1
00:00:15,356 --> 00:00:21,796
Speaker 1: Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show

2
00:00:21,836 --> 00:00:24,916
Speaker 1: where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news.

3
00:00:25,436 --> 00:00:29,916
Speaker 1: I'm Noah Feldman. Freedom of speech is a basic constitutional

4
00:00:29,996 --> 00:00:33,236
Speaker 1: right in the United States. It's a human right recognized

5
00:00:33,276 --> 00:00:37,116
Speaker 1: by international human rights declarations all over the world. It's

6
00:00:37,116 --> 00:00:40,396
Speaker 1: also a cultural value, an ideal that says that, under

7
00:00:40,396 --> 00:00:43,276
Speaker 1: certain circumstances, we should be able to speak our minds

8
00:00:43,316 --> 00:00:48,356
Speaker 1: in order to facilitate a meaningful public conversation. And yet,

9
00:00:48,436 --> 00:00:51,596
Speaker 1: at the same time, many people in our society have

10
00:00:51,796 --> 00:00:55,596
Speaker 1: the feeling, the intuition, the view that free speech may

11
00:00:55,636 --> 00:00:58,796
Speaker 1: have gone a little bit too far, that speech can

12
00:00:58,836 --> 00:01:02,716
Speaker 1: sometimes be abused and used as a forum or mechanism

13
00:01:02,796 --> 00:01:07,036
Speaker 1: for suppressing people, subordinating them, and expressing views that have

14
00:01:07,236 --> 00:01:11,316
Speaker 1: real world bad effects on the equality of other human beings,

15
00:01:11,716 --> 00:01:15,636
Speaker 1: whether because of their race, their sex, their sexual orientation,

16
00:01:16,076 --> 00:01:21,476
Speaker 1: their gender orientation, or a host of other potentially vulnerable characteristics.

17
00:01:22,716 --> 00:01:25,956
Speaker 1: How should we think about the difficult questions that arise

18
00:01:26,076 --> 00:01:31,116
Speaker 1: at the intersection of speech, liberty and equality of all people.

19
00:01:31,916 --> 00:01:34,476
Speaker 1: This is one of the most profound questions of our time,

20
00:01:34,636 --> 00:01:37,476
Speaker 1: or of any time. And here on Deep Background, we're

21
00:01:37,516 --> 00:01:40,876
Speaker 1: going to be thinking seriously about this question over the

22
00:01:40,916 --> 00:01:45,396
Speaker 1: course of the summer. Kicking off our series of conversations

23
00:01:45,436 --> 00:01:49,476
Speaker 1: about freedom of speech, today, I'm joined by Susanne Knossel.

24
00:01:49,996 --> 00:01:54,276
Speaker 1: Susanne is the CEO of pen America, the organization devoted

25
00:01:54,316 --> 00:01:57,036
Speaker 1: to protecting the free expression of writers in the United

26
00:01:57,076 --> 00:02:01,076
Speaker 1: States and around the world. Before joining pan America, Susanne

27
00:02:01,236 --> 00:02:04,796
Speaker 1: was COO of Human Rights Watch. She was executive director

28
00:02:04,836 --> 00:02:07,796
Speaker 1: of Amnesty International USA, and she worked in both the

29
00:02:07,876 --> 00:02:12,476
Speaker 1: Obama and administrations as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

30
00:02:12,516 --> 00:02:16,276
Speaker 1: for International Organizations and as Deputy to the US Ambassador

31
00:02:16,316 --> 00:02:19,676
Speaker 1: for United Nations Management and Reform at the United States

32
00:02:19,676 --> 00:02:22,876
Speaker 1: Mission to the United Nations. She's the author of a

33
00:02:22,956 --> 00:02:27,156
Speaker 1: brand new book, Dare to Speak, Defending Free Speech for All,

34
00:02:27,476 --> 00:02:31,436
Speaker 1: in which she explores the full panoply of free expression

35
00:02:31,476 --> 00:02:36,356
Speaker 1: issues that exist today. Suzanne, thank you for joining me.

36
00:02:36,916 --> 00:02:39,996
Speaker 1: Let's start with why you decided to write a book

37
00:02:40,036 --> 00:02:43,276
Speaker 1: about free speech. You're the CEO of pan America, so

38
00:02:43,316 --> 00:02:46,316
Speaker 1: you have free speeches one of the aspects of your

39
00:02:46,436 --> 00:02:48,916
Speaker 1: day job. But you know this is a topic that

40
00:02:49,796 --> 00:02:53,116
Speaker 1: enormous amounts have been written about, and lots of people

41
00:02:53,196 --> 00:02:55,796
Speaker 1: have thought about and you know, there are reams and

42
00:02:55,836 --> 00:02:59,756
Speaker 1: reams of legal materials on it and arguments, and you know,

43
00:02:59,796 --> 00:03:02,596
Speaker 1: every philosopher from Milton to mill has weighed in on

44
00:03:02,596 --> 00:03:05,556
Speaker 1: the topic. Why did we need a new book and

45
00:03:05,596 --> 00:03:08,516
Speaker 1: why did you want to write one? Well, it really

46
00:03:08,556 --> 00:03:12,836
Speaker 1: grew out of a couple of different experiences I had had.

47
00:03:12,876 --> 00:03:16,556
Speaker 1: The first was when I was at the State Department

48
00:03:16,836 --> 00:03:21,156
Speaker 1: and I was working on representing the United States at

49
00:03:21,236 --> 00:03:25,436
Speaker 1: the UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN

50
00:03:25,516 --> 00:03:27,596
Speaker 1: General Assembly in New York. And one of the contentious

51
00:03:27,596 --> 00:03:32,516
Speaker 1: issues there wasn't debate over the so called defamation of religion,

52
00:03:32,676 --> 00:03:37,476
Speaker 1: and it was a concept that Islamic delegations from around

53
00:03:37,556 --> 00:03:40,156
Speaker 1: the world had brought forward in the wake of if

54
00:03:40,156 --> 00:03:43,476
Speaker 1: you remember the Danish cartoon controversy, where there had been

55
00:03:43,516 --> 00:03:47,796
Speaker 1: these images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad that had been

56
00:03:47,796 --> 00:03:51,196
Speaker 1: published in a Danish newspaper, and in the wake of that,

57
00:03:51,276 --> 00:03:53,996
Speaker 1: there was a very harsh reaction and there were protests

58
00:03:53,996 --> 00:03:57,596
Speaker 1: outside of Danish diplomatic installations around the world, and people

59
00:03:57,636 --> 00:04:00,516
Speaker 1: lost their lives, and there was a sense that Mohammad's

60
00:04:00,556 --> 00:04:03,596
Speaker 1: reputation had been sullied, and it was an insult to

61
00:04:03,876 --> 00:04:08,636
Speaker 1: Muslims everywhere, and so Islamic countries kind came forward in

62
00:04:08,676 --> 00:04:11,676
Speaker 1: the wake of that and wanted to get a UN resolution,

63
00:04:11,796 --> 00:04:14,436
Speaker 1: and ultimately they sought a binding treaty that would have

64
00:04:14,476 --> 00:04:18,596
Speaker 1: banned the defamation of religion. When I arrived at the

65
00:04:18,596 --> 00:04:20,916
Speaker 1: State Department during the first term of the Obama administration,

66
00:04:20,996 --> 00:04:23,476
Speaker 1: I sort of got read into this issue. And you

