Speaker 1: Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show
Speaker 1: where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news.
Speaker 1: I'm Noah Felder. Welcome to the latest installment and the
Speaker 1: last of our Freedom of Speech miniseries. Just yesterday we
Speaker 1: heard from Eugene Valak, a professor at UCLA School of Law. Today,
Speaker 1: we're going to hear from another staunch defender of freedom
Speaker 1: of speech, but one who is coming at the issue
Speaker 1: from almost the opposite place on the political spectrum. Nadine
Speaker 1: Strawson was the president of the American Civil Liberties Union
Speaker 1: for almost two decades up until two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: She was the first woman and the youngest person ever
Speaker 1: to lead the organization. She's now a professor at New
Speaker 1: York Law School. I spoke to Nadine back in October,
Speaker 1: when the world was very different, and yet we were
Speaker 1: wrestling with a lot of the same issues. Needin, I
Speaker 1: want to start with hate speech, because after a long
Speaker 1: career of focusing on all aspects of freedom of expression,
Speaker 1: you wrote a book recently called hate Why we Should
Speaker 1: Resist It with free speech not censorship, which is I
Speaker 1: think appropriately provocative and controversial title. So what do you
Speaker 1: mean when you say hate speech, there are lots of
Speaker 1: different definitions out there. The core of the concept is
Speaker 1: speech that conveys hateful, discriminatory, stereotyped ideas, particularly on basies
Speaker 1: such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, groups that have
Speaker 1: traditionally been marginalized or excluded. But if you look at
Speaker 1: how we use the term in everyday parlance in the
Speaker 1: United States, you will see that people are using that
Speaker 1: term absolutely profligately to describe and decry and often try
Speaker 1: to sense or any speech that conveys any idea that
Speaker 1: they hate. And some of this has been well publicized.
Speaker 1: For example, on some college campuses, t r U m
Speaker 1: P chalked on sidewalks or worn on T shirts or
Speaker 1: caps has been attacked as hate speech. Some politicians have
Speaker 1: denounced Black Lives Matter activism and protests as hate speech.
Speaker 1: Most chillingly to me, although I understand where it's coming from,
Speaker 1: on some campuses and other venues, the phrase free speech
Speaker 1: has been attacked as hate speech. And the reason why
Speaker 1: I say I know where that's coming from, sad ly, Noah,
Speaker 1: is that so often white supremacists and white nationalists and
Speaker 1: other hate mongers have had the right to express their
Speaker 1: repulsive ideas because of free speech principles, and unfortunately that
Speaker 1: means in the minds of too many people, racist speech
Speaker 1: and other hate mongering speech has become equated with free speech.
Speaker 1: So I really had to write. I felt absolutely compelled
Speaker 1: to write the book because I have been a proud
Speaker 1: social justice warrior my entire life. I consider that a compliment,
Speaker 1: not an insult, as some people use the term. And
Speaker 1: I am absolutely committed to freedom of speech, and I
Speaker 1: am absolutely convinced that both goals are inextricable. That we
Speaker 1: cannot advance equality, dignity, diversity, inclusivity, especially for groups that
Speaker 1: have traditionally been discriminated against, without having really robust free speech,
Speaker 1: robust enough to extend even to so called hate speech.
Speaker 1: So let's focus then, nating if we can, on what
Speaker 1: I would consider the hard case, the kind of speech
Speaker 1: that almost every country that considers itself roughly being civilized
Speaker 1: in the world does sanction or outlaw to some degree.
Speaker 1: Let's call it dehumanizing speech that is directed at traditionally
Speaker 1: marginalized groups. And I want to ask you, in that,
Speaker 1: to my mind, somewhat hard case of hate speech, what
Speaker 1: you think about the main rationales that are usually used
Speaker 1: to justify regulations. So the first is that such speech
Speaker 1: has a tendency to lead to real world, concrete physical
Speaker 1: harm against people from marginalized groups. That it's not enough
Speaker 1: to only prohibit speech that immediately threatens imminent violence, but
Speaker 1: that ultimately we need to also think about the downstream effect.
