this is produced and sponsored by the bard association which many of you are members and those who are not i hope you will become. a group of lawyers in washington dc and elsewhere to try to support not only arts in general but this terrific theater in specific. as you know, tonight's argument is based on william shakespeare's macbeth which was produced by the theater this spring, directed by lisa tommy on this very stage. it was a wonderful event and i'm sure many of you attended. i want to start by thanking the people you with the on stage, the people who are not on stage but make this possible. this event comes together in large part because a group of people with whom i am honored to work, who work on coming up with the idea, coming up with which play we are 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 realized after last winter i want to thank them in specific. i want to be the front guy but they do the hard work so if you are in the house i want to announce and have everybody thank the following people. gerri bloch, greg cook, nina dunn, bert fisher, jeffrey lou, john vogel, karen wheeler, please stand and let us thank you. [applause] >> in a world upset by civil war and invasion macbeth and his lady begin a series of murders designed to further their own ambitions only to plunge their lives into madness, to ascend to power macbeth kills king duncan and usurps the throne. was it a faded prophecy that brought macbeth to do this? did the three weird sisters, apparently the political correct phrase for what we used to call the 3 witches, intentionally set an idea in motion using macbeth as a and knowing they would benefit from the chaos or to put it another way, and to borrow from that other well-known play of the bard with that danish cast, what hamlet said was words, words, words cause someone or in this place three particular case, odd characters, to be convicted for murder? we tried -- we consider the culpability of friar lawrence in the death of romeo and juliet. tonight we search for the real culprits responsible for shakespeare's tragedies to a new level or use a current term that is so in this town, we tonight arereally on a witch hunt. [applause] >> we had a successful event sponsored by the association, the will of the whole event where members of congress, the media and others in dc are cast as characters in a play to address current affairs. in that same vein given in washington dc we ask the democratic national committee and republican national committee to suggest who might play the three which is. the dnc suggested majority leader mitch mcconnell. speaker paul ryan. and russian president vladimir putin. [laughter and applause] >> the rnc suggested cinema leader chuck schumer, house minority leader nancy pelosi and russian president vladimir putin. there is bipartisanship in the city after all. at the conclusion of tonight's argument you will be asked to serve as the jury and vote on the following question. did the trial court air in convicting the weird sisters of king duncan's murder? that is at the end of the argument. you believe the weird sisters were falsely convicted and the trial court aired, please vote with a blue token. if you believe the trial court did not are in the decision to remain upheld, please vote with a red. let me introduce the participants. please first welcome for we are honored always to have the participation of supreme court marshall pamela told. [applause] .. [applause] and knowing if you can defend the interest of the united states in front of the supreme court day in and day out representing scotland and its kingdom should be a piece of cake, please welcome donald verrilli and his helpers and associates. [applause] >> i want everyone to know you will see an amazing amount of events occurring on the stage but many of you know and want remind you that you can see another amazing piece of work that these advocacy which is the breach of this omitted to the justices prior to tonight which is on the website of the shakespeare theatre and some of you have gotten e-mail links to it so i invite you, not going to perform at but sometime later to see this amazing work and you can find it then. now let me tell you who will be the judges tonight and they will soon be seated by the marshal, and they are supreme court justice ruth gator ginsburg will be presiding, justice stephen breyer, judge david tatel, judge sri srinivasan, and judge patricia miller. please enjoy the trial as the marshal announces that justices. [applause] >> all rise. the supreme court of scotland is now in session. >> please be seated. i will have a preliminary announcement to make. since we are the supreme court of scotland, not the d.c. circuit on the supreme court of united states tonight, we have allowed the advocates three uninterrupted minutes to open. [laughing] >> and now we are ready to hear the case of scotland against the three weird sisters. >> 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. [laughing] believe me, believe me, this is a witchhunt. our clients, three peaceful sisters, 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, sophie, lena, and i would beg to differ. [laughing] while the sisters may seem weird to others, they did nothing remotely approaching the alleged crimes. they neither solicited the murder of king duncan nor aid and abetted in it. it was macbeth who savagely murdered king duncan while the king slept in macbeth own 