WEBVTT - Elevating Free Speech to Advance Equality and Democracy 0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:09.040 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Business 0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:13.560 Week with Carol Messer and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:13.800 --> 0:00:16.360 Freedom of speech may be protected in the US by 0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:18.960 the First Amendment, but it's still something that's the focus 0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:22.279 of much attention thanks to the proliferation of misinformation on 0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:25.200 digital platforms. What's been happening on college campuses in the 0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:28.320 wake of the Israel Hamas war and what we regularly 0:00:28.400 --> 0:00:32.680 hear from politicians Satan Federal officials, for example, already grappling 0:00:32.800 --> 0:00:35.760 with back to back hurricanes that have killed hundreds across 0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:39.919 the Southeast. They've been with another disaster related threat, disinformation 0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:43.000 over their relief efforts and the cause of the storm, 0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:47.560 conspiracy theories, hate speech, especially on acts after Hurricane Aline 0:00:47.800 --> 0:00:51.000 devastated a region, with former President Donald Trump and Elon 0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:54.600 Musk amplifying unverified allegay You mean. 0:00:54.520 --> 0:00:56.640 Like weather forecasters making up the storm. 0:00:56.520 --> 0:00:58.840 Or controlling the weather, or controlling the web, or the 0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:00.880 response from FEMA, and you know, FEMA having to move 0:01:00.920 --> 0:01:02.760 out of an area because of threats from a militia. 0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:05.840 This world, our next guest understands quite well. At least 0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:09.760 the dissemination of information in what free speech is versus 0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:14.600 what fearless speech is. Mary An Franks is a professor 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.760 in intellectual property, technology, and civil rights law at George 0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:20.919 Washington University. She's testified on Capitol Hill on the connection 0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:23.840 between censorship and small business. She's got a new book out. 0:01:23.880 --> 0:01:27.200 It's called Fearless Speech, Breaking Free from the First Amendment. 0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:30.480 She joins us from Washington, DC. Professor, good to have 0:01:30.560 --> 0:01:32.760 you with us. I want to just read from your 0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:36.479 prologue because you argue that your new book takes speech seriously. 0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:41.240 It's about speech first and the First Amendment. Second, you 0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:43.960 argue that the dysfunction of the current American free speech 0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:47.319 discourse what I just spoke about, can be attributed to 0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:49.880 the inversion of that order. What do you mean? 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:53.360 What I mean by that is that we have this 0:01:53.480 --> 0:02:00.360 incredibly narrow, very legalistic, really reductionist, largely incoherent idea about 0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:03.160 what freedom of speech is that's based on perceptions and 0:02:03.200 --> 0:02:06.560 misperceptions of a legal doctrine, of course, the First Amendment, 0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:09.280 and when we really think about what is important in 0:02:09.280 --> 0:02:12.040 a democracy, the kinds of hard questions we have to 0:02:12.080 --> 0:02:15.000 ask about what kinds of speech should be promoted and 0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:17.320 what kinds of speech should be punished. We need a 0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:20.680 much richer and more nuanced understanding of speech than you 0:02:20.680 --> 0:02:22.239 can get from that legal doctrine. 0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.440 All right, So what is your definition of freedom of speech? 