2017 Constitution Day Lecture

2017 Constitution Day Lecture

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


>>I’D LIKE TO WELCOME
YOU ALL TODAY TO THE CONSTITUTION DAY EVENT. MY NAME IS KEVIN JOHNSON. I’M THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER
FOR FIRST WOMEN’S STUDIES HERE AT CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH. I’D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU
TO THIS YEAR’S EVENT. I’D LIKE TO THANK THE
PROVOST, PROVOST BRIAN GERKE FOR HOSTING THIS EVENT,
THE DEAN, DAVIS WALLACE FOR HIS SUPPORT TO THE FACULTY,
FOR OFFERING EXTRA CREDIT AND SO FORTH TO HAVE
STUDENTS ATTEND TODAY’S EVENT. I’D LIKE TO THANK YOU
FOR BEING IN ATTENDANCE AND THANK THE PROFESSORS FOR
COMING ALONG AND THINKING WITH US ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT WE’D LIKE TO DO TODAY IS
TO SHARE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION, HOW IT WORKS, HOW IT FUNCTIONS,
WHAT THE PURPOSE OF A CONSTITUTION DAY EVENT
IS AND THEN BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH YOU MAYBE SOME RECENT
ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES. THE CONSTITUTION DAY IS A
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE PASSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MAKING IT TO WHERE
ANY UNIVERSITY THAT RECEIVES FEDERAL FUNDS
IN THE UNITED STATES HAS TO HAVE A CONSTITUTION
DAY OBSERVANCE EVERY YEAR ON SEPTEMBER 17TH
WITH THE PROVISION THAT IF SEPTEMBER 17TH
FALLS ON A WEEKEND, IT CAN BE HELD ANY DAY OF
THE WEEK BEFORE OR AFTER. SO, HENCE, WE ARE
HERE TO CELEBRATE AND OBSERVE CONSTITUTION
DAY ON OUR CAMPUS. IN THE PAST, WE’VE
DONE QUITE A FEW THINGS WITH CONSTITUTION DAY. THE CENTER FOR FIRST AMENDMENT
STUDIES HAS HOSTED CONSTITUTION DAY EVERY SINGLE YEAR, AND WE’VE
TACKLED SOME VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, AND WE’VE TALKED
ABOUT SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED IN TERMS
OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
GOVERNMENT STRATEGIES FOR SILENCING THE OPPOSITION. WE’VE TALKED ABOUT A
PROFILE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND HOW THEY GO ABOUT INTERPRETING THEIR
FIRST AMENDMENT CASES. WE FOCUSED ON THE INFLUENCE OF
BIG MONEY IN POLITICAL ELECTIONS IN THE WAKE OF CITIZENS UNITED. WE FOCUSED ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE AS BOTH AN EQUAL PROTECTION
RIGHT AND A FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION RIGHT
IN THE CONSTITUTION. WE’VE HAD A PANEL DISCUSSION ON ISSUES CONCERNING
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND LAST YEAR’S ELECTIONS,
WHICH WAS REALLY INSIGHTFUL TO TRACE THE CANDIDATES AND THE
MEDIA COVERAGE IN THOSE CYCLES. THIS YEAR, WE’LL FOCUS ON SOME
CURRENT EVENTS REGARDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BOTH IN THE
PRESS AND IN COLLEGE CAMPUSES, THAT HAPPEN THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES. SO, WHAT I’D LIKE TO DO
TODAY IS TO SHARE WITH YOU AT THE BEGINNING, NOW AT
THE OUTSET, A LITTLE BIT OF THE BASICS, A LITTLE
OVERVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL
KNOW WHAT IT IS, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE
SOME OF THE FACTS AND SOME OF THE STATISTICS THAT WE
HAVE ABOUT THE LARGER CULTURE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND THEN, WE’LL TALK ABOUT
SOME OF THE DETAILS ABOUT HOW THAT INTERPRETATION
PROCESS WORKS WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AFTER I DO THAT, IN
THE INTRODUCTION HERE, WE’LL THEN TURN IT OVER
TO OUR SPEAKERS TODAY, WHO I’LL INTRODUCE BEFORE
THEY SPEAK, AND THEY WILL TALK ABOUT SOME CURRENT ISSUES
CONCERNING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THEIR VARIOUS CAPACITIES. SO, I’D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A GENERAL FIRST
AMENDMENT OVERVIEW. HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT
THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS? IS THERE ANYBODY IN HERE WHO KNOWS THE FIRST
AMENDMENT VERBATIM, BY HEART, WHO CAN STAND UP AND RECITE
IT LIKE YOU DID IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROBABLY IN YOUR
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOMS? PROBABLY NOT MANY, SO LET
ME READ EACH WORD FOR YOU. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW
RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING
THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM
OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS OR OF THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT
FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. THE WAY THAT I REMEMBER THIS
IS THAT I HOLD OUT MY HAND AND ON MY HAND THERE’S
FIVE, WELL, FOUR FINGERS AND A THUMB, RIGHT. SO, I REMEMBER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS BY HOLDING OUT MY HAND. YOU HAVE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, PRESS, RELIGION, PETITION, AND ASSEMBLY. THEY’RE ALL ON ONE HAND. SO, IF YOU EVER WANT TO
REMEMBER HOW MANY FREEDOMS AT LEAST THERE ARE IN
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, YOU CAN ALWAYS REMEMBER
IT BY YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE FOUR FINGERS
AND A THUMB, OKAY. SO, THAT IS THE WAY THAT I REMEMBER WHAT
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS. NOT ALL AMERICANS CAN NAME
WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT. FOR EXAMPLE, HERE’S
SOME STATISTICS; SOME DATA THAT THAT THE CENTRE FOR FIRST AMENDMENT STUDIES
HAS BEEN ABLE TO COLLECT. THIRTY-NINE PERCENT OF AMERICANS
CANNOT NAME ANY OF THE FREEDOMS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 39%. OF THOSE THAT KNOW AT
LEAST ONE OF THE FREEDOMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 54% KNOW
OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH; 17%, RELIGION; 12%, ASSEMBLY; 11%,
PRESS; AND 2%, PETITION, OKAY. SO, OUR FIRST AMENDMENT
KNOWLEDGE IN THE UNITED STATES
DOESN’T APPEAR TO EXIST AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL. LET ME ASK YOU, IF YOU HAVEN’T
HAD A CLASS WITH ME BEFORE, OR YOU’RE NOT A PROFESSOR
AT THE UNIVERSITY, CAN ANY OF YOU NAME ALL NINE
ACTIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?>>I CAN NAME ONE.>>YOU CAN NAME ONE. WHICH ONE CAN YOU NAME?>>RUTH BADER GINSBURG,
OR SOMETHING.>>OKAY. SO, WE’VE GOT
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, RBG. MOST PEOPLE AFFECTIONATELY CALL
HER THE NOTORIOUS RBG, RIGHT. I THINK RBG IS ITS OWN
ACRONYM IN AND OF ITSELF, MEANING REVOLUTIONARY BUT
BUT GANGSTA [PHONETIC], BUT THAT’S A DIFFERENT STORY. ANOTHER ONE, DID YOU
HAVE ANOTHER ONE?>>NO.>>OKAY.>>GORSUCH [INAUDIBLE]>>GORSUCH AND KENNEDY, RIGHT. THESE ARE TWO OTHER
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. ANYBODY ELSE CAN NAME —
WE’VE GOT JUSTICE GORSUCH. WE’VE GOT JUSTICE KENNEDY,
JUSTICE GINSBURG –>>ROBERTS [INAUDIBLE]>>OKAY. SO, WE HAVE
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND JUSTICE ALITO, YES.>>CLARENCE THOMAS.>>JUSTICE THOMAS, RIGHT.>>AND ELENA KAGAN.>>AND ELENA KAGAN,
RIGHT, JUSTICE KAGAN.>>SOTOMAYOR.>>AND JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR,
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. AND APPARENTLY, JUSTICE
PRIOR GETS NO LOVE TODAY. THIS IS NOT SURPRISING. TWO-THIRDS OF THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC CANNOT NAME A SINGLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. SO, WE DID PRETTY
WELL TODAY, ALL RIGHT.>>YEAH.>>TWO-THIRDS OF THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC CANNOT NAME A SINGLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. ONLY 1% OF AMERICANS
CAN NAME ALL NINE, OKAY. THAT MEANS THAT IN OUR THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE ALMOST EVERYONE, I WOULD
SAY, IN THE UNITED STATES KNOWS WHO OUR PRESIDENT IS OR, IF YOU
PREFER TO SAY NOT MY PRESIDENT; I’VE HEARD THAT GO
AROUND TOO, RIGHT. SO, WE ALL, MOST OF US
CAN NAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. MANY PEOPLE MIGHT
KNOW A SENATOR OR TWO; SOME PEOPLE MAY KNOW
A REPRESENTATIVE. SO, MANY OF US ARE REALLY
ENGAGED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE OUR LAWS AND THE
PEOPLE WHO SIGN THOSE LAWS INTO EXISTENCE, THE
PEOPLE WITH EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, BUT ALMOST NO ONE CAN NAME ALL
NINE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO HAVE THE POWER TO
OVERRULE BOTH OF THOSE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AS A FORM
OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. SO, EVEN THOUGH THE SUPREME
COURT HAS THIS TREMENDOUS ABILITY TO OVERRULE THESE
TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, 99% OF THE PUBLIC DOESN’T
EVEN KNOW WHO THEY ARE, RIGHT. AND SO, WHAT I’M
HERE TODAY TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IS NOT ONLY THE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, BUT WHAT IS THIS
MYSTERIOUS DOCUMENT AT TIMES THAT WE CALL THE CONSTITUTION? AS A RHETORICALLY
TRAINED SCHOLAR, I STUDY THIS FANCY THING
CALLED HERMANEUTICS. HERMANEUTICS ROUGHLY MEANS THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WAY THAT WE INTERPRET THINGS,
THE MEANING THAT WE INVEST IN THOSE THINGS, THE
BELIEFS THAT PEOPLE HAVE, AND HOW WE’RE INVESTED IN
PARTICULAR NOTIONS OF TRUTH THAT WE BELIEVE TO
BE TRUE, ALL RIGHT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT
IS HAPPENING WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
CONSTITUTION. IT’S AN INTERPRETIVE EXERCISE. WE HAVE THESE WORDS THAT ARE
FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND WHAT
WE DO IS WE INTERPRET THEM BASED ON CASES THAT CONFRONT US. THEIR GENERAL OVERARCHING
VALUES, GENERAL OVERARCHING GUIDELINES,
AND THOSE GET INTERPRETED IN PARTICULAR WAYS BASED
ON THE CASES THAT WE HAVE. SO, OUR SPEAKERS TODAY MAY TALK
ABOUT PARTICULAR INSTANCES, HOW THESE THINGS ARE
NEGOTIATED ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, HOW WE NEGOTIATE THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT, AND THIS IS NO EASY EXERCISE. PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH HOW
WE EVEN INTERPRET THE TEXT. EVEN IF THEY REACH THE SAME
CONCLUSIONS, THEY COULD AGREE ON THE SAME PARADIGMS BY WHICH
WE INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE FORMER JUSTICE SCALIA AND JUSTICE THOMAS
WERE LYING ALL THE TIME BECAUSE THEY HAD SIMILAR
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES. BUT THEN, HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT
EXPLAINING WHEN THEY DISAGREE? HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT
EXPLAINING CASES LIKE BROWN VERSUS ENTERTAINMENT
MERCHANTS’ ASSOCIATION WHEN JUSTICE SCALIA BELIEVES THAT VIOLENT VIDEOGAMES
ARE PROTECTED, AND JUSTICE THOMAS SAYS
THAT THEY’RE NOT, RIGHT? THAT REQUIRES A MORE
NUANCED UNDERSTANDING. AS STUDENTS OF RHETORIC,
AS SCHOLARS OF RHETORIC, WE CAN MAKE THESE
DIFFERENTIATIONS. WE MAKE THEM THROUGH THE STUDY OF WHAT WE WOULD CALL THIS
FANCY TERM “HERMENEUTICS.” SO, LET ME OFFER YOU A
USEFUL GUIDELINE TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS
COMPLICATED MATRIX OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION. ROOTED IN PHILLIP
BOBBITT’S FAMOUS WORK ON CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION, HE IDENTIFIES SIX MODALITIES,
IS WHAT THEY’RE CALLED, OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION. THESE MODALITIES HELP
SHAPE AND FORM THE OPINIONS THAT ARE MADE REGARDING THE
CONSTITUTION’S APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR CASES THAT
COME BEFORE A COURT, THAT COME BEFORE A POPULATION, THAT MAKE US DETERMINE HOW THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT OUGHT TO APPLY; THE FIRST OF WHICH IS A
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION. INDIVIDUALS THAT USE A
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD SAY, HOW DO WE INTERPRET WHAT THIS
MEANS BASED ON WHAT IT MEANT WHEN IT WAS AGREED TO IN
THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? SO, PEOPLE WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN THE QUESTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM A HISTORICAL
INTERPRETATION WOULD SAY, WHAT DID THE FIRST
AMENDMENT MEAN AT THE TIME THAT THE FRAMERS WERE
ATTEMPTING TO RATIFY IT, WHEN IT WAS PASSED INTO LAW? NOT WHAT WE THINK ABOUT IT
TODAY, BUT WHAT DID IT MEAN AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS
AGREED, SIGNED INTO LAW, CONTRACTED, LITERALLY? OKAY. AND THAT’S NOT AN
EASY PROPOSITION, RIGHT. THE FRAMERS DISAGREED IMMENSELY ON WHAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT MEANT. SO, THERE’S MANY WAYS THAT
ONE WOULD HAVE THIS HISTORICAL ARGUMENT, BUT THAT’S GOING
TO BE VERY DIFFERENT THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
SECOND MODALITY, WHICH IS A TEXTUAL
MODALITY, RIGHT. THE TEXTURAL MODALITY OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TAKES A LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THE PLAIN
WORDS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. WHAT DO THE WORDS MEAN? SO, WHEN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT SAYS THAT “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO
LAW,” WHEN A UNIVERSITY SAYS, “STUDENTS SHOULDN’T HAVE
ANY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS,” A TEXTUALIST MIGHT SAY, “THE
FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT UNIVERSITIES
MAKING THESE RULES.” IT SAYS, “CONGRESS
SHALL MAKE NO LAW.” IT DOESN’T SAY THAT UNIVERSITIES
SHALL MAKE NO LAW, RIGHT. CONGRESS, IF YOU LOOK UP THE
DEFINITION OF THE WORD CONGRESS, IT DOESN’T MEAN UNIVERSITIES. SO, UNIVERSITIES CAN
DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT MIGHT
BE DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY THAT A HISTORICAL INTERPRETER OF
THE TEXT MIGHT TAKE IT, RIGHT. SIMILARLY, THIS IMPACTS THE WAY THAT WE LOOK AT THE
WORDS, RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
COMMUNICATE ON THE INTERNET? MOST PEOPLE TODAY
WOULD PROBABLY BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTS YOU AND YOUR SPEECH FOR THE MOST PART
ON THE INTERNET. A TEXTUALIST MIGHT DISAGREE. THEY WOULD SAY, LOOK UP THE
WORD “SPEECH” IN A DICTIONARY. IF YOU LOOK UP THE WORD
SPEECH IN THE DICTIONARY, IT DOES NOT MEAN INTERNET. WE THINK OF SPEECH AS AN
ACT OF SPEAKING IN PUBLIC. WORDS, RIGHT; DELIVERY,
THESE THINGS THAT ARE BOUND UP IN THE WAY THAT WE
THINK ABOUT SPEECH. YOU WOULDN’T SAY, “I GAVE
A SPEECH TODAY,” AND HAVE THAT MEANT BY AN
AUDIENCE TO MEAN THAT YOU MADE A FACEBOOK
POST, RIGHT. THAT’S DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT THAT WORD MEANS. SO, A TEXTUALIST MIGHT SAY,
“WOW, YOUR CASE HAS COME IN BEFORE, AND YOU’RE CLAIMING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTS YOUR RIGHT TO INTERNET SPEECH. NO, THIS ISN’T SPEECH AT ALL. GET OUT OF MY COURTROOM,” RIGHT. SPEECH IS ORAL DELIVERY, RIGHT. SO, A TEXTUALIST MIGHT DISAGREE
WITH SOME OF THIS CONTENT THEN, WHEREAS THE HISTORICAL
INTERPRETER MIGHT SAY, “YEAH, BUT HISTORICALLY, WE SEE
THAT THERE’S A VALUE INHERENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC ENTERPRISE.” AND THAT MEANS THAT SPEECH IS
MORE ABOUT COMMUNICATION, RIGHT, AND NOT JUST ORAL COMMUNICATION
AS WHAT IS IN SPEECH, BUT THE ABILITY FOR US TO
MAKE DECISIONS AND DELIBERATE AND HAVE THIS INFORMATION FLOW. AND SO THAT VALUE MEANS
THAT IT HAS TO EXTEND TO THE INTERNET TODAY, RIGHT. SO, HISTORICALLY, MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THE TEXTUALIST
APPROACH, RIGHT. THE THIRD MODALITY HAS TO
DO WITH PRECEDENT, RIGHT, THE DOCTURNAL MODALITY
IS WHAT IT’S CALLED. AND THE DOCTURNAL MODALITY IS
ROOTED IN THIS LEGAL CONCEPT OF STARE DECISIS,
ROUGHLY TRANSLATED “LET THE DECISION STAND.” THE RATIONALE BEHIND
STARE DECISIS IS THAT IF WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS
BASED ON PREVIOUS RULINGS THAT THE COURT HAS HANDED DOWN,
THEN WE’LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW TO CONDUCT OUR
AFFAIRS IN THE FUTURE. IF WE DON’T ABIDE BY
PREVIOUS MANDATES OF CASES IN HOW WE’VE INTERPRETED THEM,
THEN WE NEVER WOULD KNOW HOW TO CONDUCT OUR OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE RULE OF LAW. IT WOULD BE ALMOST
NO PREDICTABILITY. WE WOULD NEVER KNOW IF OUR
POLITICAL SPEECH WAS PROTECTED, IF IT’S PROTECTED IN ONE
CASE AND THEN OVERRULED IN THE NEXT CASE, AND THEN
PROTECTED IN THE NEXT CASE AND OVERRULED IN THE NEXT CASE. PEOPLE IN THE UNITED
STATES WOULD SAY, “I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S
PROTECTED IN ANYMORE,” RIGHT. AND WHEN, SO THE RATIONALE
BEHIND STARE DECISIS IS THAT WE LOOKED TO PREVIOUS
DECISIONS, AND WE LET THEM STAND AS A FACTOR OF INTERPRETING
OUR CROWN POLICIES. THE NEXT MODALITY IS
A PRUDENTIAL MODALITY. THE PRUDENTIAL MODALITY,
QUITE SIMPLY, IS ABOUT THE WORKABILITY
OF A DECISION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A
JUDGE MIGHT TAKE A LOOK AT A CASE BEFORE THEM AND SAY,
“YOU KNOW WHAT, THE PRECEDENT THAT I WOULD SET BY RULING FOR