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 top and challenges to macbeth, apparently fragile masculinity -- [laughing] , perhaps he has small hands. [laughing] [applause] >> that ultimately drove them to commit the murder. it was lady macbeth who, with wine, knocked out the kings chamberlain. it was lady macbeth left the chamberlains taggers ray were macbeth could not miss them and it was lady macbeth who smeared the sweep the grooms with blood. such a nasty woman. [laughing] [applause] so how did we end up here? well, with the true murderer beheaded and his fiendish wife driven to death by insanity, king malcolm had to punish someone to fulfill his promise to drain the bog. [laughing] but the prosecutions case is full of sound and covfefe -- [laughing] dignify nothing. >> argue not overlooking -- [inaudible] [laughing] >> they are applauding to meet upon the heat. why? to make foul what is fair, to leave him on, to last for the throne. they conjure an image and apparition that tells them to be bloody, bold and resolute. all that is in the record and it seems that you are ignoring it. >> no, your honor, not at all. all the sisters did was inform him of apostasy. they told into things, that he would be feigned a call door and sometime in the hereafter he would be keen. 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 soothsayers accurately "speaking truth to power." but in all cases the profits are mere messengers. you can't shoot the messenger. time and again that this court has made clear that for profit speech -- [laughing] -- is equally protected. >> before we go on i just need to clarify something. your grief never gave me the names of these three weird sisters. i we talking kim, chloe kardashian? >> your own escort the text does not defy the sisters. we prefer to go by sister one, sister two and sister three. that's my clients prefer to be called. and it's my think at times the text does label them witches but iit's important to keep in mind that whether it's william who wrote the record, or thomas as of the king suggest, either way it was william or 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 file is fair. with king to be macbeth bright line, so foul affair -- so foulest day i have not seen, to parallel between these lines is playing. it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt a link between the two? i welcome your reply in poetic meter, two. [laughing] [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 the messenger i think macbeth is a climate change denier. so macbeth sugges suggests the s have some out stormed up the seas, made the file fair and you can't blame climate change on the sisters. we are far past melting ice caps here. we're talking about the woods moving. >> the sisters are followers of hecate who is goddess of the moon, and she chastises of them for doing it on their own. she says, let's see, what did she say? she said a 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 premises of your question. first, you are relying on mutual that was stricken from the record which the kingdom improperly relies on in the brief. but if one does look at that one will see that hecate actually says that macbeth is active for his own desire, love for his own ends, not for you. so i think if the passage is taken in context no, it doesn't support any proof beyond a reasonable doubt about the sisters. >> we can't pant all this on macbeth, can we? is and he knew do this, new to government? [applause] -- isn't he knew to this? [laughing] >> he is new to government, but i think if this court were to look at the tweets that he sent. [laughing] it's pretty clear that what he's trying to do is affect 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 you speak are in brine and underreported expert but i think the words are supposed to write. the lines with the first identify the person who is their target go like this. where's the place upon the east there to meet with mcbeast? [laughing] >> your honor makes an excellent point. however -- [laughing] according to that really authoritative legal source, wikipedia, when shakespeare, or thomas, wrote this play it was pronounced different so it did indeed rhyme and to delete have identified the right man who was, however, driven to do what he did ultimately buy history accomplice, his wife lady macbeth. macbeth at times his true nature would come through know, nevertheless, she persisted. >> your clients went way beyond mortal religious practices. they were sinking ships, destroying crops and falsely announcing that la la land won best picture. [laughing] >> i don't remember that last bit being in the record. [laughing] but as to the first bit, again, i do believe that macbeth is somewhat of a climate change denier. secondly, my clients want to be taken seriously but not literally. [laughing] [applause] >> ms. maynard, ms. maynard, as a strict textualist, i think and rather obvious that under 18 usc section 373, the sisters never give command macbeth nor solicit him to cause malcolm was deaf. but -- death. but did not induce him to do the crime by telling him he will be keen? i welcome your reply in poetic meter, too. [laughing] >> i'm not sure that i can do it again. [laughing] >> just answer the question. >> of course, always. they did not -- >> they induced him. >> all they told want that someday he would be king. they did not suggest that he taking actions to make it so. >> webster defines induced as to arouse