0:02:27.000 --> 0:02:29.800 The definition I would use is to say the most 0:02:29.800 --> 0:02:33.640 important thing for democracy, that is, the most vital kinds 0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:35.440 of speech that you would want to protect in a 0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:38.359 democracy are going to be those kinds of speech that 0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:43.120 the ancient Greeks refer to as fearless speech. And the 0:02:43.160 --> 0:02:46.960 way that they described that really essential form of speech 0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:49.359 was that you had to be someone who was speaking 0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:53.320 truly as their own identity, so not trying to cover 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:56.840 themselves in some kind of performance or try to disavow 0:02:57.080 --> 0:02:59.800 some distance between them and their speech. And you had 0:02:59.840 --> 0:03:03.360 to say, speak courageously in a critical way about something 0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:06.480 or someone who was more powerful than you, and the 0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:08.520 risk that you would be taking and speaking that kind 0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:11.360 of truth would be to yourself as opposed to trying 0:03:11.360 --> 0:03:12.440 to cause harm to others. 0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:14.800 You know, you say this, and what actually comes to 0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:17.560 mind is the way that Senator J. D. Vance has 0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:20.480 answered the question about whether or not Donald Trump won 0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:23.200 the twenty twenty election. He's done it over and over 0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:27.320 again a couple weeks ago in the vice presidential debate 0:03:27.360 --> 0:03:30.480 with Tim Walls, Governor of Minnesota, and then also most 0:03:30.520 --> 0:03:32.399 recently with The New York Times when he was asked, 0:03:32.400 --> 0:03:35.560 I believe four times whether or not Trump won the 0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.640 twenty twenty election, and his answer was always the same. 0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:42.440 I'm focused on the future, not necessarily answering the question. 0:03:42.480 --> 0:03:45.320 He's focused on censorship and what tech platforms did. When 0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:49.400 it comes to censorship, is he doing fearless speech there? 0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:53.320 He's definitely not doing fearless speech there. And he's also 0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.520 misstating what censorship is. And this is one of the 0:03:56.560 --> 0:03:59.720 reasons why I wrote the book is that for all 0:03:59.800 --> 0:04:01.680 the problems and I do highlight a lot of the 0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:04.480 problems with the First Amendment doctrine, we still want to 0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:06.800 be accurate about what it actually says. And what it's 0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:10.360 very clear about is that censorship means when the government 0:04:10.480 --> 0:04:13.480 is trying to make private individuals say something they don't 0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:15.760 want to say, or is punishing them for something that 0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:19.400 they've said. Social media platforms making decisions about what they 0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:22.320 want on their platform or not is not censorship. It 0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:24.880 does not violate the First Amendment. I think he does 0:04:24.960 --> 0:04:28.039 know that, and Heed's trying deliberately to create misinformation about 0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:29.159 the First Amendment itself. 0:04:30.680 --> 0:04:36.080 So when it comes to policing platforms, then what is 0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:39.880 your thoughts on social media? Is it media? Is it playful? 0:04:40.120 --> 0:04:43.200 We know it's dangerous, We've done a lot of reporting 0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:46.640 on that, but it's also a place where a lot 0:04:46.680 --> 0:04:49.800 of folks get their news, something that we are involved 0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:54.880 in on a daily basis. So, you know, newspapers, magazines, 0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:59.560 things were policed, traditional media, linear television. If we had 0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:02.000 said some wrong in the past, we had to correct it, 0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:05.280 or there might be a lawsuit, or somebody would make 0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:08.680 a phone call. We still correct it. So I'm just curious. 0:05:08.680 --> 0:05:10.599 But it feels like, you know, social media is a 0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:14.520 wild wild West. So I don't know, does it need 0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:17.440 to be policed? And I'm just curious how you think 0:05:17.440 --> 0:05:17.880 about that. 0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:21.080 Well, it depends a lot on what the outcomes are 0:05:21.200 --> 0:05:24.480 that we want from those platforms. When we say we 0:05:24.560 --> 0:05:27.200 go there for entertainment, we go there for news. If 0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:30.359 we care about those spaces in that way, then we 0:05:30.440 --> 0:05:32.520 need to have the kinds of rules, or the kinds 0:05:32.520 --> 0:05:35.400 of standards, or the kinds of design to make those 0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:38.559 outcomes happen because that kind of speech doesn't just happen 0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:42.479 by itself. You don't get to good conversations, entertaining conversations, 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:46.160 high value conversations, by just letting everybody do whatever they 0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:48.800 might want to do, because that isn't actually a free 0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:52.240 speech protective position. What you'll get is a bunch of chaos. 0:05:52.560 --> 0:05:56.720 You'll get a lot of people who are saying really provocative, stupid, uninformed, 0:05:57.400 --> 0:06:01.520 really outrageous things, and they will drown out everybody else. So, 0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:04.400 if you want quality speech, if you want accurate speech, 0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:06.839 you have to have some kinds of standards in play. 0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:10.400 And every platform knows this because they all have standards 0:06:10.400 --> 0:06:13.159 in play. There are standards against spam, there are standards 0:06:13.200 --> 0:06:17.000 against all kinds of rules of privacy, regulations, any number 0:06:17.000 --> 0:06:19.839 of things that every platform is already engaged in. The 0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:22.720 question is are you going to wield that power wisely 0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:24.880 and are you going to do it in a transparent way, 0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:27.440 and are you going to take responsibility for the things 0:06:27.520 --> 0:06:29.120 you leave up as well as for the things that 0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:29.800 you take down. 0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:32.600 I mean, we know how some platforms treat this stuff 0:06:32.600 --> 0:06:34.719 because of what's happened on AX in the last couple 0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:37.400 of years. But I also think about incentives and the 0:06:37.440 --> 0:06:40.880 way that incentives could be misaligned. Right now, you can 0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:49.520 get paid on platforms by views, So your incentive is 0:06:49.560 --> 0:06:53.039 to create something that people will see. People see stuff. 0:06:53.400 --> 0:06:56.840 When the algorithm sees that people are interacting with it, 0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:00.680 leaving comments on it, reposting it, then it's it in 0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:04.920 other people's feeds. Whether that's true or not, it doesn't 0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:08.760 seem like the system is designed to reward what you 0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:10.240 refer to as fearless speech. 0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:15.160 Definitely not, and that shouldn't be surprising because what we 0:07:15.280 --> 0:07:19.600 often forget, and partly because the tech industry and major 0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:22.000 players in the tech industry try to make us forget this, 0:07:22.520 --> 0:07:24.840 is that this isn't the public square, This isn't some 0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:28.960 sort of democracy experiment. This is a corporation that has 0:07:28.960 --> 0:07:31.520 a product, and it's trying to sell you that product, 0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:34.040 and it's trying to tell you that what you're doing 0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:36.920 by speaking or posting or whatever it is is freedom 0:07:36.960 --> 0:07:39.800 of speech. But all it is from the corporations perspective 0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:43.960 is profit. And so the only real standard that is 0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:45.960 being used in those cases is what's going to make 0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:48.680 that company profit, And so of course it's not going 0:07:48.720 --> 0:07:50.640 to align with democracy, of course, it's not going to 0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:53.040 align with high quality content. It's not even going to 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:57.480 have the regular guardrails as you mentioned, of newspapers, radio stations, 0:07:57.600 --> 0:08:00.520 TV stations, all of whom have to take responses ability 0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:04.160 when there is false information on them. When you know, 0:08:04.240 --> 0:08:05.920 you know that the New York Times can get sued, 0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:08.800 We know that Fox News can get sued if there's 0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:13.000 outright false statements being broadcast. So why is it that 0:08:13.040 --> 0:08:15.360 the tech industry gets this pass where they're allowed to 0:08:15.400 --> 0:08:20.080 do whatever they would like or do nothing, and allow disinformation, misinformation, 0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.800 truly harmful content to simply proliferate simply because it lines 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:24.440 their pockets. 0:08:25.320 --> 0:08:29.200 You know, I'm curious about what you think about the 0:08:29.240 --> 0:08:32.920 protests that we've seen on universities and campuses over the 0:08:33.040 --> 0:08:35.760 last year or so as a result of you're. 0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:38.040 At George Washington University School of Law. 0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:41.280 You are at you know, the Hamas attack on Israel 0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:46.360 and then obviously Israel's response, and so it felt like 0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:51.080 freedom of speech was certainly being questioned or maybe not 0:08:51.760 --> 0:08:56.280 allowed equally. So help us with that one, because that 0:08:56.320 --> 0:08:58.920 was certainly problematic. As we know, a lot of university 0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:03.040 heads are no laws are there as a result, So 0:09:03.520 --> 0:09:07.120 walk us through your thinking about that and how it 0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:07.720 might apply. 0:09:09.400 --> 0:09:12.199 I think the first thing to note about that conflict, 0:09:12.679 --> 0:09:15.480 and I say conflict because it's ongoing right that this 0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:18.199 is some of the campuses are struggling with right now, 0:09:19.040 --> 0:09:21.440 is to say that this should be proof in the 0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.079 first instance, that the First Amendment doesn't help us here. 0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:27.079 It doesn't resolve these questions. You can invote free speech 0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:29.440 all you want, you can invoke the First Amendment, but 0:09:29.520 --> 0:09:32.000 it's not actually going to answer the question of what 0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:34.199 kind of community do you want to have at any 0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:37.200 given university, and what are the kinds of threats to 0:09:37.559 --> 0:09:39.800 that kind of community that you should be focused on. 0:09:40.320 --> 0:09:42.719 And what I think was really tragic about so much 0:09:42.760 --> 0:09:45.360 of the demonstration activity that happened in the last few 0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:48.640 months and the responses by universities is that they in 0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:52.840 some ways looked over their own communities and we're speaking 0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:56.040 to I think audiences that were more like members of Congress, 0:09:56.160 --> 0:09:59.040 or maybe the donors, or maybe the media, but they 0:09:59.080 --> 0:10:01.920 weren't speaking