>> DAVID: Coming Up: Social media, free speech and the public sphere.

As much of our public debate moves online, is big tech the new gatekeeper?

And are university speech policies curbing freedom of expression among students and faculty?

We'll take up those questions next, on "Connect NY."

>> David: Welcome to "Connect NY."

I'm David Chanatry, from Utica College.

In the hyper-polarized political atmosphere of America 2021, charges of censorship are routinely leveled-against big tech, against media and against our colleges and universities.

In the view of some, political correctness and fear of offending have replaced the truth discovered in the marketplace of ideas.

Misinformation spreads rapidly through today's social media channels.

What role should Big Tech play, if any, in policing content?

Who gets to decide what is or is not allowed?

Have our institutions of higher education allowed a fear of unpopular opinions to override an open and robust environment for speech?

We'll consider those questions, and more, with our guests.

Lata Nott, the First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum Robert Heverly, Associate Professor of law at Albany Law School Suzanne Nossel, the chief executive officer at PEN America And Elliot Lewis, Professor Practice at the Newhouse School of Public Communication at Syracuse University.

Thank you all for joining us.

1.)

Let's get right to Big Tech.

One thing that makes discussions of free speech and freedom of expression so different today than even just a few years ago is the role of Silicon Valley.

The social media companies are right in the middle of these debates.

Nobody's happy with Facebook.

Twitter was President Trump's vehicle to not just o-pine, but to communicate policy, and end-run the press.

When Trump was kicked off these platforms after the Capitol riot on January 6th, something called Section 230 became a target.

Robert Heverly •Can you give our audience a little primer •.

What is section 230, why was it in the law, and why is it in the bulls-eye right now >> SECTION 230 IS ARE PART OF A FEDERAL LAW THAT WAS PASSED AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREE SPEECH.

SECTION FERRION 230 WAS THE REACTION TO THE POTENTIAL OF ON-LINE FORUMS TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION PLACED ON THE ON-LINE FORUM BY A USER.

AND THERE WERE TWO EARLY CASES ONE CASE SAID NEWSSTANDS ARE NOT LIABLE WHEN A NEWSPAPER LIBEL'S SOMEBODY.

AND ANOTHER CASE CAME ALONG AND SAID WAIT A MINUTE THEY ARE NOODLING WITH THAT SPEECH THEY ARE MODERATING TAKING OUT INDECENT SPEECH AND CURSING AND NEIGHBORING IT FAMILY FRIENDLY.

NO NEWSSTAND HAS DONE THAT SO THEY PUBLIC A PUBLISHER.

AND CONGRESS SAID WAIT THAT SECOND GROUP WAS DOING WHAT WE WANT.

WE WANT THEM TO MAKE IT NICE AND FRIENDLY AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE THINGS SO WE ARE GOING TO I AM MY THEM FROM LIABILITY THAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE BE IMPOSED ON THEM IF WE CONSIDER THEM THE PUBLISHER OF SPEECH.

THE LAW SAYS THE ENTITIES ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OF A PUBLISHER OF SPEECH FOR THE PURPOSES OF LIABILITY.

AND THE DESIGN WAS AND THE THINGS THAT CONGRESS SAID IN THE LAW AND PURPOSES WERE THINGS LIKE TO INCREASE ROBUST INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPEECH.

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING THE ENTITIES TO BE ABLE TO GROW AND SCALE AND COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT THE FEAR THAT ONE OF 10 MILLION POSTS IN A SINGLE DAY HAS SOMETHING DEFAMATORY AND NOW THEY WILL BE LIABLE.

>> YOU USED THE PHRASE FRIENDLY INTERNET.

WHAT HAPPENS IF SECTION 230 IS REPEALED?

>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT COULD.

IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS TO PROTECT THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT NICE.

BUT HOW IT'S BEEN APPLIED BY THE COURTS HAS BEEN EXTREMELY BROAD AND IMMUNIZED ON-LINE SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR ALL KINDS OF THINGS EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT TAKING ACTION TO POLICE THEIR OWN INTERNET.

TO THE EXTENT ONE WEBSITE ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO SUBMIT RUMORS AND GOSSIP ABOUT PUBLIC FIGURES WHEN THEY ENCOURAGED THEM AND THE COMMENTS AND MADE SNIDE REMARKS AND SECTION 230 IMMUNIZED THAT WEBSITE FROM THE PERSON WHO DID THE DEFAMATION WAS THE ONE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE GOT SUED.

IF THIS IS TAKEN AWAY A FEW THINGS CAN HAPPEN.

THIS IS GUESSING.

WE COULD REVERT TO ALL ENTITIES DOING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE INITIAL CASE THAT LED TO SECTION 230 WHICH IS HANDS OFF.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOUCH ANYTHING.

WHATEVER COMES OUT COMES OUT.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC ISN'T HAPPY WITH THAT THEY WANT TO HOLD PLATFORMS RESPONSIBLE AND THEY WILL DO BOYCOTTS AND ATTACKS ON ON-LINE SPEECH.

THAT WOULD BE ONE OPTION.

THE OTHER OPTION THERE WILL BE A QUICK LIMITING OF SPEECH BECAUSE ON-LINE PLATFORMS WILL BE NERVOUS THEY WILL BE HELD LIABLE.

AS SOON AS IT'S REPORTED IT WILL BE REMOVED.

>> I SEE.

NOW, LATA NOTT, ONE ARGUMENT WE HEAR A LOT IS THAT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE CENSORING SPEECH AND WHEN HEARD THAT WHEN Facebook AND TWITTER TOOK DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNTS.

HOW CAN THEY DO THAT?

>> WELL, ARE ONE THING THAT IS COMMONLY MISUNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IT GUARANTEES OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH BUT IT PROTECTS US FROM HAVING OUR SPEECH PUNISHED OR CENSORED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS OR COMPANIES.

SO WHEN TWITTER TOOK DOWN NOW FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNT, WHEN Facebook BANNED HIS POSTS THAT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMPANIES DOING THIS.

AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR OWN FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DECIDE WHAT CONTENT AND WHAT NEWS THEY WANT ON THEIR PLATFORMS AND THAT IS THEIR FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

SO IT'S SOMETHING LIKE POLICIES OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TAKE THEIR CONTENT MODERATION STANDARDS WHO THEY CHOOSE TO BAN AND ALLOW ON THE PLATFORMS ALL OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH THESE ARE OUR PLATFORMS WHERE WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC CONVERSATIONS.

IT IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO THIS BUT IT TOUCHED UPON WHAT KIND OF CONVERSATION IN THE PUBLIC SPACE.