67
00:04:23,556 --> 00:04:27,076
Speaker 1: know what struck me was that these Islamic delegations were

68
00:04:27,076 --> 00:04:32,356
Speaker 1: really concerned about religious intolerance and hostility toward Muslims that

69
00:04:32,636 --> 00:04:36,276
Speaker 1: was running pretty rampant in the years after nine to eleven,

70
00:04:36,316 --> 00:04:39,036
Speaker 1: and that that was a legitimate concern on the part

71
00:04:39,076 --> 00:04:41,796
Speaker 1: of the United States and our European allies and countries

72
00:04:41,796 --> 00:04:45,076
Speaker 1: like Canada and Australia. There was a grave concern that

73
00:04:45,676 --> 00:04:48,476
Speaker 1: banning or punishing the defamation of religion would be an

74
00:04:48,516 --> 00:04:52,516
Speaker 1: infringement on freedom of speech. And so twice a year,

75
00:04:52,676 --> 00:04:54,876
Speaker 1: once into New York, once in Geneva, we would go

76
00:04:54,956 --> 00:04:58,436
Speaker 1: to battle over this resolution and be marshaling votes and

77
00:04:59,076 --> 00:05:02,036
Speaker 1: getting our embassies and capitals to go in and beg

78
00:05:02,116 --> 00:05:04,596
Speaker 1: countries to vote with us. And it struck me as

79
00:05:04,636 --> 00:05:07,476
Speaker 1: just a very pointless exercise. It seemed to me that

80
00:05:07,556 --> 00:05:11,156
Speaker 1: at the heart of it, we're legitimate concerns on both sides,

81
00:05:11,236 --> 00:05:15,396
Speaker 1: that we were against religious intolerance as well, and I

82
00:05:15,436 --> 00:05:19,196
Speaker 1: wasn't so sure the Islamic countries weren't entirely indifferent to

83
00:05:19,436 --> 00:05:22,676
Speaker 1: free speech concerns that are embedded in international law, and

84
00:05:22,756 --> 00:05:24,836
Speaker 1: so what we decided to do was kind of take

85
00:05:24,836 --> 00:05:28,356
Speaker 1: a different tack, and we approached the organization of the

86
00:05:28,396 --> 00:05:32,516
Speaker 1: Islamic Conference at the time and asked whether they would

87
00:05:32,516 --> 00:05:37,196
Speaker 1: consider an approach to tackling the issue of religious intolerance

88
00:05:37,276 --> 00:05:41,076
Speaker 1: through means other than restrictions on speech, and we proposed

89
00:05:41,156 --> 00:05:46,196
Speaker 1: things like dialogue between experts, taking prosecutors from the Justice

90
00:05:46,196 --> 00:05:49,996
Speaker 1: Department who knew how to go after hate crimes and

91
00:05:50,156 --> 00:05:54,116
Speaker 1: bringing them to seminars with international counterparts where they could

92
00:05:54,116 --> 00:05:57,636
Speaker 1: share best practices and educate one another and really look

93
00:05:57,716 --> 00:06:01,956
Speaker 1: into what works in practice in terms of eradicating hostility

94
00:06:01,956 --> 00:06:05,076
Speaker 1: on the basis of religion. And look, it didn't happen overnight,

95
00:06:05,116 --> 00:06:09,596
Speaker 1: but gradually we brought them around, the Islamic delegation around

96
00:06:09,636 --> 00:06:12,716
Speaker 1: to the idea that this would be a more constructive approach,

97
00:06:12,716 --> 00:06:17,036
Speaker 1: and ultimately we came to a consensus resolution that replaced

98
00:06:17,076 --> 00:06:19,996
Speaker 1: this kind of notorious resolution on the defamation of religion.

99
00:06:20,076 --> 00:06:23,356
Speaker 1: And you know, for me, what that underscored was the

100
00:06:23,436 --> 00:06:26,196
Speaker 1: idea that in debates over free speech, there can be

101
00:06:26,236 --> 00:06:28,916
Speaker 1: a propensity for the two sides to talk past one

102
00:06:28,916 --> 00:06:33,796
Speaker 1: another and for considerations of how to create a more just,

103
00:06:34,036 --> 00:06:37,836
Speaker 1: equal and inclusive society to be pitted against robust protections

104
00:06:37,836 --> 00:06:41,956
Speaker 1: for free speech. And years later at Pan America, a

105
00:06:42,076 --> 00:06:45,796
Speaker 1: similar phenomenon in certain respects reared its head around the

106
00:06:45,916 --> 00:06:49,596
Speaker 1: controversies on college campuses over free speech. And you know

107
00:06:49,636 --> 00:06:52,756
Speaker 1: what occurred to me in the context of those controversies

108
00:06:52,756 --> 00:06:56,156
Speaker 1: and many that would follow, is that it really hinged

109
00:06:56,196 --> 00:07:01,596
Speaker 1: pretty centrally on questions of race and inclusion and equality

110
00:07:01,596 --> 00:07:05,156
Speaker 1: and the unfinished business on these campuses of making them

111
00:07:05,196 --> 00:07:10,676
Speaker 1: into places that were truly hospitable to people from all backgrounds,

112
00:07:10,796 --> 00:07:16,436
Speaker 1: and that was sometimes manifesting as calls to suppress or

113
00:07:16,476 --> 00:07:18,476
Speaker 1: punish speech, but that you know, at the heart of

114
00:07:18,516 --> 00:07:21,716
Speaker 1: it was really a drive for greater equality, and that

115
00:07:22,956 --> 00:07:27,396
Speaker 1: push was necessary and essential and could be accomplished without

116
00:07:27,476 --> 00:07:32,076
Speaker 1: compromising robust protections for free speech and academic freedom. But Susan,

117
00:07:32,156 --> 00:07:33,876
Speaker 1: can I push back there? I mean, because now you're

118
00:07:33,916 --> 00:07:37,036
Speaker 1: getting to what, to me at least is the heart

119
00:07:37,076 --> 00:07:39,716
Speaker 1: of the matter for some of these debates, and that

120
00:07:39,836 --> 00:07:42,836
Speaker 1: is the situation where there is a real tension and

121
00:07:42,916 --> 00:07:47,956
Speaker 1: maybe even a conflict between ideas about equality and ideas

122
00:07:47,996 --> 00:07:51,436
Speaker 1: about free expression. And in the abstract, most people in

123
00:07:51,476 --> 00:07:54,796
Speaker 1: a liberal democracy like the United States are committed to equality,

124
00:07:54,876 --> 00:07:58,356
Speaker 1: and most people are committed to the idea of free speech.

125
00:07:58,836 --> 00:08:01,196
Speaker 1: But then when they directly come into conflict, we often

126
00:08:01,236 --> 00:08:05,356
Speaker 1: have pretty different intuitions. And so when there's speech that

127
00:08:05,476 --> 00:08:09,396
Speaker 1: some people perceive as impinging on their equality, and the

128
00:08:09,436 --> 00:08:11,716
Speaker 1: speaker says, well, I didn't mean to impinge on your equality,

129
00:08:11,956 --> 00:08:14,636
Speaker 1: and then the listener says, well you did, then we

130
00:08:14,716 --> 00:08:17,956
Speaker 1: often get one of the versions of controversy that you're describing,

131
00:08:17,956 --> 00:08:21,276
Speaker 1: where one side says, listen, free speech is about words.