Speaker 1: You know, when Hitler starts talking, he's not got crowds
Speaker 1: in front of him immediately about to lynch people, but
Speaker 1: over time he builds up support through a steady diet
Speaker 1: of hate. And so goes the argument, we need to
Speaker 1: nip that the bud. It'll be too late if we
Speaker 1: wait until the point that there's an angry crowd. We
Speaker 1: have to worry about the structural development of dehumanization because
Speaker 1: we know, having lived after the terrible twentieth century, and
Speaker 1: we know in the twenty first century we're still encountering genocide,
Speaker 1: and so the argument goes, we need to limit hate
Speaker 1: speech to prevent that kind of disaster. What's your primary
Speaker 1: answer to that charge? Before I answer the question, Noah,
Speaker 1: I have distressed because you asked about dehumanizing speech that's
Speaker 1: targeted at particular groups, and as you adverted to later,
Speaker 1: in your excellent question, certain speech that meets that criterion
Speaker 1: can and should be punished consistent with First Amendment principles.
Speaker 1: So if the speech is targeting an individual or small
Speaker 1: group of individuals, and if it constitutes intentional incitement of
Speaker 1: imminent violence that's likely to happen, that cannon should be punished.
Speaker 1: If it's targeted harassment or bullying, that can and should
Speaker 1: be punished. If it means to instill a reasonable fear
Speaker 1: that the audience that's targeted is going to be subject
Speaker 1: to harm, that is a punishable so called true threat.
Speaker 1: So in general, I and others summarize this principle under
Speaker 1: US law and by the way, also under international human
Speaker 1: rights law as the emergency principle. When the speech presents
Speaker 1: a direct threat of serious, imminent, specific harm, then it
Speaker 1: can and should be punished. But I completely agree with
Speaker 1: you that speech does cause harm even if it does
Speaker 1: not satisfy that strict definition, or at least it certainly
Speaker 1: can potentially cause harm more indirectly and remotely, as you
Speaker 1: ask in your question, And my reason for opposing censorship
Speaker 1: is not because I just ute the potential harmful impact
Speaker 1: of non punishable hate speech, but rather because I think
Speaker 1: that censorship is at best and ineffective way to counter
Speaker 1: the potential harm, and at worst a counter productive one.
Speaker 1: So let's push on that Indian So you know, let's
Speaker 1: talk about mitigation. We're not talking about curing the harm.
Speaker 1: So imagine you have a country. We have a lot
Speaker 1: of European countries that fit this description today, where they're
Speaker 1: far right politicians who are getting more and more votes
Speaker 1: in each election and their rhetoric is getting more and
Speaker 1: more radical. And this time it's not Jews that they
Speaker 1: are primarily biased against. Now it's Muslims, still an immigrant group,
Speaker 1: it's on the group that's being labeled criminal and an
Speaker 1: other parallels to you know, Europe in the nineteen twenties
Speaker 1: and thirties are obvious. Let's say we want to say,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we won't ban all of that speech,
Speaker 1: but we're not going to let you be elected to
Speaker 1: the parliament as a party if you advocate expressly racist views.
Speaker 1: Some European countries have rules like that. And again this
Speaker 1: isn't meant to eliminate all racism. It's meant to mitigate
Speaker 1: the real world effects, especially when organized political parties realize
Speaker 1: that they can gain more votes by using forms of
Speaker 1: hate speech. I'm assuming that's not okay with you either,
Speaker 1: even though that's something short of a pure ben because
Speaker 1: it is a fifth technique of mitigation. Though the facts
Speaker 1: that you cite now actually support my point, because the
Speaker 1: fact is that those European countries have extremely strict anti
Speaker 1: hate speech laws that are very strictly enforced, and they
Speaker 1: have not prevented the rise of hateful expression by hateful
Speaker 1: parties that are gaining support among the people. Germany is
Speaker 1: an excellent case in point. It has the strictest anti
Speaker 1: hate speech laws in the world, with a possible exception
Speaker 1: of some Middle Eastern countries. The law are extremely strictly enforced.
Speaker 1: They are enforced against politicians as well as candidates, as
Speaker 1: well as elected officials, and as you well know, despite
Speaker 1: and would some German commentators say because of those laws
Speaker 1: that they have spurred the frustration and the anger and
Speaker 1: the backlash that has fueled the frightening rise of the AfD,
Speaker 1: the Alternative for Germany, which is an expressly racist party.