>> AND EVEN WITH FREE SPEECH ENSHRINED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROHIBIT THINGS IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO PROHIBITIONS THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON SPEECH?

>> YES.

EVEN WHEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN GOVERNMENT PUNISHMENT FOR CENSORSHIP THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.

YOU CAN STILL BE PUNISHED FOR ISSUING THREATS AGAINST SOMEONE'S LIFE OR PERSON AND CAN BE PUNISHED FOR INCITING OTHERS TO COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

THERE ARE DEFINITELY LIMITS.

>> MANY CONSERVATIVES FEEL THE PLATFORMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEIR POINTS OF VIEW.

THE COMPANIES MAY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO KEEP OPINIONS OFF, BUT IN TODAY'S DAY AND AGE AREN'T THEY EQUIVALENT OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE?

WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO USE THEM TO EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS, CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL OR WHATEVER?

>> AS LATA POINTED OUT, THE PLATFORMS ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

AND SO THEY ARE FREE TO ENGAGE IN ANY TYPE OF CENSORSHIP IF WE WANT TO USE THAT WORD THAT THEY CARE TO DO.

SO I THINK THERE IS A CONCERN, THOUGH, THAT AS WE ARE HAVING MORE AND MORE PUBLIC DISCOURSE ACROSS THESE PLATFORMS, ARE WE ESSENTIALLY PRIVATIZING THE FORUMS IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN A PUBLIC DEBATE?

AND IF THE PLACE WHERE WE'RE HAVING THESE DEBATES ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY IS ESSENTIALLY OCCURRING IN A PRIVATE SPACE AND WE HAVE PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO SENSOR THAT OR LIMIT THAT IN SOME WAY, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO DO TO OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE?

TO OUR DEBATES ABOUT REAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY IF THE PLATFORMS IF THE FORUMS WHERE WE'RE ENGAGING IN THAT DISCUSSION ARE NOT AND PUBLIC BUT PRIVATE?

>> I'M SORRY.

WAS SOMEBODY JUMPING IN THERE.

>> I WAS SAYING WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

THAT IS A QUESTION.

>> WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

I MEAN THAT'S I THINK THE CRUX OF THE MATTER, RIGHT?

IF OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE IS NOW IN A PRIVATE SPACE, SHOULD THERE BE SOME SORT OF ALLOWANCE CARVED OUT FOR THAT?

I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT WOULD BE I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO THE LAWYERS TO FIGURE OUT.

>> IF WE ARE GOING TO COMPARE WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW WITH THE ROLE THAT NEWSPAPERS HAVE TRADITIONALLY PLAYED WITH RESPECT TO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OR PUBLISHING OP-ED PIECES AS PUBLISHERS, NEWSPAPER EDITORS HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO SCREEN THE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, TO SCREEN OP-ED PIECES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE PUBLISHING FOR THINGS LIKE DEFAMATION AND SCREEN THINGS FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR I SHOULD SAY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON SPEECH UNLAWFUL SPEECH SUCH AS DEATH THREATS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

MAYBE THIS IS NOT AS SERIOUS A PROBLEM AS SOME PEOPLE ARE FORECASTING IT TO BE.

IF THESE PLATFORMS ARE SIMPLY GOING TO PLAY THE ROLE OF BEING AN EDITOR TO THE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SECTION THAT WE'VE TRADITIONALLY SEEN IN NEWSPAPERS.

>> BUT THE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO A NEWSPAPER COULD STACK UP ON YOUR DESK.

THE ON-LINE CONTENT WHATEVER IF YOU ARE TWITTER, THERE'S JUST UNLIMITED CONTENT IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO PULL THAT OFF I WOULD THINK LOGISTICALLY TO DO.

>> YES.

I THINK I AM OF A GENERATION THAT CAME INTO JOURNALISM BEFORE THE INTERNET WHEN PEOPLE WERE SAYING YOU KNOW WHAT?

WE DON'T WANT GATEKEEPERS.

WE DON'T WANT SOME JOURNALIST OR EDITOR GETTING IN THE WAY GETTING IN-BETWEEN THE MESSAGE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEND OUT.

WE WANT TO HAVE THESE MESSAGES GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC UNFILTERED.

THAT WAS THE SENTIMENT WHEN I FIRST CAME INTO THIS BUSINESS IN THE LATE 80s AND EARLY 90s.

NOW WE'RE SEEING WHAT THAT UNFILTERED SPEECH LOOKS LIKE.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT AS MUCH AS WE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO.

>> NOW, LET'S TURN TO SUZANNE NOSSEL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH OUR PANELISTS HERE.

THAT UNFILTERED DISCUSSION THERE IS A LOT OF PRETTY FREEWHEELING DISCUSSION ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, SUPER CHARGED OPINION OFTEN PERSONALLY DIRECTED, AND SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES PLEDGE TO POLICE IT BUT DOESN'T IT RUN COUNTER IN SOME FASHION TO THEIR OWN COMMERCIAL INTEREST?

THERE IS A TENSION THERE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

ONE OF THE AREAS OF FOCUS NOW THE DEBATE ABOUT SECTION 230 AND CONTENT MODERATION WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THE PLATFORMS WHAT POSTS SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN AND PEOPLE REALIZE IS THAT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE QUESTIONS ARE THESE ISSUES OF HOW CONTENT IS AMPLIFIED AND MAGNIFIED AND JET FUEL TO SPREAD ACROSS THE NETWORKS AND WE'VE SEEN THAT DISINFORMATION AND FALSEHOODINGS MOVE MORE QUICKLY THAN TRUTH.

AND THAT IS BECAUSE PARTICULARLY IN SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES OF PASSION THAT EXIST ON-LINE, PRIVATE Facebook GROUPS THAT UNITE PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN POLITICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS OR ASPECTS OF THEIR IDENTITY THAT BRING THEM TOGETHER THERE ARE POSTINGS AND INFORMATION THAT INVOKE A POWERFUL RESPONSE THINGS THAT PEOPLE THINK ARE OUTRAGEOUS OR OUTLANDISH OR THEY ARE OVERJOYED ABOUT BECAUSE THEY REENFORCE A CONTESTED BELIEF.

DONALD TRUMP HAD THE EFFECT ON SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS WHERE THE LATEST TWEET WERE PERM NATURE AS A FEROCIOUS PACE ACROSS THE GLOBE AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE PLATFORMS BENEFITED FROM THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT IS A COINCIDENCE THAT THE TIMING OF HIS EXIT FROM THE PLATFORM COINCIDED WITH HIM HAVING BEEN VOTED OUT OF OFFICE WHERE HIS POTENCY WAS ON THE CUSP OF DIMINISHING.