by indirect stimulation. [laughing] >> well, your honor, even if they had said that they hoped he would someday be king -- [laughing] that would not be enough. [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 keen, that actually, if they had wanted him to do something, they would've been really, really clear about it. >> my copy of the record says let's go on the heat and we will meet old mcbeast and tell him to kill king duncan. that's what it says right here in my copy. >> but right after that macbeth knew that it gave him no cause o murder king duncan this is what he says. if chance will have making, why chance the crown me? >> death is the name of the witch. [laughing] >> one, pointing out that you are male, they are -- [laughing] they do not accept the label witch. number two, maybe if macbeth had quit man interrupting them and treating them like hysterical when they would've continued on and make clear they which is saying let life go. in fact, they also told him he was going to be a famous hall cr and he didn't lift a finger. he should i just waited. but no, his ambition which overlaps itself took over. some people, macbeth is a bad hombre. [laughing] >> what about the dagger that he seized just before he does that dastardly deed? >> the sisters can be blamed for the alleged appearance of a floating dagger, your honor. first, that's fake news if i've ever heard it. [laughing] indeed, even the back -- macbeth recognized as a phone of evidence shows that he says it was a dagger of his mind, a false creation preceding from the heat oppressed brain. but even if you thought it happens, the only other person in the trial record to saw that dagger, crooked lady macbeth. [laughing] she's only one of one who mentions the dagger. i correct myself. she mentions it later in the play. isn't it just as likely that the vision was drug-induced, and just like she had drug the chamberlains, she drugged the profit? >> why do your clients call themselves weird? [laughing] >> we have called ourselves in our papers, our clients have called themselves simply the three sisters. the weird is also another label that society has placed on them. >> they set themselves in the lines of come in the script that we have. [laughing] >> it is good sometimes to embrace -- >> we are is an old english word. it means by chance, that's what it means sometimes and it's of the meeting let's grab they guy and get him to kill duncan. [laughing] >> thank you for that assistance. i will take the first up of always look at the dictionary. >> witches can be taking a word usually met to disparage and using it as a badge of honor. >> absolutely, your honor. and i would like to get back to my point about the prosecution being based on sex stereotyping. the sisters i would have to work double double toil first. [laughing] and apparently the crown has committed and because it thinks they are not then enough because they are weathered and a beard. if i may i would like to reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, ms. maynard. [applause] >> we will now here from mr. verrilli who is representing the kingdom of scotland. >> bat of chief justice, may it please the court. complaining about a witchhunt is no substitute for a sound legal defense. [laughing] and it makes a difference whether those complaints pop-up and an angry tweet at five and a morning, or appearance with scare quotes in a brief to this court. whenever you hear someone going 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 the ensnared macbeth. focus on what's real, not what's fake. and in particular focus on these tutees. first, the weird sisters do not have a religious liberty defense. remember, they testified at trial that they were mere mortals who would been scapegoated just because they enjoyed thumbing their long crooked noses at social convention. now they come to this court and see exactly the opposite. it's all paganism this and devil worship that and religion this i have been nuked and the two of the frog cooking in the pot. at trial they said they're just trying out the latest hosea entrées recipe. [laughing] >> now, with religious exercise. the wild spinning around like acid trip was at a grateful dead concert. [laughing] at 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's like enacting a health care law as regulation of interstate commerce and coming to this court and arguing it out to be upheld as a tax. [laughing] [applause] i mean really. really, who would offer 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 i scene three of the record. macbeth is just going about his business having disemboweled a traitor or to. [laughing] 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. [laughing] the weird sisters admitted that they had wound up their charm, their spell so that they could spring it on macbeth at that very moment which of course they did. my friend says it's come all it is is idle prophecy on the 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 keen. [laughing] nothing false about that prophecy. >> that's how these weird sisters work to, your honor. the fact it is subtle doesn't excuse it. they key was at that very moment they cast a spell big it's not just the words. it's the spell they cast. >> what does it even mean? i keen pic i looked it on the internet. [laughing] king what? made its king messiah, made its king the mexican rapper. king gizzard the lizard wizard. [laughing] i mean, king what? king