WEBVTT - FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Nadine Strossen 0:00:15.396 --> 0:00:23.676 Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show 0:00:23.716 --> 0:00:27.116 where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news. 0:00:27.436 --> 0:00:31.476 I'm Noah Felder. Welcome to the latest installment and the 0:00:31.556 --> 0:00:35.836 last of our Freedom of Speech miniseries. Just yesterday we 0:00:35.916 --> 0:00:39.596 heard from Eugene Valak, a professor at UCLA School of Law. Today, 0:00:39.676 --> 0:00:42.356 we're going to hear from another staunch defender of freedom 0:00:42.356 --> 0:00:44.836 of speech, but one who is coming at the issue 0:00:45.076 --> 0:00:49.356 from almost the opposite place on the political spectrum. Nadine 0:00:49.356 --> 0:00:52.516 Strawson was the president of the American Civil Liberties Union 0:00:52.636 --> 0:00:55.916 for almost two decades up until two thousand and eight. 0:00:56.356 --> 0:00:59.076 She was the first woman and the youngest person ever 0:00:59.116 --> 0:01:02.036 to lead the organization. She's now a professor at New 0:01:02.076 --> 0:01:05.196 York Law School. I spoke to Nadine back in October, 0:01:05.556 --> 0:01:07.916 when the world was very different, and yet we were 0:01:07.956 --> 0:01:11.516 wrestling with a lot of the same issues. Needin, I 0:01:11.556 --> 0:01:16.116 want to start with hate speech, because after a long 0:01:16.196 --> 0:01:20.196 career of focusing on all aspects of freedom of expression, 0:01:20.796 --> 0:01:23.676 you wrote a book recently called hate Why we Should 0:01:23.676 --> 0:01:26.796 Resist It with free speech not censorship, which is I 0:01:26.836 --> 0:01:30.796 think appropriately provocative and controversial title. So what do you 0:01:30.836 --> 0:01:32.436 mean when you say hate speech, there are lots of 0:01:32.476 --> 0:01:36.236 different definitions out there. The core of the concept is 0:01:36.316 --> 0:01:43.916 speech that conveys hateful, discriminatory, stereotyped ideas, particularly on basies 0:01:44.036 --> 0:01:49.876 such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, groups that have 0:01:50.036 --> 0:01:54.316 traditionally been marginalized or excluded. But if you look at 0:01:54.316 --> 0:01:57.236 how we use the term in everyday parlance in the 0:01:57.316 --> 0:02:00.756 United States, you will see that people are using that 0:02:00.916 --> 0:02:08.356 term absolutely profligately to describe and decry and often try 0:02:08.476 --> 0:02:14.116 to sense or any speech that conveys any idea that 0:02:14.196 --> 0:02:17.916 they hate. And some of this has been well publicized. 0:02:17.916 --> 0:02:22.476 For example, on some college campuses, t r U m 0:02:22.636 --> 0:02:26.276 P chalked on sidewalks or worn on T shirts or 0:02:26.316 --> 0:02:30.876 caps has been attacked as hate speech. Some politicians have 0:02:31.236 --> 0:02:36.996 denounced Black Lives Matter activism and protests as hate speech. 0:02:37.476 --> 0:02:41.676 Most chillingly to me, although I understand where it's coming from, 0:02:42.076 --> 0:02:46.916 on some campuses and other venues, the phrase free speech 0:02:47.196 --> 0:02:51.076 has been attacked as hate speech. And the reason why 0:02:51.076 --> 0:02:53.836 I say I know where that's coming from, sad ly, Noah, 0:02:53.996 --> 0:02:58.996 is that so often white supremacists and white nationalists and 0:02:59.236 --> 0:03:03.316 other hate mongers have had the right to express their 0:03:03.316 --> 0:03:08.836 repulsive ideas because of free speech principles, and unfortunately that 0:03:08.956 --> 0:03:13.116 means in the minds of too many people, racist speech 0:03:13.276 --> 0:03:18.196 and other hate mongering speech has become equated with free speech. 0:03:18.236 --> 0:03:21.836 So I really had to write. I felt absolutely compelled 0:03:21.876 --> 0:03:24.596 to write the book because I have been a proud 0:03:25.036 --> 0:03:29.276 social justice warrior my entire life. I consider that a compliment, 0:03:29.716 --> 0:03:32.716 not an insult, as some people use the term. And 0:03:33.076 --> 0:03:37.996 I am absolutely committed to freedom of speech, and I 0:03:38.076 --> 0:03:43.756 am absolutely convinced that both goals are inextricable. That we 0:03:43.876 --> 0:03:50.316 cannot advance equality, dignity, diversity, inclusivity, especially for groups that 0:03:50.356 --> 0:03:56.596 have traditionally been discriminated against, without having really robust free speech, 0:03:57.116 --> 0:04:00.916 robust enough to extend even to so called hate speech. 