IT WAS NOT JUST THE PLATFORMS IT WAS NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL THAT BENEFITED FROM HIS INSEN AREA QUALITY AND THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT THINGS TO GRAPPLE WITH IS THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY HOW THE ALGORITHMS WORK.

WHY DOES SOMETHING TRAVEL SO FAR AND WIDE WHEREAS ANOTHER IDEA SEEMS TO SINK LIKE A STONE.

AND THAT'S THE PLATFORM SPECIAL SAUCE THAT IS WHAT THEY PROTECT MOST JEALOUSLY WAS IT IS ENTRY GRAL TO THEIR BUSINESS MODELS FROM A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE OR RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PENETRATE AND LAY BARE THIS LAYER AND YET UNTIL WE DO, I THINK WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF DIFFICULTY IN GETTING OUR ARMS AROUND SOME OF THE MOST SERIOUS HARMS THAT DERIVE FROM ON-LINE CONTENT.

>> SO THE ALGORITHMS THEMSELVES STOKE OUTRAGE THEY PROVOKE OUTRAGE, THEY PUSH OUTRAGE SOMETHING LIKE THE TWITTER TRENDING BOX FOR INSTANCE THAT PUSHES THAT IDEA OUT THERE AND THAT IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS?

THAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS FOR TWITTER OR Facebook OR WHOMEVER, YouTube?

>> YES.

LOOK THE ENGAGEMENT IN WHAT THEY ARE AFTER.

EYEBALLS AND THE STICKINESS OF THE PLATFORM HOW LONG PEOPLE SPEND ON THE PLATFORM.

SO THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE INCENTIVE THAT UNDER PINS THE PLATFORMS AND GETTING SOME OF THE MOST HARMFUL TYPES OF CONTENT UNDER CONTROL.

THAT SAID IT CAN BE DONE.

AND WE'VE SEEN FOR EXAMPLE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PANDEMIC, WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT HOAXES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND FALSE CURES WERE COSTING LIVES, THE PLATFORMS DID BECOME MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE IN SUPPRESSING THAT KIND OF SPEECH EVEN THOUGH IT DID DRIVEN GAUGE.

AND PEOPLE WERE INTRIGUED BY IT READY TO SHARE AND AMPLIFY ALL OF THIS QUACKERY IN RELATION TO COVID-19.

THE PLATFORMS INSTEAD INSURED THAT WHEN PEOPLE SEARCHED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORONAVIRUS THAT WHAT WOULD POP-UP WAS CREDIBLE SOURCES THE CDC, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND THAT WHEN MISINFORMATION WAS SHARED, IT BECAME A LOT HARDER TO FIND IT DIDN'T PROPAGATE AND PROMULGATE IF IT WAS DIRECTLY DANGEROUS THE PLATFORMS POLICED IT.

IF IT WAS REPORTED AND TOOK IT DOWN.

THAT IS SOME SIGNAL OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

I DO THINK IT IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED WHEN WE GET TO POLITICAL DISINFORMATION IT IS NOT AS BINARY AS HEALTH RELATED DISINFORMATION AND THERE WERE DISTRIBUTES ABOUT WHETHER SOME CLAIMS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FALSE OR NOT.

>> SO I WONDER, TOO, THAT I MEAN IF THEY HAVE INFORMATION WHICH IS CLEARLY FALSE ABOUT MEDICAL ISSUES AND PEOPLE BECOME SICK AND DIE FROM THAT, WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE THERE MIGHT BE LEGALLY VULNERABLE WOULD BE A GOOD REASON TO MAKE THEM WANT TO CLEAN UP THAT.

WHEREAS ON THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION NOT SO MUCH?

>> YEAH.

NO, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REALLY TENABLE THEORY OF LIABILITY TO BE HONEST THAT Facebook IS TO BLAME BECAUSE YOU SAW A HOAX THERE PUT FORWARD BY A USER AND THEY FAILED TO TAKE IT DOWN.

THERE ARE -- IN EUROPE THEY ARE EXPERIMENTING MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVELY WITH REGULATION THAT REQUIRES THE PLATFORMS TO POLICE CONTENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE HATE SPEECH LAW IN GERMANY THAT MANDATES IF CONTENT IS REPORTED TO THE PLATFORM, AND IT MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA AND THEY FAIL TO TAKE IT DOWN WITHIN A CERTAIN WINDOW OF TIME THEY MAY BE LIABLE.

THAT RULE DOES NOT EXIST HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN THE INSTANCE WHERE IT WAS A FALSE AND DANGEROUS CLAIM AND BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ONE OF THE PLATFORMS, AND THEY STILL REFUSED TO TAKE IT DOWN, PERHAPS THAT COULD BE A SCENARIO.

BUT UNDER SECTION 230 AND THE PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY TODAY, IT WOULDN'T BE.

>> NOW, ROBERT, THIS GETS US TO THE QUESTION AND YOU DID RAISE THIS QUESTION WITH WHETHER COMPANIES ARE PLATFORMS OR PUBLISHERS AND WHETHER REVOKING 230 WOULD INCREASE SPEECH OR REDUCE IT.

WHY WOULDN'T JACK DORSEY OR MARK ZUCKERBERG WOULD BAN IT ALL.

WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF COMMON CARRIERS?

JUSTICE THOMAS RECENTLY WROTE IN AN OPINION THAT HE RAISED THIS IDEA THAT PERHAPS THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES SHOULD BE COMMON CARRIERS.

>> YES.

SO THERE IS A WHOLE HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS GIVING QUASI PUBLIC NATURE TO PRIVATE ENTITIES.

WE'VE GOT THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT SAYS CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT IS CALLED STATE ACTION IN ORDER TO APPLY IT.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW TIMES WHEN THE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE OFF OF THAT.

AND SO IN ONE WELL-KNOWN EXAMPLE, MARSH AGAINST ALABAMA THE SUPREME COURT SAID WHERE A COMPANY OWNS A TOWN, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT TOWN THAT WORK FOR THE COMPANY HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS THEY CAN EXERCISE ON WHAT WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE TOWN AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID LOOK IT'S LIKE A REGULAR TOWN THEY TOOK OVER THE REGULAR TOWN JOBS AND THEY LOOK JUST LIKE ONE AND WE ARE GOING TO TREAT THEM LIKE ONE.

