the court not only created a new type of speech crime, but did so involving a subject that's not even criminalize which is suicide. >> i think this one will get to the supreme court at some point. >> i know a few people we could probably ask. [laughing] >> so as a practice to how you voted and a show fans based on what you've read from what you know and what we talked about, all those people who support the verdict in massachusetts based on the words spoken, raise your hand. wow. always people or against the verdict? hallelujah. let me thank judge jonathan for helping. >> thank you. [applause] >> all rise. please be seated. >> i will announce the judgment of the court. we are in scotland where we don't find that defendants are innocent, nor do we find necessarily that they are guilty. and so we have returned this scottish verdict. did the witches, the women -- [laughing] did they aid or abet macbeth in the murder of king duncan? our answer is not proved, and one of the reasons why we have a most reasonable doubt, i just illustrated why my slip of the tongue. we know historically that men feared witches though they burned women. and now i will call upon my colleagues, most of whom concur in the courts judgment. [laughing] so shall we start with judge srinivasan? >> i do bear the not too concur with you. [laughing] so i did concur. this seems like an easy case to me, if we do the job that was we supposed to do which is to -- look at our task with empathy. and what a look at it that way, i think it's quite forward and the resource it is because i grew up in a household with two sisters. [laughing] i used to calling weird. [laughing] and they use for my head with grander which cosby did also the mischievous things and it used to blame them and i see the error of my ways. clearly it was all on me. they were just having fun. [laughing] and i know vindicate my wisdom with this verdict today. [applause] >> as indicated during my questioning, i am suspicious of this whole prosecution smacks of discrimination, both with targets of the prosecution, the orlando magic or washington wizards, while men create, nate silver crates blocks predicting who's going to be president or a king, they get lauded. these women get it right and they get prosecuted. [laughing] [applause] >> and the last thing i will say is i think there's a pervasive conflict of interest in having king malcolm prosecute the murderers, alleged murderers of his father and a special counsel should of been appointed. [laughing] [applause] >> judge tatel? >> having started the pattern, i might as well finish it. although we could overturn the sentence for insufficient evidence, i would chart a different course in reversing the trial court. putting these sisters to death perpetuates the civil us that only women are to blame, for heinous acts we can't explain. it's therefore clear that this prosecution violates equal protection. that, by the way, was mostly in trochanteric -- [applause] >> and now justice breyer will speak in dissent. [laughing] >> there obviously guilty. [laughing] anyone who is seen that shakespeare companies production of this play would know that there couldn't possibly be sex discrimination. two of the so-called witches were men. [laughing] anyone who is seen that production would know there couldn't possibly be a violation of the freedom of religion clauses, for after all, these so-called witches worked for the cia. [laughing] and if you want any more evidence, the absolute what used to be called sovereign dollinger, i'm very surprised you don't know what that means, that is the chestnut argument. [laughing] yes, i don't understand the chestnut argument, but i sense that it is a very good argument. [laughing] [applause] >> with enormous appreciation for the advocates who were splendid. [applause] >> please welcome back abbe lowell to read the jerry's decision. >> this is my favorite part of these events is to report the result of all of you to see how they fare against our learned judges. i would start by thinking again the wonderful participants, and as to don and his associates at the table, when we had to take on a tough argument to make sure that it would be well represented, we knew that there was nobody in this town the week return to the new about tough argument other than you. so we appreciate that. [applause] >> for we knew if there is any group of people who can put the right definition on the word weird, we picked the right people at this table. [applause] >> so i will tell you how come if remember the red bags are filled with the votes to say that the lower court did not air and the verdict should stand. the blue represents those who believe that the lower court was in error in should be reversed. [laughing] [applause] >> however, however, taking the lead at the suggestion of the learned counsel, unedited that the bank is willing to have reargument next witches whether or not the three sisters actions violated the tax clause. [laughing] >> thank you all very much. have a good evening and thanks for being part of this. [applause] >> all rise. this concludes the trial of the weird sisters. hope you had a wonderful evening, and enjoy the rest of it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this weekend on booktv, saturday at 10 a.m. eastern we are live at the mississippi book festival with featured authors. .. the media has made enemies for you. >> it is very hard to break through to the main stream media. we just had this big story on cnn with cameras. he didn't mention a word about it. the notion on the front page of "the new york times" updated andersen cooper to talk about number one video at youtube or the number one trendy dagon twitter appeared these are what we call breaking through. >> recently come islamic leaders and followers discuss ways to counter violent extremism in muslim communities. this is part of a daylong forum hosted by the museum in situ center on combating violent extremism among muslim communities.

Related Keywords

United States , Denmark , Canada , United Kingdom , Russia , Massachusetts , Washington , Russian , Britain , Scotland , Danish , Chuck Schumer , Steven Breyer , Oliver Wendell , King Duncan , Pamela Tolkien , King Malcolm , Manis King , Mitch Mcconnell , Karen Wheeler , Arthur Murray , Vladimir Putin , Nina Dunn , Michelle Carter , Greg Cook , King Kwong ,