0:04:01.396 --> 0:04:04.476 So let's focus then, nating if we can, on what 0:04:04.516 --> 0:04:06.956 I would consider the hard case, the kind of speech 0:04:07.356 --> 0:04:12.996 that almost every country that considers itself roughly being civilized 0:04:13.036 --> 0:04:16.156 in the world does sanction or outlaw to some degree. 0:04:16.676 --> 0:04:20.956 Let's call it dehumanizing speech that is directed at traditionally 0:04:21.036 --> 0:04:24.956 marginalized groups. And I want to ask you, in that, 0:04:25.116 --> 0:04:29.276 to my mind, somewhat hard case of hate speech, what 0:04:29.396 --> 0:04:32.436 you think about the main rationales that are usually used 0:04:32.436 --> 0:04:37.076 to justify regulations. So the first is that such speech 0:04:37.196 --> 0:04:41.996 has a tendency to lead to real world, concrete physical 0:04:42.076 --> 0:04:46.156 harm against people from marginalized groups. That it's not enough 0:04:46.196 --> 0:04:51.716 to only prohibit speech that immediately threatens imminent violence, but 0:04:52.316 --> 0:04:55.796 that ultimately we need to also think about the downstream effect. 0:04:55.876 --> 0:04:58.796 You know, when Hitler starts talking, he's not got crowds 0:04:58.796 --> 0:05:02.436 in front of him immediately about to lynch people, but 0:05:02.876 --> 0:05:05.956 over time he builds up support through a steady diet 0:05:05.956 --> 0:05:08.396 of hate. And so goes the argument, we need to 0:05:08.516 --> 0:05:11.076 nip that the bud. It'll be too late if we 0:05:11.076 --> 0:05:13.596 wait until the point that there's an angry crowd. We 0:05:13.716 --> 0:05:19.316 have to worry about the structural development of dehumanization because 0:05:19.316 --> 0:05:22.036 we know, having lived after the terrible twentieth century, and 0:05:22.036 --> 0:05:25.076 we know in the twenty first century we're still encountering genocide, 0:05:25.316 --> 0:05:27.716 and so the argument goes, we need to limit hate 0:05:27.716 --> 0:05:31.556 speech to prevent that kind of disaster. What's your primary 0:05:31.556 --> 0:05:35.196 answer to that charge? Before I answer the question, Noah, 0:05:35.276 --> 0:05:39.836 I have distressed because you asked about dehumanizing speech that's 0:05:39.916 --> 0:05:44.036 targeted at particular groups, and as you adverted to later, 0:05:44.076 --> 0:05:49.996 in your excellent question, certain speech that meets that criterion 0:05:50.436 --> 0:05:54.676 can and should be punished consistent with First Amendment principles. 0:05:54.756 --> 0:05:59.516 So if the speech is targeting an individual or small 0:05:59.556 --> 0:06:04.236 group of individuals, and if it constitutes intentional incitement of 0:06:04.356 --> 0:06:08.556 imminent violence that's likely to happen, that cannon should be punished. 0:06:08.716 --> 0:06:12.316 If it's targeted harassment or bullying, that can and should 0:06:12.316 --> 0:06:16.356 be punished. If it means to instill a reasonable fear 0:06:16.516 --> 0:06:19.836 that the audience that's targeted is going to be subject 0:06:19.916 --> 0:06:23.916 to harm, that is a punishable so called true threat. 0:06:24.716 --> 0:06:29.276 So in general, I and others summarize this principle under 0:06:29.596 --> 0:06:33.276 US law and by the way, also under international human 0:06:33.356 --> 0:06:37.356 rights law as the emergency principle. When the speech presents 0:06:37.516 --> 0:06:42.556 a direct threat of serious, imminent, specific harm, then it 0:06:42.636 --> 0:06:45.996 can and should be punished. But I completely agree with 0:06:46.036 --> 0:06:50.556 you that speech does cause harm even if it does 0:06:50.636 --> 0:06:55.276 not satisfy that strict definition, or at least it certainly 0:06:55.396 --> 0:07:01.796 can potentially cause harm more indirectly and remotely, as you 0:07:02.116 --> 0:07:06.916 ask in your question, And my reason for opposing censorship 0:07:07.156 --> 0:07:11.676 is not because I just ute the potential harmful impact 0:07:11.796 --> 0:07:16.116 of non punishable hate speech, but rather because I think 0:07:16.156 --> 0:07:21.796 that censorship is at best and ineffective way to counter 0:07:22.196 --> 0:07:26.796 the potential harm, and at worst a counter productive one. 0:07:26.956 --> 0:07:29.756 So let's push on that Indian So you know, let's 0:07:29.756 --> 0:07:32.676 talk about mitigation. We're not talking about curing the harm. 0:07:33.116 --> 0:07:35.436 So imagine you have a country. We have a lot 0:07:35.476 --> 0:07:38.196 of European countries that fit this description today, where they're 0:07:38.276 --> 0:07:41.196 far right politicians who are getting more and more votes 0:07:41.196 --> 0:07:43.756 in each election and their rhetoric is getting more and 0:07:43.796 --> 0:07:46.116 more radical. And this time it's not Jews that they 0:07:46.156 --> 0:07:49.636 are primarily biased against. Now it's Muslims, still an immigrant group, 0:07:49.636 --> 0:07:51.396 it's on the group that's being labeled criminal and an 0:07:51.436 --> 0:07:55.076 other parallels to you know, Europe in the nineteen twenties 0:07:55.156 --> 0:07:58.476 and thirties are obvious. Let's say we want to say, 0:07:58.956 --> 0:08:01.276 you know, maybe we won't ban all of that speech, 0:08:01.556 --> 0:08:03.676 but we're not going to let you be elected to 0:08:03.716 --> 0:08:08.956 the parliament as a party if you advocate expressly racist views. 0:08:09.196 --> 0:08:12.036 Some European countries have rules like that. And again this 0:08:12.116 --> 0:08:15.396 isn't meant to eliminate all racism. It's meant to mitigate 0:08:15.476 --> 0:08:20.636 the real world effects, especially when organized political parties realize 0:08:20.636 --> 0:08:23.396 that they can gain more votes by using forms of 0:08:23.436 --> 0:08:25.956 hate speech. I'm assuming that's not okay with you either, 0:08:26.036 --> 0:08:29.356 even though that's something short of a pure ben because 0:08:29.396 --> 0:08:32.756 it is a fifth technique of mitigation. Though the facts 0:08:32.756 --> 0:08:36.236 that you cite now actually support my point, because the 0:08:36.276 --> 0:08:42.316 fact is that those European countries have extremely strict anti 0:08:42.556 --> 0:08:47.396 hate speech laws that are very strictly enforced, and they 0:08:47.476 --> 0:08:52.956 have not prevented the rise of hateful expression by hateful 0:08:53.036 --> 0:08:57.436 parties that are gaining support among the people. Germany is 0:08:57.476 --> 0:09:01.796 an excellent case in point. It has the strictest anti 0:09:01.836 --> 0:09:05.996 hate speech laws in the world, with a possible exception 0:09:06.236 --> 0:09:11.316 of some Middle Eastern countries. The law are extremely strictly enforced. 0:09:11.356 --> 0:09:15.596 They are enforced against politicians as well as candidates, as 0:09:15.596 --> 0:09:19.636 well as elected officials, and as you well know, despite 0:09:19.756 --> 0:09:25.316 and would some German commentators say because of those laws 0:09:25.356 --> 0:09:29.396 that they have spurred the frustration and the anger and 0:09:29.436 --> 0:09:34.276 the backlash that has fueled the frightening rise of the AfD, 0:09:35.116 --> 0:09:38.996 the Alternative for Germany, which is an expressly racist party. 0:09:39.636 --> 0:09:42.596 It got thirteen percent of the vote in the last 0:09:42.676 --> 0:09:46.516 national election a couple of years ago. And Germany also 0:09:46.636 --> 0:09:52.276 has had distressing levels of violence against Jews, against Roma, 0:09:52.316 --> 0:09:56.556 against refugees, to the point that Angelo Michael, for the 0:09:56.796 --> 0:10:02.156 very first time in German history, actually appointed a cabinet 0:10:02.236 --> 0:10:07.476 level minister for anti Semitism, and the head of the 0:10:07.596 --> 0:10:13.916 largest council Jewish organizations in Germany warned Jews that they 0:10:13.996 --> 0:10:18.036 should not feel safe wearing the yamuka, the skull cap 0:10:18.116 --> 0:10:21.956 that some observant male Jews feel a religious obligation to 0:10:21.996 --> 0:10:25.476 wear in public. Now, I know you can't prove a counterfactual. 0:10:25.676 --> 0:10:29.676 Maybe the situation would be even worse if Germany wasn't 0:10:29.836 --> 0:10:34.796 enforcing I mean, I unless you can help me on this, 0:10:34.916 --> 0:10:37.356 I don't think there's any way I could ever prove that. 0:10:37.756 --> 0:10:43.076 But it's clearly the case that even very strictly enforced 0:10:43.156 --> 0:10:47.476 laws have not been enough to sufficiently quell the rise 0:10:47.556 --> 0:10:52.036 of hateful expression and conduct. And the same thing happened 0:10:52.076 --> 0:10:55.196 in the Weimar Republic, during which Hitler rose to power, 0:10:55.716 --> 0:11:00.236 you know, and that's often cited as epitomizing this situation. Now, 0:11:00.316 --> 0:11:03.276 and I agree, as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, 0:11:03.396 --> 0:11:06.636 My goodness, you know, if anything could have prevented Hitler 0:11:06.676 --> 0:11:09.356 from rising to power, I certainly would have been in 0:11:09.436 --> 0:11:12.876 favor of it. But back then Germany also already had 0:11:13.436 --> 0:11:16.996 very strict anti hate speech laws that were enforced against 0:11:17.156 --> 0:11:21.356 Nazis repeatedly, and they loved it. It was a propaganda 0:11:21.396 --> 0:11:25.036 platform for them, an opportunity for them to gain attention 0:11:25.076 --> 0:11:28.236 that they otherwise never would have and sympathy they otherwise 0:11:28.316 --> 0:11:31.316 never would have. And that is the same strategy that's 0:11:31.436 --> 0:11:34.356 used by hate mongers in this country. Noah, and I 0:11:34.436 --> 0:11:37.316 don't at all mean to compare them to the Nazis, 0:11:37.356 --> 0:11:40.956 thank goodness, they're certainly not advocating genocide, but you know, 0:11:41.076 --> 0:11:45.596 the Miloanopolises and the Richard Spencers of this world, other 0:11:45.676 --> 0:11:50.596 provocateurs revel. Oh, and in the online context, Alex Jones, 0:11:50.836 --> 0:11:54.116 you know, they celebrate when they're subject to attempts to 0:11:54.156 --> 0:11:56.636 ban or punish them, because they know that that gains 0:11:56.676 --> 0:12:01.236 them attention that they otherwise would not have received. Organizations 0:12:01.276 --> 0:12:05.916 whose work I generally very much admire, the Anti Defamation 0:12:06.036 --> 0:12:09.596 League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose mission is 0:12:09.636 --> 0:12:15.676 focused on countering actual discrimination. They've actually urged college students 0:12:15.676 --> 0:12:20.436 and others please resist the temptation to try to deep 0:12:20.516 --> 0:12:24.636 platform or shout down or shutdown or otherwise suppress the 0:12:24.716 --> 0:12:29.356 voices of those that are conveying trying to convey hateful messages. 0:12:29.396 --> 0:12:32.796 It may feel very morally satisfying, but it is actually 0:12:32.836 --> 0:12:35.796 going to do more harm than good. We'll be right back. 0:12:45.676 --> 0:12:48.916 So let me turn out, then, Nadine, to the question 0:12:48.916 --> 0:12:51.596 of social media, and let me try out an argument 0:12:51.676 --> 0:12:54.516 that you know, I know is not yours, but that 0:12:54.636 --> 0:12:56.676 I believe as a person who is very deeply committed 0:12:56.716 --> 0:12:59.076 to free speech principles, and it runs something like this. 0:12:59.636 --> 0:13:02.196 It says, you know, Nadine, and you and your work 0:13:02.196 --> 0:13:06.116 with the ACL you have convinced us and the forefathers 0:13:06.116 --> 0:13:08.516 and foremothers are free speech doctrine, have convinced us that 0:13:08.556 --> 0:13:13.756 the government shouldn't be trusted to engage in regulation of speech. 0:13:14.316 --> 0:13:17.436 But when we turn to the context of social media, 0:13:17.596 --> 0:13:20.396 the very same First Amendment principles that tell us the 0:13:20.436 --> 0:13:24.636 government can't regulate also tell us that a private publisher 0:13:25.076 --> 0:13:29.316 or a private platform is protected by the First Amendment 0:13:29.676 --> 0:13:32.836 in possessing its own right and authority to make its 0:13:32.836 --> 0:13:36.036 own decisions about what content it does or doesn't want 0:13:36.036 --> 0:13:38.676 to allow on its platform, or it does or doesn't 0:13:38.676 --> 0:13:41.796 want to promote to varying degrees. From this premise, the 0:13:41.876 --> 0:13:46.556 argument goes on to say that if a company doesn't 0:13:46.556 --> 0:13:48.756 want to allow hate speech on its platform, it should 0:13:48.756 --> 0:13:51.996 be allowed to prohibit it, and that it's also desirable 0:13:52.396 --> 0:13:55.996 for platforms that have the capacity to reduce the amount 0:13:55.996 --> 0:13:59.596 of hate it's in circulation to use their own tools 0:13:59.596 --> 0:14:04.316 and techniques for engaging in that form of regulation. Full disclosure, 0:14:04.596 --> 0:14:08.596 I've been advising Facebook on the creation of an oversight board. 0:14:09.156 --> 0:14:14.076 Facebook itself, like all the other major platforms, does limit 0:14:14.356 --> 0:14:17.436 hate speech on its platform if that's allowed by the 0:14:17.476 --> 0:14:20.836 First Amendment, if it doesn't threaten at its core the 0:14:20.996 --> 0:14:23.516 idea of a free speech because after all, the platforms 0:14:23.596 --> 0:14:27.076 also have free speech rights. Why shouldn't those private actors 0:14:27.836 --> 0:14:30.276 take a different stance than the government does? Or should 0:14:30.676 --> 0:14:34.956 I completely agree with everything you said until you got 0:14:34.996 --> 0:14:40.276 to the desirable so called content moderation by the social 0:14:40.276 --> 0:14:45.236 media giants, including Facebook, I couldn't agree with you more. Noah, 0:14:45.316 --> 0:14:49.436 that we have no free speech rightspees v. Private sector actors. 0:14:49.716 --> 0:14:53.956 I for one, would balk at government trying to reign 0:14:54.076 --> 0:14:56.756 in what I do believe to be the free speech 0:14:56.956 --> 0:15:01.396 editorial rights of social media companies, just as I would 0:15:01.436 --> 0:15:06.716 balk at that power being used for traditional media. Where 0:15:06.756 --> 0:15:11.716 I part company with you is on the desirability of 0:15:11.956 --> 0:15:16.516 Facebook using its enormous power. And we'll just use Facebook 0:15:16.516 --> 0:15:19.716 as an example. But the points I'd make I would 0:15:19.756 --> 0:15:24.676 apply to the companies that have dominant power. As the 0:15:24.716 --> 0:15:27.676 Supreme Court set in decision a couple of years ago, 0:15:27.916 --> 0:15:33.476 they really constitute the major platform now in our society 0:15:33.716 --> 0:15:38.076 and in our political sphere, not only for discussions between 0:15:38.316 --> 0:15:40.956 you and me and our friends and our colleagues, but 0:15:41.076 --> 0:15:44.956 also between we, the people, to quote the opening words 0:15:44.956 --> 0:15:48.076 of the Constitution, who wield sovereign power in this country 0:15:48.196 --> 0:15:51.756 and those we elect to represent us. So the major 0:15:51.916 --> 0:15:55.996 power in terms of not only individual free expression but 0:15:56.116 --> 0:16:00.116 also democratic self government is now in the hands of 0:16:00.156 --> 0:16:04.756 these powerful private sector actors. And I have to say 0:16:05.036 --> 0:16:08.836 that worries me as a similar retariant. The question is 0:16:09.276 --> 0:16:12.956 whom do I distrust more? The government, which I traditionally 0:16:13.036 --> 0:16:19.836 instinctively distrust for good reason based on history, but also 0:16:20.436 --> 0:16:25.036 it's hard to trust a powerful private sector entity, no 0:16:25.076 --> 0:16:29.676 matter how good spirited the individuals associated with it may be, 0:16:29.916 --> 0:16:33.796 and no matter how brilliant and you know people that 0:16:33.916 --> 0:16:37.476 they are working with such as you knowah, and with 0:16:37.516 --> 0:16:42.796 your commitment to free speech. Ultimately they're not accountable to 0:16:42.956 --> 0:16:47.796 we the people, but ultimately accountable to shareholders. I guess 0:16:47.836 --> 0:16:50.756 in the case of Facebook, that means to Mark Zuckerberg, right, 0:16:51.196 --> 0:16:55.396 and that's worrisome. But that said, I don't think that 0:16:55.436 --> 0:17:00.316 there is a legal solution of government imposing limits on 0:17:00.356 --> 0:17:05.516 how Facebook exercises its editorial power trying to remain open minded. 0:17:05.716 --> 0:17:09.396 So for me, now, the question is, practically speaking, is 0:17:09.436 --> 0:17:13.116 it in fact desirable for Facebook to try to define 0:17:13.236 --> 0:17:16.836 and to try to enforce standards against hate speech? And 0:17:16.916 --> 0:17:20.836 my reason for concluding no, Although I will, to the 0:17:20.836 --> 0:17:23.076 best of my ability try to be open minded as 0:17:23.236 --> 0:17:26.836 new evidence comes in, but I think it is as 0:17:27.196 --> 0:17:33.156 doomed to be arbitrary at best and discriminatory at worst 0:17:33.156 --> 0:17:37.316 as all so called hate speech so called standards have 0:17:37.516 --> 0:17:41.636 been when enforced by government around the world throughout history. 0:17:41.796 --> 0:17:44.436 So let me let me make then a different version 0:17:44.476 --> 0:17:46.556 of the argument on the other side. So I'm going 0:17:46.596 --> 0:17:49.716 to begin by conceding to you I completely agree that 0:17:49.756 --> 0:17:52.076 if we don't trust government, there's no reason we should 0:17:52.076 --> 0:17:56.316 trust private corporations. And it doesn't matter how well intentioned 0:17:56.396 --> 0:17:59.636 or ill intentioned they or their leading shareholders might be. 0:17:59.716 --> 0:18:02.076 I agree, there's no reason we should trust them. The 0:18:02.236 --> 0:18:05.476 argument though, for restricting hate speech on social media, I 0:18:05.516 --> 0:18:10.316 think takes seriously your point that increasingly social media is 0:18:10.316 --> 0:18:13.876 where we go to engage in the civic republican conversation 0:18:14.196 --> 0:18:17.516 that we need to run our country. And the argument 0:18:17.516 --> 0:18:19.836 would be something like this, in order for us to 0:18:19.876 --> 0:18:24.116 have a collective series of conversations that we need to 0:18:24.156 --> 0:18:27.836 be a functioning democracy, we need to have some basic 0:18:27.916 --> 0:18:32.716 guidelines of civility and of not speaking in a way 0:18:32.756 --> 0:18:36.036 that shuts up other people. And you know, again I 0:18:36.076 --> 0:18:37.916 am with you that we don't trust the government to 0:18:37.956 --> 0:18:40.436 come up with those standards, but we could be a 0:18:40.436 --> 0:18:43.436 little more experimental in the social media context, partly because 0:18:43.436 --> 0:18:46.036 the social media companies can change their minds, they can 0:18:46.076 --> 0:18:49.516 alter their standards, They can do real world experiments. They 0:18:49.516 --> 0:18:52.436 can see if certain kinds of speech are leading vulnerable 0:18:52.436 --> 0:18:55.076 people to get off the service or to shut down 0:18:55.196 --> 0:18:58.836 or not speak. There's some better tools available here than 0:18:58.876 --> 0:19:01.116 there would be available to a government. Why not run 0:19:01.156 --> 0:19:04.356 the experiment? Why begin a priori with the view that 0:19:04.716 --> 0:19:07.716 all regulations of speech are going to go awry. I 0:19:07.876 --> 0:19:11.876 certainly am open to experiment, and as I said earlier, Noah, 0:19:12.196 --> 0:19:17.076 I am open to considering evidence, and my starting premise 0:19:17.516 --> 0:19:22.076 is I'm only looking for what is the least bad 0:19:22.156 --> 0:19:26.876 solution because I see problems with all of the options. 0:19:26.916 --> 0:19:30.396 I see the problem that you're talking about. I associate 0:19:30.476 --> 0:19:33.836 myself very much with a number of reports that have 0:19:33.956 --> 0:19:38.356 been done on these issues by PEN America, the organization 0:19:38.476 --> 0:19:43.716 that represents writers including journalists and very much advocates free speech, 0:19:43.756 --> 0:19:47.796 and a couple of years ago, PENN did a handbook 0:19:48.316 --> 0:19:53.836 for writers and bloggers and journalists about the hazards of 0:19:53.916 --> 0:19:58.836 being on social media, trolling and dosing and harassment, and 0:19:58.996 --> 0:20:03.276 they did a survey of their members which showed that 0:20:03.676 --> 0:20:08.396 people were being driven off and see saying journalists were 0:20:08.476 --> 0:20:14.396 sobbing they're ending their social media commentary, especially women and 0:20:14.556 --> 0:20:17.356 members of minority groups. So I couldn't agree with you more. 0:20:17.676 --> 0:20:21.316 I had earlier said there are free speech concerns here 0:20:21.396 --> 0:20:27.636 on both sides, right, nonregulated and regulated. But PAN America's 0:20:27.876 --> 0:20:35.156 proposed response is not regulation beyond and forcing legal standards 0:20:35.236 --> 0:20:40.356 that exist already. As we talked about against targeted harassment 0:20:40.476 --> 