ONE SIDE IN FAVOR OF ONE SIDE AND NOT THE OTHER WOULD BE SO
HARD TO LITIGATE ALL THE CASES THAT WOULD COME BEFORE
IT IN THE FUTURE,” RIGHT. “IF I RULE IN FAVOR OF THIS
SIDE AND NOT THIS SIDE, THEN I’M GOING TO HAVE
50,000 CASES FILED IN THE LOWER COURTS
IMMEDIATELY OVERNIGHT. THERE’S NO WAY THE
LOWER COURTS CAN HANDLE THAT KIND OF CASE LOAD. WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH ROOMS TO
BE ABLE TO DO THIS,” RIGHT. AND SO, AS A RESULT, A JUDGE
MIGHT BALANCE THAT PRAGMATIC, THAT PRUDENTIAL KIND OF
MODALITY, WITH THEIR DECISION AND SAY, “WE’LL RULE THIS
WAY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND SET THE PRECEDENT
GOING FORWARD, BUT MAYBE IT’S NOT
RETROACTIVE,” RIGHT. IT DOESN’T APPLY TO THE PAST BECAUSE IT JUST WON’T
WORK, RIGHT. WE DON’T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO HANDLE THAT IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE,
RIGHT. SO, THIS PRUDENTIAL
MODALITY KIND OF PERSISTS. YEAH? [ INAUDIBLE SPEAKER ]>>YEAH, THE DOCTURNAL LOOKS AT
THE PREVIOUS CASES, REMEMBER, SO IT TAKES A LOOK AT THE
PREVIOUS CASES TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT SINCE
WE KNOW THIS BODY OF CASES HAS COME BEFORE
US, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WHEN WE’RE LOOKING AT
THE CURRENT CASE, RIGHT? DOES IT WORK, RIGHT? WHAT IS THE IMPACT? SO, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE IN
LINE WITH THESE CASES, RIGHT, AND I SHOULD PROBABLY
RULE IN THIS WAY, THE PRUDENTIAL MODALITY WOULD
SAY MAYBE I NEED TO CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION TO THESE
PRECEDENTS, OR MAYBE I NEED TO ALTER MY DECISION IN SOME
WAY BECAUSE THE KIND OF SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE JUST CAN’T
HANDLE ALL OF THAT LITIGATION, ALL OF THAT PRAGMATIC
KIND OF STUFF, RIGHT. [ INAUDIBLE SPEAKER ]>>IT COULD, BUT I DON’T
WANT YOU TO CONFUSE THAT WITH THE ETHICAL MODALITY,
RIGHT, AND THAT’S THE DANGER THAT I’M GOING TO GET
TO IN JUST A SECOND. BUT THE PRUDENTIAL IS ABOUT
THE WORKABILITY, THE LOGISTICS, RIGHT, THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF IT, RIGHT. THAT’S NOT A QUESTION OF GOOD
OR BAD; IT’S JUST A QUESTION OF FEASIBILITY, RIGHT. CAN YOU DO THIS, RIGHT? JUST LIKE, AND SO A
PRUDENTIAL CONSIDERATION IN THIS CLASSROOM WOULD BE
CAN WE ADMIT 500 STUDENTS TO THIS CLASSROOM? NO, WE CAN’T. FIRE CODES. WE CAN’T FIT THAT MANY
STUDENTS IN THIS ROOM RIGHT. THAT’S A PRAGMATIC CONCERN. THAT’S NOT AN ETHICAL CONCERN,
RIGHT, BECAUSE ETHICALLY, WE MIGHT BE COMMITTED TO ALLOWING THOSE 500 STUDENTS
ACCESS TO AN EDUCATION, RIGHT. BUT PRAGMATIC FEASIBILITY, WE MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENT
KIND OF CONCLUSION, RIGHT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY. SO, THEN THE FIFTH ONE
IS A STRUCTURAL MODALITY, AND THIS REQUIRES PEOPLE TO
BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS THAT ARE BUILT WITHIN
THE CONSTITUTION, RIGHT. SOMETIMES OUR AMENDMENTS
CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE
THE RIGHT TO VOTE, AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT
TO ASSEMBLE, RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT
TO ASSEMBLE IN A WAY THAT BLOCKS PEOPLE’S
ACCESS TO VOTING BOOTHS? BUT WAIT A MINUTE; YOU HAVE
THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE, RIGHT. SO, THERE’S GOT TO BE A WAY TO
FIGURE OUT WHEN YOU’RE GOING TO PRIVILEGE ONE RIGHT
AND ANOTHER RIGHT WHEN THEY’RE IN CONFLICT. THESE RIGHTS SOMETIMES
COME INTO CONFLICT, SO THE STRUCTURAL
MODALITY REQUIRES THIS KIND OF BALANCING ACT, RIGHT. SO, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT
TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, AND THEN WE CREATE
THESE BARRIERS OF 500 FOOT RESTRICTIONS
FROM POLLING PLACES AND ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT
WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND THE RIGHT TO
PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, RIGHT. IT’S A NEGOTIATION OF THESE
RIGHTS BUILT INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THIS CONTRADICTION, OKAY. AND THEN, THE LAST MODALITY
IS THE ETHICAL MODALITY, AND THE ETHICAL MODALITY
IS THE ONE WHERE WE INTERPRET THE
CONSTITUTION WITH THE IDEA THAT IT NEEDS TO
WORK FOR US, RIGHT. THIS IS THE ONE THAT MANY
CONSERVATIVE JUDGES AND JURISTS AND MANY LIBERAL
JUDGES AND JURISTS — I DON’T LIKE THOSE
TERMS OF CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL JUSTICES; I
THINK THE HERMENEUTICS GETS AT IT BETTER IN THE
FINE DISTINCTIONS. BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT
IS THE SOURCE OF A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT, RIGHT. ONE SAYS WE NEED TO BE BOUND TO
THE VALUES OF THE PAST AS ROOTED IN THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE OTHER ONE SAYS
WE’RE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS, RIGHT. WE’RE THE ONES WHO HAVE
TO INTERPRET IT IN ORDER TO WORK FOR US, RIGHT. WHEN THE CONSTITUTION
WAS RATIFIED, RIGHTS DIDN’T INCLUDE WOMEN. RIGHTS DIDN’T INCLUDE SLAVES. RIGHTS DIDN’T INCLUDE A WHOLE
HOST OF PEOPLE THAT IT PROCLAIMS TO BE ABLE TO BE UNDER THE
BANNER OF WE, THE PEOPLE. SO, MAYBE THAT MEANS
THAT WE, THE PEOPLE, TODAY FROM AN ETHICAL
PERSPECTIVE NEEDS TO BE REDEFINED SO THAT
IT CAN WORK FOR US, RIGHT. AND THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND
THE ETHICAL MODALITY IS TO SAY THAT AMERICA IS IN A CONSTANT
STATE OF MATURITY, RIGHT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT
THE DOCUMENT AS THE BIRTH OF A DOCUMENT, THE
ORIGINS OF HOW WE’RE GOING TO RUN CIVIL SOCIETY, THE
ETHICAL MODALITY SAYS, “WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE
TEENAGERS; WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ADULTS; WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO MATURE AS A DEMOCRACY AS WE LEARN THE LESSONS FROM EACH OTHER GOING
FORWARD,” RIGHT. THAT MEANS WE MIGHT NEED TO REINTERPRET THE
WE IN WE THE PEOPLE. THAT MEANS THAT WE MIGHT NEED
TO REINTERPRET OUR PROVISION SO THAT WE ARE CLOSER
TO INCLUSION, OR AS OUR UNIVERSITY
LIKES TO SAY, INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE, RIGHT. AND SO WE HAVE THESE VALUES THAT
ARE BUILT IN TO THIS FRAMEWORK.>>SO, YOU JUST SAID THAT
THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON’T KNOW THE
[INAUDIBLE] CONSTITUTION, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS YOU
HAVE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, PETITION,
AND ASSEMBLY. DO YOU THINK IT’S BECAUSE
THE PEOPLE DON’T KNOW OR BECAUSE OF THEIR [INAUDIBLE]>>SO, AS A RHETORICAL SCHOLAR,
I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT PEOPLE ARE INTERPRETING
IT IN A RIGHT OR WRONG WAY, YOU KNOW. AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I THINK THAT
I HAVE A SENSE OF MORAL ETHICS BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. BUT AS A RHETORICAL SCHOLAR, PEOPLE INTERPRET
IT DIFFERENT WAYS. YOU CAN REACH LIBERAL
CONCLUSIONS FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE IF
YOU THINK THAT THERE ARE VALUES THAT ARE INHERENT IN THE
ORIGINS OF THE DOCUMENT, RIGHT. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH
JUSTICE STEVENS, RIGHT. MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT HE
HAD A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF CITIZENS UNITED, RIGHT. WHAT HE DID IN CITIZENS
UNITED IS HE HAD SAID, “LET’S LOOK AT WHAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT MEANT AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION’S
RATIFICATION,” RIGHT. AT THE TIME, CONGRESS ISSUED
CHARTERS TO CORPORATIONS, AND CORPORATIONS WERE MEANT
TO ANSWER TO CONGRESS. SO, JUSTICE STEVENS ARGUED
THAT CORPORATIONS DON’T, NEVER HAD THE RIGHT ORIGINALLY
TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS. THE ELECTORS WERE
THEIR BOSSES, RIGHT. THEY DON’T GET INFLUENCE TO
SAY WHO THEIR BOSSES ARE. THEY DON’T GET TO CHOOSE
THE CONGRESSIONAL ENTITIES AND BACK CERTAIN
CONGRESSIONAL ENTITIES THAT ARE IN THEIR INTEREST. CONGRESS DETERMINES
THOSE INTERESTS AND CORPORATIONS ANSWER TO THEM. SO, HE WROTE IN TO THAT PARTICULAR DECISION
WHAT MIGHT BE CONCLUDED AS A LIBERAL VALUE BASED ON
A HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT THAT
DIFFERED IN TERMS OF THE RESULT OF
THE CASE, RIGHT. THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY. SO, TODAY, WHAT
I’D LIKE TO DO IS HAND IT OVER TO OUR SPEAKERS TODAY. THIS IS AN OVERARCHING
FRAMEWORK. THEY’RE GOING TO ALLUDE
TO PARTICULAR CASES AND THEIR EXPERIENCE
IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SO, I’D LIKE TO FIRST INTRODUCE
PROFESSOR JENNIFER ASINAS. SHE EARNED HER PH.D. FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. SHE’S PUBLISHED WORK
IN THE SUPREME COURT AROUND THE CENTER’S
FIRST AMENDMENT PROFILE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND IN
NOTABLE ACADEMIC [INAUDIBLE], INCLUDING FIRST AMENDMENT
STUDIES JOURNAL, COMMUNICATION LAW REVIEW, AND
RHETORIC SOCIETY QUARTERLY. SHE CURRENTLY SERVES AS CHAIR
OF THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
DIVISION OF THE WESTERN STATES
COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION. SHE SERVED AS A GRADUATE
RESEARCH FELLOW AT THE CENTER FROM 2000 TO 2002, AND HER WORK WITH THE CENTER INVOLVES
THINKING ABOUT THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN RHETORIC IN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF METAPHOR,
SUCH AS THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS, RHETORICAL STYLE,
AND AUDIENCE ADAPTATION IN THE LEGAL CONTEXT
WITH JUDICIAL STYLE AND CONSTITUTIONAL HERMENEUTICS, AND THE NARRATIVE SURROUNDING
THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IN ADDITION, SHE’S PARTICIPATED
IN INTERNATIONAL FORUMS IN ITALY, AND MOST RECENTLY IN
CANADA, WHERE SHE’S BEEN ABLE TO DISCUSS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
IN DIFFERENT CULTURAL CONTEXTS. SO, I’D LIKE TO WELCOME
PROFESSOR ASINAS. [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]>>YOU ALL HEAR ME? OH, YOU’RE BLESSED, YOU
HEAR ME ALL THE TIME. [INAUDIBLE] BELONGS
TO OUR OTHER SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. SO, COLLEGE, WE STILL
HAVE SEVERAL COLLEGES. THE COLLEGE. SO, THIS COLLEGE MIGHT, WHAT
YOUR PARENTS THINK YOU’RE DOING, WHICH IS RUNNING AROUND IN
TOGAS AND PARTYING, RIGHT. THAT’S WHAT SOCIETY
THINKS YOU’RE DOING, AND THEY’RE DOING
UNDERWATER BASKET WEAVING. WHAT I APPLIED TO COLLEGE, WHAT
I THOUGHT I WAS DOING, RIGHT, SO WHEN IN DOUBT,
GO TO THE LIBRARY. MAYBE I THOUGHT THERE WAS
A LITTLE BIT OF THAT TOO. BUT ALTHOUGH IT’S BEEN
HAPPENING AT A LOT OF COLLEGE CAMPUSES IS
THIS KIND OF STUFF, RIGHT. SO, WHETHER IT’S AT BERKELEY
OR IT’S AT UC DAVIS OR IF IT’S AT YALE, THERE’S BEEN A
LOT OF SOCIAL UPHEAVAL. THERE’S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT
UPTICK IN PROTESTS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES ACROSS THE
UNITED STATES THAT HAVE RESULTED IN PROPERTY DAMAGE,
VIOLENCE, FIRINGS, STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN
SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOLS, AND THEN BUT BACK IN AGAIN TOO. AND SO THERE’S BEEN ALL KINDS
OF THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING ON THESE CAMPUSES, AND ALL OF
THEM ARE VERY INTRICATELY TIED TO THIS NOTION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU GET TO
EXPRESS ON CAMPUS? WHEN DO YOU GET TO EXPRESS IT? AND THEN, FOR A TIME
THAT’S HARD TO KNOW BECAUSE IT MIGHT
BE SHOCKING TO YOU. ALSO, IF I NOTE THAT
SOME PEOPLE DON’T THINK THAT SOUTH PARK IS FUNNY. WHO KNEW, RIGHT? SO, WHAT I’D LIKE
TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TODAY IS EDUCATION
AND EXPRESSION. SO, THERE’S NOT A JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND WHY WOULD I TEACH THAT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT TO US AS A NATION, TO THE
HEALTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY? AND IT’S LIKE LET ME TEASE
THROUGH AND THINK THROUGH SOME OF THESE THINGS AND THINK
THROUGH IT FROM WHAT WE DO AND WHAT I DO, YOU KNOW,
IN A CLASS ON RHETORIC. IT’S, I THINK I DO IT FROM
A RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVE. SO, I’D LIKE TO TELL A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT OUR [INAUDIBLE] VIEW OF THE HARD CASES AND
CAMPUS EXPRESSION, SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN EDUCATION AND EXPRESSION, AND
THEN A LITTLE BIT OF A RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVE. WE’RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT
ETHOS BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME IN CLASS. TURNS OUT THAT WAS
TUESDAY [INAUDIBLE]. SO, WE’RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT
IT IN TERMS OF CREDIBILITY. SO, SOME BACKGROUND CASES. SO, EARLIER THIS YEAR, IN
FEBRUARY, RIGHT, AT CAL, WHETHER YOU LIKE
THE BEARS OR NOT, SO MILO YIANNOPOULOS WAS INVITED
TO COME TO CAMPUS THERE, RIGHT, ON HIS, ON ONE OF HIS TOURS,
TO TALK ABOUT HIS BOOK. SO, WE KNOW THAT MILO, HE SAYS
SOME VERY INTERESTING THINGS, RIGHT. SO, HE WAS THE EDITOR
OF BREITBART NEWS. HE’S KNOWN FOR HIS LEGAL ATTACKS
ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, WHICH HE THINKS IS TERRIBLE, AND
SOMETIMES IT VEERS INTO THINGS THAT ARE OFFENSIVE,
RACIALLY, AND OTHERWISE. I THINK MOST RECENTLY,
HE WAS CALLED ON PARTLY BECAUSE HE MADE A POST
ABOUT HIS HOUSE IN MIAMI THAT THE ROOF HAD BLOWN
OFF — CAN YOU SEE THIS? THAT THE ROOF HAD BLOWN OFF, AND
SO PEOPLE WERE LIKE, OH MY GOSH, MILO, THAT’S SO TERRIBLE. AND THEN, NEWSWEEK PUT HIM
ON BLAST AND SAID, “ACTUALLY, THAT’S NOT MILO’S HOUSE.” SO, HANG ON. AND HE WAS LIKE, “GOOD JOKE.” SO, MILO DOES LOTS
OF INTERESTING THING, AND HE POSTED [INAUDIBLE]
CANCER, RIGHT. HE HELD UP A SIGN THAT SAID
THAT THAT, DEAR [INAUDIBLE], PLEASE DEPORT BAD PEOPLE. SO, YEAH, HE SAYS LOTS OF
INTERESTING THINGS, RIGHT. SO, BEFORE HE CAME TO CAL, HE
HAD JUST BEEN IN WASHINGTON, AND ACTUALLY, THERE ARE
PROTESTORS THERE AS WELL WHO SAID, “WE DON’T WANT
HIM AT THIS CAMPUS,” AND SOMEONE WAS SHOT
IN THE PROCESS. SO, THAT’S A LITTLE BIT
OF BACKGROUND ABOUT MILO AND WHAT HE WAS DOING. SO, IN RESPONSE,
FOLKS IN BERKELEY, THERE’S VARYING RESPONSE,
FOLKS IN BERKELEY [INAUDIBLE] WHICH IS ALSO THE
LOCATION WHERE THE BIRTH OF A FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT, ESPECIALLY ON CAMPUSES,
CAME OUT OF. BUT THERE ARE ALL THESE SIGNS AND ALL THESE PROTESTORS
THERE, RIGHT. SO, OUT OF BERKLEY, NAZI
SCUM, PEOPLE HELD UP. AND THEN, ALSO, THERE
WAS PROPERTY DAMAGE, AND THERE WAS VIOLENCE, SO THE
EVENT GOT CANCELLED, RIGHT. AND SO, MILO’S RESPONSE TO
THIS RIGHT AFTERWARDS IS THAT THE LEFT, RIGHT, THAT
THE LEFT IS TERRIFIED. THEY’RE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED
OF FREE SPEECH, RIGHT, DON’T WANT FREE SPEECH
ON CAMPUS. ANOTHER EVENT, BACK IN 2015,
ANOTHER EVENT INVOLVED YALE. SO, IN 2015 ERIKA CHRISTAKIS
[INAUDIBLE] EMAIL IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST THAT THE
STUDENTS NOT DRESS IN OFFENSIVE COSTUMES
FOR HALLOWEEN, RIGHT. SO, AN ORGANIZATION ON YALE
CAMPUS PUT OUT A NOTICE TO STUDENTS THAT SAID, “IF YOU
CANNOT DRESS FOR THESE KINDS OF THINGS BECAUSE PEOPLE FIND
IT REALLY OFFENSIVE,” RIGHT. “SO, PLEASE DON’T SHOW
UP IN CLASS SPACE. PLEASE DON’T DRESS
LIKE A NATIVE AMERICAN. PLEASE DON’T DRESS LIKE — SO,
ALL OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE HEAR THAT
GO AROUND ON CAMPUS. ERIKA CHRISTAKIS, WHICH IS
ACTUALLY NICHOLAS’ WIFE, WROTE A RESPONSE TO THAT, AND IN
THAT RESPONSE EMAIL, SHE SAYS, “IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE
CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION OF COSTUMES AT MANY LEVELS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT COMPLEX
ISSUES OF IDENTITY, FREE SPEECH, CULTURAL PROBATION,
AND VIRTUAL SIGNALING.” BUT THEN, SHE GOES ON TO SAY,
“BUT I WANT TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS WITH YOU FROM A TOTALLY
DIFFERENT ANGLE AS AN EDUCATOR CONCERNED
WITH THE DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF CHILDHOOD AND
YOUNG ADULTHOOD.” SO, SHE CONTINUES ON AND SAYS,
“EVEN IF WE COULD AGREE ON HOW TO AVOID OFFENSE, AND
I’LL KNOW THAT NO ONE AROUND CAMPUS SEEMS
OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OFFENSE TAKEN BY
RELIGIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE VOTE TO SKIN REVEALING COSTUMES, I
WONDER WHY I AM NOT TRYING TO — ” WHY SHE’S NOT TRYING
TO GO ON AND SAY THAT OTHER COSTUMES
OFFENSE SHOULDN’T BE WORN. SO, ESSENTIALLY, SHE’S SAYING
THAT IF YOU FIND OFFENSE TO IT, IT SHOULD BE UP TO YOU,
RIGHT, AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO SAY TO THAT PERSON, “YOU SHOULDN’T
BE WEARING THAT,” RIGHT. SHE SAYS THAT COLLEGE CAMPUSES
USED TO BE SPACES OF FREEDOM AND EXPRESSION AND HOW COME
THEY CAN’T BE THAT ANYMORE? WELL, SOME STUDENTS GOT
MAD, RIGHT, AND THEY SAID, “I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT
YOU’RE BEING SO SENSITIVE. LOOK AT THE KIND OF PLACE