WHEN SAID WHEN CALIFORNIA UNDER ITS CONSTITUTION THAT SAID PEOPLE -- STATE CONSTITUTIONS HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS IN THERE AND SOMETIMES THEY ARE MORE ACTIVE THAN RESTRICTION.

THEY RECOGNIZE IS PROBABLY MORE ACCURATE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH RATHER THAN SAYING THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT INFRINGE YOUR RIGHT.

WHEN CALIFORNIA SAID BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS MORE ACTIVE RIGHT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO GO INTO A PUBLIC SHOPPING MALL AND PETITION AND GET PEOPLE TO SIGN THINGS.

AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY THEY CAN'T STOP YOU FROM DOING THAT.

THE SUPREME COURT SAID YEAH, THEY CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THIS IS SORT OF LIKE THE NEWTOWN SQUARE THAT WE HAVE WHERE PEOPLE ARE COMING TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF TRACTION YOU CAN GET IN SOME OF THE CASES.

BUT THE PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE CASES IS THE MEDIA COMPANIES THAT ARE DOING SOCIAL MEDIA NOW, YouTube AND TWITTER AND Facebook ARE MUCH MORE SPEECH ORIENTED.

AND WHEN SPEECH ORIENTED GROUPS WHO ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN SPEAKING AND ASSISTING PEOPLE IN SPEAKING, HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY NEED TO ALLOW MORE THAN JUST WHAT THEY CHOOSE, THE SUPREME COURT HASN'T BEEN PARTICULARLY ACCEPTING OF THAT.

IN MIAMI HERALD THEY TOLD NEWSPAPERS THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FORCE YOU IF YOU ENDORSE A CANDIDATE TO GIVE FREE SPACE TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE.

WHERE THEY HAVE DONE THAT THAT KIND OF THING IN RED LINE BROADCASTING CASE, THE SUPREME COURT SAID FOR BROADCASTERS, YOU CAN HAVE THIS NOTION THAT WHEN THEY PRESENT SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO BE THEY HAVE TO PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL CALLED A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WE DON'T HAVE IT ANYMORE.

THEY SAID THAT IS OK. >> YOU RAISE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

I WANTED TO BRING UP WITH ELLIOT MUCH OF THE CRITICISM OF BIG TECH HAS COME FROM THE RIGHT AND THERE IS A SENSE THAT SILICON VALLEY IS POPULATED BY LIBERALS AND THE LEFT HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF Facebook FOR ALLOWING MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION ON THE SITE.

AND FOR A LONGTIME, NOT EVEN ADMITTING THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE MIGHT BE A POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE FIX SOME THOUGHTFUL INTERVENTION THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO REGULATE MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR BROADCASTING AND I WAS PARTICULARLY WONDERING IF SOME REIMAGINED VERSION OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE MIGHT HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY?

>> WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED TO OVER THE AIR BROADCASTERS.

IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE WHO ARE TRANSMITTING THROUGH THE AIR AND THE SIGNAL IS PICKED UP BY AN ANTENNA THAT THE USER HAS IN THEIR HOME.

IT DID NOT APPLY TO CABLE.

IT DID NOT APPLY TO SATELLITE.

AND INCREASINGLY NOW, WE HAVE A GENERATION OF CONSUMERS THAT DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY.

THEY TURN ON THEIR TV AND THERE IT IS.

SO AND THE REASON THAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED TO OVER THE AIR BROADCASTERS WAS BECAUSE OF THIS IDEA OF SCARCITY.

THAT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH SPACE ON THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM, THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CHARGE OF AWARDING LICENSES TO THE STATIONS TO USE THAT ELECTROMAGNETIC TIM TO TRANSMIT THE CONTENT OVER THE AIR AND BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A ROOM ON THAT SPECTRUM, THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO REGULATE THAT IN A WAY IT DOES NOT REGULATE CONTENT ON CABLE OR SATELLITE OR OVER THE INTERNET.

BECAUSE WE HAVE WAY MORE OPTIONS THAN WHAT WE SEE THROUGH OVER THE AIR BROADCASTERS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD WORK WITH Facebook IF CONGRESS WERE TO TRY TO PASS SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT SEEMS TO ME YOU WOULD RUN HEAD ON INTO THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE OF BEING SCARCITY ON THE INTERNET AS WE DO WITH OVER THE AIR BROADCASTING.

>> THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, ISN'T GOING TO APPLY.

I WONDER WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER FIX.

AND I GUESS YOU HAVE TO RUN FOR OFFICE BEFORE YOU OFFER THAT ONE UP.

LET'S MOVE ON TO EDUCATION.

AND SPEECH IN EDUCATION AND WE'LL GO TO LATA.

BOTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND IN HIGHER ED THERE'S ISSUES INVOLVING SPEECH.

THE POLARIZATION OF THE REST OF AMERICA IS EVIDENT ON OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OFFENSIVE SPEECH ON CAMPUS AND OTHERS USUALLY CONSERVATIVE STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS COMPLAIN OF A CULTURE OF CENSORSHIP.

DO UNIVERSITIES NEED SOME SORT OF AF SPEECH CODE?

IS IT ONE OF THE POINTS OF EDUCATION TO ENCOUNTER DIFFERENT VIEWS AND DIFFERENT CULTURE CULTURES AND OPINIONS?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE LINES ABOUT THIS.

ON ONE HAND A COUPLE YEARS AGO PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER SAYING COLLEGES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SO I'M NEVER A FAN OF ORDERS THAT JUST LIKE LIKE PUBLIC COLLEGES DO NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

PRIVATE COLLEGES CAN SORT OF THEY HAVE MORE LEEWAY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS GENERALLY IT BEING THE FIRST AMENDMENT GENERALLY DOES NOT IMPACT IN THE SAME WAY.

WHEN IT COMES TO ENCOURAGING A CULTURE OF SPEECH ON CAMPUS AND ACCEPTING OTHER VIEWPOINTS THAT IS A GOOD PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION.

BUT THE WAY THAT I SOMETIMES HAVE SEEN THAT IMPLEMENTED IS THE STATES PASS LAWING REQUIRING COLLEGES TO PUNISH STUDENTS WHO PROTEST A CAMPUS SPEAKER AND THAT TO ME IS PASSED A LAW TO PUNISH SPEECH, PROTEST IS A FORM OF SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

YOU OFTEN SEE THAT THE CURE FOR WHAT IS SUPPOSED INTOLERANCE OF THE SPEECH IS TO PUNISH THAT SPEECH NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.

I THINK THAT IS NOT THAT JUST COMPOUNDS THE PROBLEM.