Speaker 1: It got thirteen percent of the vote in the last
Speaker 1: national election a couple of years ago. And Germany also
Speaker 1: has had distressing levels of violence against Jews, against Roma,
Speaker 1: against refugees, to the point that Angelo Michael, for the
Speaker 1: very first time in German history, actually appointed a cabinet
Speaker 1: level minister for anti Semitism, and the head of the
Speaker 1: largest council Jewish organizations in Germany warned Jews that they
Speaker 1: should not feel safe wearing the yamuka, the skull cap
Speaker 1: that some observant male Jews feel a religious obligation to
Speaker 1: wear in public. Now, I know you can't prove a counterfactual.
Speaker 1: Maybe the situation would be even worse if Germany wasn't
Speaker 1: enforcing I mean, I unless you can help me on this,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any way I could ever prove that.
Speaker 1: But it's clearly the case that even very strictly enforced
Speaker 1: laws have not been enough to sufficiently quell the rise
Speaker 1: of hateful expression and conduct. And the same thing happened
Speaker 1: in the Weimar Republic, during which Hitler rose to power,
Speaker 1: you know, and that's often cited as epitomizing this situation. Now,
Speaker 1: and I agree, as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor,
Speaker 1: My goodness, you know, if anything could have prevented Hitler
Speaker 1: from rising to power, I certainly would have been in
Speaker 1: favor of it. But back then Germany also already had
Speaker 1: very strict anti hate speech laws that were enforced against
Speaker 1: Nazis repeatedly, and they loved it. It was a propaganda
Speaker 1: platform for them, an opportunity for them to gain attention
Speaker 1: that they otherwise never would have and sympathy they otherwise
Speaker 1: never would have. And that is the same strategy that's
Speaker 1: used by hate mongers in this country. Noah, and I
Speaker 1: don't at all mean to compare them to the Nazis,
Speaker 1: thank goodness, they're certainly not advocating genocide, but you know,
Speaker 1: the Miloanopolises and the Richard Spencers of this world, other
Speaker 1: provocateurs revel. Oh, and in the online context, Alex Jones,
Speaker 1: you know, they celebrate when they're subject to attempts to
Speaker 1: ban or punish them, because they know that that gains
Speaker 1: them attention that they otherwise would not have received. Organizations
Speaker 1: whose work I generally very much admire, the Anti Defamation
Speaker 1: League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose mission is
Speaker 1: focused on countering actual discrimination. They've actually urged college students
Speaker 1: and others please resist the temptation to try to deep
Speaker 1: platform or shout down or shutdown or otherwise suppress the
Speaker 1: voices of those that are conveying trying to convey hateful messages.
Speaker 1: It may feel very morally satisfying, but it is actually
Speaker 1: going to do more harm than good. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: So let me turn out, then, Nadine, to the question
Speaker 1: of social media, and let me try out an argument
Speaker 1: that you know, I know is not yours, but that
Speaker 1: I believe as a person who is very deeply committed
Speaker 1: to free speech principles, and it runs something like this.
Speaker 1: It says, you know, Nadine, and you and your work
Speaker 1: with the ACL you have convinced us and the forefathers
Speaker 1: and foremothers are free speech doctrine, have convinced us that
Speaker 1: the government shouldn't be trusted to engage in regulation of speech.
Speaker 1: But when we turn to the context of social media,
Speaker 1: the very same First Amendment principles that tell us the
Speaker 1: government can't regulate also tell us that a private publisher
Speaker 1: or a private platform is protected by the First Amendment
Speaker 1: in possessing its own right and authority to make its
Speaker 1: own decisions about what content it does or doesn't want
Speaker 1: to allow on its platform, or it does or doesn't
Speaker 1: want to promote to varying degrees. From this premise, the
Speaker 1: argument goes on to say that if a company doesn't
Speaker 1: want to allow hate speech on its platform, it should
Speaker 1: be allowed to prohibit it, and that it's also desirable
Speaker 1: for platforms that have the capacity to reduce the amount
Speaker 1: of hate it's in circulation to use their own tools
Speaker 1: and techniques for engaging in that form of regulation. Full disclosure,
Speaker 1: I've been advising Facebook on the creation of an oversight board.
Speaker 1: Facebook itself, like all the other major platforms, does limit
Speaker 1: hate speech on its platform if that's allowed by the
Speaker 1: First Amendment, if it doesn't threaten at its core the
Speaker 1: idea of a free speech because after all, the platforms
Speaker 1: also have free speech rights. Why shouldn't those private actors
Speaker 1: take a different stance than the government does? Or should
Speaker 1: I completely agree with everything you said until you got
Speaker 1: to the desirable so called content moderation by the social
Speaker 1: media giants, including Facebook, I couldn't agree with you more. Noah,
Speaker 1: that we have no free speech rightspees v. Private sector actors.