THAT YOU’RE CREATING.” AND THEN, IF YOU’VE
SEEN IT ON YOUTUBE, THEY CONFRONT HER HUSBAND,
WHO ALSO WORKED AT YALE. THEY CONFRONTED HER
HUSBAND, AND THEY SORT OF HAD A LITTLE SHOWDOWN THERE, AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO
PROTESTS IN RESPONSE TO THAT. SO, THIS IDEA THAT CAMPUSES
SHOULD BE SAFE SPACES FOR PEOPLE, RIGHT, THAT
THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE TO, THAT THEY SHOULD
FEEL SAFE ON CAMPUS, AND THAT’S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE THOSE KINDS
OF SAFE PLACES. ALL RIGHT. SO, NEXT ONE, A LITTLE CLOSER
TO HOME, ORANGE COAST COLLEGE. SO, ALL YOU OCC GRADS
OUT THERE, BOO! SO, ORANGE COAST COLLEGE;
SO, RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP WHEN THEY CAME
BACK TO CLASSES, ALL THE PRESS, THEY WERE [INAUDIBLE] AND WE
HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED, RIGHT, THAT TRUMP’S ELECTION
WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISM. SO, THERE WAS A STUDENT
IN THE CLASS WHO VOTED, I’M ASSUMING HE VOTED FOR TRUMP,
BUT IDENTIFIED AS CONSERVATIVE, ALTHOUGH HE WANTED TO KEEP HIS
IDENTITY HYPER MASKED [PHONETIC] SO THAT, SO AS NOT TO FIND
[INAUDIBLE] FROM THAT. SO, ANYWAY, SO HE POSTED THIS
VIDEO BECAUSE HE DIDN’T FEEL LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION
WAS WITH HIM. THAT’S WHY I SAID THERE WAS
OUTRAGE ON THOSE GUYS, RIGHT. SOME FOLKS CAME OUT AND SAID, “YOU SHOULD BE CAREFUL
WHAT YOU SAY,” RIGHT, “BECAUSE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE
EDUCATION, NOT INDOCTRINATION,” WHICH, I HAVE THAT IN
THE CART OVER HERE. LIKE I WOULD JUST SAY IT, “IF YOU WOULD ALL
JUST BELIEVE,” RIGHT. BUT EDUCATION, NOT
INDOCTRINATION. SO, THERE ARE PROTESTS AGAINST
HER, RIGHT, AND ALL SORTS OF VIOLENT THREATS AND WHATNOT. SHE WAS MOVED OUT OF STATE. I DON’T KNOW IF SHE’S
BACK OR NOT AT THIS POINT, BUT IT’S NO LONGER — AT
LEAST, THE LAST I CHECKED, IT WAS NO LONGER WRITTEN THERE. AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO
STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS WHO CAME OUT TO STAND AND SUPPORT
THIS WHOLE [INAUDIBLE] THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
TO SAY, EXPRESS HER KINDS OF THINGS IN A COLLEGE CLASSROOM AND THAT IT MIGHT MAKE
PEOPLE FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE. BUT ISN’T THAT PART
OF EDUCATION, FEELING JUST A LITTLE
BIT UNCOMFORTABLE, AND I DON’T JUST
MEAN THESE SEATS. SO, WE HAD, LIKE I WAS SAYING
BEFORE, LIKE IT REALLY HAS TO DO A LOT WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, RIGHT, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE
RIGHT TO EXPRESSION. AND SO, IT’S A REALLY HARD
THING WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT LIKE WHAT THE UNIVERSITY
HAS TO DO, LIKE WHAT KIND OF SPACE, WHAT KIND OF PLACE
DOES A UNIVERSITY NEED TO BE? BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR
EDUCATION TO HAPPEN, FOR YOU TO LEARN SOMETHING,
RIGHT, SO THIS WILL BE SORT OF THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT
OF EXPRESSION AS OPPOSED TO YOUR POLITICAL
ASPECTS OF EXPRESSION. AND SO WE HAVE TO CREATE THESE
SPACES WHERE PEOPLE CAN FEEL LIKE THEY ARE SAFE IN THESE
SPACES SO THAT THEY CAN LEARN BECAUSE WHEN YOU
FEEL ALL THE TIME LIKE THIS ISN’T A
SAFE PLACE FOR ME, THEN MAYBE THAT’S
NOT THE KIND OF PLACE WHERE YOU CAN LEARN, RIGHT. AND SO, SOMETIMES YOU MEAN,
LITERALLY; LIKE THINGS GET KIND OF TAMPED UP ON CAMPUS
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO FEEL LIKE YOU’RE SAFE IN
THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM SO THAT LEARNING
CAN HAPPEN, RIGHT. SO, IF YOU REMEMBER DOING,
RIGHT, BEING STAGED IS KIND OF AT THE BOTTOM
OF THAT PYRAMID. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT BEFORE
YOU CAN MOVE UP THE LADDER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THIS IDEATIONAL
EXPOSURE. THAT’S A BIG WORD FOR
SAYING; SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED WITH
IDEAS YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE OF OR MAY NOT LIKE. SO, HOW DO YOU KIND OF BALANCE
BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS, RIGHT? SO, WHAT’S THE HAPPY MEDIUM, AND HOW DO YOU GO
ABOUT FINDING THAT? BECAUSE REALLY, LIKE WHAT
HAPPENS IN RESPONSE TO A LOT OF THESE EVENTS ON CAMPUSES
IS THAT YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO GO ON THE INTERNET, AND THEY
CREATE MEMES, AND THEY HAVE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT SORTS
OF RESPONSES, RIGHT. SO, YOU HAVE HATE SPEECH
IS NOT FREE SPEECH. EVERY TIME HATE SPEECH IS
PERMITTED, IT COSTS SOMEONE PART OF HIS OR HERSELF, PART
OF THEIR SELF-RESPECT OR PART OF THEIR SANITY. IT RIPS PEOPLE TO SHREDS
AND DESTROYS SOCIETY, RIGHT. SO, WHAT’S THE BALANCE
BETWEEN SAFETY FOR PEOPLE AND OTHER PEOPLE’S RIGHT
TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES? YOU ALSO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE
FOR IT [PHONETIC] AND LIKE TO, WANT TO CREATE AND
PROTECT SAFE KINDS OF SPACES ON CAMPUS, RIGHT. BUT THEN, YOU ALSO
HAVE SAFE SPACE, RIGHT, NO IDEAS THAT WE DON’T LIKE. OR A WARNING THAT’S A PART OF FREE SPEECH NOT
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. SO, YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE
RESPONSES TO IT, RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY SEEM, AS WE TALK
ABOUT RHETORIC IN HERE, RIGHT, AND ACTIVE PERSUASION,
DOES IT SEEM LIKE PEOPLE ARE PERSUADING
OTHERS WITH THEIR IDEAS? MAYBE LESS SO. QUESTION IN THE BACK.>>YEAH. I HAVE A
QUESTION ALONG THE SCIENCE OF THE WORLD THAT’S SEPARATED
FROM THE RHETORIC QUESTION. I WAS READING AN ARTICLE, I
THINK IT WAS IN TIME RECENTLY, ABOUT THE WAY THAT GERMANY
RESTRICTED FREE SPEECH ON SWASTIKAS, HOW THEY BASICALLY COMPLETELY
MANDATE YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SWASTIKAS
ANYWHERE IN GERMAN EXCEPT FOR HISTORICAL MUSEUMS, AND THAT’S ACTUALLY VERY REALLY
SUCCESSFUL FOR THEM TO KIND OF GET OVER THE PAST
AND CREATE A MUCH MORE PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT. DO YOU THINK WE’RE EVER GOING
TO LIKE KIND OF REACH THAT POINT WHERE IT’S LIKE THIS
IS RESTRICTED BUT PEOPLE ARE OKAY
WITH IT HERE?>>I’M GOING TO GO WITH NO,
AND PART OF THE REASON IS BECAUSE IN THIS COUNTRY
THERE ARE TWO JUSTIFICATIONS, OR THERE’S PROBABLY
MORE, BUT TWO KIND OF PRIMARY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHY YOU SHOULD HAVE
THE RIGHT TO EXPRESSION. ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH A,
AND IS SOCIALLY PRODUCED, RIGHT, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
EXPRESSION BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE IDEAS TESTED OUT IN
THE WORLD SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT TOGETHER WHAT THE
BEST OPPORTUNITY IS. THIS SHOULD BE LIKE, OH
MY GOSH, [INAUDIBLE]. OH MY GOSH, THERE IS SO, RIGHT. THAT SHOULD BE RINGING
IN YOUR HEADS RIGHT NOW. IF IT’S NOT, THAT SHOULD
BE RINGING IN YOUR HEADS. SO, THE IDEA THAT WE
NEED TO HAVE EXPRESSION SO THAT WE CAN TEST
IDEAS, RIGHT, THAT’S THAT IDEATIONAL EXPOSURE. WE HAVE TO HAVE IDEAS OUT
THERE SO WE CAN TEST THEM AND THINK ABOUT THEM, RIGHT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND,
THERE’S ALSO THIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT
THAT REALLY, IN EFFECT, IS NOT ABOUT LIKE THE
COMMUNITY BUT IS MORE ABOUT I HAVE THE
RIGHT TO SAY SOMETHING BECAUSE I’M A PERSON,
AND I GET THAT RIGHT. SO, MAYBE YOU SEE THAT
MORE OFTEN ON LIKE FACEBOOK AND TWITTER, THINGS
ALONG THOSE LINES. LIKE I’M GOING TO SAY IT,
AND I’M GOING TO SAY IT BECAUSE I WANT TO SAY IT. IT’S MY RIGHT TO SAY IT. OFTENTIMES, THEY DON’T
THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE LIKE A BACKLASH TO THAT, RIGHT,
WHICH IS NOT REALLY A PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IF YOU DIDN’T GET
ARRESTED OR PUT IN JAIL, THEN YOU GOT YOUR
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. [ INAUDIBLE SPEAKER ]>>YEAH. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH,
YEAH, I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW. OKAY. I’M GOING TO
QUIT RIGHT AFTER THIS. YEAH.>>GOOD MORNING. [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION. I DID DO SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE]
NOT AS GOOD AT MY LIFE BUT WHEN WE’RE TALKING
ABOUT THOSE OTHER QUESTIONS, IS IT ALWAYS AMONG THE PUBLIC
SETTING [INAUDIBLE] KEEPING YOUR JOB ON YOUR CLASS [INAUDIBLE]
CULTURAL [INAUDIBLE]>>YEAH. IT ALSO
APPLIES TO THOSE. THERE’S LOTS OF CASES ON LIKE
