Speaker 1: Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show
Speaker 1: where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news.
Speaker 1: I'm Noah Feldman. Freedom of speech is a basic constitutional
Speaker 1: right in the United States. It's a human right recognized
Speaker 1: by international human rights declarations all over the world. It's
Speaker 1: also a cultural value, an ideal that says that, under
Speaker 1: certain circumstances, we should be able to speak our minds
Speaker 1: in order to facilitate a meaningful public conversation. And yet,
Speaker 1: at the same time, many people in our society have
Speaker 1: the feeling, the intuition, the view that free speech may
Speaker 1: have gone a little bit too far, that speech can
Speaker 1: sometimes be abused and used as a forum or mechanism
Speaker 1: for suppressing people, subordinating them, and expressing views that have
Speaker 1: real world bad effects on the equality of other human beings,
Speaker 1: whether because of their race, their sex, their sexual orientation,
Speaker 1: their gender orientation, or a host of other potentially vulnerable characteristics.
Speaker 1: How should we think about the difficult questions that arise
Speaker 1: at the intersection of speech, liberty and equality of all people.
Speaker 1: This is one of the most profound questions of our time,
Speaker 1: or of any time. And here on Deep Background, we're
Speaker 1: going to be thinking seriously about this question over the
Speaker 1: course of the summer. Kicking off our series of conversations
Speaker 1: about freedom of speech, today, I'm joined by Susanne Knossel.
Speaker 1: Susanne is the CEO of pen America, the organization devoted
Speaker 1: to protecting the free expression of writers in the United
Speaker 1: States and around the world. Before joining pan America, Susanne
Speaker 1: was COO of Human Rights Watch. She was executive director
Speaker 1: of Amnesty International USA, and she worked in both the
Speaker 1: Obama and administrations as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Speaker 1: for International Organizations and as Deputy to the US Ambassador
Speaker 1: for United Nations Management and Reform at the United States
Speaker 1: Mission to the United Nations. She's the author of a
Speaker 1: brand new book, Dare to Speak, Defending Free Speech for All,
Speaker 1: in which she explores the full panoply of free expression
Speaker 1: issues that exist today. Suzanne, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 1: Let's start with why you decided to write a book
Speaker 1: about free speech. You're the CEO of pan America, so
Speaker 1: you have free speeches one of the aspects of your
Speaker 1: day job. But you know this is a topic that
Speaker 1: enormous amounts have been written about, and lots of people
Speaker 1: have thought about and you know, there are reams and
Speaker 1: reams of legal materials on it and arguments, and you know,
Speaker 1: every philosopher from Milton to mill has weighed in on
Speaker 1: the topic. Why did we need a new book and
Speaker 1: why did you want to write one? Well, it really
Speaker 1: grew out of a couple of different experiences I had had.
Speaker 1: The first was when I was at the State Department
Speaker 1: and I was working on representing the United States at
Speaker 1: the UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN
Speaker 1: General Assembly in New York. And one of the contentious
Speaker 1: issues there wasn't debate over the so called defamation of religion,
Speaker 1: and it was a concept that Islamic delegations from around
Speaker 1: the world had brought forward in the wake of if
Speaker 1: you remember the Danish cartoon controversy, where there had been
Speaker 1: these images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad that had been
Speaker 1: published in a Danish newspaper, and in the wake of that,
Speaker 1: there was a very harsh reaction and there were protests
Speaker 1: outside of Danish diplomatic installations around the world, and people
Speaker 1: lost their lives, and there was a sense that Mohammad's
Speaker 1: reputation had been sullied, and it was an insult to
Speaker 1: Muslims everywhere, and so Islamic countries kind came forward in
Speaker 1: the wake of that and wanted to get a UN resolution,
Speaker 1: and ultimately they sought a binding treaty that would have
Speaker 1: banned the defamation of religion. When I arrived at the
Speaker 1: State Department during the first term of the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: I sort of got read into this issue. And you