132
00:08:21,476 --> 00:08:23,636
Speaker 1: It doesn't reduce your equality to hear an opinion you

133
00:08:23,756 --> 00:08:27,196
Speaker 1: fundamentally disagree with. We're for free speech. And then the

134
00:08:27,196 --> 00:08:29,356
Speaker 1: other side says, no, you got it wrong. You know

135
00:08:29,436 --> 00:08:32,396
Speaker 1: that speech does impinge on my equality, and that ought

136
00:08:32,436 --> 00:08:34,756
Speaker 1: to trump your ability to speak. Not that we're saying

137
00:08:34,756 --> 00:08:36,676
Speaker 1: you ought to be arrested, but we think that you

138
00:08:36,956 --> 00:08:38,916
Speaker 1: within the context of this institution, let's say it's a

139
00:08:38,916 --> 00:08:41,516
Speaker 1: private university, ought not to have said that, Or if

140
00:08:41,556 --> 00:08:44,396
Speaker 1: you're in a position of responsibility or importance where you

141
00:08:44,436 --> 00:08:46,436
Speaker 1: are in charge of me in some way, I don't

142
00:08:46,476 --> 00:08:48,076
Speaker 1: want you to say these kinds of things, and I

143
00:08:48,076 --> 00:08:50,676
Speaker 1: really think you shouldn't. How can it be to say

144
00:08:50,796 --> 00:08:55,236
Speaker 1: that those are like resolvable within some creative alternative framework.

145
00:08:55,276 --> 00:08:59,156
Speaker 1: Those seemed like genuine conflicts to me between liberty and equality. Yeah,

146
00:08:59,196 --> 00:09:02,036
Speaker 1: I think there are some instances where you have a

147
00:09:02,116 --> 00:09:05,236
Speaker 1: fundamental clash, but that a lot of the time what

148
00:09:05,476 --> 00:09:10,356
Speaker 1: manifests says that is actually something different, and that, for example,

149
00:09:10,556 --> 00:09:14,356
Speaker 1: if the speech is looked at in context and if

150
00:09:14,356 --> 00:09:18,436
Speaker 1: people understand what the intent is, that they recognize that

151
00:09:18,516 --> 00:09:22,236
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily racist or sexist, and that, you know,

152
00:09:22,356 --> 00:09:25,676
Speaker 1: censoring it or punishing it isn't the only answer. So

153
00:09:25,716 --> 00:09:27,676
Speaker 1: I think a certain number of the cases that can

154
00:09:27,716 --> 00:09:30,396
Speaker 1: be resolved that way. There are other instances where someone

155
00:09:30,476 --> 00:09:34,036
Speaker 1: says something that comes off to others as let's say,

156
00:09:34,156 --> 00:09:37,516
Speaker 1: racist or sexist, and you know they didn't mean it

157
00:09:37,556 --> 00:09:39,676
Speaker 1: that way, but you know the interpretation of others is

158
00:09:39,716 --> 00:09:43,476
Speaker 1: quite legitimate. You know, it reflects changing morais, or you know,

159
00:09:43,516 --> 00:09:47,116
Speaker 1: a term that used to be considered acceptable but now isn't.

160
00:09:47,116 --> 00:09:48,556
Speaker 1: I might I use the example in the Book of

161
00:09:48,636 --> 00:09:53,036
Speaker 1: My Mother and the term Oriental to refer to Asian Americans,

162
00:09:53,076 --> 00:09:55,756
Speaker 1: you know, which for many years was commonly used, and

163
00:09:55,756 --> 00:09:58,876
Speaker 1: then at a certain point it really fell into disfavor

164
00:09:59,036 --> 00:10:03,396
Speaker 1: and it carried certain connotations, and not everybody cottoned onto that.

165
00:10:03,476 --> 00:10:06,076
Speaker 1: At the same moment, you know, where something like that happens,

166
00:10:06,196 --> 00:10:08,636
Speaker 1: I think we need to have some room for apology

167
00:10:08,716 --> 00:10:11,516
Speaker 1: at a you an apology and willingness to hear out

168
00:10:11,596 --> 00:10:14,836
Speaker 1: why something you've said your whole life that never seemed

169
00:10:14,876 --> 00:10:17,756
Speaker 1: objectionable you know now maybe objectionable, and you've got to

170
00:10:17,796 --> 00:10:20,716
Speaker 1: listen to the other person and understand why that's the case.

171
00:10:20,876 --> 00:10:23,436
Speaker 1: You know. On the flip side, forgiveness, you know, if

172
00:10:23,436 --> 00:10:26,756
Speaker 1: this is a person who genuinely didn't know, you wouldn't

173
00:10:26,956 --> 00:10:30,756
Speaker 1: have necessarily expected would know, given their own background of

174
00:10:30,796 --> 00:10:33,556
Speaker 1: the malia that they operate in, have some space and

175
00:10:33,636 --> 00:10:36,876
Speaker 1: some willingness to consider whether forgiveness is appropriate. So I

176
00:10:36,916 --> 00:10:40,476
Speaker 1: don't argue that there is no clash. I just argue

177
00:10:40,556 --> 00:10:44,116
Speaker 1: that we can manage these clashes much more constructively. Let

178
00:10:44,156 --> 00:10:46,756
Speaker 1: me ask you, Suzanne, about a chapter in your book.

179
00:10:46,796 --> 00:10:51,036
Speaker 1: It's chapter twelve, which has a fascinating and perhaps provocative title.

180
00:10:51,436 --> 00:10:54,916
Speaker 1: The title is don't Equate Speech with Violence? And in

181
00:10:54,956 --> 00:10:58,636
Speaker 1: the chapter you start by quoting a Northwestern University psychologist,

182
00:10:58,796 --> 00:11:02,436
Speaker 1: Lisa Feldmanbarratt nor relation to me, who's argue that biological

183
00:11:02,436 --> 00:11:06,876
Speaker 1: stress induced by menacing speech renders that speech literally a

184
00:11:06,956 --> 00:11:11,316
Speaker 1: form of violence, and then go on to disagree with

185
00:11:11,356 --> 00:11:15,436
Speaker 1: this argument pretty vociferously. So why do you find this

186
00:11:15,516 --> 00:11:18,596
Speaker 1: argument unconvincing? You know, I have another chapter in the

187
00:11:18,636 --> 00:11:21,396
Speaker 1: book that is about the harms of speech, and that

188
00:11:21,596 --> 00:11:23,916
Speaker 1: argument is that we have to acknowledge and come to

189
00:11:23,956 --> 00:11:27,156
Speaker 1: grips with those harms. We can't fall back on the

190
00:11:27,196 --> 00:11:30,396
Speaker 1: idea that sticks and stones may break my bones, but

191
00:11:30,476 --> 00:11:33,396
Speaker 1: words can never hurt me. We know that's not true,

192
00:11:33,436 --> 00:11:36,596
Speaker 1: and that there especially as research on certain kinds of

193
00:11:36,636 --> 00:11:42,636
Speaker 1: speech that genuinely can cause psychological damage, can undercut people's

194
00:11:42,796 --> 00:11:47,956
Speaker 1: opportunity for a equal education, can constitute harassment. So the

195
00:11:47,996 --> 00:11:50,876
Speaker 1: harms are real. But I do think it is a

196
00:11:50,916 --> 00:11:54,436
Speaker 1: mistake to equate speech with violence. I think the call

197
00:11:54,556 --> 00:11:57,996
Speaker 1: to equate speech and violence really comes from is born

198
00:11:58,076 --> 00:12:02,156
Speaker 1: of a sense that those harms are underacknowledge and that

199
00:12:02,196 --> 00:12:06,156
Speaker 1: the right answer is to fully recognize the harms that

200
00:12:06,196 --> 00:12:09,476
Speaker 1: certain kinds of speech can cause, but reject this equation

201
00:12:09,796 --> 00:12:11,956
Speaker 1: with physical violence. And you know that's for a couple

202
00:12:11,956 --> 00:12:14,716
Speaker 1: of reasons. I mean, one, if if my speech is

203
00:12:14,756 --> 00:12:17,956
Speaker 1: the equivalent of physical violence, how are you not then

204
00:12:18,316 --> 00:12:21,156
Speaker 1: justified and responding by punching me in the nose? If

205
00:12:21,196 --> 00:12:23,996
Speaker 1: I've committed an act of violence, your violence and response

206
00:12:24,316 --> 00:12:28,556
Speaker 1: is justifiable, And that's an invitation to violence and to escalation.