WHETHER, AND IT HAS MORE TO DO, MOST OFTEN IN THE COURTS, IT HAS
MORE TO DO WITH RELIGION, RIGHT. SO, WHAT CLUBS CAN
AND CAN’T BE ON CAMPUS AND WHAT YOU CAN HAVE
[INAUDIBLE] RETURNS AT THAT. SO, WHAT, YEAH.>>I’M ACTUALLY FROM GERMANY, AND I THINK BECAUSE OF THEIR
PAST THAT’S HAPPENED THERE, EVEN NOW FOR SOCCER
GAMES, PEOPLE, IT’S VERY, LIKE WHEN THEY TAKE OUT
THEIR FLAGS, THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING, YOU
SHOULDN’T DO THAT. THAT’S NOT OKAY. AND BECAUSE THEY’RE
NOT PROUD OF IT, I THINK HERE IT WOULD
TAKE A LONG TIME BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE
REALLY [INAUDIBLE]. EVERY TIME I SEE THOSE
FLAGS, I’M LIKE, OH MY GOD, IN MY COUNTRY, THIS IS NOT OKAY.>>YEAH. I’M NOT OKAY WITH THIS. SO, SORT OF A CULTURAL SHAMING
THAT CONFORMS, LIKE MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT [INAUDIBLE]. BUT WE DON’T REALLY HAVE A
LOT [INAUDIBLE] BACK HERE, AND IT HAS TO BE [INAUDIBLE]. SO, WHAT AM I TO SAY, BUT
LIKE THAT WE MOVE ALONG. IF A LOT OF IT ENDS
UP HAPPENING, IT’S SORT OF IT STILL IS, IT’S
THIS CULTURE OR THIS POLITICS OF RESENTMENT THAT WHAT
WE END UP DOING IS, AND THIS IS ALONG THE LINES
OF WITH WHAT KIND OF HAPPENS ON FACEBOOK, OR ON TWITTER, RIGHT, BUT I DON’T KNOW
THE LAST TIME IT WAS THAT YOU SHARED SOMETHING
PERSONAL ABOUT YOURSELF, BUT I STOPPED DOING THAT, AND WHY I’M NOT ON
FACEBOOK NOW ALSO. BUT I STOPPED DOING THAT BECAUSE
ANY TIME YOU PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE, AND YOU
RISK THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU’RE JUST GOING TO
BE SMACKED DOWN FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING SMACKED DOWN, RIGHT. LIKE THERE’S A FUNCTION
OF TROLLS. SO, WHAT IT DOES IS IT JUST
CREATES SORT OF THIS RESENTMENT, RIGHT, AND WE DON’ WORK
THROUGH THINGS TOGETHER. WE DON’T REALLY TEST
THOSE IDEAS. IT’S ABOUT MY RIGHT TO PUT
WHAT I WANT OUT INTO THE WORLD. AND SO, WHAT I WOULD
LIKE TO SAY, AND THIS MIGHT SOUND
STRANGE COMING FROM A COMMUNICATION PROFESSOR,
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT I DON’T THINK THAT SOME
OF THE ANSWERS TO THIS LIES IN HARD COMMUNICATION, RIGHT. SO, THE ACLU WILL
SAY THAT THE RESPONSE TO HATE SPEECH SHOULD
BE MORE SPEECH, AND I DON’T THINK
THAT’S NECESSARILY TRUE. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEECH
OUT IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. I DON’T KNOW THAT
IT’S UNDOING ANY OF THIS POLITICS OF
RESENTMENT, RIGHT. I DON’T KNOW THAT IT’S
NECESSARILY MAKING OUR DEMOCRACY ANY HEALTHIER. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY
IS THAT IT PROBABLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT WE NEED
TO THINK ABOUT IN TERMS OF CREDIBILITY, RIGHT. SO, WE TALKED ABOUT
CREDIBILITY IN TERMS OF [INAUDIBLE] GOOD WILL AND
CHARACTER, AND IF WE’RE GOING TO TAKE SERIOUSLY WHY
PEOPLE NEED SAFE SPACES BECAUSE OF THE TRAUMAS THEY’VE
EXPERIENCED IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO THEIR
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE HERE, IF WE ARE GOING TO
TAKE SERIOUSLY THAT SOMEBODY DOESN’T FEEL LIKE THEIR POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
IS BEING GIVEN ITS DUE REPRESENTATION ON A COLLEGE
CAMPUS, IF WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THOSE THINGS
AND THINK ABOUT THE GOOD WILL THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE ON
CAMPUSES FROM PROFESSORS, FROM OUR ADMINISTRATIONS, AND
FROM OTHERS, THEN I DON’T KNOW THAT WE CAN REALLY
MEET ALL OF OUR GOALS, BUT THAT WE WOULD THINK MORE SO
ABOUT HOW WE CAN COMMUNICATE, NOT NECESSARILY JUST OUR
IDEAS, BUT THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT GOOD WILL IN MIND, THAT I WOULD THINK THAT I
COULD SIT DOWN WITH SOMEBODY AND ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN
THE IDEAS AS OPPOSED TO BEING CONFRONTED
WITH THOSE IDEAS. SO, IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT
MORE COMMUNICATION. IT’S ABOUT THE MEANS BY WHICH,
OR NOT JUST THE MEANS BY WHICH, IT’S ABOUT SORT OF
THE ETHICS THAT I TAKE FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS
SITUATION. SO, LIKE WHEN WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT PLATO AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NOBLE RHETORIC,
RIGHT, THAT WE MIGHT THINK THAT THE NOBLE RHETORICIAN
AND FAVORS IS SOMEBODY WHO IS THE LOVER, THE PERSON
WHO CARES ABOUT ME, RIGHT, WHO TAKES MY BEST INTEREST
IN MIND WHEN THEY’RE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION;
THAT’S MORE SO THE MODEL THAT WE SHOULD BE
THINKING ABOUT. SO, NOT MORE COMMUNICATION,
MORE GOOD WILL, AND WITH THAT WE’RE GOING TO
HAND IT OFF TO [INAUDIBLE]. [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]>>SO, THE QUESTIONS
WITHIN ARE VERY, VERY GOOD. IT’S PROBABLY LIMITING THE
QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ASK AT THE END TO BE ABLE TO
FIT WITHIN THE PROGRAM. BUT WE’LL MAKE SURE THAT
WE GET EIGHT MINUTES OR SO FROM OUR FOLLOWING TWO SPEAKERS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS
BARBARA KINGSLEY-WILSON. SHE EARNED HER BA IN JOURNALISM
FROM OHIO UNIVERSITY AND HER MA FROM OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY. I THINK THEY PREFER THE OHIO
STATE UNIVERSITY THESE DAYS. SHE HAS BEEN A JOURNALIST
FOR 20 YEARS, WRITING FOR NOTABLE NEWS
OUTLETS, INCLUDING USA TODAY. [INAUDIBLE] REGISTER AT
THE CLEVELAND CLAIM DEALER. SHE HAS WON AWARDS FROM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, ORANGE COUNTY PRESS CLUB,
AND CONTRIBUTED STORIES TO THE REGISTRAR’S PULITZER
PRIZE WINNING COVERAGE OF FERTILITY SCANDALS. SHE HAS ALSO COVERED
INTERNATIONAL STORIES, INCLUDING TIME SPENT
IN JORDAN AND ISRAEL. SHE SERVED AS PRESIDENT
OF THE COLLEGE, THE CALIFORNIA COLLEGE
MEDIA ASSOCIATION, AND IN 2016 WAS NAMED
EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR BY THE CALIFORNIA JOURNALISM
AND MEDIA AFFILIATES. SHE IS CURRENTLY ADVISOR TO THE AWARD WINNING DAILY
49ERS STUDENT NEWSPAPER HERE AT LONG BEACH STATE
AND CONTINUES WRITING FOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA NEWS GROUP; CO-WORKED FOR THE CENTER
[INAUDIBLE] WHO’S THINKING ABOUT ISSUES PERTAINING TO
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT. AND TODAY, SHE’LL BE SPEAKING
ABOUT ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES OF STUDENT EXPRESSION AND
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. WELCOME! [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? I, AS I JUST WAS SAYING, I
ADVISE THE DAILY 49ER NEWSPAPER AND JUST THIS WEEK
IN THE NEWSROOM, ONE OF THE EDITORS WAS TELLING
THE EDITOR OF THE WHOLE PAPER, MIRANDA ANDRE SAHA,
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY IS
WRITING A LETTER TO THE PAPER ABOUT A STORY THAT WE RAN THAT
WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT SHE DID, THAT SHE WASN’T
SUPPORTING ENOUGH THE SANCTUARY CITY, THE SANCTUARY
CAMPUS MOVEMENT. ANYWAY, AS HE EDITOR WAS
SAYING THAT TO THE EDITOR OF THE WHOLE PAPER, MIRANDA,
I SAW A SHADOW OF FEAR SORT OF CROSS HER FACE AS
SHE WAS BEING TOLD THAT MAYBE THE PRESIDENT’S
MAD AT US, WHICH WASN’T REALLY
WHAT WAS SAID BUT THAT WAS THE UNDERCURRENT. SHE WROTE A LETTER; SHE
WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS STORY. BUT I JUST SAW THE SHADOW,
YOU KNOW, CROSS, YOU KNOW, MIRANDA’S FACE, AND MIRANDA IS
KIND OF A BAD ASS, YOU KNOW. SHE WAS IN LAROSA SQE, MARCH
INTO BRATNING [PHONETIC] HALL, PROTESTING TUITION
INCREASES, PROTESTING TREATMENT OF UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS;
ALL SORTS OF THINGS. BUT THAT REMINDED
ME OF SOMETHING THAT I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT,
AND I’M SUPPOSED TO THINK, ACCORDING TO THIS, YOU KNOW, MY
COLLEAGUES AND I IN JOURNALISM, WE TRAIN JOURNALISTS TO EXERCISE
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND SO THAT IS SKILL BUILDING,
YOU KNOW, TRUTH TO POWER, EXPECTATIONS FOR
JOURNALISTS ARE WELL KNOWN. WE KNOW, AND WE PRACTICE THE
TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, PRACTICE, HELPS THEM DRAW THE MOST OF
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT METTLE. BUT THERE’S SOMETHING
ELSE TO THAT TOO. THERE ARE ALSO SUBTLE FORCES
AT WORK, AND I SEE THEM IN THE NEWSROOM ALL THE
TIME, AND THAT IS THE FORCES OF SELF-CENSORSHIP WHERE
STUDENTS ARE AFRAID TO ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE
THEY WON’T GET AN ANSWER BECAUSE THEY’RE SPEAKING
TO SOMEONE IN A SUIT, AND THEY DON’T THINK THEY’LL
