by the bard association which many of you are members and those of you are not, hope you will become. it is the affinity group of lawyers in washington dc and elsewhere to try to support not only art in general but this from the computer in specific. as you know, tonight's argument is based on the text of william shakespeare's macbeth which was produced by the theater this spring and directed by liesel on this very stage. it was a wonderful event and i'm sure many of you attended it. i want to start with a trend by thanking the people that you will see on the stage and 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 am honored to work, who work on coming up with the ideas, coming up which plate we will do and figuring out what the legal questions can be. these are the people who year in and year out make this possible. i realize after last winter that while i always think them in general i want to thank them in specific. i get to be the front guide but they are the guys who do hard work. if you are in the house i want to announce and have everyone think the following people: amanda, jerry, craig, carol, nina, bert, jesse, lloyd, john, karen peeler please, all stand and we want to thank you. [applause] in a world beset by a civil war in invasion, macbeth and his artful ladies begin a series of murders designed to further their own ambitions only to punch their lives into madness to ascend to power, macbeth kills king duncan and his up the throne. was it a fated prophecy that brought macbeth to commit regicide or did the three weird sisters, apparently the political correct phrase for what we used to call the three witches -- intentionally set an idea in motion using macbeth as a pawn knowing they would benefit from the chaos or to put it another way in to borrow from that other well-known play of the bard, with that danish cast, what hamlet said was kind words, words, words cause someone or in this case particular people three odd characters, to be convicted of murder? last mock trial we consider the culpability of. [inaudible] in the death of romeo and juliet. we take that search for shakespeare's tragedies to near level or to use a current term that is spoken in this town is we, tonight, are on a witch hunt. [laughter] [applause] last week we had another successful event sponsored by the association, the will on the hill event were 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 that we are in washington dc, we asked the democratic national committee and the republican national committee to suggest who might play the three witches. the dnc suggested majority leader mitch mcconnell, speaker paul ryan, and russian president vladimir putin. the rnc suggested senate minority leader chuck schumer, house majority leader nancy pelosi and russian president vladimir putin. [laughter] there is a bipartisan ship in this city after all. at the conclusion of tonight's, you will vote on the following questions. did the trial court air and convicting the weird sisters of king duncan's murder and at the end of the argument if you believe the weird sisters were falsely convicted and the trial court aired, please both the blue token. if you believe that the trier court did not air and the decision to remain upheld, please both the red token. now, let me introduce the participants. please, welcome and we are honored always to have her participation supreme court marshall pamela. [applause] we would get no further than this podium if we did not have amazing advocates who spent countless hours getting ready, prepare and take the abuse they are about to endure and that would be our advocate tonight. please welcome counsel for the petitioners, the weird sisters, diane and her assistant. [applause] knowing that if you can defend the interests of the united states and supreme court day in and day out representing scotland and its kingdom, should be a piece of cake, please welcomes former solicitor donald and his helpers and associates. [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 brief they submitted to the judges and justices prior to tonight which is 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 you can find it then. now, let me tell you who will be the judges tonight and they will soon to being seated by the marshall and they are: supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg will be presiding, justice steven breyer. [inaudible] please, enjoy the trial while the marshall announces the justices. [applause] >> all rise. oh yea, okay, okay. the supreme courts of scotland is now in session. please, be seated. >> i have a preliminary announcement to make. since we are the supreme court of scotland and not the dc circuit on the supreme court of the united states tonight we have allowed the advocates, three uninterrupted minutes to open their arguments. [laughter] 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. [applause] while others may lay claim to that distinction, believe me, this is a witch hunt. our client, three peaceful sisters, have been convicted and sentenced to die for their religious expression. this prosecution hasn't 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. while the sisters may seem wei weird, to others, they did nothing remotely approaching the alleged crimes. 