0:20:44.116 and bullying, and so forth. But beyond that, Pan America 0:20:44.236 --> 0:20:50.636 was advocating a series of free speech type responses, including 0:20:50.836 --> 0:20:57.916 by publishers, by editors, by friends and colleagues, and in 0:20:57.996 --> 0:21:03.676 addition to experimenting with content moderation. And you know, you 0:21:03.756 --> 0:21:07.796 know better than I do that Facebook wasn't always trying 0:21:07.836 --> 0:21:11.876 to restrict hate speech. So it also wasn't an a 0:21:11.996 --> 0:21:16.556 priori assumption that there would be content regulation, including a 0:21:16.636 --> 0:21:19.476 hate speech on these social media companies. And I know 0:21:19.556 --> 0:21:24.156 that Facebook and the others are experimenting with different definitions 0:21:24.276 --> 0:21:28.036 and different ways of enforcing the definitions and so forth, 0:21:28.076 --> 0:21:32.276 So I do appreciate that open mindedness and experimentation. But 0:21:32.436 --> 0:21:35.956 also in the spirit of experimentation, I have read with 0:21:36.076 --> 0:21:42.676 great hopefulness about efforts that have been funded by Facebook 0:21:42.676 --> 0:21:47.556 and other social media giants for how can we harness 0:21:47.796 --> 0:21:52.356 the power of social media to promote counter speech of 0:21:52.676 --> 0:21:56.876 various types. That will be another way of countering the 0:21:56.876 --> 0:22:03.636 potential adverse impact of hate speech, Rooting people toward affirmative 0:22:03.716 --> 0:22:07.396 information that will counter the statements that are being made 0:22:07.396 --> 0:22:11.876 by hate mongers, providing support for people who are disparaged 0:22:11.916 --> 0:22:15.436 by hate mongers, and so forth. Yeah, that all seems 0:22:15.476 --> 0:22:18.236 that seems like a potentially promising direction. So let's talk 0:22:18.236 --> 0:22:21.316 then about trends. And here I want to ask you 0:22:21.356 --> 0:22:24.396 a question that's maybe a tiny bit impolite. You're a 0:22:24.436 --> 0:22:28.636 self described social justice warrior, and you also a simultaneously 0:22:28.676 --> 0:22:32.716 are deeply committed to freedom of expression. And doesn't that 0:22:32.796 --> 0:22:36.436 make you and I might include myself in this category too, 0:22:36.716 --> 0:22:40.396 doesn't that make us dinosaurs? Hasn't there been a radical 0:22:40.556 --> 0:22:44.476 change over the last fifteen or twenty years. It happened gradually, 0:22:44.516 --> 0:22:46.516 it didn't happen all in one go. But if you 0:22:46.556 --> 0:22:50.796 look at where broadly speaking, progressive thinkers are today compared 0:22:50.836 --> 0:22:53.996 to where they were twenty years ago, the trends seems 0:22:53.996 --> 0:22:56.596 to be completely against you. The trends seems to be 0:22:56.676 --> 0:22:58.636 And I see this with my students, and I see 0:22:58.636 --> 0:23:01.636 it in the work of my generational contemporaries who are 0:23:01.636 --> 0:23:05.116 intellectuals writing from the progressive perspective. There seems to have 0:23:05.196 --> 0:23:08.836 been a major retreat on the left from the values 0:23:09.236 --> 0:23:12.916 of strong civil libertarian free speech, whereas on the right 0:23:13.436 --> 0:23:16.236 there's been almost a huge rise in support for them 0:23:16.236 --> 0:23:18.756 of freedom of speech. I mean, we see something very 0:23:18.756 --> 0:23:21.116 close to one hundred and eighty degree flip where if 0:23:21.156 --> 0:23:24.076 you think of the classic Supreme Court cases of the sixties, 0:23:24.676 --> 0:23:27.236 there it was the court's greatest liberals who were in 0:23:27.276 --> 0:23:29.956 favor of freedom of expression and the conservatives were in 0:23:29.996 --> 0:23:32.956 favor of censorship. And now, if anything, it's going the 0:23:32.996 --> 0:23:35.636 other way, and conservatives are most strongly in favor of 0:23:35.676 --> 0:23:38.076 freedom of expression. And maybe it's not quite true on 0:23:38.076 --> 0:23:41.316 the Supreme Court, but more broadly in the society, freedom 0:23:41.316 --> 0:23:44.996 of speech is not so favored among progressives. So what's 0:23:45.036 --> 0:23:51.356 going on? And are we dinosaurs? I disagree with the 0:23:51.636 --> 0:23:57.196 factual generalizations to this extent, now that I read every