yellin the wrestler? [laughing] >> that's a very long question, your honor. i just wasn't sure whether 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 aid. they were quite clear about which king they were talking about and about the king that macbeth would become. i don't think there's any doubt about that in this record. >> mr. verrilli, of 35 recorded executed witches, both in scotland in the u.s., uneasily six were men. is this not proof that crying witch in truth is merely pretext for controlling any woman men perceive as weird? [applause] >> you, too, are welcome to reply in poetic meter, two. >> and i will decline the invitation. [laughing] but i will say this. i think that very fact that your honor describes prudes are . a full 15% of anyone 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 have a follow up on -- [laughing] >> i thought you might. >> this smacks of sex discrimination did you say you are opposed to witchcraft but it don't see going after the washington wizards. [laughing] >> all in good time, your honor. all in good time but let me just say i think this brings 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 where the just mad because of the king wouldn't let them develop their golf course in the scottish tidelands? [laughing] >> it's an indication macbeth was not trustworthy either. any claim to the biggest coronation crowd in history? [laughing] maybe he was shown otherwise. >> fake news is rampant these days and we understand that. we understand that certainly. >> what do you make of the word from macbeth own mouth? he said that if chancel of making, chance most crown me without my stir. so at the moment, at the moment when he is with his three witches, he's listening to them as much as people listen to cassandra. >> 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 occurs. does anyonereally believe that's a figment of macbeth's imagination? maybe if you lived in lady conway fantasyland of alternative facts you would believe that. [laughing] >> but there was no one else who saw it. and isn't that the problem, to all of this was in macbeth's mind? macbeth tells us about the witches stirring up the wind. he had a companion with him, lennix. lynn next doesn't even see the witches. >> but your honor, the evidence that bans the witches comes out of the own mouth. i'm for you again to that key moment in act i scene three just before they cast the 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 savors life a living hell, and for what? because the same his wife wouldn't share her chest us. that was right out of the mouths of the witches themselves. so that's proof right there and that, and all that you got for macbeth is corroboration. >> why we do look at another set of words that macbeth and self were after the deed was done he says of this. i have done the deed. not somebody else put me up to the deed. he says i've done the deed. if one thing we know about powerful are one of the powerful men is a willing to bring anything on women. [laughing] >> well, your honor, he certainly did the deed and his wife was certainly deeply and located as well but that doesn't exhaust criminal responsibility. this all started on that -- [laughing] >> hecate, hecate, why are you calling me? no, i don't want your bloody daggers. i don't want the dagger. bye. sorry, goodbye. [applause] >> if i had any since i would rest my case right there. [laughing] >> what was at that point about the chestnuts? i didn't quite get that. [laughing] >> mr. verrilli, i have a follow-up. before he killed the king, macbeth, amid a lengthy speech, recounts the words witchcraft celebrates tail hecate offering. do these five words not prove to all who hear that hecate, not her witches, there's the guilt? >> aren't you going to invite 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 line of the legitimate line of succession in the kingdom of scotland. macbeth understood that this was witchcraft in operation. and lady macbeth graph -- and lady macbeth understood, and the jury understood that it was witchcraft in operation it 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 so suspicious of this whole prosecution and i want to know why you're not going after the people who have leaked all this information about the bases, 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. what was -- [laughing] >> it's right there in act i scene three your honor. >> were they wrong? it all depends. and where were they come in her lap? >> she had a nice bunch in her lap and she refused to share the with the witches which you could understand from the circumstances. because as far as i can tell all they did before he commits the crime is plant the 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. [laughing] >> which will be just fine by the way. but again it's that key moment, the whole case hinges on that key moment before they encounter macbeth they go into their wild maniacal jig three times at this way, three times that way, three times back around again. because they are in the own words winding up their spell. they're calling it up so they can spring it on macbeth. >> they are studying at arthur murray. [laughing] >> that's the key moment. that's when the spell takes hold it at that point they know that they have got him right what want him. they plant the idea in his head and the rest is tragic history. >> we have a best evidence problem. i thought macbeth had tweeted out that the three