to their students. They weren't speaking to their 0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:05.920 own communities and hearing what people were trying to communicate, 0:10:05.960 --> 0:10:09.160 and of course the things they're trying to communicate are controversial, 0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:13.320 They are complex, they can be misinterpreted, they can be 0:10:13.520 --> 0:10:17.040 rightly interpreted in ways that are maybe concerning. But what 0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:19.600 you really should have seen from these universities is some 0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:22.840 leadership about their own community and some grace and some 0:10:23.000 --> 0:10:28.160 generosity for the students as they struggle through incredibly complex, 0:10:28.400 --> 0:10:31.040 fraught issues. That's the kind of leadership that I really 0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:34.559 wish we had seen, as opposed to grandstanding for donors, 0:10:34.880 --> 0:10:37.320 members of Congress, and others who were trying to weaponize 0:10:37.360 --> 0:10:39.680 those demonstrations to make their own political points. 0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:42.280 I want to get right back to Maryanne Frank's professor 0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:45.040 in intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights A lot George 0:10:45.080 --> 0:10:48.240 Washington University. She's got a new book out, Fearless Speech, 0:10:48.640 --> 0:10:51.480 Breaking Free from the First Amendment. She joins us once 0:10:51.480 --> 0:10:56.200 again from Washington, DC. The theme of burning is a 0:10:56.200 --> 0:11:01.520 big part of your book, Fearless Speech, Professor, burning crosses, 0:11:01.840 --> 0:11:05.600 burning women, burning books, burning down the public square, and 0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:09.000 then finally you conclude with choosing your own way to burn. 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:12.720 Why is that omnipresent in your book? 0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:17.559 For multiple reasons, but one of the main ones is 0:11:17.720 --> 0:11:20.280 the scene that I opened the introduction of the book 0:11:20.480 --> 0:11:24.480 with which is the burning of the press. The newspaper, 0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:27.400 a newspaper called the Memphis Free Speech, and it was 0:11:27.480 --> 0:11:31.000 Ida Wells's newspaper, and it was burnt at the ground 0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:35.200 after she published an editorial that she had written about 0:11:35.400 --> 0:11:39.160 the truth about lynching. And it was a moment where 0:11:39.160 --> 0:11:43.800 I thought, this is really a repeating theme throughout American history. 0:11:43.920 --> 0:11:47.439 We have this belief, this mythology about the First Amendment, 0:11:47.480 --> 0:11:51.320 that we protect radical speech and we protect dissidents. And 0:11:51.360 --> 0:11:53.480 then you look back to the people who have spoken 0:11:53.520 --> 0:11:56.000 out against slavery, You look back at the people who 0:11:56.000 --> 0:11:58.920 were speaking out against lynching, You look at the women 0:11:58.960 --> 0:12:01.080 who were fighting for the right to vote. You look 0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:03.840 at the moments now in terms of Black Lives Matter 0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:06.679 protests and then Me Too movements, and you see that 0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:11.120 time and time again, the mob has come for those individuals. 0:12:11.200 --> 0:12:14.920 They have suppressed that speech. It's been violently suppressed in 0:12:14.960 --> 0:12:18.240 a way that sometimes took the form of literal burning 0:12:18.280 --> 0:12:22.920 of newspapers, but sometimes took the form of incredibly onerous 0:12:23.000 --> 0:12:26.560 lawsuits or persecutions in other ways. So time and again, 0:12:26.679 --> 0:12:30.160 those who are trying to be most fearless in their 0:12:30.200 --> 0:12:33.800 speech have been suppressed, they have been violated, they've been assaulted. 