I THINK IT'S -- A LOT OF TIMES COLLEGE STUDENTS GET SINGLED OUT FOR BEING INTOLERANT OF DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.

I DON'T THINK IT IS A COLLEGE STUDENT PROBLEM I THINK IT IS A PROBLEM EVERYONE HAS.

NOBODY LIKES TO THINK THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS PEOPLE THAT THEY HATE BUT IT DOES.

WHEN IT COMES TO ENCOURAGING SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND ENCOURAGING ACCEPTANCE OF VIEWPOINTS, THERE IS A TACT TO TAKE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY IMPLEMENTING A NEW CODE OR A STATE PASSING A LAW TO PROTECT CAMPUS SPEECH.

I THINK IT'S IN OUR EDUCATION STARTING WITH HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION.

THERE IS NOT ALWAYS AN EMPHASIS ON WHY WE HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

A LOT OF TIMES WE TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREE SPEECH IT'S GREAT TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF AND IT ABSOLUTELY IS.

BUT WE DON'T ABOUT HOW IT'S INVISIBLE AND ONE PERSON'S RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE'S RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY AND EVEN IF I HATE YOU AND DISAGREE IF I TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM YOU THAT RIGHT WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM ME.

IF WE EMPHASIZE MORE AND TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IT MIGHT HELP IN THE DEBATES ON CAMPUS SPEECH.

>> AND I WONDER, IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH NOT -- IF THERE IS A CODE AND MANY PLACES HAVE CODES, NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF AND SORT OF FEAR OF THAT, BECOMES DETRIMENTAL TO THE FLOW OF IDEAS AND EDUCATION.

I MEAN THERE MUST BE A LINE SOMEWHERE THAT -- >> THERE IS.

THAT IS CALLED THE CHILLING EFFECT.

WHEN YOU ARE AFRAID TO SPEAK BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU MAYBE PUNISHED FOR YOUR SPEECH.

YOU ARE NOT SURE.

AND THAT IS WHY THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAID THAT LAWS THAT AFFECT SPEECH THAT ARE OVERLY BROAD OR FAKE THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IF FOR INSTANCE A LONGTIME AGO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HAD A SPEECH CODE THAT SAID SOMETHING LIKE YOU CANNOT SAY THINGS THAT WOULD BE OFFENSIVE TO OTHER STUDENTS AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU SAID SOMETHING WHETHER WHAT YOU SAY IS GOING TO BE OFFENSIVE TO THIS OTHER STUDENT.

AND ALSO MANY OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD SAY COULD BE OFFENSIVE BUT THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE THINGS THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND IT'S OVERLY BROAD AND VAGUE AND DETERMINE IN ADVANCE.

AND I FOUND THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN IS A PUBLIC COLLEGE IT IS A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION FOUND TO BE SPEECH CODE THAT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

A LOT OF PUBLIC COLLEGES SPEECH CODES ARE OFTEN IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

BECAUSE WHAT YOU SAID, IF YOU ARE DETOURED FROM SPEAKING BECAUSE OF A LAW THAT IS IN PLACE THAT IS A FREE SPEECH PROBLEM AND SOMETHING THAT CAN KEEP IDEAS FROM BEING EXPRESSED.

ANYTHING THAT HAS A CHILLING EFFECT WE LOOK ON WITH SUSPICION.

>> LET'S LOOK AT THE TENSION BETWEEN SPEECH CODES AND CONTROVERSIAL VIEWS ON CAMPUS.

A GROUP CALLED THE FOUNDATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION RANKED SCHOOLS WHETHER STUDENTS WERE COMFORTABLE EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS.

OF THE 55 COLLEGES EVALUATED THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY RANKED POORLY AT NUMBER 51.

>> CURRENTLY A THIRD YEAR PH.D. STUDENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY.

I'VE SEEN TERMS OF FREE SPEECH ISSUES.

ON A PERSONAL LEVEL WHETHER I'M TEACHING I DO FEEL LIKE I CAN TALK ABOUT ISSUES AND THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN ISSUES IF THEY GOT TO A CERTAIN ORGANIZATION ON CAMPUS OR HEARD BY SOMEONE LIKE IN THE SENSE OF TALKING ABOUT OCCUPIED PALESTINE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD GET ATTACKED FOR ON CAMPUS AND I'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN TO ME IN THE PAST.

>> FREE SPEECH IS IMPORTANT ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A BROAD POPULATION OF PEOPLE.

AND A MISSION OF A UNIVERSITY AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS TO EXPLORE IDEAS AND TO CHALLENGE NORMS AND TO REALLY BE A AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN EXPLORE AND CHALLENGE, CHALLENGE EACH OTHER INTELLECTUALLY.

>> WE CAME UP WITH A RANKING SYSTEM THAT BASED ON STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE SURVEYS, AND THE SCHOOLS RATING WE RANKED THE SCHOOLS AND SYRACUSE WAS 51ST OVERALL OUT OF 55.

THEY WERE 45TH ON OPENNESS, LAST ON TOLERANCE FOR CONTROVERSIAL SPEAKERS.

53rd ON THE ADMINISTRATION PERCEPTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

61% OF STUDENTS SAY THEY FELT CENSORED ON CAMPUS.

>> SYRACUSE THERE IS A WIDE DIVERSITY OF CASES OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY THAT THE UNIVERSITY CENSORED AND PUNISHED OVER THE YEARS FOR EXPRESSING THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

WE SEE A LOT OF CASES AT SYRACUSE ABOUT FACULTY AND STUDENTS BEING PUNISHED FOR WHAT IT IT APPEARS TO BE A LARGELY CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR CRITICAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OR EXPRESSION NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THAT IS A PROBLEM AT SYRACUSE WHICH AFFECTS FREE SPEECH AND LURES THEM IN WITH COMMITMENTS TO FREE SPEECH AND TURNS AROUND AND PUNISHING THEM OR CENSORS THEM.

>> I CANNOT SPEAK WITH SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY BUT I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICIES AND SU LIKE EVERY OTHER COLLEGE IN THE COUNTRY, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC HAS A POLICY THAT SUPPORTS FREE SPEECH AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND THOSE VALUES THAT ARE CORE VALUES TO FREE EXPRESSION AND FREE SPEECH AND TO A UNIVERSITY'S MISSION.

AT THE SAME TIME, UNIVERSITIES ARE ALSO BOUND BY CODES OF STUDENT CONDUCT BUT HAVE SOME PRETTY VAGUE STANDARDS IN SOME SITUATIONS AND AGAIN I'M SPEAKING GENERALLY THAT CAN ENVELOPE AND CAN TOUCH ON AND CAN CONFLICT WITH THE BROAD SPHRE SPEECH CALLS AND WE SEE THAT TENSION AT COLLEGE CAMPUSES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

>> WHEN IT COMES TO CASES THE CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR THE ALLEGATIONS HE WAS ENGAGED IN HATE SPEECH IT WAS HARASSMENT, BUT THE EXPRESSION ISSUE WAS A VERY SHORT FOUR OR FIVE WORD PHASE SAYING THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY VIRUS.

>> THE CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR THAT STEPPED OVER THE LINE I THINK IT IS A CLEAR ACT OF RACIST HATE SPEECH AND THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THAT DISCOURSE OF WUHAN VIRUS OR CHINA VIRUS OR CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY VIRUS IS DIRECTED TO THE INTEREST INCIDENTS OF HATE ON CAMPUS.

>> FOR 200 YEARS SINCE WE HAVE HAD THE FIRST AMENDMENT COURTS AND LEGISLATORS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE LINE IS WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTED SPEECH VERSUS PUNISHMENT FOR SPEECH.

AND IT IS AN UNDEFINED LINE.

THERE ARE FIRM AREAS THAT ARE OFF LIMITS UNPROTECTED.

THINGS LIKE OBSCENITY.

THINGS LIKE DEFAMATION IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND SPEECH THAT IS GOING TO GENERATE AN INSTANT VIOLENT REACTION, VIOLENT OUTCOME THAT IS THE LINE.

AND THAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE LINE.

WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PEACE AND PROTECT CITIZENS.

BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LET PEOPLE VENT OR LET PEOPLE EXPRESS THEMSELVES EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OF US DON'T AGREE WITH IT.

>> I KIND OF WORKED AS A COUNTER WEIGHT TO THAT.

WE HAD A PRESS REESE LEASE AND MEDIA TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE SCHOOLS TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND PROTECT HIS RIGHTS PUTTING THAT PRESSURE ON WORKING WITH THE UNIVERSITY AND PROFESSORS BUILDING UP HIS CASE IN THE MEDIA AND THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY WE WERE ABLE TO EVENTUALLY REVERSE THE PUNISHMENT AND GET HIM BACK IN THE CLASSROOM.

>> A HUGE DISCONNECT IT SHOWS WITHOUT PRESSURE WE KNOW STUDENTS ARE NOT ON CAMPUS, THEY ARE NOT OCCUPYING THE BUILDING THEY ARE NOT I THINK WITHOUT THAT PRESSURE WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT GOING TO MAKE REAL CONCRETE CHANGES FOR STUDENTS ON CAMPUS.

>> WITH THE LARGE DIVERSE POPULATIONS, THERE'S GOING TO BE TENSION.

THAT IS INEVITABLE IN ANY DEBATE.

WHETHER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY OR SPORTS OR THE WEATHER.

PEOPLE DEBATE.

AND PEOPLE BRING DIFFERENT THINGS TO THOSE DEBATES.

AND COLLEGE CAMPUS, AGAIN, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR SYRACUSE BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE BRINGING A LOT OF DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS.

AND IF YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL THINGS ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THEM?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM NARROW THE HARASSMENT POLICY TO CONFORM TO LEGAL STANDARDS, IT HAS TO BE SEVERE AND MERELY OFFENSIVE SPEECH HAD HAS TO BE MORE THAN THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM CLARIFY THAT STUDENTS WILL NOT BE PUNISHED FOR WHAT IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

AND THE UNIVERSITY WOULD LIKE TO BECOME A BETTER PLACE FOR FREE SPEECH IT SHOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT FREE SPEECH IS PROTECTED ON CAMPUS.

>> IN TERMS OF WHAT I HOPE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE OF WHAT SU IS DOING WITH FREE SPEECH IS OPENING UP THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE STUDENTS AND WORKERS ON CAMPUS TO HAVE THEM DECIDE WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IF THEY DO THAT STRUCTURING WHAT IS ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED IN TERMS OF HATE SPEECH WE WOULD SEE REAL CHANGE ON CAMPUS.

>> AN OFFICIAL FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COULD NOT BE REACHED FOR COMMENT.

SPEECH CODES ARE NOT NEW.

WE HAVE HEARD THAT.

THEY HAVE BEEN LITIGATED PREVIOUSLY.

SUZANNE I'M WONDERING WHETHER THEY MAY SUPER CHARGE DIFFERENCES INSTEAD OF WORKING TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING.

DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHT ON THAT?

>> YES, I THINK THERE IS THAT PROPENSITY.

THE INTERVENTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO POLICE SPEECH, TO DESIGNATE WHAT SPEECH FALLS OUTSIDE OF BOUNDS.

THEY HAVE A TENDENCY I THINK TO FOSTER CONFLICT OVER WHERE EXACTLY THE RED LINES STAND, WHETHER THE INTENT AND CONTEXT OF SPEECH IS ADEQUATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

SO I THINK THE BETTER APPROACH IS TO TRY TO INSTILL A CULTURE OF RESPECT FOR DIFFERENCES OF AVOIDING INADD VER AT THE PRESENT TIME OFFENSE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS WITH SPEECH BUT PROTECTION FOR UNPOPULAR IDEAS AND CONTROVERSIAL VIEWPOINTS.

AND AT PENN AMERICA THE ORGANIZATION I RUN WE HAVE DEVOTED A LOT OF ENERGY TO PUTTING FORWARD HOW THIS CAN BE DONE HOW UNIVERSITIES CAN WELCOME SPEAKERS TO CAMPUS WHO RECONFLICT A WIDE RANGE OF POLITICAL VIEWS.

HOW THEY CAN STAND UP FOR STUDENTS WHO TAKE THE RISK OF ADOPTING UNORTHODOX POSITION OR CONTESTING THE PREVAILING VIEW POLITICAL VIEWS OF OTHER STUDENTS ON CAMPUS.

AND I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR OUR ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP TO TAKE THAT ON AS PART OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE RUN A CAMPUS THAT IS TRULY WELCOME BOTH TO ALL PEOPLE AND TO ALL IDEAS.

I WOULD ALSO SAY, I THINK THE ISSUES ARE LINKED WITH THE DEBATES WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW OVER EQUITY AND INCLUSIVENESS ON CAMPUS WHO FEELS A SENSE OF BELONGING, WHO FEELS EXCLUDED, WHO FEELS THEY HAVE A VOICE IN THE CLASSROOM AND IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND IN THE EXTRACURRICULAR REALM VERSUS WHO FEELS MARGINALIZED AND UNHEARD.

AND WHAT I THINK STUDENTS ARE LOOKING FOR IS TO SEE THEIR CAMPUSES TAKING ON AN ASSERTIVE EFFORT TO BREAKDOWN BARRIERS OF EXCLUSION.

TO INSURE THAT ALL STUDENTS REGARDLESS OF BACKGROUND HAVE THEIR PLACE AT THE UNIVERSITY THAT THEY SEE THEMSELVES REFLECTED IN THE FACULTY AND IN THE LEADERSHIP AND THAT IN SO DOING THE CAMPUSES CAN MAKE THEMSELVES MORE HOSPITABLE ENVIRONMENTS WHERE PEOPLE ARE SITUATED TO TOLERATE SPEECH THAT MIGHT UPSET THEM.

>> IF YOU DO ONE THAT MAY HELP WITH THE OTHER IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

IF STUDENTS HAVE THEIR VOICE AND THEIR VOICE IS RESPECTED, WE DO HEAR THAT FREQUENTLY, ON MY OWN CAMPUS, TOO, PEOPLE WANT TO BE HEARD FEEL LIKE THEY ARE NOT BEING HEARD.

BUT IF THEY ARE BEING HEARD, YOU THINK THAT WILL LEAD TO MORE OPENNESS TO OTHER OPINIONS?

>> I THINK THERE IS A SORT OF BASELINE LEVEL OF BEING COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO BE MADE UNCOMFORTABLE.

AND WE'VE SEEN THIS SPECIFIC CAMPUSES WHERE THERE ARE VERY SMALL POPULATIONS FOR EXAMPLE OF BLACK STUDENTS.

AND THEY DON'T FEEL WELL INTEGRATED I THINK THEIR READINESS TO TOLERATE A SPEAKER THAT MAY SEEM AMENABLE TO THEIR OWN IDENTITY OR TO THE CAUSE OF RACIAL JUSTICE IS LESSENED.

WHEREAS CAMPUSES THAT ARE DIVERSE AND THAT HAVE BEEN FORTHRIGHT IN ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO RACIAL EQUALITY, I THINK THERE CAN BE OVER TIME A GREATER OPENNESS.

WE ARE IN A MOMENT OF RECKONING NOW WHERE THE ISSUES ARE HOTLY CONTESTED AND WE'VE ALSO COME OUT OF A PERIOD WITH THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY WHERE I THINK THERE WAS A SENSE THAT HATEFUL SPEECH HAD BEEN UNCORKED THROUGHOUT SOCIETY.

FLOWED FREELY AND BE LEGITIMIZED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

AND THAT INTENSIFIED THE IMPULSE OF MANY PEOPLE TO POLICE SPEECH IN THE SPACES THAT THEY COULD CONTROL.

TRUMP WAS GOING TO BE SAYING HORRIBLE THINGS ABOUT IMMIGRANTS OR MUSLIMS OR BLACK AMERICANS THEN UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP WANTED TO GO THE EXTRA MILE TO INSURE THAT STUDENTS DID NOT FEEL SIMILARLY MEN ASSED ON CAMP -- MENACED ON CAMPUS AND IT WENT TOO FAR BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHERE IT DERIVED FROM.

MY HOPE IS THAT WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT POLITICAL MOMENT NOW WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE IS PLAYING A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE AND THAT THAT CAN EASE SOME OF THOSE INSTINCTS TO JUST PROTECT THE VULNERABLE EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF SPEECH.

>> THIS QUESTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND EDUCATION, ALSO COMES TOGETHER IN HIGH SCHOOLS OR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

AND ROB, I KNOW THIS GETS COMPLICATED, BUT WHAT CAN A STUDENT DO?

A STUDENT CAN BE DISCIPLINED, RIGHT, FOR SPEECH OR SOMETHING THEY SAY OR DO IF THEY ARE IN SCHOOL.

BUT WHAT ABOUT IF THEY ARE AT HOME OR OFF SCHOOL PREMISES AND THEY DO SOMETHING STUPID ON INSTAGRAM OR WHATEVER THE PLATFORM OF THE DAY IS.

THIS IS BECOMING AN ISSUE AS WELL?

>> YES.

AND IT'S COMPLICATED AS WELL BECAUSE IN THE POST COLLEGE DAYS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, JUNIOR HIGHS, HIGH SCHOOLS HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER THE SPEECH OF THEIR STUDENTS THEY CAN IMPOSE MORE RESTRICTIONS.

ANYTHING THAT INTERFERES WITH THE EDUCATIONAL MISSION OF THE SCHOOL.

AND SO WE SAW IN ONE OF THE HEADLINES IN THE PIECE THAT WE WATCHED, THAT THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY STOPPED THE STUDENT TELEVISION STATION FROM DOING SOMETHING AND THAT IS A BIG DEAL.

STUDENT TELEVISION STATEMENTS ARE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SPREADING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT WINGS IT IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE IN HIGH SCHOOLS AND LOWER SCHOOLINGS FOR THE PRINCIPAL NOT ALLOW STORIES TO BE IN THE PAPER.

THEY ARE LEARNING WHAT TO DO.

THEY DON'T YET HAVE THEIR WINGS STRONG ENOUGH TO SPREAD.

WHEN COMBINE THAT WITH THE FACT THAT SOME THINGS CAN HAPPEN OUT OF SCHOOL BUT CAN BE TIED TO SCHOOL MAYBE A POST IN A CLASSROOM, CHATROOM LEFT ON UNINTENTIONALLY BY A TEACHER AND THE STUDENTS COOPT IT AT NIGHT OR MAYBE ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.

THERE'S SPACE FOR THE SCHOOL TO BECOME INVOLVED WHEN IT INTERFERES ARE THE EDUCATIONAL MISSION.

RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH FOR ADULTS IN ADULT FORUMS ARE NOT THE SAME FOR THAT LEVEL OF EDUCATION.

SO THEY CAN'T SAY A MUCH TO BE BLUNT ABOUT IT.

>> AND I THINK THERE IS A CASE POSSIBLY EVEN IN FRONT OF THE COURT NOW INVOLVING A CHEERLEADER, DISAPPOINTED CHEERLEADER WHO SAID SOMETHING ON INSTAGRAM AND IT GOT BACK TO THE SCHOOL.

AND I'M NOT SURE I RAISE IT BUT I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE DECIDED YET.

I WILL LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE.

BUT LATA, I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU.