sisters hoped there are not any tapes. are there tapes? [laughing] >> there are of course the memos. [laughing] [applause] >> if instead the sisters did their prophecy bequeath on "meet the press" or fox and friends, with their predictive punditry sufficed to convict these three of sorcery? well, it's not the prophecy. [applause] it's the spell. it's not the prophecy. the prophecy just worked its way through the spell. >> one thing that is inconsistent, mr. verrilli -- >> only one thing? [laughing] >> it's critical. we know for sure that the witches engineered macbeth's death. at the hand of mcduff. we know that they deceived him so that he would fight with mcduff and lose. so hardly seems, they're punishing him for his misdeeds, not putting him up to them. >> no, your honor. that is exactly how radical satanic terrorists work. [laughing] they need chaos in order to thrive and prosper. and so they just created a chain of chaos, first macbeth kills duncan, then the engineer macbeth's death. that's the whole plan. that's a 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 eighth and ninth centuries that was how we did it. [laughing] but there is 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 tie the witch to the stake, but then we first strangle the witch. [laughing] it's quick, it's relatively painless, it's over in a very short 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 spirits thing. that an inflicts no cruel and unusual punishment on the witch. now as my time is drawing to a close, if i may just offer these final words. for now your honors must decide, free exercise? no. regicide. a verdict for the kingdom then, let's make scotland great again. [applause] >> ms. maynard, 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 shield speech in the kingdom and it will result in kings being surrounded by a bubble who sit around the king stable 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 coven room talk. you can make anything of it. and finally the crown points to the contents of my clients cauldron. but part of freedom is been 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. [laughing] and if that's not enough, we will all have to buy insurance for bloodletting. [laughing] >> you've had a very strong case but here's what worries me. if we reverse and rule instead that witches serve -- would they comply or would they use their magic to escape? >> we have prepared a response. roundabout the cauldron go in the poison entrails throw. under cold stone days and nights has 31. swelter to then sweeping, boil l our thirst in the charmed pot. >> double double toil and trouble, fire burning cauldron bubbles. free our clients on the double or this kingdom will be rubble. [laughing] [applause] >> all rise. the honorable bench will now deliberate. [inaudible conversations] >> please be seated. as the honorable bench deliberates, the scottish jury, our audience will cast the vote by placing a red or blue token in the baskets that would be circulating. the question is did the trial court err in convicting the weird sisters? please vote yes -- vote blue for yes if you think the services 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 the three weird sisters were wrongly convicted and the trial court erred. please vote red for know if the concord decision should be upheld. as reminder please vote only once. [laughing] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome abbe lowell for two nights discussion. [applause] >> it is our great honor and pleasure to also have for the interim while the justices and judges are deliberating a friend of mine, a scholar come somebody all know of and a part of and have seen. and a talking about jonathan turley, gw is professor of constitutional law. you probably know a deal about them. please welcome him right now. [applause] >> as you know, jonathan teaches, comments, writes amazing numbers of articles, dozens in various law journals and other publications i didn't know this until i was asking him to indulge us come i didn't realize you were the youngest chaired purpose in the schools history. quite remarkable, and thank you for coming. [applause] >> so let me set up what we want to talk about it we are doing and the kill of the conviction of the three weird sisters for words that they spoke about macbeth, for which they were convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder of duncan. in the news last week showed carter was convicted by a judge in the state court in massachusetts of involuntary manslaughter. manslaughter is the killing of one human being i another that is not premeditated. in massachusetts involuntary manslaughter occurs when someone unintentionally causes the death of another when the defendant is engaged in some type of reckless conduct or walk committee and other serious battery on the person to in massachusetts involuntary manslaughter is killing of another person that is intentional but has some kind of mitigating factor. these circumstances can include the heat of passion, but reasonable provocation or being in the fog of witchcraft. maybe not so much of that. this is to be assisted come on site, this to be distinguished from the states that have laws that prevent assisting somebody in suicide which 37 states have a statute, 33 by common law. these are in the form of a manslaughter of some kind or another usually in the voluntary or involuntary. with that background give 