GET THE ANSWER THEY WANT. THEY DON’T THINK THEY’LL
TELL THEM ANYTHING; THE PERSON SEEMS MEAN. THEY’RE, YOU KNOW,
THEY’RE DISMISSIVE OF THEM, AND SO THEY KIND OF CENSOR, THEY
KIND OF STOP THEIR QUESTIONS AT ITS CENSOR; IT SOMETIMES
BECOMES A FINE LINE. THERE WAS A STUDY RECENTLY,
VERY RECENTLY, BY TWO UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PROFESSORS THAT
STUDIED BOYS AND GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOL JOURNALISM, AND IT SAID THAT GIRLS ARE
FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE CENSORED AND TO SELF-CENSOR
THAN OUR BOYS. OUR JOURNALISM CLASSES ARE FULL
OF WOMEN, THESE PEOPLE WHO WENT ON FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO COLLEGE. SO, IT’S SOMETHING WE HAVE
TO KIND OF KEEP AN EYE ON. THEY DIDN’T, I TALKED TO
ONE OF THE RESEARCHERS; SHE DIDN’T REALLY
KNOW THE REASON WHY. IT WAS GENELLE BELMAS
FROM OUR UNIVERSITY, WHO WENT ON TO KANSAS. BUT THEY DID SAY THAT
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE GIRLS ASKED
WERE A LITTLE TOUGHER. THEY WERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
DRUGS, MAYBE, OR SOME ISSUES THAT HIGH SCHOOLS DIDN’T
WANT TO TALK ABOUT. NOW, I JUST WANT TO
BACK UP A SECOND AND SAY THAT AT OUR UNIVERSITY, A,
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THERE ARE GOOD PROTECTIONS FOR JOURNALISTS AND
ADVISORS LIKE ME. YOU CAN’T FIRE ME
BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT RUNS IN THE PAPER. YOU CAN’T SUPPRESS
STUDENTS’ SPEECH. IN THIS STATE, THERE ARE
REALLY GOOD PROTECTIONS. AND THE 49ER, AT LEAST IN MY
13 YEARS THERE, HAS NEVER RUN INTO A, THAT I KNOW OF, SOMEONE
TRYING TO STOP THEIR SPEECH, A PROFESSOR SAYING,
“DON’T RUN THAT,” OR SOME EDITOR BEING DISMISSED. THAT HAS HAPPENED
AT OTHER CAMPUSES. IT REALLY HAS. SOME SMALLER ONES IN PARTICULAR. BUT I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO SAY
IS THAT WE AS EDUCATORS HAVE TO TRAIN THE BASICS, AND THEY
ARE REALLY IMPORTANT, WRITING, PRODUCING, FACT CHECKING,
RESEARCH. DID I MENTION FACT CHECKING? FACT CHECKING, VERY BIG. BUT ALSO, THE REPORTING THAT
HELPS THEM ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS AND NOT CENSOR THEMSELVES;
QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATORS, QUESTIONS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
THEIR PARENTS’ AGE OR OLDER, AND THAT PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE
LAWS, PEOPLE THAT ARE IN CHARGE, PEOPLE THAT KIND OF GOVERN
THEIR FUTURES TOO; SOMETIMES, PROFESSORS; SOMETIMES,
PEOPLE LIKE ME. WE HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS AND
HELP THEM BE AWARE OF THAT, THAT FEAR, THAT SOMETHING
IN THEIR GROWING UP THAT MAKES THEM
AFRAID TO ASK, SO THEY CAN MORE
CONFIDENTLY WALK THAT LINE BETWEEN FEAR AND CONFIDENCE. I USED TO HAVE AN EDITOR WHO
HAD A THING ON HIS COMPUTER, FEAR AND ARROGANCE, AND IT
WAS EVERY REPORTER HAS THAT. YOU HAVE THE FEAR THAT
YOU GOT SOMETHING WRONG, AND YOU HAVE THE FEAR THAT, YOU
KNOW, YOU’LL SCREW SOMETHING UP. BUT THE ARROGANCE
SAYING, I KNOW THIS ISSUE. I’VE DONE THE RESEARCH. I CAN TALK TO THESE PEOPLE. THEY KNOW ME. I KNOW THEM. THEY KNOW I DON’T MESS AROUND. YOU HAVE TO WALK THAT
BALANCE ALL THE TIME AND KEEP THOSE FORCES IN CHECK. NOW, MIRANDA, I TALKED
TO HER AFTER, SHE, THEY’RE RUNNING THE
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT. SHE HAS QUESTIONED THE PRESIDENT
REPEATEDLY ABOUT OTHER ISSUES ON CAMPUS, INCLUDING A
CENSORSHIP ISSUE THAT CAME UP WHEN A PLAY WITH A VERY
PROVOCATIVE NAME WAS CANCELLED FOR, WELL, REASONS THAT
HAVE ABOUT A DISAGREEMENT OUT ON THIS CAMPUS, AND SHE
WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. AND I ASKED HER ABOUT THAT, WHAT I SAW IN HER BEHAVIOR
AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SHE GOES, “YOU KNOW,
IT’S A MIX OF THINGS. AUTHORITY BEING MAD, YES,
BUT ALSO THAT REPORTER’S FEAR OF DID I GET IT RIGHT,
DID WE SCREW UP?” YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING, THAT I’M IN MY 50S;
I STILL REPORT. I STILL GET THAT. IT DOESN’T STOP, BUT YOU
GET TO BE AWARE OF IT, AND YOU WEIGH IT MORE AND MORE
AS YOU GET MORE EXPERIENCE. SO, YOU KNOW, SHE
SAYS, YOU KNOW, I PUT ON MY REPORTER’S FACE. THESE KINDS OF FEELINGS
WON’T STOP ME FROM PUBLICIZING SOMETHING THAT
CRITICIZES THE ADMINISTRATION OR PROFESSORS OR PEOPLE
I EVEN GET GRADES FROM. BUT WE NEED, AS EDUCATORS,
TO NOT ONLY INFUSE THE BASICS BUT INFUSE THAT DAY-TO-DAY,
LINE-BY-LINE CONFIDENCE THAT, YES, YOU CAN ASK
THOSE QUESTIONS. THERE’S NO REASON THEY
SHOULDN’T ANSWER THEM. YES, YOU CAN GET THOSE RECORDS,
AND YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT IN, STARTING AT THIS KIND
OF, THIS SORT OF PALETTE THAT WE’RE WORKING ON ON THE
COLLEGE CAMPUS AND EXPAND THAT TO WHEN THEY
BECOME NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL REPORTERS
AND FULLY EXPAND THAT FIRST AMENDMENT METTLE, AND
THERE’S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT BECAUSE IT’S IMPORTANT. BUT THAT’S ALL I WANT TO SAY, AND I’M READY FOR
THE NEXT PERSON. [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]>>THE NEXT SPEAKER IS
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER KARADJOV. HE HAS SERVED AS A JOURNALIST IN
HIS NATIVE BULGARIA AT THE TIME WHEN THE BERLIN WALL FELL. HE COMPLETED HIS MASTER’S IN
JOURNALISM IN MASS COMMUNICATION IN SOPHIA UNIVERSITY
IN BULGARIA. HE WORKED FULL TIME IN
BULGARIA’S LARGEST TV AND MEDIA OUTLET, BECOMING A
SENIOR GOVERNMENT REPORTER. HE’S BEEN A RECIPIENT FROM WASHINGTON [INAUDIBLE]
FELLOWSHIP AS AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALIST
AND WORKED AS A REPORTER FOR THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. AFTER HIS FULL CAREER
AS A JOURNALIST, HE EARNED A DOCTORATE
IN MASS COMMUNICATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. BUT WITH DOCTORAL
STUDENT, HE CONTINUED AS A PART TIME CONTRIBUTOR FOR
BULGARIAN MEDIA BUT ALSO WORKING FOR INTERNATIONAL OUTLETS
SUCH AS BBCS WORLD SERVICE AND PRAGUE-BASED MAGAZINE
TRANSITIONS ONLINE. IN 2001, HE WAS APPOINTED
AS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM AT THE STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT [INAUDIBLE], AND HE JOINED
THE JOURNALISM DEPARTMENT BECAUSE HE HAS GOOD JUDGMENT,
AT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH, IN AUGUST 2005. HE TEACHES GLOBAL
NEWS MEDIA, REPORTING AND INFORMATION GATHERING,
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, MASS COMMUNICATION
RESEARCH METHODS, MASS COMMUNICATION THEORY,
AND CONTINUES THIS INVOLVEMENT WITH STUDYING EASTERN EUROPEAN
MEDIA, GIVES LECTURES, GRANTS, CONFIDENCE PAPERS,
AND PUBLICATIONS. PLEASE WELCOME PROFESSOR
KARADJOV. [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]>>THANK YOU, PROFESSOR JOHNSON. I THINK IT WAS MOSTLY BECAUSE
OF THE WEATHER, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE DETROIT COULD
BE, SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE LONG BEACH IS
VERY STRAIGHT [INAUDIBLE]. BUT AS THE TIME WENT
BY, I HAVE STARTED TO SPEND A LOT MORE
TIME INDOORS AND ONLINE. THIS IS ACTUALLY BECAUSE OF
THE RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA, AND JUST RECENTLY,
AROUND THE TIME OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE
CONCERT, LET’S SEE, AND ALL THAT WAS
GOING ON THIS SUMMER, I HAD A VERY INTERESTING
EXCHANGE ON THE TIMELINE OF A FRIEND OF MINE, OP ED,
WHERE I READ SOME FRIEND OF THIS FRIEND WRITING
ABOUT, WELL, HATE SPEECH AND ALL THESE VIBES OF OFFENSIVE
SPEECH SHOULD BE BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM FACEBOOK,
FROM OCCURRING ON FACEBOOK. AND YOU KNOW, PROFESSOR
[INAUDIBLE] MENTIONED THAT IN COUNTRIES LIKE
GERMANY, WE HAVE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT THE
USE OF SWASTIKA. IN FACT, TEN OR ELEVEN EUROPEAN
UNION COUNTRIES WOULD PUT YOU IN JAIL FOR JUST
DENYING THE HOLOCAUST. SO, THE ARTICLE IS THERE,
IT IS A LOT MORE DIFFERENT THAN IN THE UNITED STATES. WE DO NOT GET LARGELY
[INAUDIBLE] AND PROSECUTION FOR FREE SPEECH, AND
THE IDEA THAT SOME TYPE OF SPEECH MIGHT BE
BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM
WAS ALSO KIND OF INTERESTING. SO, I ENGAGED IN A
CONVERSATION, AS I SOMETIMES DO, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT, I
DON’T KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE, BUT I CANNOT RESTRAIN
MYSELF FROM EDUCATING PEOPLE AND GETTING INTO ALL THESE
KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS. AND WE STARTED, YOU