Speaker 1: know what struck me was that these Islamic delegations were
Speaker 1: really concerned about religious intolerance and hostility toward Muslims that
Speaker 1: was running pretty rampant in the years after nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: and that that was a legitimate concern on the part
Speaker 1: of the United States and our European allies and countries
Speaker 1: like Canada and Australia. There was a grave concern that
Speaker 1: banning or punishing the defamation of religion would be an
Speaker 1: infringement on freedom of speech. And so twice a year,
Speaker 1: once into New York, once in Geneva, we would go
Speaker 1: to battle over this resolution and be marshaling votes and
Speaker 1: getting our embassies and capitals to go in and beg
Speaker 1: countries to vote with us. And it struck me as
Speaker 1: just a very pointless exercise. It seemed to me that
Speaker 1: at the heart of it, we're legitimate concerns on both sides,
Speaker 1: that we were against religious intolerance as well, and I
Speaker 1: wasn't so sure the Islamic countries weren't entirely indifferent to
Speaker 1: free speech concerns that are embedded in international law, and
Speaker 1: so what we decided to do was kind of take
Speaker 1: a different tack, and we approached the organization of the
Speaker 1: Islamic Conference at the time and asked whether they would
Speaker 1: consider an approach to tackling the issue of religious intolerance
Speaker 1: through means other than restrictions on speech, and we proposed
Speaker 1: things like dialogue between experts, taking prosecutors from the Justice
Speaker 1: Department who knew how to go after hate crimes and
Speaker 1: bringing them to seminars with international counterparts where they could
Speaker 1: share best practices and educate one another and really look
Speaker 1: into what works in practice in terms of eradicating hostility
Speaker 1: on the basis of religion. And look, it didn't happen overnight,
Speaker 1: but gradually we brought them around, the Islamic delegation around
Speaker 1: to the idea that this would be a more constructive approach,
Speaker 1: and ultimately we came to a consensus resolution that replaced
Speaker 1: this kind of notorious resolution on the defamation of religion.
Speaker 1: And you know, for me, what that underscored was the
Speaker 1: idea that in debates over free speech, there can be
Speaker 1: a propensity for the two sides to talk past one
Speaker 1: another and for considerations of how to create a more just,
Speaker 1: equal and inclusive society to be pitted against robust protections
Speaker 1: for free speech. And years later at Pan America, a
Speaker 1: similar phenomenon in certain respects reared its head around the
Speaker 1: controversies on college campuses over free speech. And you know
Speaker 1: what occurred to me in the context of those controversies
Speaker 1: and many that would follow, is that it really hinged
Speaker 1: pretty centrally on questions of race and inclusion and equality
Speaker 1: and the unfinished business on these campuses of making them
Speaker 1: into places that were truly hospitable to people from all backgrounds,
Speaker 1: and that was sometimes manifesting as calls to suppress or
Speaker 1: punish speech, but that you know, at the heart of
Speaker 1: it was really a drive for greater equality, and that
Speaker 1: push was necessary and essential and could be accomplished without
Speaker 1: compromising robust protections for free speech and academic freedom. But Susan,
Speaker 1: can I push back there? I mean, because now you're
Speaker 1: getting to what, to me at least is the heart
Speaker 1: of the matter for some of these debates, and that
Speaker 1: is the situation where there is a real tension and
Speaker 1: maybe even a conflict between ideas about equality and ideas
Speaker 1: about free expression. And in the abstract, most people in
Speaker 1: a liberal democracy like the United States are committed to equality,
Speaker 1: and most people are committed to the idea of free speech.
Speaker 1: But then when they directly come into conflict, we often
Speaker 1: have pretty different intuitions. And so when there's speech that
Speaker 1: some people perceive as impinging on their equality, and the
Speaker 1: speaker says, well, I didn't mean to impinge on your equality,
Speaker 1: and then the listener says, well you did, then we
Speaker 1: often get one of the versions of controversy that you're describing,
Speaker 1: where one side says, listen, free speech is about words.