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 macbeth's own castle and if the kingdom were looking for an accomplice it is not the sisters they should blame, it is macbeth's been his wife. it was her taunts and challenges to macbeth apparently fragile masculinity. [laughter] perhaps he has small hands. [laughter] that ultimately drove him to commit the murder. it was, lady macbeth, who with wine and wessel knocked out the kings chamberlains. it was a lady macbeth who left the chamberlains dagger ready were macbeth cannot miss them and it was lady macbeth sat at the chambers by smearing the grooms with blood. such a nasty woman. [laughter] how did we end up here? with the true murderer beheaded and it's been his wife driven to death by insanity the newly crowned king malcolm had to punish someone to fill his promise to drain the bog. [laughter] the prosecution case is full of sound and. [inaudible] dignifying nothing. [laughter] >> they are. [inaudible] to make foul what is fair, to lead him on, for lust for the throne. they conjure an image and an apparition that tells him to be bloodied, bold and resolute. all of that is in the record and it seems that you are ignoring it. >> know, your honor, not at all. all the sisters did was inform him of a prophecy. they told him to think that he would be paying of cold or and that at some time in the hereafter he would be king. in making such to political predictions were enough to be subject to prosecution that would shut down most of the industry in this town. [laughter] the sisters of prophecy is part of a long and valued tradition of soothsayers actually speaking truth to power. in all cases the profits are mere messengers and you can't shoot the messenger. time and again this court has made clear that for-profit speech is equally protected. >> before we go on, i need to clarify something. your brief gave us the names of these three women, are we talking about kim, chloe, kardashian? >> the text does not identify the sisters and we go by sister one, sister to ancestor three. that's my clients prefer to be called. at times, the text does label them witches but i think it's important to keep in mind that whether it's william who wrote the record or thomas, it was william or thomas and they are both men and essentially this prosecution is based on sex stereotyping. >> misdemeanor, compare the witches early uttered words, fair is foul, foul is fair and would seem to be make breast bright line so foul affairs, i have not seen and the parallel between these lines is playing and this is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and a link between the two, i welcome your reply, in poetic meter. [laughter] >> i cannot do that on the fly, i will give it a try. i think that the sisters here do not control the environment in many of the charges against him are macbeth is the climate change denier. macbeth suggests that the sisters have somehow made the foul fair you can't blame client change on the sisters. we are far past melting ice caps here and were talking about the wood moving to. [inaudible] >> but the sisters are followers of the goddess of the moon and she chastises them for doing it on their own and she says, i see they trafficked in macbeth's affairs without her presence so you raise some question of religious freedom but devil worship or moon god worship qualify as a religion? >> two points on the premises of your question, your honor. first, your line on material that was stricken from the record which the kingdom improperly relies on but if one does look at that, one will see that the god of the moon says macbeth is acting for his own desires. lust for his own ends, not for you so if that passages taken in context, it doesn't support any proof beyond reasonable doubt about the sisters. >> we can't pin this all on macbeth can we? byzantine new to government? [laughter] >> he is new to government but i think if this court were to look at the tweets that he sent that it's pretty clear that what he is trying to do is affect a complete and total shutdown of witchcraft. >> did your clients, did your sisters find the right person and i'm asking because the lines they usually speak are in rhyme and i'm no poetry expert but i think the words are supposed to rhyme in the lines where they first identified the person who was there targets like this. where is the place up on the east, there to meet with mick the. [laughter] >> your honor, make an excellent point. according to that authoritative legal source, wikipedia, when shakespeare or thomas wrote this play, heath was pronounced have and it did indeed rhyme and i believe they identified the right man who was, however, driven to do what he did ultimately by his true accomplished, his wife lady macbeth and macbeth at times would come through but no, nevertheless he persisted. [laughter] >> your clients went way beyond moral religious practices. they were destroying ships and crops and falsely announcing that lala land one best picture. [laughter] >> i don't remember that last one being in the record but as to the first bit, again, i do believe that macbeth is somewhat a climate change denier and secondly, my client want to be taken seriously but not literally. [laughter] >> misdemeanor, as a strict textual list, i think it's rather obvious that under 18 usc section 373 the sisters never did commands macbeth nor solicit him to cause malcolm's death but did they not induce them to do the crime by telling him he will be king? i welcome your reply in poetic meter, two. >> i'm not sure that i can do it again. [laughter] >> does, answer the question. >> of course, your honor. even if all they told him was that someday he would be king they did not suggest that he take action to make it so. >> webster defines induce as to arouse by indirect stimulation. >> your honor, even if they had said that they hoped he would someday be king that would not be enough. first, hope is not a plan. second, hope is not a directive. simply saying i hope you can see your way clear through taking actions to be king, that district if they had wanted him to do something they would have been really, really clear about it. >> my copy of the record says let's go to the heath and will meet macbeth and will sell him to king duncan. that's what it says in my copy spirit yes, your honor. but right after that macbeth knew that it gave him no cost to murder king duncan and this is what he says. if chance will have making, white chance be crowned me. >> but that's the name of the which. [laughter] >> one, your honor, pointing out that you are male, they do not accept the label which. two, maybe if macbeth had stopped man interrupting them and treating them like hysterical women they would have continued on and made clear that they were saying let life go in effect, they said he would be thing of call door and he didn't lift a finger to be calm thing of culture. he should've waited. but no, his bossing ambition overlapped itself instantly put, macbeth is a bad hombre. >> what about the dagger that he sees just before he does the dastardly deed? >> the sisters can be blamed for the alleged appearance of a floating dagger, your honor. first, that is big news if i ever heard it. [laughter] indeed, even macbeth recognizes that it was a phony. the evidence shows that he said it was a dagger of his mind, a false creation proceeding from the heat of press to bring. even if you thought it happened and you're the only person in the trial record that saw that dagger. crooked lady macbeth and he's the only -- i crack myself, she mentions it later in the play and isn't it just as likely that the vision was drug-induced and that just like she had drug the chamberlains she drugged the -- >> why do they call themselves weird? >> we have called ourselves in our papers, simply the three sisters. the weird is also another label that society has placed on them. >> i think they said in the lines themselves. [laughter] >> it is good sometimes -- >> weird is an old english word and it means better chance sometimes and in other meaning is let's grab macbeth and kill him to get killed duncan. >> thank you for that assistance i will take the first step. >> if the wishes could be taking a word usually meant to disparage and using it as a badge of honor. >> absolutely. i would like to get back to my point about the prosecution being based on sex stereotyping. the sisters already had to work double double, toil and trouble. apparently, the crown has said they're not common enough because they are withered and have beards. if i may, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. [applause] >> we will now hear from the representative for the kingdom of scotland. >> madam chief justice, and may it please the court. complaining about a witchhunt is no substitute for a sound legal defense and it makes no difference whether the complaints pop up in an angry to meet at 5:00 a.m. or appear in scare quotes in a brief to this court. whenever you hear someone brain on and on about the single greatest witchhunt in scottish history you can be sure of one thing, something wicked this way comes. [applause] don't let these weird sisters and snare you with their charms like they have sneered macbeth. focus on what is real not his what fake. in particular, focus on these two keys: first, the weird sisters do not have a religious liberty defense. remember what they testified at trial that they were mere mortals who had been scapegoated just because they enjoyed filming their long crooked noses at social convention. now, they come to this court and say exactly the opposite and it's all paganism this and double worship that and religion this and the eye of the nude and the toe of the fog, cooking in the pot. at trial they said they were trying out the latest recipe. [laughter] now, it's a religious exercise. the wild spinning around like acid trippers at a grateful dead concert and a child that they said they were auditioning for dancing with the stars. now, it is religious exercise. the beards, withered and while the tire is religion. i mean, really? do you want that argument is like. that is like enacting a healthcare law as a regulation of interstate commerce and coming to this court and arguing that there it be upheld as a tax. [laughter] [applause] i mean, really. who would fall for something like that? [laughter] now, the second key, the second key is there is plenty of evidence indicating the weird sisters in king duncan's murder. it's all right there in act i, scene three of the record. macbeth was going about his business having disemboweled a traitor or two and what happens? the weird sisters appear out of nowhere and like sean spicer popping out of the white house shrubbery. that was not an accident, your honor. the weird sisters admitted that they had wound up their charm, their spells so they could spring it on macbeth at that very moment which, of course, they did. my friend says it's an idol prophecy on their part, pure applesauce. as a great interest one-sided about an argument i made. [laughter] >> this prophecy was altogether accurate and it's well known that in some spots that it's in the law of great britain is that every man is king in his own home so, macbeth was on his way home and there he would be king. >> that is how those weird sisters work, your honor. the fact that it is subtle doesn't excuse it. the key was that at the very moment they cast a spell and it's not just the words but the spell they cast. >> what does that even mean? i looked up the king on the internet and it could've been king josiah or king hoodies or king little g, the mexican wrapper. king gizzard the lizard wizard. i mean, king what? the wrestler? [laughter] >> that's a very long question, your honor. i'm just waiting to see if you're finished. i think both macbeth and lady macbeth knew exactly what they were talking about. lady macbeth talks about the metaphysical and they were quite clear about which king they were talking about and the king that macbeth would become i don't think there's any doubt about that. >> of 35 recorded executed witches, in scotland and the us a measly six were men. is this not proof that crying which, in truth, is merely a pretext for controlling any woman and then proceed as weird. [applause] >> i have an answer. >> you, too, are welcome to reply in a poetic meter. >> i, too, will respectfully decline. i think the fact that your honor describes as our point, a full 15% of everyone burned at the stake for witchcraft in the kingdom of scotland was a man. what that tells you is that this is not sexism but national security. [laughter] >> i want to follow up. question here. discussing the sex termination, you say you are opposed to witchcraft but i don't see you going after the washington wizards. >> all in good time. let me say, i do think this brings up a critical points. the weird sisters were not prosecuted for heresy or for witchcraft but 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 were they just mad because the king wouldn't let them develop their golf course in scottish highland. >> plenty of indication that macbeth was not trustworthy either. for example, didn't he claim to have the biggest coronation crowd in history? >> if think news is rampant these days and we understand that and we understand that certainly but what you make of macbeth's own mouth when he said that if chance will have me king, white chance most crown me without my. [inaudible] at the moment, when he is with the three witches he's listening to them. >> but what comes next is the moment is the moment of the body dagger. at exactly the moment when macbeth loses his nerves, the body dagger occurs. does anyone really believe that is a figment of macbeth's imagination. maybe if you live in lady conway's fantasyland of alternative facts you would believe that. >> but there was no one else who saw it and isn't that the problem that all of this was in macbeth's mind. macbeth tells us about the witches stirring up the wind and he's got a companion witness, lennix, lennix doesn't even see the witches. >> your honor, the evidence that damns the witches comes out of their own mouse. i refer you again to that key moment in act i, scene three and 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 mouths of the witches themselves. that is proof right there and all that you got from macbeth was cooperation. >> why would they like another set of words that macbeth himself after the deed was done he said this. i have done the deed, not somebody else but me up to the deed but he says i have done the deed and one thing we know about want to be powerful men is are willing to blame anything on women. [laughter] >> well your honor he certainly did the deed and his wife was certainly a deeply indicated as well. doesn't exhaust the criminal responsibility in this started ♪ ♪ >> why are you calling me? no, i don't want your body dagger. i don't want the dagger. goodbye. [applause] mac if i had any sense, i rest my case right there. >> what was the point about the chestnuts, i didn't quite get that. >> i have a follow-up. before he kills the king macbeth amid a lengthy speech recounts the words witchcraft celebrates the pale blue god's offering. through these words proof to all who hear that the moon god, not her witches, bears the guilt? >> will you invite me to respo respond? no, 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 and macbeth understood that this was witchcraft in operation in lady macbeth understood it was witchcraft in operation, metaphysical aid, 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 in aiding and abetting. >> i am still suspicious of this whole prosecution i want to know why you are not going after the people who have leaked all this information about the three sisters including the former fbi director, james comey. [laughter] >> again, your honor, all in the time. [laughter] >> i didn't get the point about the chestnuts. >> no,. [inaudible conversations] if that's enough to get someone convicted of murder you have an expansive life as a prosecutor. [laughter] it's all based on that key moment before they encounter macbeth, they go into their wild jig, three times this way, three times that way, three times back around again because they are winding up their spell. they are coiling it up so they can spring it on macbeth. that's what happened. that's the moment of culpability right there. that's when the spell takes hold. at that point, they know they have got him right where they want him. they plant the idea in his head and the rest is tragic history. >> do we have a best evidence problem here. i thought they tweeted out that this three' sisters better hope there no tapes. are there tapes? [laughter] there are the memos. [laughter] their prophecy. [inaudible] on meet the press. [laughter] with their predictive punditry be considered sorcery? >> 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. >> only one thing. [laughter] >> we know for sure that which is engineered macbeth's death. we know they've deceived him so they would either fight with mcduff and lose. they're punishing for his misdeeds. >> no, your honor, that is exactly how radical satanic terrace work. [laughter] they need chaos in order to thrive and prosper and so they just created a chain of chaos. first macbeth kills duncan, then they engineer macbeth's death. that's the whole plan to take over the world, right there. 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. does that not offend amendment eight. >> your honor, of course in the eighth and ninth century, that is how we did it, but there has been a great humanizing tendency, and by now, as i would hope you would know, the way this works is that yes we do tie the witch to the stake, but then we first strangle the rich. it's quick, it's relatively painless, it's over in a short time, the witch feels almost nothing. and then of course we do bring the body, but we are just doing that to make sure we've taken care of the evil spirit. that 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. you must decide free exercise n no. regicide. a verdict for the kingdom then , let's make scotland great again. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. i would just like to make three quick points. first, fundamentally is this prosecution, it will kill speech in the kingdom and will result in kings being surrounded by a bubble that sits around the table and offer praise. second, the crown .2 some of the chatter and dancing that happen at times, but that is just talk. you can't make anything of it. finally, the crown points to the 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 stamps, the next thing you know, he will be here telling you that we all have to make our soup out of broccoli. if that's not enough, we will all have to buy insurance. >> you have a very strong case. what worries me, if we reverse then they serve a less draconian term than death, would they comply or would they use their magic to escape? >> we have prepared a response. roundabout the cauldron go, in the poison, days and nights, sweat swelter venom double double 12 trouble, fire burning cauldron bubble. free our clients on the double or this kingdom will be rubble. [applause] >> we will now deliberate. please be seated. as the honorable bench deliberates, our audience will cast their vote by casting a red or blue token in the basket circulating. the question is, did the trial court air in convicting the weird sisters. please vote yes for blue if you believe they were wrongly convicted. please vote red for now if the decision should be upheld. blue for yes if you believe they were wrongly convicted and the trial court erred. vote red for no if the decision should be upheld. as a reminder, please vote only once. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome abby david for tonight's discussion. >> it is our great honor and pleasure to also have for this interim while the justices and judges are delivering, a friend of mine, a scholar, someone you all know of and have heard of, i'm talking about jonathan turley, the professor of constitutional law and you probably know a good deal about him. please welcome him right now. as you know he teaches and writes amazing numbers of articles, dozens of various law journals and other publications. i didn't know this until i was asking him to indulge us. i didn't realize he was the youngest chair professor. it's quite remarkable. thank you for coming. they were convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder of duncan. in the new/week, michelle carter was convicted by a judge in the state court of massachusetts for voluntary manslaughter. the killing of one human being by the other that is not premeditated. in massachusetts, involuntary manslaughter occurs when someone unintentionally causes the death of another when the defendant is engaged in some sort of reckless conduct or while committing another serious battery on the person. voluntary manslaughter is the killing of another person that's intentional. circumstances can include the heat of passion or being in witchcraft. this is to be distinguished from the state that has laws that prevent assisting someone in suicide which 37 states have by statute, three by common law. these are all in the form of a mass slaughter of some form or other. with that background, given we are here tonight to talk about whether the words of the sisters can be held as the means by which their conviction should stand, let's talk about that in connection with the verdict. let me start. do you agree or disagree with the verdict. >> i disagree. i believe the court, the they took a human tragedy and turned it into a legal tragedy as well. by the implication of what the judge is saying is really chilling. it's sort of surprising. i guess this is why juvenile courts don't normally become the four fountain of constitutional theory. in this case, it truly is chilling in terms of what it could mean for free speech. primarily, your view, if it constricts by any amount the amount of speech that occurs that that is enough to make it an unconstitutional verdict. >> i am an absolutist in terms of free speech. governmental limitation on free speech, like many, i believe the solution to bad speech is more speech. maybe the three sisters, we can just add a whole bunch of others and it would all balance out. i think history has shown that when courts or governments, through legislative means restrict speech, it really achieves what they stated as their purpose, and it often reduces speech in a way that's hard to get back. that's the weird thing about a constitutional right. if you lose them, it's very, very hard to get them back. let me ask you this. if we know that the court has had the famous phrase that we've all been taught in school, that crying fire in a crowded theater can be actionable, then why isn't, when someone is in the midst of his truck where fumes are coming in