survey, 0:23:57.516 --> 0:24:02.796 and there to me inconclusive and do show that depending 0:24:02.796 --> 0:24:06.556 on what the subject is, you get self described liberals 0:24:06.556 --> 0:24:09.636 and progressives who are against censorship or for and this 0:24:09.796 --> 0:24:14.916 aim is true for self described conservatives. And in fact, 0:24:15.036 --> 0:24:18.516 I think this situation throughout my entire adult lifetime, and 0:24:18.556 --> 0:24:21.516 I'll pull the age rank on you. I've been in 0:24:21.556 --> 0:24:24.436 the trenches probably for a couple more decades. In the 0:24:24.556 --> 0:24:28.876 early nineteen eighties, Nat Hintoff, who was very active with ACLU, 0:24:28.996 --> 0:24:31.876 a journalist, wrote a book whose title I think said 0:24:31.956 --> 0:24:34.676 at all it was freedom of speech for me but 0:24:34.876 --> 0:24:38.356 not for me how the left and right are relentlessly 0:24:38.476 --> 0:24:43.436 censoring each other. But I obviously believe that there are 0:24:43.556 --> 0:24:49.956 too many social justice activists who do not understand how 0:24:49.996 --> 0:24:53.276 important free speech is to advance their causes. That's what 0:24:53.476 --> 0:24:57.396 motivated me to write my book. And as one astute 0:24:57.516 --> 0:25:02.596 reviewer commented, it's very clear that my book is aimed 0:25:02.836 --> 0:25:07.356 at the left. That is the main audience now that 0:25:07.476 --> 0:25:11.596 I believe needs persuading, and I do see a particular 0:25:11.756 --> 0:25:16.396 need to make a case that is rooted specifically in 0:25:16.876 --> 0:25:22.796 the social justice causes as a rationale for supporting free speech. Nadine, 0:25:22.876 --> 0:25:26.276 I want to thank you not just for this terrific conversation, 0:25:26.476 --> 0:25:29.316 but for fighting the good fight in a serious way, 0:25:29.396 --> 0:25:31.316 both in the trenches and in the leadership role for 0:25:31.356 --> 0:25:33.356 so long. I've learned such a huge amount from your 0:25:33.756 --> 0:25:36.436 free speech advocacy, and I learned a lot from this book, 0:25:36.796 --> 0:25:38.596 and I hope we can keep on talking about these 0:25:38.596 --> 0:25:40.116 really important issues. I guess that's the whole point of 0:25:40.116 --> 0:25:42.236 free speech, right to discuss the idea as long as 0:25:42.236 --> 0:25:43.636 we want, in for as much time as we want, 0:25:43.636 --> 0:25:45.756 and hope that we get it right eventually, and right 0:25:45.796 --> 0:25:48.236 back at you. Noah, thank you so much for your work, 0:25:48.316 --> 0:25:52.596 including doing your best to preserve a wonderful free speech 0:25:52.676 --> 0:25:56.676 environment on Facebook. Let's hope, so thanks a lot, Nadine, 0:25:56.716 --> 0:26:06.356 take care. Coming from the left of the political spectrum, 0:26:06.396 --> 0:26:09.876 where the ACLU has mostly been ever since its founding 0:26:09.916 --> 0:26:13.756 in the nineteen twenties, Nadine Strausson offers a vision of 0:26:13.756 --> 0:26:18.276 free speech that's grounded in a deep skepticism and distrust 0:26:18.596 --> 0:26:21.636 of who controls the government and therefore of what will 0:26:21.676 --> 0:26:25.996 happen when speech gets regulated. It's in the dna of 0:26:26.116 --> 0:26:29.596 Nadine's view to believe that the government is not likely 0:26:29.636 --> 0:26:33.796 to serve the interests of the dispossessed, of minorities, or 0:26:33.836 --> 0:26:37.036 of those who lack power in the society. She therefore 0:26:37.116 --> 0:26:40.236 thinks that any time we have limitations on speech from 0:26:40.236 --> 0:26:43.036 the government, and indeed, she goes further and says, any 0:26:43.036 --> 0:26:47.156 time even private entities like social media companies limit freedom 0:26:47.196 --> 0:26:51.476 of speech, the results are likely to be, roughly speaking, statist, 0:26:51.876 --> 0:26:55.196 to serve the interests of power, not to serve the 0:26:55.236 --> 0:26:59.636 interests of the powerless. Nadine's perspective is to some degree 0:26:59.636 --> 0:27:03.276 at odds with the views of many younger left liberals, 0:27:03.876 --> 0:27:06.556 many of whom believe that free speech has ultimately come 0:27:06.596 --> 0:27:10.396 to be used as a tool to help powerful forces, 0:27:10.996 --> 0:27:14.476