207
00:12:28,676 --> 00:12:32,156
Speaker 1: I think that's dangerous. You know. Another reason is that

208
00:12:32,636 --> 00:12:35,636
Speaker 1: you know, in most societies, the state, of course has

209
00:12:35,676 --> 00:12:38,236
Speaker 1: a monopoly on the use of force. And so if

210
00:12:38,236 --> 00:12:42,676
Speaker 1: you underwrite and accept this argument that speech can be

211
00:12:42,756 --> 00:12:46,276
Speaker 1: a form of violence, that protesting in the streets peacefully

212
00:12:46,356 --> 00:12:49,076
Speaker 1: can itself be a form of violence because of the

213
00:12:49,076 --> 00:12:52,676
Speaker 1: words use, the chance that are said, the posters that

214
00:12:52,716 --> 00:12:56,636
Speaker 1: are displayed, then you're justifying the state clamping down on

215
00:12:56,676 --> 00:13:02,156
Speaker 1: that speech through violence, through harsh policing, arrests, tear gas,

216
00:13:02,236 --> 00:13:05,476
Speaker 1: and worse. And so I think it's just a dangerous

217
00:13:05,516 --> 00:13:09,316
Speaker 1: false equivalency to draw. That doesn't mean even necessarily that

218
00:13:10,196 --> 00:13:13,836
Speaker 1: there aren't categories of speech that cause harm that you know,

219
00:13:13,916 --> 00:13:18,036
Speaker 1: in some jurisdictions are less protected than they are here

220
00:13:18,076 --> 00:13:19,916
Speaker 1: in the United States. I think that's a discussion you

221
00:13:19,956 --> 00:13:23,076
Speaker 1: can have, you know, should we be more restrictive in

222
00:13:23,116 --> 00:13:25,676
Speaker 1: certain times of certain kinds of hateful speech? You know,

223
00:13:25,796 --> 00:13:28,636
Speaker 1: I tend to think not, and that the downsides outweigh

224
00:13:28,636 --> 00:13:30,836
Speaker 1: the plus sides. But I think that's a discussion you

225
00:13:30,836 --> 00:13:33,596
Speaker 1: can have. But I don't think it's helpful in any

226
00:13:33,636 --> 00:13:39,076
Speaker 1: instance to draw this equivalency between pure speech and physical violence.

227
00:13:39,916 --> 00:13:41,876
Speaker 1: I have many, many things to say and response to

228
00:13:41,916 --> 00:13:43,356
Speaker 1: this line of argument, but let me just say one

229
00:13:43,436 --> 00:13:46,436
Speaker 1: narrow one here. It's not the case in the law

230
00:13:46,476 --> 00:13:48,956
Speaker 1: that it's always justified for me to respond to your

231
00:13:49,036 --> 00:13:52,516
Speaker 1: violence with violence. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it just isn't.

232
00:13:52,996 --> 00:13:55,916
Speaker 1: So I don't think that could be the argument against it.

233
00:13:55,956 --> 00:13:58,036
Speaker 1: And you know, there are circumstances when I think we

234
00:13:58,036 --> 00:14:00,716
Speaker 1: would all acknowledge that words can be much more harmful

235
00:14:00,716 --> 00:14:04,436
Speaker 1: than physical violence. So two kids are playing in the

236
00:14:04,716 --> 00:14:09,236
Speaker 1: playground and one pushes the other. That's physical violence, and

237
00:14:09,316 --> 00:14:11,276
Speaker 1: the adult wants to step in and say you shouldn't

238
00:14:11,276 --> 00:14:14,236
Speaker 1: do that, and maybe some punishment or time out is appropriate.

239
00:14:14,556 --> 00:14:16,436
Speaker 1: Now the same two kids are playing, and instead of

240
00:14:16,476 --> 00:14:19,756
Speaker 1: one pushing the other, one bullies the other with some

241
00:14:20,036 --> 00:14:23,396
Speaker 1: verbal epithet that we think is terribly offensive, a racial

242
00:14:23,476 --> 00:14:27,916
Speaker 1: slur or a slur associated with sexual orientation. There, I

243
00:14:27,956 --> 00:14:29,956
Speaker 1: think we have the intuition, at least I have the

244
00:14:29,996 --> 00:14:33,676
Speaker 1: intuition that the amount of adult intervention and punishment is

245
00:14:33,716 --> 00:14:38,196
Speaker 1: appropriately greater than in the case of a mild push,

246
00:14:38,236 --> 00:14:41,596
Speaker 1: And that to me is because of the moral wrongfulness

247
00:14:41,596 --> 00:14:44,276
Speaker 1: of the statement, but also because of the damage that

248
00:14:44,356 --> 00:14:47,436
Speaker 1: it's capable of doing through bullying to the child who's

249
00:14:47,476 --> 00:14:50,476
Speaker 1: being bullied, which seems to me potentially much greater than

250
00:14:50,836 --> 00:14:53,316
Speaker 1: being pushed again, depending on how hard the push was.

251
00:14:53,876 --> 00:14:58,436
Speaker 1: So doesn't that suggest that there are circumstances where admittedly

252
00:14:58,676 --> 00:15:00,996
Speaker 1: a word is not the literal same thing as a push,

253
00:15:01,076 --> 00:15:02,876
Speaker 1: but it could be much worse than the push under

254
00:15:02,956 --> 00:15:05,596
Speaker 1: some circumstances. I don't disagree with that. I just think

255
00:15:05,636 --> 00:15:09,436
Speaker 1: they're categorically distinct, and that it's important to hold that

256
00:15:09,476 --> 00:15:14,516
Speaker 1: distinction because I hear the equation of words and violence

257
00:15:14,876 --> 00:15:19,956
Speaker 1: used pretty loosely, that expressions or comments that really fall

258
00:15:20,076 --> 00:15:24,076
Speaker 1: far short of a slur that may be inadvertent that

259
00:15:24,196 --> 00:15:28,476
Speaker 1: may reflect a reasonable difference of opinion on an issue

260
00:15:28,516 --> 00:15:32,676
Speaker 1: that should be a legitimate subject of debate, sometimes labeled

261
00:15:32,716 --> 00:15:35,636
Speaker 1: as violence, and it's a real conversation ender. You know,

262
00:15:35,676 --> 00:15:39,556
Speaker 1: if something you said is labeled as violent, how do

263
00:15:39,556 --> 00:15:42,436
Speaker 1: you come back against that? It sort of shuts down

264
00:15:42,476 --> 00:15:44,716
Speaker 1: the potential for discourse. So I agree with you. I

265
00:15:44,756 --> 00:15:48,276
Speaker 1: think there are instances where a slur or an expression

266
00:15:48,276 --> 00:15:51,876
Speaker 1: of bigotry can be far more damaging than violence, but

267
00:15:51,956 --> 00:15:55,836
Speaker 1: that we're better off just recognizing that their distinct categories

268
00:15:55,836 --> 00:15:58,316
Speaker 1: and each needs to be dealt with in its own way,

269
00:15:58,436 --> 00:16:02,196
Speaker 1: and that I don't find it helpful to equate them.