Speaker 1: It doesn't reduce your equality to hear an opinion you
Speaker 1: fundamentally disagree with. We're for free speech. And then the
Speaker 1: other side says, no, you got it wrong. You know
Speaker 1: that speech does impinge on my equality, and that ought
Speaker 1: to trump your ability to speak. Not that we're saying
Speaker 1: you ought to be arrested, but we think that you
Speaker 1: within the context of this institution, let's say it's a
Speaker 1: private university, ought not to have said that, Or if
Speaker 1: you're in a position of responsibility or importance where you
Speaker 1: are in charge of me in some way, I don't
Speaker 1: want you to say these kinds of things, and I
Speaker 1: really think you shouldn't. How can it be to say
Speaker 1: that those are like resolvable within some creative alternative framework.
Speaker 1: Those seemed like genuine conflicts to me between liberty and equality. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there are some instances where you have a
Speaker 1: fundamental clash, but that a lot of the time what
Speaker 1: manifests says that is actually something different, and that, for example,
Speaker 1: if the speech is looked at in context and if
Speaker 1: people understand what the intent is, that they recognize that
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily racist or sexist, and that, you know,
Speaker 1: censoring it or punishing it isn't the only answer. So
Speaker 1: I think a certain number of the cases that can
Speaker 1: be resolved that way. There are other instances where someone
Speaker 1: says something that comes off to others as let's say,
Speaker 1: racist or sexist, and you know they didn't mean it
Speaker 1: that way, but you know the interpretation of others is
Speaker 1: quite legitimate. You know, it reflects changing morais, or you know,
Speaker 1: a term that used to be considered acceptable but now isn't.
Speaker 1: I might I use the example in the Book of
Speaker 1: My Mother and the term Oriental to refer to Asian Americans,
Speaker 1: you know, which for many years was commonly used, and
Speaker 1: then at a certain point it really fell into disfavor
Speaker 1: and it carried certain connotations, and not everybody cottoned onto that.
Speaker 1: At the same moment, you know, where something like that happens,
Speaker 1: I think we need to have some room for apology
Speaker 1: at a you an apology and willingness to hear out
Speaker 1: why something you've said your whole life that never seemed
Speaker 1: objectionable you know now maybe objectionable, and you've got to
Speaker 1: listen to the other person and understand why that's the case.
Speaker 1: You know. On the flip side, forgiveness, you know, if
Speaker 1: this is a person who genuinely didn't know, you wouldn't
Speaker 1: have necessarily expected would know, given their own background of
Speaker 1: the malia that they operate in, have some space and
Speaker 1: some willingness to consider whether forgiveness is appropriate. So I
Speaker 1: don't argue that there is no clash. I just argue
Speaker 1: that we can manage these clashes much more constructively. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you, Suzanne, about a chapter in your book.
Speaker 1: It's chapter twelve, which has a fascinating and perhaps provocative title.
Speaker 1: The title is don't Equate Speech with Violence? And in
Speaker 1: the chapter you start by quoting a Northwestern University psychologist,
Speaker 1: Lisa Feldmanbarratt nor relation to me, who's argue that biological
Speaker 1: stress induced by menacing speech renders that speech literally a
Speaker 1: form of violence, and then go on to disagree with
Speaker 1: this argument pretty vociferously. So why do you find this
Speaker 1: argument unconvincing? You know, I have another chapter in the
Speaker 1: book that is about the harms of speech, and that
Speaker 1: argument is that we have to acknowledge and come to
Speaker 1: grips with those harms. We can't fall back on the
Speaker 1: idea that sticks and stones may break my bones, but
Speaker 1: words can never hurt me. We know that's not true,
Speaker 1: and that there especially as research on certain kinds of
Speaker 1: speech that genuinely can cause psychological damage, can undercut people's
Speaker 1: opportunity for a equal education, can constitute harassment. So the
Speaker 1: harms are real. But I do think it is a
Speaker 1: mistake to equate speech with violence. I think the call
Speaker 1: to equate speech and violence really comes from is born
Speaker 1: of a sense that those harms are underacknowledge and that
Speaker 1: the right answer is to fully recognize the harms that
Speaker 1: certain kinds of speech can cause, but reject this equation
Speaker 1: with physical violence. And you know that's for a couple
Speaker 1: of reasons. I mean, one, if if my speech is
Speaker 1: the equivalent of physical violence, how are you not then
Speaker 1: justified and responding by punching me in the nose? If
Speaker 1: I've committed an act of violence, your violence and response
Speaker 1: is justifiable, And that's an invitation to violence and to escalation.
Speaker 1: I think that's dangerous. You know. Another reason is that
Speaker 1: you know, in most societies, the state, of course has
Speaker 1: a monopoly on the use of force. And so if
Speaker 1: you underwrite and accept this argument that speech can be
Speaker 1: a form of violence, that protesting in the streets peacefully
Speaker 1: can itself be a form of violence because of the
Speaker 1: words use, the chance that are said, the posters that
Speaker 1: are displayed, then you're justifying the state clamping down on
Speaker 1: that speech through violence, through harsh policing, arrests, tear gas,
Speaker 1: and worse. And so I think it's just a dangerous
Speaker 1: false equivalency to draw. That doesn't mean even necessarily that
Speaker 1: there aren't categories of speech that cause harm that you know,
Speaker 1: in some jurisdictions are less protected than they are here
Speaker 1: in the United States. I think that's a discussion you
Speaker 1: can have, you know, should we be more restrictive in
Speaker 1: certain times of certain kinds of hateful speech? You know,
Speaker 1: I tend to think not, and that the downsides outweigh
Speaker 1: the plus sides. But I think that's a discussion you
Speaker 1: can have. But I don't think it's helpful in any
Speaker 1: instance to draw this equivalency between pure speech and physical violence.
Speaker 1: I have many, many things to say and response to
Speaker 1: this line of argument, but let me just say one
Speaker 1: narrow one here. It's not the case in the law
Speaker 1: that it's always justified for me to respond to your
Speaker 1: violence with violence. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it just isn't.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that could be the argument against it.
Speaker 1: And you know, there are circumstances when I think we
Speaker 1: would all acknowledge that words can be much more harmful
Speaker 1: than physical violence. So two kids are playing in the
Speaker 1: playground and one pushes the other. That's physical violence, and
Speaker 1: the adult wants to step in and say you shouldn't
Speaker 1: do that, and maybe some punishment or time out is appropriate.
Speaker 1: Now the same two kids are playing, and instead of
Speaker 1: one pushing the other, one bullies the other with some
Speaker 1: verbal epithet that we think is terribly offensive, a racial
Speaker 1: slur or a slur associated with sexual orientation. There, I
Speaker 1: think we have the intuition, at least I have the
Speaker 1: intuition that the amount of adult intervention and punishment is
Speaker 1: appropriately greater than in the case of a mild push,
Speaker 1: And that to me is because of the moral wrongfulness
Speaker 1: of the statement, but also because of the damage that
Speaker 1: it's capable of doing through bullying to the child who's
Speaker 1: being bullied, which seems to me potentially much greater than
Speaker 1: being pushed again, depending on how hard the push was.
Speaker 1: So doesn't that suggest that there are circumstances where admittedly
Speaker 1: a word is not the literal same thing as a push,
Speaker 1: but it could be much worse than the push under
Speaker 1: some circumstances. I don't disagree with that. I just think
Speaker 1: they're categorically distinct, and that it's important to hold that
Speaker 1: distinction because I hear the equation of words and violence
Speaker 1: used pretty loosely, that expressions or comments that really fall
Speaker 1: far short of a slur that may be inadvertent that
Speaker 1: may reflect a reasonable difference of opinion on an issue
Speaker 1: that should be a legitimate subject of debate, sometimes labeled
Speaker 1: as violence, and it's a real conversation ender. You know,
Speaker 1: if something you said is labeled as violent, how do
Speaker 1: you come back against that? It sort of shuts down
Speaker 1: the potential for discourse. So I agree with you. I
Speaker 1: think there are instances where a slur or an expression
Speaker 1: of bigotry can be far more damaging than violence, but
Speaker 1: that we're better off just recognizing that their distinct categories
Speaker 1: and each needs to be dealt with in its own way,
Speaker 1: and that I don't find it helpful to equate them.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Let me ask you about the
Speaker 1: free speech adjacent let's say, controversy that's been going on
Speaker 1: publicly in recent weeks and months surrounding a public letter
Speaker 1: by a group of public intellectuals in Harper's I believe
Speaker 1: you did not sign that letter, correct, No, I did
Speaker 1: not tell me what your thoughts are about the letter
Speaker 1: and the public response and their reaction to it. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: I think there are a number of things going on
Speaker 1: at once. We're in this moment of reckoning on systemic racism.