KNOW, TALKING BACK AND FORTH, AND I WROTE. THIS GUY, WELL, LISTEN,
THIS UNLIKE EUROPE, UNLIKE MANY OTHER
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRACIES
BECAUSE, OF COURSE, NORTH KOREA IS [INAUDIBLE]
WE CAN’ TALK OF FREE SPEECH. BUT TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRACIES,
OF THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, EVEN THE UNITED STATES,
THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA THAT ARE SET BY, NOT BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ITSELF, BUT BY THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT PROFESSOR JOHNSON
TALKED ABOUT. BY THE PRACTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT IS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INCITING
PRACTICE SPEECH, WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING
CALLED, YOU KNOW, [INAUDIBLE] PROFESS WHERE,
YOU KNOW, END OF 1960S, WHERE THIS KKK LEADER,
YOU KNOW, WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURTS,
AS THE COURT CAME DOWN WITH TWO-PRONG TEST
THAT BASICALLY REPORTERS THAT A POLITICAL
SPEECH TO BE PROHIBITED, IT FIRST OF ALL HAS
TO BE VERY SPECIFIC. SO, JUST SAYING SOMETHING
ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THIS NEO-NAZIS
WERE CHANTING IN CHARLOTTESVILLE WERE
JUST NOT THE PLACES. IT’S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH. HE HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW,
KILLED OR SOMETHING BIGGER. AND YES, YES, IT WOULD BE?>>ACCORDING TO THE COURT?>>AND IT HAS TO BE CREDIBLE. IF WE GET INTO AN
ARGUMENT AND I, YOU KNOW, I’M GOING TO KILL YOU; THAT’S
NOT VERY CREDIBLE, IN WAY. BUT IF HE WAS SAYING
LIKE HE WAS SAYING BEFORE ABOUT I HAVE A DOG TOO. BUT THE SAME PEOPLE IN
CHARLOTTESVILLE WERE, YOU KNOW, THERE’S A SYNAGOGUE AND
THE POINT, WELL, LET’S GO AND BURN THE SYNAGOGUE THING
BECAUSE IT’S [INAUDIBLE] UNDER THE [INAUDIBLE] TEST,
IT IS [INAUDIBLE], YOU KNOW, OR SOMETHING THAT CAN
BE PROHIBITED AND SO ON. AS I EXPLAINED ALL THIS VERY
REASONABLY, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT DID I KEEP ON, YOU
KNOW, PUSHING, SAID, NO, NOT ON HATE SPEECH, NOT ON
OFFENSIVE SPEECH IN A POST OR COMMENTS, OR WHATEVER, BUT ALSO FAKE NEWS SHOULD
BE BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. I’M LIKE, WOW, THAT IS
CLEARLY [INAUDIBLE]. SO, HOW DO YOU DEFINE FAKE
NEWS, AND I ENGAGE WITH YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ABOUT
[INAUDIBLE] AND THEN I REALIZED THAT, YOU
KNOW, HE IS CLEARLY [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, HE’S REALLY [INAUDIBLE]. DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WAS THAT THE
FRIEND OF MINE WHO’S [INAUDIBLE] ON HIS WALL, THIS WAS CAREFULLY
WROTE HERE BY A MESSAGE. HE SAID, BY THE WAY, SUCH
AND SUCH IS A JOURNALIST, AND HE’S A PRETTY
GOOD JOURNALIST. I SAID, “REALLY?” IN JOURNALIST SCHOOL FOR
ADVOCATES, FOR LESS SPEECH, THAT IS REALLY A NO
NO, RIGHT, [INAUDIBLE]. [ INAUDIBLE SPEAKER ]>>MOST JOURNALISTS BEEN PUSHING
FOR MORE SPEECH NOT LESS. BUT I LOOKED HIM UP, AND HE
WAS A [INAUDIBLE] JOURNALIST. SO, I TRY TO THINK ABOUT THIS,
AND JUST SHOWS HOW THE DEGREE OF EXASPERATION THAT EXISTS
AND THE DEGREE OF FRUSTRATION THAT YOU ALL FEEL NOT ABOUT NOT
JUST OFFENSIVE SPEECH BUT ALSO ABOUT FAKE NEWS, ABOUT ANYTHING
THAT IS REALLY, REALLY OFF, BUT YOU KNOW, FOR INDIRECT
ON SOCIAL MEDIA [INAUDIBLE]. THIS SAID, IT IS EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT AND UNLIKELY THAT THERE CAN BE OR WILL BE
ANY GOVERNMENT ACTION LIMITING OR PROHIBITING, YOU KNOW,
ACCESS TO SOCIAL MEDIA OR SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA. IT’S A VERY INTERESTING CASE THAT WAS JUST DECIDED THIS
SUMMER BY SUPREME COURT, CALLED TRACKING [INAUDIBLE]
VIA NORTH CAROLINA. IT IS ABOUT A GUY WHO WAS
PROBABLY LESS LIKELY ADVOCATE FOR FREE SPEECH,
LESS [INAUDIBLE] HIM, WHO WAS A CONVICTED
FELON, A SEXUAL OFFENDER, WHO HAD SEX WHEN HE
WAS IN HIS EARLY 20S WITH A 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL. HE WAS CONVICTED, YOU KNOW,
GOING TO JAIL FOR ONE YEAR OR SO; GETS RELEASED,
AND THEN, LO AND BEHOLD, SEVERAL YEARS LATER, HE
GETS A PARKING TICKET. WAIT! SO, HE GOES ON
FACEBOOK AND WRITES ABOUT HIS [INAUDIBLE]
PARKING TICKET, SOMETHING TO THE TUNE OF, WHAT
DID HE WRITE, PRAISE BE GOD. WOW, CAPITAL W-O-W. THAT’S HIS POST ABOUT
HIS PARKING TICKET; NOTHING ABOUT SEX WITH MINORS. HE JUST GET PENALTIES
[INAUDIBLE] WHATEVER, $47 PARKING TICKET. WELL, SOMEBODY REPORTS HIM
FOR THAT, AND THERE’S A LAW IN NORTH CAROLINA THAT IF
YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER, YOU CANNOT
HAVE CONTACT ONLINE WITH MINORS, BUT MOREOVER, YOU
CANNOT BE ON SOCIAL MEDIA WHERE MINORS ARE
SUPPOSEDLY AT, YOU KNOW. SO, THAT’S THE LAW
IN NORTH CAROLINA. HE GETS CONVICTED IN TRIAL. THE COURT THEN THE
NEXT LEVEL IS COURT. REVERSES THAT AMENDED IN NORTH
CAROLINA SUPREME COURT EARLIER STATES THE CONVICTION, SAYING
THAT “THIS IS BASICALLY THAT [INAUDIBLE]
CONDUCT, NOT SPEECH. SO, IF HE WAS ONLINE TO
WHATEVER, PREY ON MINORS WHO REALLY WILL APPRECIATE
HIM NOT GETTING TO PAY A PARKING
TICKET OR, I DON’T KNOW. BUT HE SAYS THAT THE DECISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT WAS THAT HE IS, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY PREYING ONLINE
ON THIS [INAUDIBLE]. SO, THIS GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE
SUPREME COURT, AND LAST SUMMER, SUMMER OF 2017, THE
SUPREME COURT COMES WITH A UNANIMOUS DECISION IN
FAVOR OF THIS, OF YOU KNOW, CONVICTED SEXUAL OFFENDER
PARKING [INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS WHY THE FIRST
TRULY IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT REGULATE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE MODERN INTERNET. THE TIME THAT IT WAS
DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY, JUSTICE GORSUCH DID NOT
TAKE PART IN THE DECISION, SO IT WAS BASICALLY 8 TO 0. IT’S A VERY STRONG [INAUDIBLE] OF THE SUPREME COURT
VIEWS ABOUT THE ISSUE. THE RATIONALE OF THE SUPREME
COURT NETWORKING [PHONETIC] IS WRITTEN BY JUSTICE KENNEDY
AND JUSTICE SCALIA, I THINK. SO, WAS THAT, THE NORTH CAROLINA
LAW WAS JUST WAY TOO BROAD THAT IT RESTRICTED ACCESS TO
WAY TOO MUCH OF THE MEDIA SPACE, THAT, YES, THE GOVERNMENT STATE
HAS THE RIGHT AND THE INTEREST TO PROHIBIT CONTACT, YOU
KNOW, BETWEEN SEX OFFENDERS AND THAT POTENTIAL BEGINS
[INAUDIBLE] ESPECIALLY MINORS, OF COURSE. BUT THAT THE WAY THAT
THE LAW HAS BEEN WRITTEN, IT IS JUST WAY TOO BROAD, AND
WHAT IF THIS PERSON REPOSTS, HE HAD A VIDEO ON
VIDEO TUBE CHANNEL? IS HE EVEN ALLOWED TO GET TOGETHER A YOUTUBE
CHANNEL UNDER THIS LAW? PROBABLY; PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE
HE’S NOT ALLOWED TO GLOAT ABOUT HIS PARKING TICKET. SO, THAT WAS ONE OF
THE FIRST REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT
DECISIONS, WHICH DOES NOT, WHICH PROHIBITS ESSENTIALLY THE
GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING YOU AND ME AND ALL OF YOU TO
BE RESTRICTED IN OUR ACCESS TO SOCIAL MEDIA, WHICH IS NOT
ME IN THAT FACEBOOK OR TWEETER OR ANY OF THOSE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS CANNOT PROHIBIT ANY OF US UNDER WHATEVER
RULES EXCEPT UNDER THE MOST BROAD
ANTIDISCRIMINATION RULE. SO, YOU CANNOT BE BLOCKING
ME FROM BEING ON FACEBOOK, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR RELIGION OR
GENDER OR, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER, OTHER CATEGORIES, BUT
YOU CAN BE PROHIBITED. SO, IF YOU EXHIBIT CERTAIN
[INAUDIBLE] PARTICULARLY FOR THAT FACEBOOK
[INAUDIBLE] THAT PLATFORM. IS IT FOR TWITTER? IS IT FOR INSTAGRAM? IS IT FOR ALL THIS
CERTAIN MEDIA? SO, YEAH, LET’S LOOK AT THE
LEGALIZED [INAUDIBLE] HOLIDAYS, DEVELOPING, THEY ARE VERY
INTERESTING, VERY CHALLENGING IF YOU ARE EITHER
SOMEBODY GOING TO THE MEDIA OR SOMEBODY INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
FOR THAT MATTER. IT’S, BY ALL MEANS,
EXTREMELY INTERESTING TO WATCH AND DISCUSS AND SEE
WHAT HAPPENS. [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]>>YES, LET ME CONCLUDE BY
THANKING YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT THEN, OF COURSE,
YOU’D RATHER HAVE TIME FOR THE QUESTIONS AT THE END. I’M GOING TO HANG
AROUND AFTERWARDS, BUT ASK ME QUESTIONS
OR TALK TO ME ON. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING TO THIS YEAR’S CONSTITUTION
DAY EVENT, AND I’M HOPING YOU’LL
COME NEXT YEAR. [ AUDIENCE APPLAUSE ]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *