WEBVTT - Appreciating Homer's Odyssey 0:00:06.519 --> 0:00:11.280 From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, 0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:15.040 where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught, 0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:19.880 nurtured and honored. This is the radio free Hillsdale Hour, 0:00:19.920 --> 0:00:23.800 bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners 0:00:23.800 --> 0:00:25.079 across the country. 0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:28.080 We are living in a new age technologically, in which 0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:32.040 anybody can publish anything almost instantaneously, and we need to 0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:35.440 think through how to handle that, because you need legislation 0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:37.640 to protect reputation, you need libel law. 0:00:37.680 --> 0:00:41.160 This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio 0:00:41.159 --> 0:00:45.960 Free Hillsdale Hour. Part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. 0:00:46.159 --> 0:00:49.640 That was Carson Holloway, author of the new book No 0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:54.280 Liberty to Libel The Constitutional Case Against New York Times 0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:58.000 v Sullivan. Yes, we talked in depth about libel law 0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:01.570 later on in today's program. First, we're joined by Doctor 0:01:01.570 --> 0:01:05.770 Ben Whalen. He's associate professor of English here at Hillsdale College. 0:01:05.770 --> 0:01:10.010 Also your teacher for the brand new Hillsdale College online course, 0:01:10.290 --> 0:01:17.569 The Odyssey. Find more hillsdale.edu/new course. Doctor Whalen, thanks for 0:01:17.569 --> 0:01:18.050 joining us. 0:01:18.090 --> 0:01:19.289 Oh, thanks so much for having me. 0:01:19.330 --> 0:01:24.289 Excited to talk today about the Odyssey. Every Hillsdale College 0:01:24.290 --> 0:01:27.250 student reads The Odyssey as part of the Great Books 0:01:27.250 --> 0:01:32.690 curriculum here. Why has Homer and this work remained at 0:01:32.690 --> 0:01:37.690 the foundation of a liberal arts education for now? Hundreds, actually, 0:01:37.730 --> 0:01:39.410 thousands of years. 0:01:39.930 --> 0:01:42.810 Uh, it's it's, it's really a sort of a funny 0:01:42.850 --> 0:01:47.009 thing that the oldest work of literature we have in 0:01:47.010 --> 0:01:52.130 Western culture is, is also, uh, so great. Um, it's, 0:01:52.130 --> 0:01:55.410 it's sort of a remarkable thing. It actually, um, it's 0:01:55.450 --> 0:01:59.660 well known that Homer, uh, probably didn't write the story 0:01:59.700 --> 0:02:03.100 down himself that this it emerges from an oral culture 0:02:03.100 --> 0:02:07.580 where bards are reciting and singing songs. And, uh, it's 0:02:07.580 --> 0:02:11.139 a testament to the excellence of the story, uh, that, uh, 0:02:11.139 --> 0:02:14.300 it's been preserved from Homer's time on. It was, in 0:02:14.300 --> 0:02:18.020 other words, it was immediately recognized as a truly great work. Uh, 0:02:18.020 --> 0:02:20.020 and people wanted to hear it and they wanted to 0:02:20.020 --> 0:02:23.299 hear Homer's version of it. And, uh, so it was 0:02:23.300 --> 0:02:26.260 preserved and then eventually set down in writing and has 0:02:26.260 --> 0:02:29.419 been passed on to us. It's a story that it 0:02:29.460 --> 0:02:32.700 obviously it part of its excellence is it just has 0:02:32.740 --> 0:02:37.140 so many great, uh, narrative moments. So of course, you 0:02:37.139 --> 0:02:40.740 have things like the Cyclops and the homecoming, the, the, 0:02:40.740 --> 0:02:44.980 the fight with the suitors, the Lotus eaters, these different goddesses, etc.. 0:02:44.980 --> 0:02:52.020 But it's also excellent because it really does have, uh, philosophical, uh, reach. 0:02:52.060 --> 0:02:57.260 It's got, it gets after deeply, universally human things. And 0:02:57.320 --> 0:03:00.320 so it's, it's really excellent because it, it not only 0:03:00.320 --> 0:03:04.000 has those sort of gripping, uh, moments of, of, of 0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:07.840 a really thrilling story, but, but it, it really helps 0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:11.600 you understand what's, what's proper to a human life and 0:03:11.680 --> 0:03:15.000 in all sorts of ways. So it's, uh, it makes 0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:19.840 sense that even those earliest Greeks would retain and retell and, 0:03:19.840 --> 0:03:22.120 and finally write down Homer's story. 0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:26.200 So we've got this major new film adaptation of The Odyssey. 0:03:26.200 --> 0:03:28.480 It's one of the reasons we have the online course out. 0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:32.040 One of the reasons we have this conversation today. Why 0:03:32.040 --> 0:03:34.760 is this a good time to, to go back and 0:03:34.880 --> 0:03:38.680 maybe not just see the movie, but actually read Homer himself? 0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:43.000 Yeah. Well, I'm excited to see the movie, obviously. Christopher Nolan, 0:03:43.040 --> 0:03:48.400 great director, very interesting and thoughtful, uh, filmmaker, the, uh, 0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:52.240 the book itself though, and this, I love this about 0:03:52.240 --> 0:03:56.730 Hillsdale College that they, they wanted to produce a course 0:03:56.730 --> 0:04:00.490 on on the book itself, because we can't let or 0:04:00.490 --> 0:04:04.570 we shouldn't let even a great film, uh, obscure or 0:04:04.570 --> 0:04:08.410 or stand between us and the book. Uh, it is 0:04:08.850 --> 0:04:11.690 one of the things I love about the Odyssey in particular, 0:04:11.690 --> 0:04:15.290 both the Iliad and the Odyssey is that it's, uh, 0:04:15.650 --> 0:04:20.169 remarkably easy and accessible despite its riches. And so I'll 0:04:20.170 --> 0:04:22.930 tell students this, we'll dive in and we'll read a 0:04:22.930 --> 0:04:26.330 lot here. I teach it every year, uh, at Hillsdale. Uh, but, 0:04:26.330 --> 0:04:28.810 but that actually, as soon as you get into it, 0:04:28.810 --> 0:04:33.570 you're having fun. You're studying like very serious literature with 0:04:33.650 --> 0:04:38.089 real serious questions. But, but it's delightful. It's accessible. It's 0:04:38.089 --> 0:04:41.289 a joy to read. And so I'm happy Nolan has 0:04:41.290 --> 0:04:44.250 made the film, and I hope it just inspires more 0:04:44.250 --> 0:04:47.290 people to actually go and read the book, because the 0:04:47.290 --> 0:04:50.450 book also will be fun and delightful. It's not a 0:04:50.450 --> 0:04:51.930 labor to read. It's a joy. 0:04:51.970 --> 0:04:54.849 Talking with Doctor Ben Whalen. He's your teacher for the 0:04:54.940 --> 0:05:01.100 new Hillsdale College online course, The Odyssey. Find it@hillsdale.edu slash. 0:05:01.260 --> 0:05:08.820 New course NEWCOURSE for the Odyssey. Your lectures here in 0:05:08.820 --> 0:05:12.540 the course follow this journey all around. Finally, at the 0:05:12.540 --> 0:05:15.940 end back home. How does each stop along this journey 0:05:15.940 --> 0:05:18.500 reveal something new about Odysseus? 