Speaker 1: And police brutality, and what it's going to take for
Speaker 1: us to push forward to the next level of inclusivity,
Speaker 1: equality and justice in this society. And I think that's
Speaker 1: very important, and many people are rightly focused in a
Speaker 1: deep and searching way on what needs to be done
Speaker 1: to dismantle barriers to eradicate racism, you know. And I
Speaker 1: think this impulse to drive forward a more equal society
Speaker 1: is a very positive one, but that we need to
Speaker 1: be vigilant that it not cross over into sensoriousness or
Speaker 1: an overreaction to the expression of views and free speech.
Speaker 1: And so I think that's what the writers of the
Speaker 1: Harper's letter we're trying to say, and it triggered an
Speaker 1: outsized reaction, kind of an inferno on Twitter, with people
Speaker 1: suggesting that this was the outcry of people who are
Speaker 1: privileged objecting to sort of the undercutting of their platforms,
Speaker 1: that this is a distraction from this seminal moment of
Speaker 1: racial transformation, and so, you know, it sort of reflects,
Speaker 1: I think this problem in our discourse, that we have
Speaker 1: a propensity to talk past one another, and that you know,
Speaker 1: at times the drive toward racial and gender based equality
Speaker 1: can be kind of pitted against the robust protection of
Speaker 1: free speech, and we understand why that happens. But I
Speaker 1: think through is in discourse we can and we must
Speaker 1: recognize that ultimately we need these principles to come together.
Speaker 1: They're both so fundamental to our constitution, to our democracy.
Speaker 1: We want to be an equal society and we want
Speaker 1: to be a society that respects free speech. So how
Speaker 1: do we make those things coincide and reinforce one another.
Speaker 1: I think there are many examples of how they do,
Speaker 1: but they're also instances in this Harper's letter was a
Speaker 1: vivid one of how they're sort of seemed to clash.
Speaker 1: And the effort really in the book is to explain,
Speaker 1: here's how these things can fit together. You go to
Speaker 1: some lens in your book to say that you're against
Speaker 1: cancelation or cancel culture, but you do support what you
Speaker 1: call calling out culture as long as it's done with caution.
Speaker 1: Say a bit about your approach to these very delicate
Speaker 1: and sensitive questions. Yeah, I think it's very context intensive.