and he feels 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 begin. >> if i had a time jean, i think my first visit would be before oliver holmes uttered those words and say stop. it's one of the reasons why soundbites don't work wellin constitutional doctrine. everyone who wants to restrict speech said just like screaming fire in a theater. he did not mean it as a sweeping justification. what you are really seeing is the result of the court chipping away through sections of the right of free speech. brandenburg is the ultimate example of that in 1969 the supreme court ruled that you could criminalize speech. it was an interesting decision. they struck down the ohio language you can have violent speech. for many of us, we have a hard time accepting the concept of speech as violent. what you see in this tragic case is how words can actually be treated like a murder weapon. 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 two teenagers, both of whom had emotional difficulties. both of whom had diagnose problems they were struggling with. they were brought together at a moment of tragedy. that tragedy was multiplied by the court, not resolved by the court. i heard what you said is a qualifier. and i can see the audience, i will ask the question. you think there is no amount or quality or lack of quality of words spoken as words whether orally or in writing and it will never be actionable in a criminal context that leads to someone committing a violent act. >> my answer is probably no. there are plenty of crimes based on words. you can have conspiracy. that's 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 the act but as a weapon. let's make sure everyone understands what you're saying because i was researching for tonight and the differences, in the manslaughter category, you have to have been involved in creating the act and the weapon to be involved in what is the death. the question is whether the words in that context can never be the weapon, whereas, so this is my jump off to the next question, what about therefore the assisted suicide prohibitions and those 37 states. so there, the requirement that you're saying he has to provide this syringe and the hose or whatever. >> i'm not a big fan of those either, but the problem with the assisted suicide law is that the people on the internet who have given advice to people who are seeking to end their lives, including how they can do so easily or humanely. we've had a couple charts. for those of us concerned about free speech, the implications of what has happened in this case can easily be seen by looking over the ocean or in canada. in free speech, it's being eroded all over the world and in the west. the west is falling out of love with free speech. you look to england and france that are criminalizing free speech at a rate that i never thought was possible and it's important to note that those laws have terms like inducement and you can criminalize speech of its viewed as inducing hatred. you can criminalize speech of its viewed as insulting or harassing. all of those are values that we would all accept, 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, and soon other people want to silence the people they don't agree with. i hear you saying and i hear you sticking out the position of the value of free speech and the precious right it is in our country that's eroded in other countries, i get that, but what you've done, you said if you accept the verdict in massachusetts you are arguing that either the chink in the armor or the slippery slope and one echoes nothing else goes. >> that's correct. here you've got two kids who are both struggling with problems and you have this common tragedy, but the result of this tragic is to create 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, and i don't think anybody reading the story didn't feel revulsion by what she told her friend. the question is, does it help to make this a crime? is it going to stop the next michelle from doing that. >> let me ask you three questions because i know our judges will be ready in a second. first, yes or no, should be done by common law judges with opinions or should it be done by legislature. >> i don't figure should be done by either. i think legislature makes speech a crime than it should be viewed as unconstitutional but i'm particularly concerned that there's a concern over a legislature problem were judges go through legislator. it's notable that a massachusetts, this type of suicide is not a crime. the crime here not only created a new type of speech crime but did so involving a subject that's not even criminalized which is suicide. i know a few people we could probably ask. [laughter] as a practice of how you voted , all those people who support the verdict in massachusetts based on the word spoken, raise your hand. all those people who are against the verdict, alleluia. let me thank jonathan for helping me. >> thank you. [applause] >> please be seated i will announce the judgment of the court. we are in scotland so we don't find the defendant as innocent nor guilty. we have determined the scottish verdict. did the women, did they aid or abet? our answer is not proved. one of the reasons we have a most reasonable doubt that i just illustrated by my slip of the tongue. we know, historically, that men feared which is so they burned women. now i will call upon my colleagues, most of whom concur. so shall we start. >> thank you. i know better than not to concur with you so i do concur. this seems like an easy case if we do the job that were supposed to do which is to approach our task with empathy. when i look at it that way, i think