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 be 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 court human tragedy and turn it into a legal. the implications of what the judge is saying i really chilling. it's sort of surprising i guess this is why juvenile courts don't normally become the fount of constitutional theory. but this case true 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 bite in the amount the speech that occurs, that is enough to make it an unconstitutional verdict? >> i have to confess, i unabashedly and an absolutist in terms of free speech. it's hard to convince me that governmental limitations on free speech are justified. like many people in the free speech community i believe the solution to bad speech is more speech. maybe the three sisters we can just add a whole bunch of other sisters and thei they were all ballots out. i think history has shown that when courts or when governments, through legislative means, restrict speech, it really achieves what they at least date as the purpose. and often reduce a speech away that is hard to get back. that's the weird thing about constitutional rights. it's easy to lose a bit. it's very, very hard ever to get them back. >> speaking of the word weird, let me ask you this. if we know that the court after generations at the same as phrase that we all been taught in school, that crying fire in a crowded theater and actionable, then why isn't when somebody is in the midst of his truck he leaves the truck and you tell a 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, 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 just like screaming fire in a theater. holmes did not need it as a sweeping justification, but what you are really seeing is the result of the court shipping away conceptions on the right of free speech. brandenburg is the ultimate example of that. in 1969 the supreme court ruled in brandenburg v. ohio that you could criminalize speech. it was an interesting decision because they struck down the ohio language which was incredibly broad. but in striking down they endorsed the idea that you can have violent speech. for many of us, we have a hard time accepting the concept of speech as violent. and what you see in this tragic case is how words can actually 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 have two teenagers, both of whom had emotional difficulties. both of whom had diagnosed problems that they were struggling with. 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 can see enough of the audience in a second, i will ask a question. so you think that bears no amount or quality of our 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 easily to somebody committing a violent act? >> my answer is probably no there are plenty of crimes based on words. you can have conspiracy in terms of your words being part of a criminal act. but what's different about this is the words themselves are treated not just as the act as a weapon, in terms of -- >> let's make sure everybody does understand what you're saying he goes i was researching for tonight. the difference is 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. in the question is whether words in the context can never be, quote, the weapon. where as, so this is my jump off to the next question, what about, therefore, the assisted, the assisted suicide prohibition in those 37 states? so there is a requirement is, you are saying more than words, it has to be it provides the syringe, provides the hose, whatever. is that -- >> are not a big fan of those thoughts either, but the problem with the assisted suicide laws that they have descended to people on the internet to have given advice to people who are seeking to in their lives, including how they can do so easily or humanely. we've had a couple of charges. for those of us concerned about free speech, the implications of what is 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. it's 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 an ever thought was possible. 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 values we would all except, but what has happened in those countries is what we have known throughout history. once you begin to criminalize speech, it develops an insatiable appetite, ensign of the people want to side is the speech of people they don't agree with. >> so i hear you saying and that you you staking out the position of the value of three speech and the precious right it is in our country that is eroded and other countries, i get that. but what you've done is saying that if you accept the verdict in massachusetts, i guess which are arguing for is either the chink in the armor or the slippery slope. and once that goes, nothing else goes. >> that's correct. here you've got two kids who,, both are struggling with problems, and you have this common tragedy, but the result of this is it creates a new type of crime where words themselves are the weapon. the question for us is, as angry as we may be at michelle for what she did come at a think anybody reading this story didn't feel revulsion by what she told her friend. the question is, does it help to make this a crime? is that going to stop the next michelle from doing that? >> let me ask you three quick question because i know our judges will be ready in second. first, do you think, i take it from what you said, what do you think yes or no if it's going to be a crime, should it be done by common-law judges with