Speaker 1: And now the term cancel culture, I think it has
Speaker 1: sort of taken on a new meaning and a very
Speaker 1: elastic meaning. We really can refer to everything from a
Speaker 1: perfectly legitimate give and take an argument and debate often
Speaker 1: online to harsh draconian punishments for speech by an institution,
Speaker 1: And to me, those are very different things that should
Speaker 1: not be lumped together. What I talk about in the
Speaker 1: book is the idea that in calling out, it should
Speaker 1: be done conscionably, thoughtfully, and you should consider whether there's
Speaker 1: a possibility of doing what I call a call in,
Speaker 1: which is more of a private approach. Is this, you
Speaker 1: know someone who you think maybe well intended, someone you
Speaker 1: know well, someone who may have just aired or been
Speaker 1: unaware or didn't get the memo, and by sort of
Speaker 1: tapping them on the shoulder or sending them email, giving
Speaker 1: them a call, they may retract the tweet or the
Speaker 1: Facebook post or apologize for something, and what could become
Speaker 1: a huge dust up is avoided through that private approach,
Speaker 1: So I think that's worth considering. I also think they're
Speaker 1: in instances where a callout is appropriate and necessary. It
Speaker 1: can be an instance where somebody says something publicly that
Speaker 1: is hurtful and offensive, and it's important to ally with
Speaker 1: those who are on the receiving end, who may feel
Speaker 1: stigmatized or victimized, so they need to hear that they
Speaker 1: have support out there, that other people heard this, that
Speaker 1: they're not alone in defending themselves. So I think in
Speaker 1: instances like that, it's important to jump in. Sometimes the
Speaker 1: speech has reverberations right away and the damage is done,
Speaker 1: and so calling in is really not an option. And
Speaker 1: you know, the only recourse is for an institutional leader
Speaker 1: to express dismay, even contempt for offensive speech, and that
Speaker 1: can be perfectly appropriate. So I think what we struggle
Speaker 1: with is these questions of intent and context, which I
Speaker 1: stress in the book. And unfortunately, our social media driven
Speaker 1: culture move so quickly. We see so much divorced from
Speaker 1: its context. We may not even know who originally posted it.
Speaker 1: It may be snipped out and juxtaposed with something else,
Speaker 1: and so there's an impulse to react to just what
Speaker 1: you see on the surface. But sometimes probing a little
Speaker 1: bit further will reveal that the intent or the import
Speaker 1: was something else entirely. So I advocate kind of taking
Speaker 1: a pause and making sure you really know what you're
Speaker 1: seeing and what you're reading before you react, and particularly
Speaker 1: before you react strongly. You know your approach, which calls
Speaker 1: for reason and logic and calm. It can only be welcomed,
Speaker 1: and I profoundly agree with it. Do you ever wonder
Speaker 1: if we are capable of achieving such things in this moment?
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, social media is not exactly conducive to
Speaker 1: this kind of calm, thoughtful, rational engagement. People seem to
Speaker 1: be raring for a fight on all sides of these issues,
Speaker 1: and often it is about political power. So I guess
Speaker 1: I'm wondering what would you say to a respondent from
Speaker 1: the progressive side who says, you know, luxus and it's
Speaker 1: all nice and well and good for you as the
Speaker 1: CEO Pan America to say, well, you know, just a
Speaker 1: call would really help, And they say, well, we're the powerless,
Speaker 1: not the powerful. We can't just make a call and
Speaker 1: tap someone on the shoulder. What we can do is
Speaker 1: motivate our base to speak publicly, to go on social
Speaker 1: media to make their point, and that will enhance us
Speaker 1: to a position where we will have the power to
Speaker 1: make sure that then we can call people privately. You know.
Speaker 1: I think that can be sort of a fair point,
Speaker 1: you know, and other points that get made that are related,
Speaker 1: you know, when I talk about forgiveness, that sort of
Speaker 1: some people are always on the end of this where
Speaker 1: they're being asked to forgive again and again, and that's
Speaker 1: not fair. And it's often people of color who are
Speaker 1: on the receiving end of these slights and aggressions and
Speaker 1: hostile speech, And so I think it is important to
Speaker 1: recognize that we're in this moment of reckoning, that people
Speaker 1: are amassing power and mobilizing their voices and speaking out
Speaker 1: in some instances, either for the first time or with
Speaker 1: newfound strength, and that represents a wound for free speech.