270
00:16:02,316 --> 00:16:14,196
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Let me ask you about the

271
00:16:14,796 --> 00:16:18,156
Speaker 1: free speech adjacent let's say, controversy that's been going on

272
00:16:18,396 --> 00:16:22,396
Speaker 1: publicly in recent weeks and months surrounding a public letter

273
00:16:22,476 --> 00:16:25,676
Speaker 1: by a group of public intellectuals in Harper's I believe

274
00:16:25,676 --> 00:16:27,596
Speaker 1: you did not sign that letter, correct, No, I did

275
00:16:27,596 --> 00:16:30,556
Speaker 1: not tell me what your thoughts are about the letter

276
00:16:30,676 --> 00:16:33,756
Speaker 1: and the public response and their reaction to it. Yeah, Look,

277
00:16:33,796 --> 00:16:35,996
Speaker 1: I think there are a number of things going on

278
00:16:36,116 --> 00:16:42,276
Speaker 1: at once. We're in this moment of reckoning on systemic racism.

279
00:16:42,356 --> 00:16:46,156
Speaker 1: And police brutality, and what it's going to take for

280
00:16:46,236 --> 00:16:50,956
Speaker 1: us to push forward to the next level of inclusivity,

281
00:16:51,036 --> 00:16:53,516
Speaker 1: equality and justice in this society. And I think that's

282
00:16:53,636 --> 00:16:57,796
Speaker 1: very important, and many people are rightly focused in a

283
00:16:57,836 --> 00:17:00,756
Speaker 1: deep and searching way on what needs to be done

284
00:17:00,836 --> 00:17:07,196
Speaker 1: to dismantle barriers to eradicate racism, you know. And I

285
00:17:07,236 --> 00:17:10,916
Speaker 1: think this impulse to drive forward a more equal society

286
00:17:10,996 --> 00:17:13,316
Speaker 1: is a very positive one, but that we need to

287
00:17:13,396 --> 00:17:18,636
Speaker 1: be vigilant that it not cross over into sensoriousness or

288
00:17:18,676 --> 00:17:24,076
Speaker 1: an overreaction to the expression of views and free speech.

289
00:17:24,116 --> 00:17:27,036
Speaker 1: And so I think that's what the writers of the

290
00:17:27,076 --> 00:17:30,836
Speaker 1: Harper's letter we're trying to say, and it triggered an

291
00:17:30,836 --> 00:17:34,956
Speaker 1: outsized reaction, kind of an inferno on Twitter, with people

292
00:17:35,076 --> 00:17:38,076
Speaker 1: suggesting that this was the outcry of people who are

293
00:17:38,116 --> 00:17:43,116
Speaker 1: privileged objecting to sort of the undercutting of their platforms,

294
00:17:43,156 --> 00:17:47,236
Speaker 1: that this is a distraction from this seminal moment of

295
00:17:47,356 --> 00:17:50,956
Speaker 1: racial transformation, and so, you know, it sort of reflects,

296
00:17:51,036 --> 00:17:53,476
Speaker 1: I think this problem in our discourse, that we have

297
00:17:53,476 --> 00:17:56,276
Speaker 1: a propensity to talk past one another, and that you know,

298
00:17:56,316 --> 00:18:01,516
Speaker 1: at times the drive toward racial and gender based equality

299
00:18:01,716 --> 00:18:05,116
Speaker 1: can be kind of pitted against the robust protection of

300
00:18:05,156 --> 00:18:07,996
Speaker 1: free speech, and we understand why that happens. But I

301
00:18:08,036 --> 00:18:11,716
Speaker 1: think through is in discourse we can and we must

302
00:18:11,796 --> 00:18:14,716
Speaker 1: recognize that ultimately we need these principles to come together.

303
00:18:14,756 --> 00:18:20,076
Speaker 1: They're both so fundamental to our constitution, to our democracy.

304
00:18:20,596 --> 00:18:22,836
Speaker 1: We want to be an equal society and we want

305
00:18:22,876 --> 00:18:24,996
Speaker 1: to be a society that respects free speech. So how

306
00:18:25,036 --> 00:18:28,476
Speaker 1: do we make those things coincide and reinforce one another.

307
00:18:28,516 --> 00:18:30,476
Speaker 1: I think there are many examples of how they do,

308
00:18:30,836 --> 00:18:33,796
Speaker 1: but they're also instances in this Harper's letter was a

309
00:18:33,876 --> 00:18:36,676
Speaker 1: vivid one of how they're sort of seemed to clash.

310
00:18:36,716 --> 00:18:38,716
Speaker 1: And the effort really in the book is to explain,

311
00:18:39,116 --> 00:18:42,316
Speaker 1: here's how these things can fit together. You go to

312
00:18:42,436 --> 00:18:45,276
Speaker 1: some lens in your book to say that you're against

313
00:18:45,596 --> 00:18:48,876
Speaker 1: cancelation or cancel culture, but you do support what you

314
00:18:48,996 --> 00:18:51,836
Speaker 1: call calling out culture as long as it's done with caution.

315
00:18:52,476 --> 00:18:55,276
Speaker 1: Say a bit about your approach to these very delicate

316
00:18:55,316 --> 00:19:00,156
Speaker 1: and sensitive questions. Yeah, I think it's very context intensive.

317
00:19:00,436 --> 00:19:03,196
Speaker 1: And now the term cancel culture, I think it has

318
00:19:03,236 --> 00:19:06,116
Speaker 1: sort of taken on a new meaning and a very

319
00:19:06,156 --> 00:19:10,236
Speaker 1: elastic meaning. We really can refer to everything from a

320
00:19:10,396 --> 00:19:13,996
Speaker 1: perfectly legitimate give and take an argument and debate often

321
00:19:14,076 --> 00:19:20,156
Speaker 1: online to harsh draconian punishments for speech by an institution,

322
00:19:20,476 --> 00:19:22,996
Speaker 1: And to me, those are very different things that should

323
00:19:22,996 --> 00:19:25,876
Speaker 1: not be lumped together. What I talk about in the

324
00:19:25,916 --> 00:19:30,996
Speaker 1: book is the idea that in calling out, it should

325
00:19:31,036 --> 00:19:36,556
Speaker 1: be done conscionably, thoughtfully, and you should consider whether there's

326
00:19:36,716 --> 00:19:39,276
Speaker 1: a possibility of doing what I call a call in,

327
00:19:39,356 --> 00:19:41,876
Speaker 1: which is more of a private approach. Is this, you

328
00:19:41,876 --> 00:19:44,996
Speaker 1: know someone who you think maybe well intended, someone you

329
00:19:45,076 --> 00:19:48,116
Speaker 1: know well, someone who may have just aired or been

330
00:19:48,196 --> 00:19:51,236
Speaker 1: unaware or didn't get the memo, and by sort of