Speaker 1: I for one, would balk at government trying to reign
Speaker 1: in what I do believe to be the free speech
Speaker 1: editorial rights of social media companies, just as I would
Speaker 1: balk at that power being used for traditional media. Where
Speaker 1: I part company with you is on the desirability of
Speaker 1: Facebook using its enormous power. And we'll just use Facebook
Speaker 1: as an example. But the points I'd make I would
Speaker 1: apply to the companies that have dominant power. As the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court set in decision a couple of years ago,
Speaker 1: they really constitute the major platform now in our society
Speaker 1: and in our political sphere, not only for discussions between
Speaker 1: you and me and our friends and our colleagues, but
Speaker 1: also between we, the people, to quote the opening words
Speaker 1: of the Constitution, who wield sovereign power in this country
Speaker 1: and those we elect to represent us. So the major
Speaker 1: power in terms of not only individual free expression but
Speaker 1: also democratic self government is now in the hands of
Speaker 1: these powerful private sector actors. And I have to say
Speaker 1: that worries me as a similar retariant. The question is
Speaker 1: whom do I distrust more? The government, which I traditionally
Speaker 1: instinctively distrust for good reason based on history, but also
Speaker 1: it's hard to trust a powerful private sector entity, no
Speaker 1: matter how good spirited the individuals associated with it may be,
Speaker 1: and no matter how brilliant and you know people that
Speaker 1: they are working with such as you knowah, and with
Speaker 1: your commitment to free speech. Ultimately they're not accountable to
Speaker 1: we the people, but ultimately accountable to shareholders. I guess
Speaker 1: in the case of Facebook, that means to Mark Zuckerberg, right,
Speaker 1: and that's worrisome. But that said, I don't think that
Speaker 1: there is a legal solution of government imposing limits on
Speaker 1: how Facebook exercises its editorial power trying to remain open minded.
Speaker 1: So for me, now, the question is, practically speaking, is
Speaker 1: it in fact desirable for Facebook to try to define
Speaker 1: and to try to enforce standards against hate speech? And
Speaker 1: my reason for concluding no, Although I will, to the
Speaker 1: best of my ability try to be open minded as
Speaker 1: new evidence comes in, but I think it is as
Speaker 1: doomed to be arbitrary at best and discriminatory at worst
Speaker 1: as all so called hate speech so called standards have
Speaker 1: been when enforced by government around the world throughout history.
Speaker 1: So let me let me make then a different version
Speaker 1: of the argument on the other side. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to begin by conceding to you I completely agree that
Speaker 1: if we don't trust government, there's no reason we should
Speaker 1: trust private corporations. And it doesn't matter how well intentioned
Speaker 1: or ill intentioned they or their leading shareholders might be.
Speaker 1: I agree, there's no reason we should trust them. The
Speaker 1: argument though, for restricting hate speech on social media, I
Speaker 1: think takes seriously your point that increasingly social media is
Speaker 1: where we go to engage in the civic republican conversation
Speaker 1: that we need to run our country. And the argument
Speaker 1: would be something like this, in order for us to
Speaker 1: have a collective series of conversations that we need to
Speaker 1: be a functioning democracy, we need to have some basic
Speaker 1: guidelines of civility and of not speaking in a way
Speaker 1: that shuts up other people. And you know, again I
Speaker 1: am with you that we don't trust the government to
Speaker 1: come up with those standards, but we could be a
Speaker 1: little more experimental in the social media context, partly because
Speaker 1: the social media companies can change their minds, they can
Speaker 1: alter their standards, They can do real world experiments. They
Speaker 1: can see if certain kinds of speech are leading vulnerable
Speaker 1: people to get off the service or to shut down
Speaker 1: or not speak. There's some better tools available here than
Speaker 1: there would be available to a government. Why not run
Speaker 1: the experiment? Why begin a priori with the view that
Speaker 1: all regulations of speech are going to go awry. I
Speaker 1: certainly am open to experiment, and as I said earlier, Noah,
Speaker 1: I am open to considering evidence, and my starting premise
Speaker 1: is I'm only looking for what is the least bad
Speaker 1: solution because I see problems with all of the options.