Speaker 1: You know, when you have an environment or society or
Speaker 1: campus where a certain portion of the population feels de
Speaker 1: facto silence because they're in the minority, because others are
Speaker 1: derisive toward them, because they don't see anybody looks like
Speaker 1: them on the faculty, and they feel on the outside
Speaker 1: of the dynamic in the classroom where other students are
Speaker 1: more favored or mentored by their professors. That's an impingement
Speaker 1: upon free speech. That's something less than the truly open
Speaker 1: discourse that I think is the ultimate goal of the
Speaker 1: free speech protections embedded in the Constitution. So I think
Speaker 1: it's very important to recognize that a moment like this
Speaker 1: ultimately drives forward the cause of free speech, and that
Speaker 1: it's not appropriate to ask everybody to be reasonable one
Speaker 1: hundred percent of the time. I actually think if sort
Speaker 1: of ninety five percent of us could be reasonable ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of the time, we could deal with those
Speaker 1: instances where a very strong, intense reaction to speech is
Speaker 1: instinctive or justified. You know, there are those cases. I
Speaker 1: also think the President of the United States has played
Speaker 1: a role in this. He's embolden hateful speech. He's sort
Speaker 1: of the poster child for lack of accountability for saying
Speaker 1: all kinds of noxious and demeaning things to so many
Speaker 1: different groups, and so sort of in the wake of that,
Speaker 1: there's this impulse across society to try to police speech
Speaker 1: more strongly in realms that we can control, whether that's
Speaker 1: the classroom or a magazine or a particular community. And
Speaker 1: I think if we're able to look to a time
Speaker 1: where his influence leaves the scene, we should really be
Speaker 1: thinking about, you know, how is it that we want
Speaker 1: to live together? And some of the taboos that he
Speaker 1: has undercut and eroded, I think need to be brought
Speaker 1: back up to strength. And if they are, if people
Speaker 1: feel they can be more comfortable here in this country,
Speaker 1: that they're not going to be targeted because they're black,
Speaker 1: or because they're a Muslim, because they're an undocumented immigrant,
Speaker 1: and that there's more respect. I think that will create
Speaker 1: more space for free speech, even when on occasion we'd
Speaker 1: bump up against one another's sensitivities and there may be
Speaker 1: some sense of offense. But if you feel more at
Speaker 1: home and welcomed in society at large, I think you're
Speaker 1: a better place to tolerate that. Susan. I want to
Speaker 1: thank you for your work and for this fascinating and
Speaker 1: thought provoking book, and for your practical guidance to all
Speaker 1: of us how to be a little more reasonable and
Speaker 1: calm and are talking about the very fraught issues around
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, and I just want to thank you
Speaker 1: for joining me, Thanks for having me. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of fun to talk with you. This conversation with Susanne
Speaker 1: was I think an excellent introduction to some of the
Speaker 1: very hard free speech related issues that we are going
Speaker 1: to be grappling with in future weeks. Here on deep background,
Speaker 1: Susanne is advocating a calm, rational, thoughtful approach to free
Speaker 1: speech questions characterized by charitable interpretation of the other side,
Speaker 1: by efforts to listen closely, by efforts to be gentle
Speaker 1: and to be cautious, and above all not to exercise
Speaker 1: power too overtly or profoundly in trying to silence your interlocutors.
Speaker 1: And yet there may be circumstances where, for reasons of
Speaker 1: the gathering of political power and the march to try
Speaker 1: to achieve greater human equality, people don't accept the idea
Speaker 1: that they should tread lightly when it comes to free expression.
Speaker 1: That's a challenge that all free speech advocates are going
Speaker 1: to have to engage, and it's one we will continue
Speaker 1: to explore in our future episodes. And now for our playback,
Speaker 1: where we take a moment from the news and play
Speaker 1: it back in order to make sense of it. Those
Speaker 1: are the sounds of protesters clashing with the police in
Speaker 1: Seattle this Saturday. There were similar demonstrations across the country
Speaker 1: this weekend. These protests began as part of the Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter movement, but they've taken a turn recently as
Speaker 1: a result of Donald Trump's provocative decision in Portland, Oregon,
Speaker 1: to send Federal Department of Homeland Security officers frequently in
Speaker 1: paramilitary gear and unmarked uniforms in order to quote, protect
Speaker 1: federal property and enforce federal law. To be sure, the
Speaker 1: president of the United States does have the constitutional authority
Speaker 1: to protect federal property if it's genuinely in jeopardy, and
Speaker 1: federal officers like those in the FBI or the d
Speaker 1: EA enforce federal law all the time. What's happening, however,
Speaker 1: in Portland, and what Donald Trump has said may happen elsewhere,
Speaker 1: seems to be rather different. Of course, the protests have
Speaker 1: in some instances concentrated on federal buildings, giving Trump an
Speaker 1: excuse to send federal officers and making it hard for
Speaker 1: a court to say that those officers cannot be present.