0:05:18.820 --> 0:05:24.580 Yeah. Uh, so, um, in, in terms of overall chronology, 0:05:24.779 --> 0:05:29.020 the Odyssey essentially starts, um, uh, we hear about it 0:05:29.020 --> 0:05:31.739 in the middle of the work after the fall of Troy. 0:05:31.779 --> 0:05:34.780 Odysseus has been at Troy, they've sacked the city, and 0:05:34.779 --> 0:05:37.180 Odysseus starts his journey home. And one of the really 0:05:37.180 --> 0:05:40.419 interesting things is that what you see is that Odysseus, 0:05:40.420 --> 0:05:42.980 when he leaves Troy and starts to head home, the 0:05:42.980 --> 0:05:46.260 very first thing they do is they land on the 0:05:46.260 --> 0:05:49.820 shores of another city of the Cicones, and they sack 0:05:49.860 --> 0:05:52.900 that city and they they haul off plunder. And so 0:05:52.900 --> 0:05:57.070 you see that this immediately post Troy version of Odysseus 0:05:57.350 --> 0:06:02.790 is not actually a man who is most profoundly driven 0:06:02.790 --> 0:06:05.110 by a desire for home, yet. And he's he's not 0:06:05.110 --> 0:06:09.870 really ready for the role of king and husband and father. Instead, 0:06:09.870 --> 0:06:13.869 he's more a marauder. He behaves more like a pirate than, 0:06:13.870 --> 0:06:16.469 than the king of a of an island or a 0:06:16.470 --> 0:06:19.430 husband or father. So the different stops over the course 0:06:19.430 --> 0:06:23.430 of the Odyssey, in fact, show a growth and an education, 0:06:23.430 --> 0:06:26.910 even for the old grizzled veteran. Odysseus needs to go 0:06:26.910 --> 0:06:31.549 through to learn that he really does belong back in Ithaca. And, 0:06:31.550 --> 0:06:33.710 and that that really is where his heart is. And 0:06:33.710 --> 0:06:35.710 he has to fight to get there. And he has 0:06:35.710 --> 0:06:38.190 to correct and change certain aspects of his character that 0:06:38.190 --> 0:06:41.670 were shaped by ten years at war. And so it's, 0:06:41.670 --> 0:06:45.230 it's a really wonderful thing to watch that. And it's, it's, 0:06:45.270 --> 0:06:50.950 it's painful in parts. And it's also illuminating. Eventually, Odysseus 0:06:50.990 --> 0:06:53.479 goes to the underworld at the very center of the book, 0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:56.240 we hear about this, his his journey to the land 0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:59.040 of the dead. And it's there that he meets his mother. 0:06:59.360 --> 0:07:03.159 And she has died from heartbreak, yearning for Odysseus to return. 0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:05.520 And you see, that's one of the moments where you 0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:09.040 see Odysseus learning, I really have to change what I'm 0:07:09.040 --> 0:07:11.880 what I'm doing, and I do. I need to go home. 0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:16.120 Throughout the lectures, throughout the course, you show that Odysseus 0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:21.280 isn't just fighting monsters, but there's also confrontations with various 0:07:21.280 --> 0:07:25.520 temptations along the way, too. Why are the internal battles 0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:28.880 that we learn about just as important as the external 0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:30.000 battles through the work? 0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:33.160 Yeah, I like when you say The Odyssey. I think 0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:36.040 people think of a Cyclops or maybe the suitors, and 0:07:36.040 --> 0:07:40.640 those are those are external trials, uh, man versus monster, 0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:44.240 man versus other men. But it is true. What what 0:07:44.240 --> 0:07:49.480 we see with Odysseus is that he's given multiple, in fact, uh, 0:07:49.520 --> 0:07:53.330 I sort of joke with my students. Multiple options of 0:07:53.330 --> 0:07:57.690 island women that he could stay with. But but actually 0:07:57.730 --> 0:08:01.170 what he does is he these are sort of temptations 0:08:01.170 --> 0:08:03.330 and they entail different things. So one of these one 0:08:03.330 --> 0:08:07.770 of these goddesses offers him immortality. It's a remarkable thing. 0:08:07.770 --> 0:08:10.970 And it only grows more profound as you read the 0:08:11.010 --> 0:08:16.490 work that Odysseus turns down the offer of immortality. He 0:08:16.490 --> 0:08:20.250 chooses his wife and his home and death, all of 0:08:20.250 --> 0:08:23.930 those things together. And not only death, but also Ithaca 0:08:23.970 --> 0:08:27.850 involves difficulty and suffering. He chooses all that together. Because 0:08:27.890 --> 0:08:31.250 as as Homer reveals to us, in fact, sort of 0:08:31.330 --> 0:08:36.210 a meaningful, noble human life, one in which a happiness 0:08:36.250 --> 0:08:39.089 can be true happiness. The deepest forms of happiness can 0:08:39.090 --> 0:08:45.010 be found also entails mortality and suffering and struggle. And 0:08:45.050 --> 0:08:48.170 that all this together makes up that which we find 0:08:48.210 --> 0:08:49.450 humanly meaningful. 0:08:49.450 --> 0:08:51.950 Doctor Ben Whalen is your teacher for the new Hillsdale 0:08:51.950 --> 0:08:59.510 Online course on the Odyssey. hillsdale.edu/new course. Uh, Odysseus is 0:08:59.670 --> 0:09:03.950 famous for his cleverness, but he also matures over the 0:09:03.950 --> 0:09:07.790 course of this story. How does Homer depict that growth 0:09:07.790 --> 0:09:11.070 for the reader? What lessons should we take from it? 0:09:11.390 --> 0:09:14.950 Yeah, one of the things I think that the work 0:09:14.950 --> 0:09:20.910 is particularly rich on is it's, um, the education of Odysseus, 0:09:21.150 --> 0:09:24.590 both in his need and desire to get home. He 0:09:24.590 --> 0:09:28.630 has to prioritize that, but also that there's a difficulty 0:09:28.670 --> 0:09:36.230 for men who become habituated to violence and force as 0:09:36.429 --> 0:09:40.710 the means of resolving problems that arise in life. And 0:09:40.910 --> 0:09:45.350 so in these ten years at Troy, Odysseus is he's 0:09:45.390 --> 0:09:49.480 a he's the he's described as the, the masterful Tactician. Um, 0:09:49.559 --> 0:09:53.720 he's he's he's brilliant. Uh, and he's thoughtful, but it's 0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:58.319 entirely in terms of the sort of exercise of force 0:09:58.520 --> 0:10:00.640 to get your way to conquer a city. And I 0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:03.160 think that one of the things that Homer shows us 0:10:03.160 --> 0:10:05.079 over the, over the course of the work is that 0:10:05.080 --> 0:10:11.440 the virtues of the warrior are not enough, uh, for 0:10:11.559 --> 0:10:16.200 the husband, father, uh, King, that the husband, father king 0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:19.400 does need to be able to exert force like Odysseus 0:10:19.400 --> 0:10:22.160 does have to actually kill these suitors when he gets home. 0:10:22.360 --> 0:10:25.559 But there's something more that's required for a a truly 0:10:25.559 --> 0:10:28.079 good and virtuous man. There are these other sort of 0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:36.560 domestic and more more intellectually, uh, or, um, peaceful if 0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:40.880 or if not peaceful, more sort of properly ordered ways 0:10:40.880 --> 0:10:44.040 in which a man has to direct his life. And 0:10:44.040 --> 0:10:46.760 we see Odysseus grow in that over the course of 0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:49.570 the over the course of the work. So that finally, 0:10:49.570 --> 0:10:52.809 when he does arrive home on Ithaca, for instance, uh, 0:10:52.850 --> 0:10:57.250 he he does not reveal himself, but instead, uh, thinks, okay, 0:10:57.290 --> 0:10:59.770 I can suffer this too, and I can. And he's 0:10:59.770 --> 0:11:02.329 very slow and very careful and thoughtful. And it's those 0:11:02.370 --> 0:11:05.450 it's being slow and careful and thoughtful that are actually 0:11:05.450 --> 0:11:08.130 some of these virtues most necessary for a good king, 0:11:08.170 --> 0:11:10.170 a good husband, a good father. 0:11:10.809 --> 0:11:13.890 Talking with Doctor Ben Whalen, associate professor of English at 0:11:13.890 --> 0:11:17.209 Hillsdale College, also your teacher for the new online course, 0:11:17.490 --> 0:11:23.290 The Odyssey at hillsdale.edu/course. If you're online a bit, there's 0:11:23.290 --> 0:11:26.370 a little bit of side conversation around the release of 0:11:26.370 --> 0:11:29.970 the film about the women in the Odyssey. Yeah. The 0:11:29.970 --> 0:11:33.770 course that your course highlights Penelope as much as Odysseus. 