it's quite straightforward. the reason i say that is because i grew up with two sisters. [laughter] i used to call them weird. they used to fill my head with visions of grander which caused me to do all sorts of mischievous things and i used to blame them. now i see the error of my way. clearly it was all on me. they were just having fun. and i know of indicate my wisdom with this verdict today. >> and suspicious of this whole prosecution smacks of discrimination both selective target from the prosecution and orlando magic and blogs predicting who's going to be president they get lauded for these women get it right and they get prosecuted. [laughter] the last thing i will say is i think there's a pervasive conflict of interest in having king malcolm prosecute the murderers who is father and a special counsel should been appointed. >> having started it, we might as well finish it. although we could overturn the sentence for insufficient evidence, i will chart a different course in diverse thing the trial court. putting the sisters together perpetuates the only women are to blame. we can't explain. it's therefore clear that this prosecution violates equal protection. that by the way. [inaudible] [applause] they are obviously guilty. [laughter] anyone who has seen the shake shakespeare production of this play would know there couldn't possibly be sex discrimination. two of the so-called which is were men. [laughter] anyone who has seen that production would know there couldn't possibly be a violation of religion clauses for after all, these so-called which is worked for the cia. . have enormous depreciation for the advocates. [applause] >> please, welcome back abby to read the jury's decision. >> this is my favorite part of the event. it is to report the results of all of you to see how they fared against our learned budgets. i would start by thinking again the wonderful participants and as to don and his associates in the table when we had to take on a tough argument to make sure that it would be well represented we knew there was no one in this town that we can turn to when you about tough arguments other than you. we appreciate that. [applause] we knew if there were any group of people who could put the right definition on the word weird we picked the right people at this table. [laughter] [applause] i will tell you how it turned if you remember, the red bags are filled with the votes to say that the lower court did not air in the verdict should stand. the blue represents those who believe the lower court was in error and should be reversed. [applause] however, taking the lead of the suggestion of the learned counsel i understood that the defense is willing to have a re- argument next week to see whether or not the three sisters actions violated the tax laws. [laughter] thank you all. have a good evening. [applause] >> all rise. this concludes the trial of the weird sisters. hope you had a wonderful evening. enjoy the rest of it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] tonight president addresses the nation on outlining the. >> mr. o'reilly is interviewed by lydia a telecom reporter event driven. >> when you talk about modernizing the fcc's rules, how do you look at immediate market mark how is our elected in the rules? to make the talk to the average consumer how are they envisioning media and how are they digesting content is not just in a small segment of the old three major network channels but you have a much wider slot of is heading towards their palette and they are digesting so much more from different sources. my definition of a market is broader than some and i think the past commission failed in this respect when they viewed things like radio only competed with radio and in some instances it was only fm radio competed with fm where the market is -- everyone is fighting over the same attention in advertising dollars and fearing out how this flex our current rules while doing so in the subway mac watch the cricketers tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> tonight, president, addresses the nation to outline his strategy for afghanistan. the us military has been in that country for 16 years since just after 911. the president speaks at fort meyer in arlington, virginia. you can see his speech live on c-span, the c-span radio app and online at c-span .org. tonight president trump hold a campaign rally in phoenix, arizona. the arizona is the state of senator john mccain, who cast the deciding vote against repeal in replacing the affordable care act. also, senator jeff who the president has called week and a nonfactor in the senate. that rally scheduled for 10:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow, live on c-span. >> from the shakespeare theater company in washington dc with the conversation on what modern lessons of war and conflict can be defined from his works. interior secretary ryan zinke, faisal tommy, and others consider the parallels that can be drawn from catholics in syria, libya and elsewhere around the world. >> good evening. my name is craig jennings, executive director of the shakespeare theater company. thank you for joining us. [applause] thank you so much for joining us for

Related Keywords

Arizona , United States , Afghanistan , Denmark , United Kingdom , Massachusetts , Washington , Phoenix , Virginia , Libya , Canada , Russia , Russian , Britain , Scotland , Danish , Chuck Schumer , Faisal Tommy , King Duncan , William Shakespeare , James Comey , Craig Jennings , Steven Breyer , Ryan Zinke , Jonathan Turley , King Malcolm , Mitch Mcconnell , Macbeth Asa , Himare Macbeth , Oliver Holmes , Abby David , John Mccain ,