opinions or should it be done the legislature? >> i don't think it should be done by either. i think if the legislature makes speech on a should be viewed as unconstitutional but i'm particularly concerned when judges do that. there's a concern over what's called uber legislature problem where judges go before a beforee legislature it's notable 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 criminalized, which is so. >> i think -- do you think of the get to the supreme court? >> i know a few people we could probably ask. [laughing] >> so as a practice to how you voted in a show of hands based on what you've read, what you know and what we've talked about, all those people who support the verdict in massachusetts based on the words spoken, raise your hands. wow. all those people who are against the verdict. >> hallelujah. >> let me thank jonathan for helping me. >> 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 had returned this scottish verdict. did the witches, the women -- [laughing] [applause] did they aid or abet macbeth in the murder of king duncan? our answer is not prudent. and one of the reasons why we have a most reasonable doubt, i just illustrated by my slip of the tongue. we know historically that men feared witches, so they burned women. and now i will call upon my colleagues, most of who concur in the court's judgment. [laughing] >> so shall we start with judge srinivasan. >> thank you, justice ginsburg. i do better than not to concur with you. [laughing] so i do concur. this seems like an easy case to me. if we do the job that were supposed to do, which is to approach our task with empathy. and when i look at it that way, i think it's quite transferred and the reason i say that is because i grew up in a household with two sisters. [laughing] i used to call them weird. [laughing] and they used to fill my head with delusions of grandeur, which caused me to develop all sorts of mischievous things that i used to blame them, and now 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] >> judge millett? >> as i indicated during my questioning, i'm suspicious this whole prosecution smacks of discrimination, both for its targets of the prosecution, never the orlando magic or washington wizards, only women. when men create, nate silver greats blogs predicting who's going to be present or 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? >> well, having started the pattern, i might as will finish it. although we could overturn the sentence for insufficient evidence, i would chart a different course in reversing the trial court. putting the sisters to death perpetuates a 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 are obviously guilty. [laughing] anyone who is seen that shakespeare companies production of this play would note that it couldn't possibly be sex discrimination. two of the so-called sisters were men. [laughing] anyone who is seeing the production would know there couldn't possiblybe 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 soft dollinger, i'm very surprised you don't know what that means, that soft dollinger is that chestnut argument. [laughing] yes, i don't understand the chestnut argument. [laughing] 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 below to read the juries decision. >> so this is one of 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 thanking again the wonderful participants, and as to don and his associates and the tables, when we had to take on a tough argument to make sure that it would be well represented, we knew that there was nobody inthis down that we could turn to when you're about tough argument other than you, so we appreciate that. [applause] >> we knew if there was in the 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 it remember the red bags are filled with the votes to say that the lower court did not err and the verdict should stand. the blue represents those who believe that the lower court was in error and should be reversed. [laughing] [applause] .. [laughter] >> thank you all very much. have a wonderful evening and thanks for being part of it. >> all rise. this concludes the trial of the weird sisters. have a wonderful evening and enjoy the rest of it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> here is what i had on c-span2. next, a panel discussion on how negotiations to modernize the nafta agreements could impact mexico. then a group of activists discuss strategies for lobbying members of congress. 3:4:05 pm investors protest the us patent and trademark office's patent trial and appeal board. >> every month booktv on c-span2 features an in-depth conversation with a nonfiction author about their writing career. join us on september 3rd when our guest is eric pay taxes. 's latest book is if you can keep it. 's other books is amazing grace, best-selling biography of dietrich von hoffer. arthur and new york columnist maureen dowd will discuss bush world. are men necessary? and the year of voting dangerously. michael lewis will talk about

Related Keywords

Mexico , New York , United States , United Kingdom , Massachusetts , Washington , Russia , Canada , Russian , Britain , Scotland , Mexican , Chuck Schumer , Michael Lewis , Gerri Bloch , Nancy Pelosi , King Duncan , David Tatel , Jeffrey Lou , Abbe Lowell , Manis King , Hoffer Arthur , Oliver Wendell , Bert Fisher , King Malcolm , Karen Wheeler , Mitch Mcconnell , John Vogel , Michelle Carter , Paul Ryan , Greg Cook ,