331
00:19:51,236 --> 00:19:54,076
Speaker 1: tapping them on the shoulder or sending them email, giving

332
00:19:54,116 --> 00:19:56,996
Speaker 1: them a call, they may retract the tweet or the

333
00:19:57,036 --> 00:20:02,316
Speaker 1: Facebook post or apologize for something, and what could become

334
00:20:02,556 --> 00:20:06,476
Speaker 1: a huge dust up is avoided through that private approach,

335
00:20:06,516 --> 00:20:08,956
Speaker 1: So I think that's worth considering. I also think they're

336
00:20:08,956 --> 00:20:12,276
Speaker 1: in instances where a callout is appropriate and necessary. It

337
00:20:12,556 --> 00:20:16,116
Speaker 1: can be an instance where somebody says something publicly that

338
00:20:16,356 --> 00:20:20,956
Speaker 1: is hurtful and offensive, and it's important to ally with

339
00:20:20,996 --> 00:20:24,396
Speaker 1: those who are on the receiving end, who may feel

340
00:20:24,796 --> 00:20:27,556
Speaker 1: stigmatized or victimized, so they need to hear that they

341
00:20:27,596 --> 00:20:29,796
Speaker 1: have support out there, that other people heard this, that

342
00:20:29,836 --> 00:20:32,876
Speaker 1: they're not alone in defending themselves. So I think in

343
00:20:32,876 --> 00:20:35,996
Speaker 1: instances like that, it's important to jump in. Sometimes the

344
00:20:36,116 --> 00:20:39,636
Speaker 1: speech has reverberations right away and the damage is done,

345
00:20:39,676 --> 00:20:42,636
Speaker 1: and so calling in is really not an option. And

346
00:20:42,756 --> 00:20:45,476
Speaker 1: you know, the only recourse is for an institutional leader

347
00:20:45,516 --> 00:20:51,316
Speaker 1: to express dismay, even contempt for offensive speech, and that

348
00:20:51,396 --> 00:20:54,876
Speaker 1: can be perfectly appropriate. So I think what we struggle

349
00:20:54,916 --> 00:20:57,556
Speaker 1: with is these questions of intent and context, which I

350
00:20:57,636 --> 00:21:01,396
Speaker 1: stress in the book. And unfortunately, our social media driven

351
00:21:01,436 --> 00:21:06,076
Speaker 1: culture move so quickly. We see so much divorced from

352
00:21:06,076 --> 00:21:09,316
Speaker 1: its context. We may not even know who originally posted it.

353
00:21:09,316 --> 00:21:12,836
Speaker 1: It may be snipped out and juxtaposed with something else,

354
00:21:13,316 --> 00:21:16,076
Speaker 1: and so there's an impulse to react to just what

355
00:21:16,196 --> 00:21:18,916
Speaker 1: you see on the surface. But sometimes probing a little

356
00:21:18,916 --> 00:21:22,836
Speaker 1: bit further will reveal that the intent or the import

357
00:21:22,916 --> 00:21:26,436
Speaker 1: was something else entirely. So I advocate kind of taking

358
00:21:26,436 --> 00:21:29,156
Speaker 1: a pause and making sure you really know what you're

359
00:21:29,156 --> 00:21:32,196
Speaker 1: seeing and what you're reading before you react, and particularly

360
00:21:32,276 --> 00:21:36,036
Speaker 1: before you react strongly. You know your approach, which calls

361
00:21:36,076 --> 00:21:39,356
Speaker 1: for reason and logic and calm. It can only be welcomed,

362
00:21:39,396 --> 00:21:42,836
Speaker 1: and I profoundly agree with it. Do you ever wonder

363
00:21:42,916 --> 00:21:46,556
Speaker 1: if we are capable of achieving such things in this moment?

364
00:21:47,236 --> 00:21:49,996
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, social media is not exactly conducive to

365
00:21:50,036 --> 00:21:53,716
Speaker 1: this kind of calm, thoughtful, rational engagement. People seem to

366
00:21:53,716 --> 00:21:57,876
Speaker 1: be raring for a fight on all sides of these issues,

367
00:21:57,956 --> 00:22:01,076
Speaker 1: and often it is about political power. So I guess

368
00:22:01,076 --> 00:22:03,596
Speaker 1: I'm wondering what would you say to a respondent from

369
00:22:03,676 --> 00:22:07,076
Speaker 1: the progressive side who says, you know, luxus and it's

370
00:22:07,076 --> 00:22:08,676
Speaker 1: all nice and well and good for you as the

371
00:22:08,716 --> 00:22:11,836
Speaker 1: CEO Pan America to say, well, you know, just a

372
00:22:11,916 --> 00:22:14,116
Speaker 1: call would really help, And they say, well, we're the powerless,

373
00:22:14,156 --> 00:22:15,516
Speaker 1: not the powerful. We can't just make a call and

374
00:22:15,556 --> 00:22:17,516
Speaker 1: tap someone on the shoulder. What we can do is

375
00:22:17,596 --> 00:22:20,116
Speaker 1: motivate our base to speak publicly, to go on social

376
00:22:20,116 --> 00:22:22,356
Speaker 1: media to make their point, and that will enhance us

377
00:22:22,356 --> 00:22:24,636
Speaker 1: to a position where we will have the power to

378
00:22:24,676 --> 00:22:27,156
Speaker 1: make sure that then we can call people privately. You know.

379
00:22:27,276 --> 00:22:29,356
Speaker 1: I think that can be sort of a fair point,

380
00:22:29,476 --> 00:22:32,156
Speaker 1: you know, and other points that get made that are related,

381
00:22:32,236 --> 00:22:34,436
Speaker 1: you know, when I talk about forgiveness, that sort of

382
00:22:34,516 --> 00:22:36,556
Speaker 1: some people are always on the end of this where

383
00:22:36,676 --> 00:22:40,556
Speaker 1: they're being asked to forgive again and again, and that's

384
00:22:40,596 --> 00:22:42,596
Speaker 1: not fair. And it's often people of color who are

385
00:22:42,636 --> 00:22:46,036
Speaker 1: on the receiving end of these slights and aggressions and

386
00:22:46,396 --> 00:22:49,556
Speaker 1: hostile speech, And so I think it is important to

387
00:22:49,596 --> 00:22:52,196
Speaker 1: recognize that we're in this moment of reckoning, that people

388
00:22:52,236 --> 00:22:56,716
Speaker 1: are amassing power and mobilizing their voices and speaking out

389
00:22:56,716 --> 00:22:59,676
Speaker 1: in some instances, either for the first time or with

390
00:22:59,796 --> 00:23:02,876
Speaker 1: newfound strength, and that represents a wound for free speech.