Speaker 1: I see the problem that you're talking about. I associate
Speaker 1: myself very much with a number of reports that have
Speaker 1: been done on these issues by PEN America, the organization
Speaker 1: that represents writers including journalists and very much advocates free speech,
Speaker 1: and a couple of years ago, PENN did a handbook
Speaker 1: for writers and bloggers and journalists about the hazards of
Speaker 1: being on social media, trolling and dosing and harassment, and
Speaker 1: they did a survey of their members which showed that
Speaker 1: people were being driven off and see saying journalists were
Speaker 1: sobbing they're ending their social media commentary, especially women and
Speaker 1: members of minority groups. So I couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 1: I had earlier said there are free speech concerns here
Speaker 1: on both sides, right, nonregulated and regulated. But PAN America's
Speaker 1: proposed response is not regulation beyond and forcing legal standards
Speaker 1: that exist already. As we talked about against targeted harassment
Speaker 1: and bullying, and so forth. But beyond that, Pan America
Speaker 1: was advocating a series of free speech type responses, including
Speaker 1: by publishers, by editors, by friends and colleagues, and in
Speaker 1: addition to experimenting with content moderation. And you know, you
Speaker 1: know better than I do that Facebook wasn't always trying
Speaker 1: to restrict hate speech. So it also wasn't an a
Speaker 1: priori assumption that there would be content regulation, including a
Speaker 1: hate speech on these social media companies. And I know
Speaker 1: that Facebook and the others are experimenting with different definitions
Speaker 1: and different ways of enforcing the definitions and so forth,
Speaker 1: So I do appreciate that open mindedness and experimentation. But
Speaker 1: also in the spirit of experimentation, I have read with
Speaker 1: great hopefulness about efforts that have been funded by Facebook
Speaker 1: and other social media giants for how can we harness
Speaker 1: the power of social media to promote counter speech of
Speaker 1: various types. That will be another way of countering the
Speaker 1: potential adverse impact of hate speech, Rooting people toward affirmative
Speaker 1: information that will counter the statements that are being made
Speaker 1: by hate mongers, providing support for people who are disparaged
Speaker 1: by hate mongers, and so forth. Yeah, that all seems
Speaker 1: that seems like a potentially promising direction. So let's talk
Speaker 1: then about trends. And here I want to ask you
Speaker 1: a question that's maybe a tiny bit impolite. You're a
Speaker 1: self described social justice warrior, and you also a simultaneously
Speaker 1: are deeply committed to freedom of expression. And doesn't that
Speaker 1: make you and I might include myself in this category too,
Speaker 1: doesn't that make us dinosaurs? Hasn't there been a radical
Speaker 1: change over the last fifteen or twenty years. It happened gradually,
Speaker 1: it didn't happen all in one go. But if you
Speaker 1: look at where broadly speaking, progressive thinkers are today compared
Speaker 1: to where they were twenty years ago, the trends seems
Speaker 1: to be completely against you. The trends seems to be
Speaker 1: And I see this with my students, and I see
Speaker 1: it in the work of my generational contemporaries who are
Speaker 1: intellectuals writing from the progressive perspective. There seems to have
Speaker 1: been a major retreat on the left from the values
Speaker 1: of strong civil libertarian free speech, whereas on the right
Speaker 1: there's been almost a huge rise in support for them
Speaker 1: of freedom of speech. I mean, we see something very
Speaker 1: close to one hundred and eighty degree flip where if
Speaker 1: you think of the classic Supreme Court cases of the sixties,
Speaker 1: there it was the court's greatest liberals who were in
Speaker 1: favor of freedom of expression and the conservatives were in
Speaker 1: favor of censorship. And now, if anything, it's going the
Speaker 1: other way, and conservatives are most strongly in favor of
Speaker 1: freedom of expression. And maybe it's not quite true on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, but more broadly in the society, freedom
Speaker 1: of speech is not so favored among progressives. So what's
Speaker 1: going on? And are we dinosaurs? I disagree with the
Speaker 1: factual generalizations to this extent, now that I read every survey,
Speaker 1: and there to me inconclusive and do show that depending
Speaker 1: on what the subject is, you get self described liberals
Speaker 1: and progressives who are against censorship or for and this