0:12:34.080 --> 0:12:36.240 And that's really a theme that I wanted to emphasize 0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:36.840 in the book. 0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:43.040 You know, just in your intro to you know, you say, 0:12:43.120 --> 0:12:46.440 unfettered free speeches does indeed exist, but only for some 0:12:46.520 --> 0:12:50.280 Americans today in America, delusional stalkers have a First Amendment 0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:53.640 right to terrorize their victims. Pornographers have a First Amendment 0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:57.080 right to glorify sexual violence. For profit businesses have a 0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.480 first Amendment right to deny services to gay people and 0:12:59.520 --> 0:13:02.520 to advertise this fact. Anti abortion ze, let's have a 0:13:02.520 --> 0:13:05.600 first amendment right to mislead pregnant women with fake pregnancy 0:13:05.600 --> 0:13:08.280 and clinics. It goes on and on and on. So 0:13:08.360 --> 0:13:13.240 it is interesting. So what this is such a tough one. 0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:16.520 So what's the answer. What's the way forward? How do 0:13:16.600 --> 0:13:21.720 we preserve what is so a part of our American culture, 0:13:21.840 --> 0:13:27.560 right of being able to say anything? You know? But 0:13:27.640 --> 0:13:30.680 how can we kind of preserve that but have the 0:13:30.760 --> 0:13:32.920 right guard rails? Or can we or can we not? 0:13:34.600 --> 0:13:36.520 I think we can, And I think it starts with 0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:39.679 acknowledging that we've never done it. I think it starts 0:13:39.679 --> 0:13:43.800 with acknowledging that this is our whole mythology about the 0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:47.520 First Amendment. The mythology about our country generally has always 0:13:47.559 --> 0:13:51.120 been at best an aspirational idea. It's never been a 0:13:51.160 --> 0:13:55.480 completed project. So for the First Amendment, specifically for the 0:13:55.559 --> 0:13:59.000 question of free speech, we really have to be confrontational 0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:02.360 about how throughout our history the First Amendment has not 0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:05.840 stood up for free expression, at least not for those 0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:09.439 who were speaking out against the most powerful parts of society. 0:14:09.880 --> 0:14:11.960 It has shown up for the people who are the 0:14:12.120 --> 0:14:14.719 enemies in some ways of democracy and of those who 0:14:14.760 --> 0:14:18.720 are trying to be egalitarian and progressive. So what we 0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:20.360 have to do first is we have to admit that 0:14:20.400 --> 0:14:24.120 we have to stop telling ourselves this bedtime story about 0:14:24.120 --> 0:14:26.720 the First Amendment that we've always protected free speech and 0:14:26.840 --> 0:14:30.000 acknowledge and really grapple with the fact that we haven't. 0:14:30.360 --> 0:14:34.000 We have chosen winners and losers for the First Amendment. 0:14:34.440 --> 0:14:37.080 The moment we admit that, then we can have an 0:14:37.240 --> 0:14:41.480 honest discussion about what belongs in that part of the 0:14:41.480 --> 0:14:44.240 First Amendment that says this should be most protected, and 0:14:44.280 --> 0:14:46.360 what belongs in that part that most of us would 0:14:46.400 --> 0:14:49.880 agree should be something that we're allowed to regulate fraud, 0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:52.800 if we think about defamation to some extent, if we 0:14:52.880 --> 0:14:55.920 think about the kind of food and drug labeling, this 0:14:56.040 --> 0:14:58.200 information that you might work about, if there weren't any 0:14:58.280 --> 0:15:02.720 kinds of protocols for those kinds of issues. We need 0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:04.720 to think about and be honest about the fact that 0:15:04.760 --> 0:15:08.840 we've always made assessments about harm and speech and injury, 0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:11.040 and let's talk about how we can do that in 0:15:11.080 --> 0:15:14.120 the fairest, most transparent way and really think about the 0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:16.960 context that we're speaking in and care about the harm, 0:15:17.160 --> 0:15:19.960 not just abstract harms, but actual harms. Are the one 0:15:20.000 --> 0:15:22.720 we've been talking about all this time, That is, there 0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:24.480 are people who are going to buy because of her 0:15:24.840 --> 0:15:25.400 Ria information. 0:15:25.480 --> 0:15:27.160 Let me ask you, so, then, is it the Supreme 0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:28.760 Court who figures that out? 0:15:29.600 --> 0:15:32.320 I wish I could say that we should have any 0:15:32.320 --> 0:15:34.240 confidence in the Supreme Court to do that. I don't 0:15:34.280 --> 0:15:36.520 think they're going to figure that out anytime soon. But 0:15:36.560 --> 0:15:39.400 that doesn't mean that the people can't figure these things out. 0:15:39.880 --> 0:15:43.600 The one takeaway here about the First Amendment being neither 0:15:43.640 --> 0:15:46.920 necessary nor sufficient for freedom of speech is that we 0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:49.520 can do free speech. We can do fearless speech, without 0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:51.840 waiting on the Supreme Court, without waiting for the law 0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:55.600 to change, we can actually lift up, amplify, highlight those 0:15:55.640 --> 0:15:58.400 people who have taken those risks even though they had 0:15:58.440 --> 0:16:00.920 no protections, and we can make those people at the 0:16:00.960 --> 0:16:03.520 center of our discourse and we can model ourselves after them. 0:16:03.800 --> 0:16:07.240 Professor, what's the link between Americans trust in media or 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:13.040 a lack thereof, and the misunderstanding of the First Amendment 0:16:13.360 --> 0:16:16.000 in your view, I'm thinking of a report from Gallup 0:16:16.040 --> 0:16:18.520 that came out just yesterday that says that trust in 0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:22.080 media remains at a low, with only thirty one percent 0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:24.760 of Americans expressing a quote great deal or fair amount 0:16:24.760 --> 0:16:27.720 of confidence that the media will report the news fully, 0:16:27.760 --> 0:16:29.120 accurately and fairly. 0:16:31.760 --> 0:16:34.400 I think it is a sign that we have at 0:16:34.440 --> 0:16:36.960 least two competing problems, or at least two problems that 0:16:37.000 --> 0:16:39.600 are contributing to this, and one is just a general 0:16:39.720 --> 0:16:43.520 lack of First Amendment literacy in our public right. We 0:16:43.520 --> 0:16:46.560 don't have really good education about what the First Amendment 0:16:46.600 --> 0:16:49.360 actually does and what it's supposed to protect because we're 0:16:49.440 --> 0:16:52.400 losing out on that clarity. The few parts of the 0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:54.920 First Moment that really are clear say that you've got 0:16:54.920 --> 0:16:56.920 to make sure that the government isn't trying to throttle 0:16:56.960 --> 0:16:58.880 the media. You've got to make sure that that members 0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:01.960 of Congress aren't trying to intimidate researchers. Those are the 0:17:02.000 --> 0:17:04.280 things that actually are quite clear and quite good about 0:17:04.280 --> 0:17:07.159 the First Amendment, And if we could get clarity on those, 0:17:07.560 --> 0:17:10.159 then we could understand why it's so frightening that the 0:17:10.200 --> 0:17:12.760 government is trying to take hold of media and social 0:17:12.800 --> 0:17:16.040 media in all the different ways. But that's partly a 0:17:16.119 --> 0:17:18.280 lesson for the media were at large too, which is 0:17:18.359 --> 0:17:21.000 help educate the public about what the First Amendment does 0:17:21.040 --> 0:17:21.639 and doesn't do. 0:17:24.040 --> 0:17:26.480 What hope do you have that things changed? 0:17:29.320 --> 0:17:32.640 I have hope that things can change, because we are 0:17:32.720 --> 0:17:35.960 at a very dangerous moment in history. But we have 0:17:36.119 --> 0:17:39.200 had these kinds of moments before, and there have been 0:17:39.240 --> 0:17:42.720 people who have been willing to stand up to say 0:17:42.720 --> 0:17:45.639 the things that are really hard, to act in a 0:17:45.640 --> 0:17:48.159 way that is against their own self interest, and to 0:17:48.280 --> 0:17:50.840 try to rescue democracy and to make that promise of 0:17:50.880 --> 0:17:54.520 equality become a reality rather than just an empty promise. 0:17:54.600 --> 0:17:56.480 And so I do still have hope for that because 0:17:56.520 --> 0:17:58.080 I still have hope in people. 0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:02.800 I don't know you don't seem optimistic, Carol. 0:18:03.280 --> 0:18:05.639 Speaking of speech, I feel a little speechless because I 0:18:06.000 --> 0:18:09.359 think it's such a big discussion of our time, right 0:18:09.480 --> 0:18:12.320 in terms of we talk so much about free speech, 0:18:12.359 --> 0:18:14.240 and that means people can say things that you don't 0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:18.560 agree with or can be uncomfortable. I don't know, though, 0:18:18.720 --> 0:18:20.680 there's a line that I think you can cross obviously 0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:24.040 when it creates harm, that is it, should it still 0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:25.840 be protected? I guess I would. 0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:27.840 Say no, But yeah, and I think the way that 0:18:28.600 --> 0:18:31.120 just the speed at which speech travels now mm hmm 0:18:31.800 --> 0:18:34.359 is so fast because of the technology and the velocity 0:18:34.400 --> 0:18:37.520 of it. Exactly yeah, that's exactly right. 0:18:37.640 --> 0:18:40.680 Well, Marian gave us a lot to think about timely, 0:18:40.760 --> 0:18:44.000 certainly as we uh, you know, we're thinking in the middle, 0:18:44.600 --> 0:18:46.480 like in the thick of it, and try to be 0:18:46.560 --> 0:18:49.960 so careful about the information certainly that we talk about, right, 0:18:50.000 --> 0:18:52.040 and so careful. But that's not the case everywhere in 0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:55.760 the world. Marion Frank's professor of an intellectual property technology 0:18:55.800 --> 0:18:58.560 civil rights law at George Washington University. Her new book 0:18:58.680 --> 0:19:01.560 Check it out, fear Less, Speed Breaking Free from the 0:19:01.560 --> 0:19:02.320 First Amendment. 0:19:03.400 --> 0:19:07.800 This is Bloomberg Business Week inside from the reporters and 0:19:07.920 --> 0:19:11.520 editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus 0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:15.520 global business, finance and tech news as it happens. Bloomberg 0:19:15.560 --> 0:19:20.680 Business Week with Caro Messer and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio. 0:19:21.560 --> 0:19:24.400 It is Bloomberg Business Week. A lot of news when 0:19:24.400 --> 0:19:26.760 it comes to the ESG world today. Okay, On the 0:19:26.880 --> 0:19:30.439 environmental side, back to back hurricanes Colleen and Milton expected 0:19:30.440 --> 0:19:33.640 to cost insures thirty five billion dollars to fifty five 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:37.280 billion dollars. That's according to Moody's RMS Risk Modeling Unit. 0:19:37.680 --> 0:19:41.000 Then there's the social side. Rights in ESG in case 0:19:41.040 --> 0:19:44.880 anybody's keeping track stiantists hauling employees back to the office 0:19:44.920 --> 0:19:47.239 walking back a work from home policy. Then I got 0:19:47.240 --> 0:19:49.720 a governance headline for you too, your customer doing rounds. 0:19:49.760 --> 0:19:51.720 I like that Boeing preparing to raise as much as 0:19:51.720 --> 0:19:54.680 twenty five billion dollars in debt inequity, giving the planemaker 0:19:54.760 --> 0:19:57.800 the financial resources to withstand that strike and work its 0:19:57.840 --> 0:20:00.560 way through a series of operational setbacks. All these headlines, 0:20:00.560 --> 0:20:03.800 by the way, courtesy of the Great ESG Daily Newsletter 0:20:04.000 --> 0:20:05.720 from Bloomberg News. You can sign up for that on 0:20:05.720 --> 0:20:06.560 the Bloomberg terminal. 0:20:06.640 --> 0:20:07.840 I got to say every day when you read in 0:20:07.920 --> 0:20:09.480 on the top, we have a bunch of stories. Well, 0:20:09.520 --> 0:20:12.639 this is Jade Wong's world. She's Chief investment Officer at 0:20:12.680 --> 0:20:15.480 Calvert Research and Management, a Morgan Stanley owned firm that 0:20:15.520 --> 0:20:19.080 focuses on ESG and so called responsible investments. She joins 0:20:19.119 --> 0:20:21.960 us right here in our Bloomberg Interactive broker's studio. Really 0:20:22.080 --> 0:20:25.080 nice to have you here with us. We have talked 0:20:25.119 --> 0:20:27.159 about ESG. I feel like I'm trying to think how 0:20:27.160 --> 0:20:29.240 old the industry now is but for a long time, 0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:32.760 but it does feel like it's going through a growing 0:20:32.840 --> 0:20:36.400 up period, an evolution, if you will. All the rage 0:20:36.440 --> 0:20:38.800 in twenty twenty twenty twenty one fell out of favor 0:20:38.840 --> 0:20:41.960 in twenty twenty two. How would you characterize it right now? 0:20:43.480 --> 0:20:48.920 I think it's a period of opportunity for responsible investors 0:20:48.920 --> 0:20:53.840 who are really focused on integrating financially material ESG factors 0:20:53.880 --> 0:20:57.880 into their investment. There was a period, as you say, 0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:00.800 when it was kind of the hot topic, and so 0:21:01.480 --> 0:21:04.919 lots of firms were jumping in to get into and 0:21:05.000 --> 0:21:08.119 take advantage of that interest. And I think the firms 0:21:08.160 --> 0:21:12.720 that are genuinely integrating ESG insights that are financially material 0:21:12.800 --> 0:21:15.400 because it's good for the investments that they're looking at 0:21:15.640 --> 0:21:17.359 are the ones who are going to continue to do that, 0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:20.920 and so Calvert is in that situation. We've been doing 0:21:21.280 --> 0:21:22.000