391
00:23:02,916 --> 00:23:04,756
Speaker 1: You know, when you have an environment or society or

392
00:23:04,876 --> 00:23:08,316
Speaker 1: campus where a certain portion of the population feels de

393
00:23:08,436 --> 00:23:12,556
Speaker 1: facto silence because they're in the minority, because others are

394
00:23:12,596 --> 00:23:16,876
Speaker 1: derisive toward them, because they don't see anybody looks like

395
00:23:16,916 --> 00:23:20,276
Speaker 1: them on the faculty, and they feel on the outside

396
00:23:20,316 --> 00:23:24,356
Speaker 1: of the dynamic in the classroom where other students are

397
00:23:24,436 --> 00:23:28,756
Speaker 1: more favored or mentored by their professors. That's an impingement

398
00:23:28,836 --> 00:23:32,276
Speaker 1: upon free speech. That's something less than the truly open

399
00:23:32,396 --> 00:23:35,276
Speaker 1: discourse that I think is the ultimate goal of the

400
00:23:35,276 --> 00:23:38,996
Speaker 1: free speech protections embedded in the Constitution. So I think

401
00:23:39,036 --> 00:23:41,396
Speaker 1: it's very important to recognize that a moment like this

402
00:23:41,556 --> 00:23:46,276
Speaker 1: ultimately drives forward the cause of free speech, and that

403
00:23:46,996 --> 00:23:51,716
Speaker 1: it's not appropriate to ask everybody to be reasonable one

404
00:23:51,796 --> 00:23:53,836
Speaker 1: hundred percent of the time. I actually think if sort

405
00:23:53,876 --> 00:23:56,876
Speaker 1: of ninety five percent of us could be reasonable ninety

406
00:23:56,876 --> 00:23:59,236
Speaker 1: five percent of the time, we could deal with those

407
00:23:59,276 --> 00:24:04,436
Speaker 1: instances where a very strong, intense reaction to speech is

408
00:24:05,116 --> 00:24:09,596
Speaker 1: instinctive or justified. You know, there are those cases. I

409
00:24:09,596 --> 00:24:11,476
Speaker 1: also think the President of the United States has played

410
00:24:11,476 --> 00:24:14,636
Speaker 1: a role in this. He's embolden hateful speech. He's sort

411
00:24:14,676 --> 00:24:19,076
Speaker 1: of the poster child for lack of accountability for saying

412
00:24:19,116 --> 00:24:22,556
Speaker 1: all kinds of noxious and demeaning things to so many

413
00:24:22,596 --> 00:24:25,196
Speaker 1: different groups, and so sort of in the wake of that,

414
00:24:25,236 --> 00:24:29,356
Speaker 1: there's this impulse across society to try to police speech

415
00:24:29,396 --> 00:24:32,196
Speaker 1: more strongly in realms that we can control, whether that's

416
00:24:32,236 --> 00:24:37,276
Speaker 1: the classroom or a magazine or a particular community. And

417
00:24:37,356 --> 00:24:39,356
Speaker 1: I think if we're able to look to a time

418
00:24:39,396 --> 00:24:43,196
Speaker 1: where his influence leaves the scene, we should really be

419
00:24:43,316 --> 00:24:45,036
Speaker 1: thinking about, you know, how is it that we want

420
00:24:45,076 --> 00:24:48,756
Speaker 1: to live together? And some of the taboos that he

421
00:24:48,836 --> 00:24:52,396
Speaker 1: has undercut and eroded, I think need to be brought

422
00:24:52,476 --> 00:24:55,356
Speaker 1: back up to strength. And if they are, if people

423
00:24:55,516 --> 00:24:59,036
Speaker 1: feel they can be more comfortable here in this country,

424
00:24:59,036 --> 00:25:01,476
Speaker 1: that they're not going to be targeted because they're black,

425
00:25:01,596 --> 00:25:05,196
Speaker 1: or because they're a Muslim, because they're an undocumented immigrant,

426
00:25:05,236 --> 00:25:08,156
Speaker 1: and that there's more respect. I think that will create

427
00:25:08,356 --> 00:25:12,596
Speaker 1: more space for free speech, even when on occasion we'd

428
00:25:12,636 --> 00:25:16,316
Speaker 1: bump up against one another's sensitivities and there may be

429
00:25:16,396 --> 00:25:19,356
Speaker 1: some sense of offense. But if you feel more at

430
00:25:19,356 --> 00:25:21,956
Speaker 1: home and welcomed in society at large, I think you're

431
00:25:21,956 --> 00:25:24,436
Speaker 1: a better place to tolerate that. Susan. I want to

432
00:25:24,436 --> 00:25:27,196
Speaker 1: thank you for your work and for this fascinating and

433
00:25:27,276 --> 00:25:30,596
Speaker 1: thought provoking book, and for your practical guidance to all

434
00:25:30,596 --> 00:25:33,036
Speaker 1: of us how to be a little more reasonable and

435
00:25:33,076 --> 00:25:36,196
Speaker 1: calm and are talking about the very fraught issues around

436
00:25:36,356 --> 00:25:38,476
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, and I just want to thank you

437
00:25:38,516 --> 00:25:40,316
Speaker 1: for joining me, Thanks for having me. There's a lot

438
00:25:40,356 --> 00:25:43,316
Speaker 1: of fun to talk with you. This conversation with Susanne

439
00:25:43,356 --> 00:25:45,916
Speaker 1: was I think an excellent introduction to some of the

440
00:25:46,156 --> 00:25:49,156
Speaker 1: very hard free speech related issues that we are going

441
00:25:49,236 --> 00:25:53,116
Speaker 1: to be grappling with in future weeks. Here on deep background,

442
00:25:53,676 --> 00:25:58,356
Speaker 1: Susanne is advocating a calm, rational, thoughtful approach to free

443
00:25:58,356 --> 00:26:02,916
Speaker 1: speech questions characterized by charitable interpretation of the other side,

444
00:26:03,436 --> 00:26:06,716
Speaker 1: by efforts to listen closely, by efforts to be gentle

445
00:26:06,796 --> 00:26:10,196
Speaker 1: and to be cautious, and above all not to exercise

446
00:26:10,356 --> 00:26:14,716
Speaker 1: power too overtly or profoundly in trying to silence your interlocutors.

447
00:26:15,436 --> 00:26:18,276
Speaker 1: And yet there may be circumstances where, for reasons of

448
00:26:18,316 --> 00:26:21,036
Speaker 1: the gathering of political power and the march to try

449
00:26:21,036 --> 00:26:24,796
Speaker 1: to achieve greater human equality, people don't accept the idea

450
00:26:24,916 --> 00:26:27,316
Speaker 1: that they should tread lightly when it comes to free expression.

451
00:26:28,116 --> 00:26:31,316
Speaker 1: That's a challenge that all free speech advocates are going

452
00:26:31,356 --> 00:26:34,236
Speaker 1: to have to engage, and it's one we will continue

453
00:26:34,276 --> 00:26:44,996
Speaker 1: to explore in our future episodes. And now for our playback,

454
00:26:45,156 --> 00:26:47,716
Speaker 1: where we take a moment from the news and play

455
00:26:47,716 --> 00:26:57,716
Speaker 1: it back in order to make sense of it. Those

456
00:26:57,756 --> 00:27:00,556
Speaker 1: are the sounds of protesters clashing with the police in

457
00:27:00,636 --> 00:27:04,796
Speaker 1: Seattle this Saturday. There were similar demonstrations across the country

458
00:27:04,796 --> 00:27:07,956
Speaker 1: this weekend. These protests began as part of the Black

459
00:27:07,996 --> 00:27:11,796
Speaker 1: Lives Matter movement, but they've taken a turn recently as

460
00:27:11,836 --> 00:27:16,436
Speaker 1: a result of Donald Trump's provocative decision in Portland, Oregon,

461
00:27:17,196 --> 00:27:22,476
Speaker 1: to send Federal Department of Homeland Security officers frequently in

462
00:27:22,516 --> 00:27:28,316
Speaker 1: paramilitary gear and unmarked uniforms in order to quote, protect

463
00:27:28,516 --> 00:27:33,116
Speaker 1: federal property and enforce federal law. To be sure, the

464
00:27:33,196 --> 00:27:36,356
Speaker 1: president of the United States does have the constitutional authority

465
00:27:36,636 --> 00:27:40,756
Speaker 1: to protect federal property if it's genuinely in jeopardy, and

466
00:27:41,156 --> 00:27:43,916
Speaker 1: federal officers like those in the FBI or the d

467
00:27:43,996 --> 00:27:48,716
Speaker 1: EA enforce federal law all the time. What's happening, however,

468
00:27:48,796 --> 00:27:52,036
Speaker 1: in Portland, and what Donald Trump has said may happen elsewhere,

469
00:27:52,356 --> 00:27:55,636
Speaker 1: seems to be rather different. Of course, the protests have

470
00:27:55,716 --> 00:27:59,396
Speaker 1: in some instances concentrated on federal buildings, giving Trump an

471
00:27:59,396 --> 00:28:02,356
Speaker 1: excuse to send federal officers and making it hard for

472
00:28:02,396 --> 00:28:05,276
Speaker 1: a court to say that those officers cannot be present.

473
00:28:05,876 --> 00:28:07,956
Speaker 1: Yet there seems to be no doubt in terms of

474
00:28:07,996 --> 00:28:10,676
Speaker 1: public perception that what Donald Trump is trying to do

475
00:28:11,236 --> 00:28:15,356
Speaker 1: is use the opportunity of sending these officers to send

476
00:28:15,436 --> 00:28:18,476
Speaker 1: a message to his supporters that he is in a

477
00:28:18,516 --> 00:28:24,756
Speaker 1: position to protect his constituents against protesters. It's very noteworthy

478
00:28:24,756 --> 00:28:28,036
Speaker 1: in this context the Trump is not sending the officials

479
00:28:28,036 --> 00:28:31,156
Speaker 1: whose job it actually is to enforce federal law, people

480
00:28:31,236 --> 00:28:34,716
Speaker 1: like the officers of the FBI and the DA And

481
00:28:34,796 --> 00:28:37,796
Speaker 1: it's telling and a little frightening. The Trump is sending

482
00:28:37,956 --> 00:28:40,876
Speaker 1: people who work for the Department of Homeland Security, whose

483
00:28:40,956 --> 00:28:43,516
Speaker 1: job is in fact to focus on illegal entrance to

484
00:28:43,516 --> 00:28:45,996
Speaker 1: the United States, who happen to be engaged in crime.

485
00:28:46,556 --> 00:28:50,836
Speaker 1: There is no credible way to describe protesters, even if

486
00:28:50,876 --> 00:28:54,636
Speaker 1: they sometimes cross the line away from being perfectly peaceful protesters,

487
00:28:54,956 --> 00:28:58,356
Speaker 1: as domestic terrorists, and there is no reason whatsoever to

488
00:28:58,396 --> 00:29:01,276
Speaker 1: think that any of the protesters are people who in

489
00:29:01,316 --> 00:29:05,676
Speaker 1: any way are connected to unlawful entrance to the United States.

490
00:29:05,996 --> 00:29:09,556
Speaker 1: This is pure bootstramping by the Trump administration, and it's

491
00:29:09,596 --> 00:29:13,916
Speaker 1: appropriate to point out that it violates the statutory norms

492
00:29:13,956 --> 00:29:17,156
Speaker 1: to tell us which officials of the government go where

493
00:29:17,516 --> 00:29:21,516
Speaker 1: and do what. Will Trump in fact extend the sending

494
00:29:21,516 --> 00:29:24,676
Speaker 1: of federal officers to other major cities, as he has

495
00:29:24,716 --> 00:29:29,476
Speaker 1: threatened to do. It's certainly possible. Has he discovered a

496
00:29:29,516 --> 00:29:32,916
Speaker 1: new way to draw the ire and attention and frustration

497
00:29:33,196 --> 00:29:37,516
Speaker 1: of anti Trump protesters. Indeed, he has will that ultimately

498
00:29:37,556 --> 00:29:40,916
Speaker 1: play into Trump's hands or into the hands of his critics.

499
00:29:40,956 --> 00:29:44,236
Speaker 1: That is a much more difficult question, but it's certainly

500
00:29:44,236 --> 00:29:48,476
Speaker 1: worth keeping in mind that many of Trump's supporters themselves

501
00:29:48,636 --> 00:29:52,436
Speaker 1: have libertarian tendencies. They at least in principle, should not

502
00:29:52,636 --> 00:29:57,956
Speaker 1: want federal officers with a questionable legal mandate deploying around

503
00:29:57,956 --> 00:30:01,316
Speaker 1: the country grabbing up people who are exercising their First

504
00:30:01,316 --> 00:30:04,436
Speaker 1: Amendment rights and holding them, as has been alleged in

505
00:30:04,476 --> 00:30:10,196
Speaker 1: Portland without charge. Trump is playing election season politics. He's

506
00:30:10,196 --> 00:30:13,796
Speaker 1: playing fast and loose with the constitution. That means the

507
00:30:13,836 --> 00:30:18,876
Speaker 1: proper response is vigilance, precision, and objection. But almost certainly

508
00:30:19,076 --> 00:30:21,636
Speaker 1: it would not be a good idea for protesters to

509
00:30:21,676 --> 00:30:24,996
Speaker 1: play into Trump's hands by allowing their protests to be

510
00:30:25,116 --> 00:30:29,916
Speaker 1: anything other than clearly peaceful and within the exercise of

511
00:30:29,916 --> 00:30:33,636
Speaker 1: their First Amendment rights. Until the next time I speak

512
00:30:33,676 --> 00:30:38,156
Speaker 1: to you, be careful, be safe, and be well. Deep

513
00:30:38,156 --> 00:30:41,436
Speaker 1: background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries. Our producer

514
00:30:41,476 --> 00:30:44,556
Speaker 1: is Lydia Gene Coott, with mastering by Jason Gambrell and

515
00:30:44,676 --> 00:30:48,956
Speaker 1: Martin Gonzalez. Our showrunner is Sophima Kibben. Our theme music

516
00:30:49,076 --> 00:30:52,436
Speaker 1: is composed by Luis GERA special thanks to the Pushkin Brass,

517
00:30:52,596 --> 00:30:56,796
Speaker 1: Malcolm Gladwell, Jacob Weisberg, and Mia Lobel. I'm Noah Feldman.

518
00:30:57,156 --> 00:30:59,996
Speaker 1: I also write a regular column for Bloomberg opinion, which

519
00:31:00,036 --> 00:31:03,876
Speaker 1: you can find at bloomberg dot com slash Feldman. To

520
00:31:03,876 --> 00:31:07,516
Speaker 1: discover Bloomberg's original slate of podcasts, go to bloomberg dot

521
00:31:07,596 --> 00:31:11,636
Speaker 1: com slash pot Asks and one last thing. I just

522
00:31:11,636 --> 00:31:14,676
Speaker 1: wrote a book called The Arab Winter, A Tragedy. I

523
00:31:14,676 --> 00:31:17,116
Speaker 1: would be delighted if you checked it out. If you

524
00:31:17,156 --> 00:31:19,996
Speaker 1: liked what you heard today, please write a review or

525
00:31:20,116 --> 00:31:22,236
Speaker 1: tell a friend. You can always let me know what

526
00:31:22,276 --> 00:31:25,156
Speaker 1: you think on Twitter. My handle is Noah r Phelp.

527
00:31:25,876 --> 00:31:27,516
Speaker 1: This is deep background