Speaker 1: aim is true for self described conservatives. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I think this situation throughout my entire adult lifetime, and
Speaker 1: I'll pull the age rank on you. I've been in
Speaker 1: the trenches probably for a couple more decades. In the
Speaker 1: early nineteen eighties, Nat Hintoff, who was very active with ACLU,
Speaker 1: a journalist, wrote a book whose title I think said
Speaker 1: at all it was freedom of speech for me but
Speaker 1: not for me how the left and right are relentlessly
Speaker 1: censoring each other. But I obviously believe that there are
Speaker 1: too many social justice activists who do not understand how
Speaker 1: important free speech is to advance their causes. That's what
Speaker 1: motivated me to write my book. And as one astute
Speaker 1: reviewer commented, it's very clear that my book is aimed
Speaker 1: at the left. That is the main audience now that
Speaker 1: I believe needs persuading, and I do see a particular
Speaker 1: need to make a case that is rooted specifically in
Speaker 1: the social justice causes as a rationale for supporting free speech. Nadine,
Speaker 1: I want to thank you not just for this terrific conversation,
Speaker 1: but for fighting the good fight in a serious way,
Speaker 1: both in the trenches and in the leadership role for
Speaker 1: so long. I've learned such a huge amount from your
Speaker 1: free speech advocacy, and I learned a lot from this book,
Speaker 1: and I hope we can keep on talking about these
Speaker 1: really important issues. I guess that's the whole point of
Speaker 1: free speech, right to discuss the idea as long as
Speaker 1: we want, in for as much time as we want,
Speaker 1: and hope that we get it right eventually, and right
Speaker 1: back at you. Noah, thank you so much for your work,
Speaker 1: including doing your best to preserve a wonderful free speech
Speaker 1: environment on Facebook. Let's hope, so thanks a lot, Nadine,
Speaker 1: take care. Coming from the left of the political spectrum,
Speaker 1: where the ACLU has mostly been ever since its founding
Speaker 1: in the nineteen twenties, Nadine Strausson offers a vision of
Speaker 1: free speech that's grounded in a deep skepticism and distrust
Speaker 1: of who controls the government and therefore of what will
Speaker 1: happen when speech gets regulated. It's in the dna of
Speaker 1: Nadine's view to believe that the government is not likely
Speaker 1: to serve the interests of the dispossessed, of minorities, or
Speaker 1: of those who lack power in the society. She therefore
Speaker 1: thinks that any time we have limitations on speech from
Speaker 1: the government, and indeed, she goes further and says, any
Speaker 1: time even private entities like social media companies limit freedom
Speaker 1: of speech, the results are likely to be, roughly speaking, statist,
Speaker 1: to serve the interests of power, not to serve the
Speaker 1: interests of the powerless. Nadine's perspective is to some degree
Speaker 1: at odds with the views of many younger left liberals,
Speaker 1: many of whom believe that free speech has ultimately come
Speaker 1: to be used as a tool to help powerful forces,
Speaker 1: rather than functioning as a tool to protect the alternative
Speaker 1: and dissenting views of minorities and the powerless. This is
Speaker 1: a difficult question and a hard problem to solve because
Speaker 1: it depends on different people's predictive assessments of what's actually
Speaker 1: going on in the world and what might go on
Speaker 1: in the world if trends continue. I'm grateful to listeners
Speaker 1: for sticking with us as we've gone deeper and deeper
Speaker 1: into the issue of freedom of speech. No doubt will
Speaker 1: return to the issue in certain ways in the future,
Speaker 1: and will certainly continue to keep a close eye on
Speaker 1: it until I speak to you next time. Be careful,
Speaker 1: be safe, and be well. Deep Background is brought to
Speaker 1: you by Pushkin Industries. Our producer is Lydia Jane Cott,
Speaker 1: with mastering by Jason Gambrell and Martin Gonzalez. Our showrunner
Speaker 1: is Sophima Kibbon. Our theme music is composed by Luis
Speaker 1: GERA special thanks to the Pushkin Brass Malcolm Gladwell, Jacob
Speaker 1: Weisberg and Mia Lobel. I'm Noah Feldman. I also write
Speaker 1: a regular column for Bloomberg Opinion, which you can find
Speaker 1: at bloomberg dot com slash Feldman. To discover Bloomberg's original
Speaker 1: slate of podcasts, go to Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts.
Speaker 1: And one last thing. I just wrote a book called
Speaker 1: The Arab Winter of a Tragedy. I would be delighted
Speaker 1: if you checked it out. If you liked what you
Speaker 1: heard today, please write a review or tell a friend.
Speaker 1: You can always let me know what you think on Twitter.
Speaker 1: My handle is Noah R. Feldman. This is deep background