0:11:33.770 --> 0:11:37.690 Really what makes her one of the truly great characters 0:11:37.690 --> 0:11:39.050 in Western literature? 0:11:39.090 --> 0:11:42.449 Yeah, I, I have strong opinions about this, actually. If 0:11:42.570 --> 0:11:45.970 you get to a book 24 at the very end 0:11:45.970 --> 0:11:50.179 of the work. Odysseus has butchered all these guys. I'm 0:11:50.179 --> 0:11:53.620 going to plot spoiler here, but he 2500 years. That's right, 0:11:53.660 --> 0:11:56.780 that's right. He butchers all these suitors who were paying 0:11:56.780 --> 0:12:00.060 court to his his wife and. And book 24 opens 0:12:00.059 --> 0:12:03.540 with this scene where all of these suitors souls, the 0:12:03.540 --> 0:12:06.900 shades of the of the suitors go down to the underworld, 0:12:06.900 --> 0:12:09.020 and they're greeted by some of the great heroes from 0:12:09.020 --> 0:12:13.740 the Battle of Troy. And in this remarkable moment, Agamemnon 0:12:13.740 --> 0:12:16.060 says to these suitors when he hears how they came 0:12:16.059 --> 0:12:19.699 to die, he. He says the gods will lift up 0:12:20.059 --> 0:12:24.420 an immortal song in praise of the glorious Penelope. This 0:12:24.420 --> 0:12:27.460 song that will never die. And that's. That's actually really 0:12:27.460 --> 0:12:30.940 what the Odyssey is. It's. It's Homer's great song in 0:12:30.940 --> 0:12:34.460 praise of Penelope. Penelope is, uh, she's an awesome character. 0:12:34.460 --> 0:12:37.380 She's she's. I always stress this to my students. She 0:12:37.420 --> 0:12:42.340 is certainly beset by these different suitors. So she's sort 0:12:42.340 --> 0:12:46.150 of holding the household together and it's under assault. Um, 0:12:46.270 --> 0:12:50.790 but she's the opposite of a just a helpless damsel 0:12:50.790 --> 0:12:55.949 in distress. That's not Penelope. Instead, she's resourceful, she's cunning. She, uh, 0:12:55.950 --> 0:12:59.710 she tricks the suitors. She she she really holds the 0:12:59.710 --> 0:13:04.069 whole kingdom together, uh, through her wit and intelligence. Until 0:13:04.110 --> 0:13:07.070 Odysseus returns. And it's been 20 years, for heaven's sakes. So, 0:13:07.270 --> 0:13:11.069 I mean, it's that's no minor undertaking. She's she's a 0:13:11.070 --> 0:13:17.030 great character. And really, uh. Homer. Homer's work points towards her. 0:13:17.070 --> 0:13:21.550 Homer does not neglect her significance or. Homer's work does 0:13:21.550 --> 0:13:25.310 not neglect the significance of women. Uh, really, the poem 0:13:25.309 --> 0:13:30.590 is much more ambivalent about Odysseus character than Penelope's. She's 0:13:30.590 --> 0:13:34.990 the one who has the sort of virtue and consistency 0:13:34.990 --> 0:13:38.790 and excellence that you. You can't help but admire and, 0:13:39.270 --> 0:13:41.670 and think about, uh, throughout the whole work. 0:13:42.150 --> 0:13:45.840 Loyalty is one of the defining virtues in The Odyssey. 0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:48.920 And of course, that ties into Penelope as well. Why 0:13:48.920 --> 0:13:53.520 does Homer place so much emphasis on faithfulness inside the Odyssey? 0:13:53.559 --> 0:13:57.320 Yeah, I that's a that's a great question. At one 0:13:57.320 --> 0:14:01.200 point in Odysseus journeys, he comes to the land of 0:14:01.200 --> 0:14:05.360 the lotus eaters and, uh, the land of the lotus eaters. It's, 0:14:05.360 --> 0:14:09.920 it's this sort of strange, drug like substance that makes 0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:13.680 people forget their home and where they're from and who they, 0:14:13.679 --> 0:14:16.840 they have no desire for anything but to just sort 0:14:16.840 --> 0:14:21.040 of lie around eating Lotus. And, uh, that's sort of the, uh, 0:14:21.040 --> 0:14:27.560 in a certain respect, the antithesis of loyalty. So loyalty entirely. 0:14:27.600 --> 0:14:32.000 It consists of remembering who you are, who you have 0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:36.400 debts towards, who's been your benefactor, who you love. And, 0:14:36.400 --> 0:14:39.200 and you stay true to that. And so, yes, throughout 0:14:39.200 --> 0:14:44.060 the Odyssey, there's this interesting tension Between, say, the call 0:14:44.060 --> 0:14:46.460 of the lotus Eaters, where you. You could just lose 0:14:46.460 --> 0:14:50.740 yourself in momentary pleasure and in in the in the 0:14:50.740 --> 0:14:53.780 day to day and forget and and the man. And 0:14:53.780 --> 0:14:56.300 that's that's in contrast to the man of loyalty or 0:14:56.300 --> 0:14:59.420 the woman of loyalty who remembers and recalls and lives 0:14:59.420 --> 0:15:02.780 according to that code. So Penelope is a great figure 0:15:02.780 --> 0:15:08.500 for loyalty. There's another wonderful figure, Eumaeus, the swineherd who 0:15:08.620 --> 0:15:12.380 has taken care of Odysseus, flocks on Ithaca, and he's 0:15:12.380 --> 0:15:15.380 he's described by Homer as the soul of loyalty because 0:15:15.380 --> 0:15:17.940 he remembers. He remembers his master, he loves him and 0:15:17.940 --> 0:15:20.700 he serves him. And it's it's it's it becomes very 0:15:20.700 --> 0:15:24.340 obvious to us that that sort of memory and loyalty is, 0:15:24.380 --> 0:15:29.060 is a virtue of, of great significance compared to just 0:15:29.060 --> 0:15:31.220 momentary pleasure and forgetfulness. 0:15:31.260 --> 0:15:35.140 Readers who are experiencing the Odyssey for the first time 0:15:35.380 --> 0:15:40.900 might be familiar already with some pieces Cyclops, the Trojan horse. 0:15:41.270 --> 0:15:43.910 There's a lot more to it than that. What are 0:15:44.230 --> 0:15:48.510 some of the overlooked moments that students tend to appreciate 0:15:48.510 --> 0:15:50.869 after reading The Odyssey? 0:15:51.310 --> 0:15:56.110 Oh, that's a great. There are so many. I'll share 0:15:56.150 --> 0:15:59.510 one that's just a personal favorite. When Odysseus finally escapes 0:15:59.510 --> 0:16:02.870 from this island where he's been held captive for 7 0:16:02.870 --> 0:16:06.950 or 8 years, he. He's sailed on a raft, and 0:16:06.950 --> 0:16:11.150 then he gets shipwrecked. And so he lands on this island, 0:16:11.190 --> 0:16:14.750 the island of the Phaeacians, where Nausicaa is the Princess. 0:16:15.110 --> 0:16:18.590 He lands there with with absolutely nothing, not even a 0:16:18.590 --> 0:16:21.590 shred of clothing. He is. He is naked and alone 0:16:21.630 --> 0:16:25.630 has nothing. And so he. He climbs ashore after this 0:16:25.630 --> 0:16:29.230 great storm, and he sleeps under this bush. And so 0:16:29.230 --> 0:16:32.470 he's covered in leaves and twigs, and he's. He's filthy. 0:16:32.790 --> 0:16:35.750 And then the next morning he wakes up and he 0:16:35.830 --> 0:16:39.510 hears these young women playing with this ball. They've done. 0:16:39.550 --> 0:16:42.080 They've been washing some clothes in this stream, and they've 0:16:42.080 --> 0:16:44.880 been throwing a ball back and forth. And Odysseus hears 0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:48.360 them and he comes out of the bushes to to 0:16:48.400 --> 0:16:51.880 see what they are and, and where he is. And 0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:56.760 Homer has this wonderful simile where he likens Odysseus to 0:16:57.520 --> 0:17:02.880 suddenly this this lion about to come and prey on this, 0:17:02.880 --> 0:17:06.840 this well-defended homestead with these rich flocks. And I like 0:17:06.840 --> 0:17:10.040 to pause there with my students and encourage them to 0:17:10.040 --> 0:17:13.560 think about like, what does it mean that Odysseus naked 0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:15.800 without a weapon, without a tool, in a strange land, 0:17:15.800 --> 0:17:20.440 he's got nothing. And yet in this simile, Homer likens 0:17:20.440 --> 0:17:24.240 him to a predator, you know, rather than rather than 0:17:24.240 --> 0:17:28.480 the suppliant, the beggar. He's that's how um, how dangerous 0:17:28.480 --> 0:17:32.640 he is, how forceful, how resourceful Odysseus is. So you 0:17:32.640 --> 0:17:35.680 get these wonderful little moments where this is another thing 0:17:35.680 --> 0:17:40.609 that Homer is so wonderful in is his similes. So 0:17:40.650 --> 0:17:43.129 you have on the level of the story, just this 0:17:43.170 --> 0:17:46.410 action going along. But then Homer will liken it to 0:17:46.450 --> 0:17:49.050 something and that shows you a whole different angle, a 0:17:49.050 --> 0:17:52.770 whole different way of, of seeing the character or the situation. 