Speaker 1: Yet there seems to be no doubt in terms of
Speaker 1: public perception that what Donald Trump is trying to do
Speaker 1: is use the opportunity of sending these officers to send
Speaker 1: a message to his supporters that he is in a
Speaker 1: position to protect his constituents against protesters. It's very noteworthy
Speaker 1: in this context the Trump is not sending the officials
Speaker 1: whose job it actually is to enforce federal law, people
Speaker 1: like the officers of the FBI and the DA And
Speaker 1: it's telling and a little frightening. The Trump is sending
Speaker 1: people who work for the Department of Homeland Security, whose
Speaker 1: job is in fact to focus on illegal entrance to
Speaker 1: the United States, who happen to be engaged in crime.
Speaker 1: There is no credible way to describe protesters, even if
Speaker 1: they sometimes cross the line away from being perfectly peaceful protesters,
Speaker 1: as domestic terrorists, and there is no reason whatsoever to
Speaker 1: think that any of the protesters are people who in
Speaker 1: any way are connected to unlawful entrance to the United States.
Speaker 1: This is pure bootstramping by the Trump administration, and it's
Speaker 1: appropriate to point out that it violates the statutory norms
Speaker 1: to tell us which officials of the government go where
Speaker 1: and do what. Will Trump in fact extend the sending
Speaker 1: of federal officers to other major cities, as he has
Speaker 1: threatened to do. It's certainly possible. Has he discovered a
Speaker 1: new way to draw the ire and attention and frustration
Speaker 1: of anti Trump protesters. Indeed, he has will that ultimately
Speaker 1: play into Trump's hands or into the hands of his critics.
Speaker 1: That is a much more difficult question, but it's certainly
Speaker 1: worth keeping in mind that many of Trump's supporters themselves
Speaker 1: have libertarian tendencies. They at least in principle, should not
Speaker 1: want federal officers with a questionable legal mandate deploying around
Speaker 1: the country grabbing up people who are exercising their First
Speaker 1: Amendment rights and holding them, as has been alleged in
Speaker 1: Portland without charge. Trump is playing election season politics. He's
Speaker 1: playing fast and loose with the constitution. That means the
Speaker 1: proper response is vigilance, precision, and objection. But almost certainly
Speaker 1: it would not be a good idea for protesters to
Speaker 1: play into Trump's hands by allowing their protests to be
Speaker 1: anything other than clearly peaceful and within the exercise of
Speaker 1: their First Amendment rights. Until the next time I speak
Speaker 1: to you, be careful, be safe, and be well. Deep
Speaker 1: background is brought to you by Pushkin Industries. Our producer
Speaker 1: is Lydia Gene Coott, with mastering by Jason Gambrell and
Speaker 1: Martin Gonzalez. Our showrunner is Sophima Kibben. Our theme music
Speaker 1: is composed by Luis GERA special thanks to the Pushkin Brass,
Speaker 1: Malcolm Gladwell, Jacob Weisberg, and Mia Lobel. I'm Noah Feldman.
Speaker 1: I also write a regular column for Bloomberg opinion, which
Speaker 1: you can find at bloomberg dot com slash Feldman. To
Speaker 1: discover Bloomberg's original slate of podcasts, go to bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash pot Asks and one last thing. I just
Speaker 1: wrote a book called The Arab Winter, A Tragedy. I
Speaker 1: would be delighted if you checked it out. If you
Speaker 1: liked what you heard today, please write a review or
Speaker 1: tell a friend. You can always let me know what
Speaker 1: you think on Twitter. My handle is Noah r Phelp.
Speaker 1: This is deep background