0:17:53.130 --> 0:17:55.730 Is there a particular one of these lectures inside the 0:17:55.730 --> 0:17:59.609 new online course, The Odyssey that you're excited for students 0:17:59.609 --> 0:18:00.929 to experience? 0:18:01.690 --> 0:18:06.810 Uh, that's yeah, the, I mean, I'm excited for students 0:18:06.810 --> 0:18:09.330 to think about what Odysseus goes through when he goes 0:18:09.330 --> 0:18:12.490 to the land of the dead. Uh, it's actually a 0:18:12.530 --> 0:18:17.330 katabasis is the phrase or the term that refers to 0:18:17.369 --> 0:18:21.490 the a great hero's journey to and return from the 0:18:21.490 --> 0:18:24.490 land of the dead. It's actually a sort of in 0:18:24.530 --> 0:18:27.130 a certain sense, and I'm not trying to Christianize this, 0:18:27.130 --> 0:18:29.330 but there's, there's a way in which, in fact, early 0:18:29.330 --> 0:18:33.369 Christians would even read these stories and see that there's 0:18:33.410 --> 0:18:37.610 a sort of resurrection motif, or the greatest of heroes, 0:18:37.660 --> 0:18:40.980 your Hercules or your Odysseus. They. They travel to the 0:18:40.980 --> 0:18:44.139 land of the dead, and then they return with with 0:18:44.500 --> 0:18:48.980 some sort of profoundly deepened knowledge or understanding or it's 0:18:48.980 --> 0:18:53.020 the mark of the greatest heroes. And so what's interesting though, 0:18:53.020 --> 0:18:57.460 is when Hercules does that, it's. It's simply because one 0:18:57.460 --> 0:19:02.100 of his feats and he's he's the archetypal hero. When 0:19:02.140 --> 0:19:06.620 Odysseus does it, though, it's about reordering the very desires 0:19:06.619 --> 0:19:09.780 of the human heart. And so it's, it's intellectual has 0:19:09.780 --> 0:19:13.139 to do with one's loves and with one's self understanding. 0:19:13.140 --> 0:19:16.620 And so I'm excited for students to, to get to that, 0:19:16.619 --> 0:19:20.780 to see Odysseus confront Achilles and Agamemnon in the land 0:19:20.780 --> 0:19:22.659 of the dead, to meet his mother, and then and 0:19:22.660 --> 0:19:27.380 then to realize really in part through that where he 0:19:27.380 --> 0:19:29.459 belongs and how he should conduct his life. 0:19:29.940 --> 0:19:32.780 Doctor Ben Whalen is associate professor of English here at 0:19:32.780 --> 0:19:36.060 Hillsdale College, and he's your teacher for the new Hillsdale 0:19:36.190 --> 0:19:49.030 College online course. The Odyssey hillsdale.edu/course. NEWCOURSE, the Odyssey. Available now. 0:19:49.190 --> 0:19:51.990 Doctor Whalen, thanks so much for joining us here on 0:19:52.030 --> 0:19:54.030 the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. 0:19:54.070 --> 0:19:55.150 Thank you very much, Scott. 0:19:55.190 --> 0:19:57.630 Up next Carson Holloway is with us. We'll talk about 0:19:57.630 --> 0:20:01.830 his new book, No Liberty to Libel. I'm Scott Bertram. 0:20:01.869 --> 0:20:20.590 This is the radio free Hillsdale Hour. Welcome back to 0:20:20.630 --> 0:20:24.670 the Radio free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure 0:20:24.670 --> 0:20:28.670 to find more great Hillsdale College audio on Hillsdale College 0:20:28.670 --> 0:20:35.689 Podcast Network. You can find it all@podcast.hillsdale.edu. Older editions of 0:20:35.690 --> 0:20:39.129 this show, plus more from The Larry Arnn Show, Imprimis 0:20:39.130 --> 0:20:43.530 and the Hillsdale College Online Courses podcast, wherever you get 0:20:43.530 --> 0:20:47.690 your audio. We're joined by Carson Holloway. He's department chair 0:20:47.690 --> 0:20:50.689 and professor of political science at the University of Nebraska 0:20:50.730 --> 0:20:54.010 Omaha and a Washington fellow in the Claremont Institute Center 0:20:54.010 --> 0:20:56.330 for the American Way of Life. His brand new book 0:20:56.330 --> 0:21:00.930 is No Liberty to Libel The Constitutional Case Against New 0:21:00.970 --> 0:21:04.889 York Times v Sullivan. Carson, thanks so much for joining us. 0:21:05.130 --> 0:21:07.210 Thank you for having me, Scott. I really appreciate it. 0:21:07.210 --> 0:21:10.649 I have to say, I enjoyed the the typeface on 0:21:10.650 --> 0:21:13.490 the book, which makes it look like it's New York 0:21:13.490 --> 0:21:15.929 Times type typeface. I'm sure that was somewhat intentional. 0:21:15.930 --> 0:21:18.650 Yes, yes. I think they did a great job encounter 0:21:18.650 --> 0:21:20.530 books did an excellent job with the look of the book. 0:21:20.690 --> 0:21:23.369 Very good. All right. So look, there's a there's a 0:21:23.410 --> 0:21:25.850 subset of Americans who likely have no idea what we're 0:21:25.850 --> 0:21:28.290 about to talk about, which is libel law. And New 0:21:28.290 --> 0:21:32.170 York Times v Sullivan. Take us inside. Why New York 0:21:32.170 --> 0:21:36.139 Times v Sullivan matters. why? It's an important First Amendment case. 0:21:36.140 --> 0:21:38.020 And then after that, we'll get into why you think 0:21:38.020 --> 0:21:38.660 it's wrong. 0:21:39.300 --> 0:21:42.380 Okay, that sounds great. New York Times versus Sullivan is 0:21:42.380 --> 0:21:44.859 considered by practically everybody to be one of the great 0:21:44.859 --> 0:21:49.300 landmark First Amendment freedom of the press rulings of modern times. 0:21:49.619 --> 0:21:52.660 It was decided by the Supreme Court in 1964, the 0:21:52.700 --> 0:21:57.459 Warren Court Justice William Brennan, one of the very consequential justices, 0:21:57.460 --> 0:22:00.900 a liberal justice, wrote the opinion for the court in 0:22:00.940 --> 0:22:04.380 that case. And the opinions important or the ruling is 0:22:04.380 --> 0:22:09.580 important because it changed the libel standards that the country 0:22:09.619 --> 0:22:14.900 has for public officials. And then later, the court extended 0:22:14.900 --> 0:22:18.780 the new standards to public figures as well as public officials. Libel, 0:22:18.820 --> 0:22:21.859 of course, is when people sue for defamation for the 0:22:21.859 --> 0:22:25.500 publication of false information that damages their character. And the 0:22:25.500 --> 0:22:28.820 court decided in New York Times versus Sullivan that libel 0:22:28.820 --> 0:22:32.380 cases involving public officials. And then, as I say later on, 0:22:32.380 --> 0:22:36.270 public figures raise a First Amendment problem. They. They create 0:22:36.310 --> 0:22:38.750 a problem in relation to the freedom of the press 0:22:38.910 --> 0:22:42.109 that the First Amendment is supposed to protect. So seeing 0:22:42.109 --> 0:22:46.149 that problem in the court's mind, the justice's mind. In 1964, 0:22:46.630 --> 0:22:49.310 they came up with a solution for that problem. And 0:22:49.310 --> 0:22:52.350 that solution is called the actual malice test or the 0:22:52.350 --> 0:22:55.750 actual malice standard. What the court said in the Sullivan 0:22:55.750 --> 0:22:58.870 opinion was that if you are a public official and 0:22:58.869 --> 0:23:01.870 you sue to protect your reputation in a libel suit, 0:23:02.109 --> 0:23:05.150 you will have to show not only that the publication 0:23:05.150 --> 0:23:09.750 about you was false and defamatory or injurious to your reputation. 0:23:09.750 --> 0:23:12.270 You'll also. That's what ordinary people would have to show, right? 0:23:12.590 --> 0:23:14.470 You're going to have to show something else in addition 0:23:14.470 --> 0:23:17.710 to that, which is that the publication was made with 0:23:17.710 --> 0:23:20.950 actual malice. And that's a technical term that the court 0:23:20.950 --> 0:23:25.270 devised to mean the following. Either the publisher knew that 0:23:25.270 --> 0:23:28.870 it was false, or they published with reckless disregard for 0:23:28.869 --> 0:23:31.470 the truth or falsity of the report. So I would 0:23:31.520 --> 0:23:33.840 say the significance of New York Times versus Sullivan is 0:23:33.840 --> 0:23:36.800 that it sets up under the allegation that the First 0:23:36.800 --> 0:23:41.000 Amendment requires this. It sets up a two tiered libel 0:23:41.000 --> 0:23:44.640 system in which ordinary people basically have to show that 0:23:44.640 --> 0:23:47.880 they were defamed by a false report, and public officials 0:23:47.880 --> 0:23:51.800 have to show that, plus this actual malice. Right. And 0:23:51.800 --> 0:23:53.560 one other thing I'd like to say about that, just 0:23:53.560 --> 0:23:57.600 by way of clarifying what it means in practice, the 0:23:57.600 --> 0:24:01.000 court was very clear in subsequent cases in which it 0:24:01.040 --> 0:24:05.200 elaborated on the doctrine that actual malice is something far 0:24:05.200 --> 0:24:09.920 more extreme and far worse than ordinary negligence. So basically 0:24:09.920 --> 0:24:13.280 what it means is it gives the press running room 0:24:13.280 --> 0:24:16.439 to be negligent with the reputations of public officials and 0:24:16.440 --> 0:24:18.959 public figures, because they're going to have to show something 0:24:18.960 --> 0:24:22.560 worse than negligence. They'll have to show, again, actual malice. 0:24:22.560 --> 0:24:24.520 And in practice, it turns out to be very hard 0:24:24.520 --> 0:24:27.000 to meet that standard, which is why there are not 0:24:27.000 --> 0:24:31.250 very many successful libel suits brought by public figures in 0:24:31.290 --> 0:24:32.690 the kind of Sullivan era. 0:24:33.050 --> 0:24:35.770 Come back to that question about reputation a little bit 0:24:35.770 --> 0:24:38.930 later on in the conversation. Americans today, I would guess 0:24:38.930 --> 0:24:40.649 a good number of them assume that freedom of the 0:24:40.650 --> 0:24:43.930 press means that there is broad protection, even for false 0:24:43.930 --> 0:24:48.690 statements about public officials. Is that how the founders understood 0:24:48.690 --> 0:24:49.970 freedom of the press? 0:24:50.609 --> 0:24:53.930 No. I think we are laboring under a delusion that's 0:24:53.930 --> 0:24:57.450 been created by the Supreme Court. The founders, of course, 0:24:57.490 --> 0:25:01.409 did value freedom of the press very highly, including a 0:25:01.450 --> 0:25:04.370 kind of wide ranging and brawling culture in which you're 0:25:04.369 --> 0:25:07.130 going to be criticized if you're a public official, for sure. 0:25:07.570 --> 0:25:10.170 But they did not think about it in the same 0:25:10.170 --> 0:25:12.689 way that the court did in New York Times versus Sullivan. 0:25:12.690 --> 0:25:15.530 My book is an originalist argument, so I'm basically saying 0:25:15.530 --> 0:25:18.729 the courts departed from the original understanding of the freedom 0:25:18.730 --> 0:25:21.570 of the press that's embodied in the First Amendment and 0:25:21.570 --> 0:25:24.169 in the broader public and legal culture of the founding. 0:25:24.210 --> 0:25:26.410 You know, there were protections for freedom of the press 0:25:26.410 --> 0:25:28.810 in many of the state constitutions. It's not just a 0:25:28.869 --> 0:25:31.830 federal issue. So let me go back a moment to 0:25:31.869 --> 0:25:33.670 what I said about the Sullivan court. When I said 0:25:33.670 --> 0:25:37.870 they saw a problem, they saw that a libel suit 0:25:37.869 --> 0:25:41.550 involving a public official is impinging on freedom of the press. See, 0:25:41.550 --> 0:25:44.350 I think that's the first error. The founders did not 0:25:44.350 --> 0:25:46.949 look at it that way. Their view was simpler. It 0:25:46.950 --> 0:25:50.270 was derived from what they learned from Blackstone's commentaries on 0:25:50.270 --> 0:25:53.750 the laws of England. And it's based upon the kind 0:25:53.750 --> 0:25:59.109 of classical moral distinction between liberty and license or licentiousness. 0:25:59.790 --> 0:26:03.750 I think the founders believed that libel, in the sense 0:26:03.750 --> 0:26:08.230 of defamatory, false publication about somebody, is simply outside the 0:26:08.230 --> 0:26:10.750 scope of the freedom of the press. It's something that's 0:26:10.750 --> 0:26:13.990 not protected. And in fact, there's a long tradition in 0:26:13.990 --> 0:26:17.270 the Supreme Court and American courts prior to New York 0:26:17.270 --> 0:26:20.750 Times versus Sullivan, in which the justices or judges would say, 0:26:21.470 --> 0:26:24.830 kind of transmitting that tradition, that libel is one of 0:26:24.830 --> 0:26:28.200 the forms of unprotected speech, along with obscenity and fighting 0:26:28.200 --> 0:26:30.280 words and things like that. It's not the kind of 0:26:30.320 --> 0:26:33.400 expression that was intended to be protected by the freedom 0:26:33.400 --> 0:26:35.560 of the press. It's an abuse of the freedom of 0:26:35.560 --> 0:26:39.520 the press, or it's an act of licentiousness that is 0:26:39.520 --> 0:26:42.240 outside the lines, so to speak. So the founders would 0:26:42.240 --> 0:26:44.560 not have thought that this kind of suit raised the 0:26:44.560 --> 0:26:47.439 kind of problem that the New York Times court thought 0:26:47.440 --> 0:26:50.640 that it did. And the other part of my argument 0:26:50.880 --> 0:26:55.080 would be that there's nothing like the idea of actual 0:26:55.080 --> 0:26:58.760 malice in the thought of the founders not seeing this problem. 0:26:58.760 --> 0:27:02.920 They don't devise the solution. There is some ways in 0:27:02.920 --> 0:27:05.560 which they would say that the standards are different in 0:27:05.560 --> 0:27:08.600 a libel case for public officials versus ordinary people. And 0:27:08.600 --> 0:27:10.160 I can talk more about that if you want me 0:27:10.160 --> 0:27:13.080 to explain that. But suffice it to say, in relation 0:27:13.080 --> 0:27:16.240 to what the court did in the Sullivan decision, there's 0:27:16.240 --> 0:27:18.720 nothing like the actual malice doctrine at the time of 0:27:18.720 --> 0:27:21.320 the founding. They don't think that a certain class of 0:27:21.320 --> 0:27:24.600 people have to prove something extra in order to prevail 0:27:24.640 --> 0:27:25.560 in a libel suit. 0:27:25.600 --> 0:27:28.649 Let's talk about some guys with Carson Holloway, the author 0:27:28.650 --> 0:27:31.689 of the new book No Liberty to Libel, James Wilson, 0:27:31.690 --> 0:27:37.570 James Kent, Joseph Story, these legal commenters of the early Republic. 0:27:37.770 --> 0:27:41.450 Did any of these thinkers from the early Republic anticipate 0:27:41.450 --> 0:27:45.530 this more modern argument that public figures, or just some figures, 0:27:45.530 --> 0:27:49.530 should receive less protection than from libel than private citizens? 0:27:50.170 --> 0:27:53.330 Right. Yeah, they don't anticipate that. And let me explain 0:27:53.609 --> 0:27:56.090 using them what I was hinting at just a moment ago. 0:27:56.410 --> 0:28:00.290 They do. They're building on Blackstone, who I mentioned before. 0:28:00.330 --> 0:28:03.370 These are Americans of the early Republic who are great 0:28:03.369 --> 0:28:08.490 jurists and great legal commentators wrote big, massive, learned treatises 0:28:08.490 --> 0:28:12.770 on American law. They do anticipate the idea that the 0:28:12.770 --> 0:28:15.570 standards would be different for a public official versus a 0:28:15.570 --> 0:28:21.570 private person. In the case of the truth defense for libel. Now, 0:28:21.770 --> 0:28:25.170 let me explain the background to that just a little bit. Blackstone, 0:28:25.210 --> 0:28:28.820 the great English legal commentator, made clear that according to 0:28:28.859 --> 0:28:32.780 the common law, a criminal libel could even be a 0:28:32.780 --> 0:28:36.740 true statement because, he said, the libel, the criminal libel 0:28:36.740 --> 0:28:38.940 laws of the English common law are looking to prevent 0:28:38.940 --> 0:28:41.100 breaches of the peace more than they are looking to 0:28:41.140 --> 0:28:45.700 protect reputation. And since a humiliating publication about somebody that 0:28:45.700 --> 0:28:48.700 happens to be true might provoke them to violence, you 0:28:48.700 --> 0:28:51.740 could be punished for a true publication under the English 0:28:51.740 --> 0:28:56.460 common law. The founders liberalized that and come up with 0:28:56.460 --> 0:28:59.020 a more permissive and they thought, a more reasonable standard, 0:28:59.020 --> 0:29:01.220 which was that there ought to be a truth defense 0:29:01.500 --> 0:29:06.020 in a criminal libel proceeding. Alexander Hamilton, in the famous case, 0:29:06.020 --> 0:29:10.900 people versus Croswell, New York, case from around 18031804. Maybe. 0:29:11.140 --> 0:29:14.860 Hamilton said the truth defense should be understood as. You 0:29:14.860 --> 0:29:16.940 can defend yourself against a charge of libel. If what 0:29:16.940 --> 0:29:20.620 you published was true and published with good motives and 0:29:20.620 --> 0:29:24.390 for justifiable ends. Now that tells you that they understood 0:29:24.390 --> 0:29:27.830 the truth defence as being qualified. If you publish something 0:29:27.870 --> 0:29:31.470 true about somebody out of pure desire just to hurt 0:29:31.470 --> 0:29:34.190 them or to humiliate them in front of the public, 0:29:34.230 --> 0:29:37.590 you might still be, you know, liable for libel, so 0:29:37.630 --> 0:29:42.070 to speak. So where they're anticipating a different standard for 0:29:42.070 --> 0:29:45.270 public and private people is that they basically all say, 0:29:45.430 --> 0:29:49.750 especially Kent, that, uh, there should be much more running 0:29:49.750 --> 0:29:52.550 room for a truth defense if you're dealing with a 0:29:52.550 --> 0:29:56.470 public official. Right. Because the people have a right and 0:29:56.470 --> 0:30:00.270 a need to know about that person's character. So if 0:30:00.310 --> 0:30:03.430 what's published is true and actually relevant to your reputation, 0:30:03.870 --> 0:30:05.950 we're going to give you more room to make that defense. 0:30:06.390 --> 0:30:11.510 But they all talk as if the publication is false 0:30:11.510 --> 0:30:16.750 and defamatory. Then if you're the defendant, you lose already. Right. 0:30:16.790 --> 0:30:18.910 They're all pretty close to what you might call strict 0:30:18.910 --> 0:30:23.240 liability for false defamatory statements. So there's nothing in them 0:30:23.240 --> 0:30:26.360 to anticipate what the Sullivan Court is doing, which is 0:30:26.360 --> 0:30:29.600 creating a kind of protection even for publications that are 0:30:29.600 --> 0:30:33.240 admittedly false and that are damaging to reputation. 0:30:33.240 --> 0:30:36.360 That's Carson Holloway. His book is No Liberty to Libel. 0:30:36.360 --> 0:30:39.080 We'll continue with him in just a moment. First, I 0:30:39.080 --> 0:30:41.040 want to make sure you are aware there's a brand 0:30:41.040 --> 0:30:46.400 new episode of The Larry Arnn Show available now, talking 0:30:46.400 --> 0:30:51.200 about leadership, talking about being a Navy Seal. Leif Babin 0:30:51.200 --> 0:30:54.600 is Doctor Arne's guest. He's a former U.S. Navy Seal officer, 0:30:54.800 --> 0:30:58.320 co-author of The New York Times best seller Extreme Ownership 0:30:58.320 --> 0:31:01.960 How U.S. Navy Seals Lead and Win, and co-founder of 0:31:01.960 --> 0:31:05.840 Echelon Front. They'll talk about the lessons that he learned 0:31:05.840 --> 0:31:08.280 about leadership from his time in the Middle East, what 0:31:08.320 --> 0:31:12.720 real ownership, humility and command under pressure looks like from 0:31:12.720 --> 0:31:15.360 someone who's learned the lessons the hard way and the 0:31:15.360 --> 0:31:20.240 challenges and threats America's military faces. Today, Doctor Arne asks 0:31:20.240 --> 0:31:24.660 the questions Leif Babin provides the answers. The brand new 0:31:24.660 --> 0:31:28.219 episode of The Larry Arnn Show is available now. Find 0:31:28.220 --> 0:31:31.380 it at YouTube for the full video version. You can 0:31:31.380 --> 0:31:35.380 also find the audio version wherever you get your audio, 0:31:35.500 --> 0:31:42.220 including podcasts.hillsdale.edu. Check out the brand new Larry Arnn show. 0:31:42.940 --> 0:31:46.860 We continue with Carson Holloway, his new book, No Liberty 0:31:46.860 --> 0:31:51.300 to Libel The Constitutional Case Against New York Times v 0:31:51.380 --> 0:31:56.020 Sullivan Libel Law here in the U.S., Carson chapter four 0:31:56.020 --> 0:31:58.980 begins this look at the case itself New York Times 0:31:59.020 --> 0:32:03.620 v Sullivan and the Brennan majority opinion, which relied on 0:32:03.660 --> 0:32:09.300 discussions around the Sedition Act of 1798. And you argue 0:32:09.340 --> 0:32:14.380 that this use is I think it's opportunistic and unconvincing, 0:32:14.540 --> 0:32:18.260 meaning that it's it's it's sort of using originalist language 0:32:18.260 --> 0:32:21.990 when the opinion of Brennan is not originalist in any 0:32:21.990 --> 0:32:23.470 real way. Is that is that about right? 0:32:24.030 --> 0:32:27.150 That's right. Like I said, I'm making an originalist critique 0:32:27.150 --> 0:32:30.469 of Brennan's opinion, especially what the court did in the 0:32:30.470 --> 0:32:35.230 Sullivan case. He does have a kind of originalist window dressing, 0:32:35.230 --> 0:32:39.150 I would say, in his appeal to the Sedition Act controversy, 0:32:39.150 --> 0:32:40.950 which you just mentioned, and which takes up a few 0:32:40.950 --> 0:32:44.070 paragraphs in the opinion. And if you want to argue 0:32:44.070 --> 0:32:48.910 for a very permissive or libertarian approach to freedom of 0:32:48.910 --> 0:32:51.630 the press and freedom of speech, you can get some 0:32:51.630 --> 0:32:55.910 mileage out of great American founders like Thomas Jefferson and 0:32:55.910 --> 0:33:00.190 James Madison, who were opponents of the Sedition Act of 1798. 0:33:00.390 --> 0:33:02.350 But I think that that's not a convincing argument. So 0:33:02.350 --> 0:33:05.590 let me try to explain that here. Basically, what Brennan 0:33:05.590 --> 0:33:09.830 does is to show that the Sedition Act included a 0:33:09.830 --> 0:33:12.670 truth defense along the lines of what we were talking 0:33:12.670 --> 0:33:17.710 about before. Nevertheless, it was assailed as unconstitutional by great 0:33:17.710 --> 0:33:21.880 men like Madison and Jefferson. So Brennan concludes from that. 0:33:21.880 --> 0:33:24.120 And also we should say that the Sedition Act was 0:33:24.160 --> 0:33:27.120 kind of, as Brennan points out, repudiated by the country. Right. 0:33:27.160 --> 0:33:32.200 The Jeffersonians won overwhelmingly in 1800. And and, uh, the 0:33:32.240 --> 0:33:35.160 Federalists took a real beating, and the country seemed to 0:33:35.200 --> 0:33:37.160 come around to the view that the Sedition Act was 0:33:37.160 --> 0:33:40.160 not constitutional. So the lesson that Brennan wants to derive 0:33:40.160 --> 0:33:42.720 from this is that there is evidence at the time 0:33:42.720 --> 0:33:47.000 of the founding that even false statements that are defamatory 0:33:47.320 --> 0:33:53.400 are protected by the First Amendment. I find this unconvincing because, frankly, 0:33:53.760 --> 0:33:57.640 Madison and Jefferson are arguing in the Sedition Act controversy 0:33:57.640 --> 0:34:01.000 that Congress has no power at all over the press 0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:04.080 because there's no enumerated power in the first place. And 0:34:04.080 --> 0:34:06.720 then they think that's confirmed by the First Amendment's protection 0:34:06.720 --> 0:34:09.680 of freedom of the press. When people would say to them, 0:34:09.680 --> 0:34:12.719 in the context of that controversy, wouldn't it be terrible 0:34:12.719 --> 0:34:15.760 if public men had no way to vindicate their reputation? 0:34:15.760 --> 0:34:18.570 Their response is, well, they can sue in the States, 0:34:18.570 --> 0:34:20.770 they can sue in state court where they can bring 0:34:20.770 --> 0:34:24.330 a libel suit. So I think that the the use 0:34:24.330 --> 0:34:28.609 of the Sedition Act controversy by the Brennan opinion in 0:34:28.610 --> 0:34:34.650 the Sullivan case is opportunistic and unconvincing, because it's really 0:34:34.650 --> 0:34:37.969 proving something that the Sullivan Court doesn't even affirm, namely, 0:34:37.969 --> 0:34:40.570 that there is no power at all in the federal 0:34:40.570 --> 0:34:43.850 government over the press. That's not really a position that 0:34:43.850 --> 0:34:46.569 many people would defend these days. And in any case, 0:34:46.570 --> 0:34:48.089 it's not a position that has to do with the 0:34:48.090 --> 0:34:51.650 meaning of the constitutional concept of freedom of the press. 0:34:51.690 --> 0:34:52.130 Mhm. 0:34:52.410 --> 0:34:56.650 You really can't find Madison or Jefferson saying that public 0:34:56.650 --> 0:35:01.050 officials would have to demonstrate actual malice, say, to approve, 0:35:01.090 --> 0:35:04.290 to prove their case in a in a state libel proceeding. 0:35:04.330 --> 0:35:07.850 And in fact, they try to reassure people in various places, 0:35:07.850 --> 0:35:11.530 including in one of Jefferson's inaugural addresses, that it's perfectly 0:35:11.530 --> 0:35:14.850 legitimate for public officials to have recourse to libel law, 0:35:14.969 --> 0:35:18.899 to vindicate their reputations in that inaugural address, Jefferson kind 0:35:18.940 --> 0:35:20.540 of makes a show of saying, you know, I didn't 0:35:20.540 --> 0:35:22.739 sue anybody because I've got better things to do. The 0:35:22.739 --> 0:35:24.700 administration has a lot of work to do. But he 0:35:24.700 --> 0:35:29.100 says that's not to denigrate the purpose of libel law implicitly, 0:35:29.100 --> 0:35:30.540 even for public officials. 0:35:31.020 --> 0:35:34.580 Carson Holloway with his book No Liberty to Libel. There's 0:35:34.580 --> 0:35:38.660 a chapter in which you go over a number of cases, 0:35:38.660 --> 0:35:41.980 some including Teddy Roosevelt. Um, these cases through the through 0:35:41.980 --> 0:35:48.020 the 1900s, including were courts generally capable of protecting vigorous 0:35:48.020 --> 0:35:52.379 public debate before this actual malice standard, before New York 0:35:52.380 --> 0:35:53.300 Times v Sullivan. 0:35:53.940 --> 0:35:56.620 I think so. Um, now, this is one of the 0:35:56.620 --> 0:36:00.100 big arguments about what would be the consequences of going 0:36:00.100 --> 0:36:02.340 back on New York Times versus Sullivan. A lot of 0:36:02.340 --> 0:36:05.740 the arguments that I find that are made are consequentialist 0:36:05.739 --> 0:36:08.299 in their character. I think it's very hard to be 0:36:08.300 --> 0:36:12.020 an originalist and think that the Sullivan opinion is correct. 0:36:12.020 --> 0:36:14.819 But a lot of people have worries about abuse of 0:36:14.820 --> 0:36:18.870 libel law to silence people and stop them from criticising 0:36:18.870 --> 0:36:22.950 the government or criticising public officials. That's understandable. I mean, 0:36:22.989 --> 0:36:26.590 I think as someone who's fairly conversant with American political history, 0:36:26.590 --> 0:36:29.629 that our our history shows that our public discourse has 0:36:29.630 --> 0:36:34.710 been pretty candid and powerful and even brawling a lot 0:36:34.710 --> 0:36:37.270 of the time, even in the old days when when 0:36:37.270 --> 0:36:39.350 a public official or a public figure could bring a 0:36:39.350 --> 0:36:42.589 libel suit under the old standards. Interesting remark on this, 0:36:42.590 --> 0:36:44.589 by the way, is by one of the great jurists 0:36:44.830 --> 0:36:47.950 of the period. You were mentioning, William Howard Taft, who 0:36:47.989 --> 0:36:51.110 of course, later went on to be president of the 0:36:51.110 --> 0:36:54.270 United States, and Chief Justice. I'm talking about a period 0:36:54.270 --> 0:36:55.870 in his life where he was a federal judge, and 0:36:55.870 --> 0:36:58.790 he heard a libel case involving a public figure, we 0:36:58.790 --> 0:37:03.230 might say, a candidate for the House of Representatives. And, um, 0:37:03.630 --> 0:37:06.589 some of these arguments that the court relied on in 0:37:06.630 --> 0:37:09.510 New York Times versus Sullivan were brought up, or versions 0:37:09.510 --> 0:37:11.350 of them were brought up by the newspaper trying to 0:37:11.350 --> 0:37:15.250 defend itself. And basically Taft. This is in the late 0:37:15.250 --> 0:37:18.530 19th century, batted those away and said, well, the standard 0:37:18.530 --> 0:37:21.770 really is that if, uh, if it's false and defamatory, 0:37:21.770 --> 0:37:24.009 you're going to have to answer for it. And then 0:37:24.010 --> 0:37:27.170 he talked about this concern that, uh, to use a 0:37:27.170 --> 0:37:30.049 term that the, uh, gets used much later on, that 0:37:30.050 --> 0:37:33.810 there would be a chilling effect on properly protected speech 0:37:33.810 --> 0:37:37.290 by this danger of libel. Taft just says, and it's 0:37:37.290 --> 0:37:41.250 based on his observation at the time, he goes, nobody 0:37:41.250 --> 0:37:44.050 who knows the politics of Great Britain or the United 0:37:44.050 --> 0:37:47.690 States would think that the press is unduly hindered in 0:37:47.690 --> 0:37:51.810 its commentary on what public officials are doing. So, I mean, 0:37:51.850 --> 0:37:54.330 I take him as a serious observer of the scene. 0:37:54.650 --> 0:37:57.690 And yeah, I think that, uh, you did have a 0:37:57.690 --> 0:38:00.850 robust public discourse, even though there was a danger of 0:38:00.850 --> 0:38:02.930 libel suits. One other thing to remember on that, by 0:38:02.930 --> 0:38:07.690 the way, is that it ought to be possible, ordinarily, 0:38:07.810 --> 0:38:12.450 to have a very forceful discourse about public issues without 0:38:12.620 --> 0:38:16.700 defaming somebody's character. Right. I mean, sometimes it's necessary to 0:38:16.700 --> 0:38:19.140 do if someone really is guilty of wrongdoing and therefore 0:38:19.180 --> 0:38:24.420 disqualifying disqualifies themselves for public office. But I think one 0:38:24.420 --> 0:38:27.819 of the problems with the culture that's created by the 0:38:27.820 --> 0:38:31.100 Sullivan Standard is that it permits so much running room 0:38:31.100 --> 0:38:34.580 for attacks on reputation that it distracts us from what 0:38:34.580 --> 0:38:37.060 we really ought to be concerned with, which is debates 0:38:37.060 --> 0:38:41.260 about public issues and what policies to pursue rather than, 0:38:41.460 --> 0:38:45.739 you know, often unconfirmed reports about alleged wrongdoing by public officials. 0:38:46.340 --> 0:38:48.860 Carson, a couple of things I picked up while reading 0:38:48.860 --> 0:38:54.020 No Liberty to Libel. There seems to be this underlying 0:38:54.060 --> 0:38:58.060 argument at times that that reversing New York Times v 0:38:58.060 --> 0:39:02.620 Sullivan is also additionally a benefit, a way to fix 0:39:02.620 --> 0:39:05.620 our media. Right. There's so many issues people don't trust 0:39:05.620 --> 0:39:08.219 the media. Overturning New York Times v Sullivan. Does that 0:39:08.219 --> 0:39:13.710 have the ancillary benefit of perhaps, uh, Improving media's standing 0:39:13.750 --> 0:39:14.910 among Americans. 0:39:15.350 --> 0:39:19.150 I hope so. Um, again, the core of my argument 0:39:19.150 --> 0:39:23.469 is kind of a principled, legalistic or constitutionalist originalist argument. 0:39:23.469 --> 0:39:27.390 I think one of the key benefits, therefore, of reversing 0:39:27.390 --> 0:39:29.989 New York Times versus Sullivan would be simply returning to 0:39:30.030 --> 0:39:34.310 the country to the correct understanding of the First Amendment. 0:39:34.630 --> 0:39:39.070 Another benefit would be creating better protection for reputation, which 0:39:39.070 --> 0:39:41.990 the founders did think is a very important right. Just 0:39:41.989 --> 0:39:46.670 as important as property or personal security. It's a natural right, 0:39:46.670 --> 0:39:49.950 I think, in their thinking. But there is this other problem, 0:39:49.950 --> 0:39:52.390 which is, as I mentioned in the book, trust in 0:39:52.390 --> 0:39:55.870 the media is at a very low point. I don't 0:39:55.870 --> 0:39:57.509 know if it's at an all time low, but it's 0:39:57.510 --> 0:40:01.230 not great. The publisher of The New York Times gave 0:40:01.230 --> 0:40:02.950 a speech about this a couple of weeks ago, and 0:40:02.950 --> 0:40:04.630 he even admitted this and kind of blamed it on 0:40:04.630 --> 0:40:07.270 President Trump for his attacks on the media. But I 0:40:07.270 --> 0:40:09.910 think it's more plausible that the media's reputation is at 0:40:09.910 --> 0:40:13.279 a low point because they report a lot of hysterical 0:40:13.280 --> 0:40:16.960 charges that are designed to damage the reputations of certain 0:40:16.960 --> 0:40:19.759 public officials that don't always pan out and don't turn 0:40:19.760 --> 0:40:24.960 out to be true. So they generally Revere the ruling 0:40:25.120 --> 0:40:28.080 because they think it's essential to their work. But I 0:40:28.080 --> 0:40:30.239 would counsel them to reflect on the fact that the 0:40:30.239 --> 0:40:34.800 way they're doing their work undermines the public's confidence in them. 0:40:34.800 --> 0:40:36.440 And so it might be better if there were a 0:40:36.440 --> 0:40:39.839 legal standard that were more strict to hold them, to 0:40:39.880 --> 0:40:43.319 be more careful about the reputations of the people on 0:40:43.320 --> 0:40:47.840 whom they're reporting more careful of the truth generally. I mean, 0:40:48.520 --> 0:40:50.959 I would say one more thing about that, though, since 0:40:50.960 --> 0:40:54.239 I mentioned the expression truth, even if you were to 0:40:54.280 --> 0:40:57.200 reverse New York Times versus Sullivan, there would still be 0:40:57.200 --> 0:41:00.560 a lot of room for media to make mistakes and 0:41:00.560 --> 0:41:02.760 even to publish things that turn out to be not true, 0:41:02.760 --> 0:41:06.920 because libel is not an action against any untrue statement. 0:41:06.920 --> 0:41:10.690 It's an action against one that's damaging to an individual's reputation. 0:41:10.930 --> 0:41:13.009 So even if you had the older standards, there could 0:41:13.010 --> 0:41:15.690 still be a lot of fake news. But I think 0:41:16.010 --> 0:41:19.930 having the older standards would nevertheless encourage a greater respect 0:41:19.930 --> 0:41:23.530 for truth in relation to the reputations of leading public 0:41:23.530 --> 0:41:27.129 figures and public officials, which would help our public discourse. 0:41:27.130 --> 0:41:29.210 And this is, by the way, the way a lot 0:41:29.210 --> 0:41:31.569 of the early jurists talked about it. And I go 0:41:31.570 --> 0:41:34.650 over this in the book, you'll find the early Republic 0:41:34.650 --> 0:41:37.570 judges saying things like, well, the public has an interest 0:41:37.570 --> 0:41:40.650 in knowing only the truth about the people they entrust 0:41:40.650 --> 0:41:43.770 with public authority. So they, you know, they think that 0:41:43.810 --> 0:41:46.770 the standard is helpful to keeping the public discourse the 0:41:46.770 --> 0:41:47.690 way it should be. 0:41:48.130 --> 0:41:52.370 Carson, you write in no liberty to libel that reputation 0:41:52.370 --> 0:41:55.690 is a right as precious as any other. The public 0:41:55.690 --> 0:41:59.770 has a vital interest in receiving true info about public figures. 0:41:59.890 --> 0:42:03.290 I know it's an originalist argument, but in this social 0:42:03.290 --> 0:42:06.850 media age, when false claims can can rattle around all 0:42:06.890 --> 0:42:10.700 that more quickly, Does the argument against Sullivan then become 0:42:10.700 --> 0:42:12.980 even stronger when it comes to reputation? 0:42:14.020 --> 0:42:16.540 Yeah, I think so. Um, we are living in a 0:42:16.540 --> 0:42:23.100 new age technologically, in which anybody can publish anything almost instantaneously. Uh, 0:42:23.100 --> 0:42:25.420 and we need to think through how to handle that. 0:42:25.420 --> 0:42:29.500 And even correcting our constitutional interpretation won't solve all of 0:42:29.500 --> 0:42:33.940 our problems because you need legislation, uh, to protect reputation, 0:42:33.940 --> 0:42:36.540 you need libel law. And it may be that things 0:42:36.540 --> 0:42:39.300 need to be treated differently depending upon how they're published 0:42:39.300 --> 0:42:41.819 or what kind of platform is used. But it's an 0:42:41.820 --> 0:42:45.219 old principle, I think, of defamation that, you know, slander 0:42:45.219 --> 0:42:50.260 is spoken, defamation libel is published, defamation. And the traditional 0:42:50.260 --> 0:42:55.500 approach was to treat slander as less serious because less damaging. 0:42:55.540 --> 0:42:57.620 If you publish something, you're basically telling it to the 0:42:57.620 --> 0:43:00.620 whole world in principle. But if you simply say something, 0:43:00.620 --> 0:43:02.939 the reach of that may not be as great. So 0:43:02.940 --> 0:43:05.140 the sense was that the threat to reputation and the 0:43:05.140 --> 0:43:08.560 damage is worse in a libel case. But now we 0:43:08.560 --> 0:43:12.640 live in a situation in which practically anybody can publish 0:43:12.640 --> 0:43:16.680 their thoughts immediately and kind of individualistically through these social 0:43:16.680 --> 0:43:19.160 media platforms. So there's a lot of there's just a 0:43:19.160 --> 0:43:24.040 lot more publication going on, and it might require some 0:43:24.040 --> 0:43:26.359 thinking that I admit I haven't done yet to figure 0:43:26.360 --> 0:43:29.600 out how to regulate those kinds of things. Um, and 0:43:29.600 --> 0:43:32.680 maybe treat them differently from what other like more formalized 0:43:32.680 --> 0:43:35.680 publication is doing. But the underlying principle we would get 0:43:35.680 --> 0:43:38.440 from the founders would certainly be that there has to 0:43:38.440 --> 0:43:42.200 be accountability for people's right to publish and to speak, 0:43:42.200 --> 0:43:45.480 because you can't use those precious rights in such a 0:43:45.480 --> 0:43:49.040 way as to damage the rights of other people, namely, 0:43:49.040 --> 0:43:50.480 their right to reputation. 0:43:50.520 --> 0:43:54.160 Carson Holloway is a department chair and professor of political 0:43:54.160 --> 0:43:57.560 science at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. In a Washington 0:43:57.560 --> 0:44:00.719 fellow in the Claremont Institute's Center for the American Way 0:44:00.719 --> 0:44:03.879 of Life. His brand new book is No Liberty to 0:44:03.920 --> 0:44:08.530 Libel The Constitutional Case against New York Times v Sullivan. Carson, 0:44:08.530 --> 0:44:10.370 thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio 0:44:10.370 --> 0:44:11.890 Free Hillsdale Hour. 0:44:12.410 --> 0:44:14.049 Thank you for having me, I appreciate it. 0:44:14.050 --> 0:44:17.170 That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free 0:44:17.210 --> 0:44:20.049 Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Doctor Ben Whalen from here 0:44:20.050 --> 0:44:23.570 at Hillsdale College, your teacher for the new online course, 0:44:23.570 --> 0:44:32.970 The Odyssey. Find it now at hillsdale.edu/course. hillsdale.edu/course. And Carson Holloway, 0:44:33.010 --> 0:44:36.130 his book is No Liberty to Libel. Remember, you can 0:44:36.130 --> 0:44:39.290 hear new episodes every week on this station. You also 0:44:39.290 --> 0:44:42.330 can find extended versions of some of our interviews, or 0:44:42.330 --> 0:44:48.529 listen anytime to the podcast. Find it@podcast.hillsdale.edu or wherever you 0:44:48.530 --> 0:44:52.969 get your audio. Until next week, I'm Scott Bertram, and 0:44:52.969 --> 0:44:56.690 this has been the radio free Hillsdale Hour.