BECAUSE WE ARE IN AN ERA IN WHICH NOT ONLY THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE UNDER PRESSURE BUT THE PRESS IS UNDER PRESSURE, TOO.

PEOPLE DO NOT TRUST THE POLITICAL PRESS.

WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTACK ON THE PRESS' FAKE NEWS THE INTENSITY RATCHETED UP.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE LIBEL LAWS.

CAN YOU GIVE US THE STATE OF PLAY ON THAT?

>> WELL, THE THING ABOUT TAKING A LOOK AT THE LIBEL LAWS EACH STATE HAS ITS OWN LIBEL LAWS.

IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ONE PERSON TO REFORM ALL OF THAT ALL AT ONCE.

THERE IS SOME -- THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR PROVING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN LIBELED BY A PERSON OR THE PRESS.

IT IS MUCH HARDER FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE TO PROVE THEY HAVE BEEN LIBEL THAN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE PRESS IS TO REPORT ON THE POWERFUL PUBLIC FIGURES ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON THEIR WORK THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS LOOKED ON AGAIN.

SOME OF THAT HAS COME UNDER FIRE RECENTLY.

I BELIEVE JUSTICE THOMAS WROTE IN DISSENT SOMETIME AGO THAT PERHAPS STANDARD THAT SHOULD BE REEVALUATED.

AND I THINK OF IT AS A PROTECTION THAT THE PRESS HAS TO EN QUANG IN REPORTING THERE ARE -- THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS AS TO WHEN SOMEBODY BECOMES A PUBLIC FIGURE AND WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO THAT FURTHER TO PROVE THERE'S BEEN SOMETHING DEFAMATORY SAID ABOUT THEM.

>> ELLIOT LET'S TURN TO YOU.

BECAUSE YOU TEACH COMMUNICATION LAW AND YOU ARE A FORMER REPORTER.

SO DOES THE ACTUAL STANDARD IN THE SULLIVAN CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST PUBLIC FIGURES, DOES THAT REALLY GIVE YOU AS A REPORTER THAT FREEDOM THAT YOU NEED TO DO THE JOB?

>> I WOULD SAY GENERALLY, YES.

THAT IT DOES REQUIRE THIS HIGHER STANDARD FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO WIN A DEFAMATION CASE THAN DOES A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

I THINK AS LATA WAS POINTING OUT, THE CONTROVERSY IS HOW DO YOU DEFINE WHAT IS A PUBLIC FIGURE?

AND SO THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REEXAMINING THE LIBEL LAWS IS SHOULD THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION BE OVERTURNED SO THAT A PUBLIC FIGURE WOULD SIMPLY HAVE TO MEET THE SAME STANDARD AS ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN WOULD WHEN SUING FOR DEFAMATION.

SO I THINK THAT IS A DEBATE WORTHY OF HAVING.

BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH WHEN SOMEONE RISES TO THE LEVEL OF BECOMING A PUBLIC FIGURE.

CERTAINLY, PUBLIC OFFICIALS ELECTED OFFICIALS FALL INTO ONE CATEGORY.

AND THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS SO THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THEIR GOVERNMENT.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POLICE OFFICER, RIGHT, NOT THE POLICE CHIEF OR THE MAYOR OR THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POLICE OFFICER ON THE BEAT?

WHAT ABOUT THE CITY CLERK?

DOES THAT PERSON RISE TO THE LEVEL OF BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC FIGURE WHO WOULD HAVE TO MEET THIS HIGHER STANDARD IF SOMETHING FALSE IS WRITTEN OR SAID ABOUT THEM.

I THINK THAT'S WORTH HAVING A DEBATE ABOUT.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE FREEDOM TO BE ABLE TO REPORT ON AND CRITICIZE ELECTED OFFICIALS DOES THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW ALLOW ME AS A JOURNALIST THE FREEDOM THAT I THINK I NEED?

I THINK IT DOES.

>> SO AND YOU ARE MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND A PUBLIC FIGURE.

AND WHAT ABOUT A PUBLIC OR A WELL-KNOWN BUSINESSMAN LET'S SAY?

OR YOU KNOW, TEACHER OR COACH OR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT IN ANYWAY, THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THIS AS WELL?

>> WELL, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ARTICULATED THAT WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS BUT THEY HAVE PLACED THEMSELVES IN TO A MATTER OF PUBLIC DEBATE, THE LAW CLASSIFIES THEM AS LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURES.

SO IF THEY WERE GOING TO SUE SOMEONE FOR DEFAMATION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE HIGHER STANDARD THAT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WOULD ONLY IF THE DEFAMATION IS OCCURRING IN AN ARENA THAT THEY HAVE INJECTED THEMSELVES INTO.

OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE FIGURES, PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE LOWER STANDARD.

>> AND NOW, THE CRITICISM FROM FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHERS WAS THEY FELT THERE WERE SO MANY STORIES THAT WERE BASED ON ANONYMOUS SOURCES AND THEY WOULD SAY THESE ARE LIES.

AND WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

AND I THINK IT IS A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.

IF THERE'S BEEN SUCH RELIANCE ON ANONYMOUS SOURCES THAT THEY DON'T HAVE RECOURSE.

DOES HE HAVE RECOURSE OR SOMEONE SIMILAR SITUATION HAVE RECOURSE WHEN AGAINST THE REPORTER WHO IS REPORTING A STORY THAT IS BASED ON ANONYMOUS SOURCES.

>> I DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE RECOURSE IF SOMETHING FALSE IS SAID ABOUT HIM.

ALL THE PRESIDENT HAS TO DO IS CALL A PRESS CONFERENCE IT WILL BE CARRIED LIVE BY ALL THE NETWORKS AND THE COMMENTS WILL BE REPORTED.

PART OF THE REASON WHY WE REQUIRE THIS HIGHER STANDARD OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO WANT TO SUE FOR DEFAMATION IS BECAUSE OF THE IDEA THAT WELL, AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, THEY HAVE GREATER ACCESS TO THESE MEDIA CHANNELS WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE INFORMATION THAN SOMEONE WHO IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

AND SO THERE'S AN AVENUE TO REBUT ANYTHING FALSE THAT IS SAID ABOUT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT WHEN SOMETHING FALSE IS SAID ABOUT THEM.

>> AND THEY WOULD STILL HAVE LIBEL LAW WITHOUT THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL STANDARD THE MALL LUIS STANDARD.

>> THEY WOULD BE TO MEET A HIGHER STANDARD BUT YES IT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM.

>> I WANT TO ASK AND THIS DOES GET US INTO POLITICS A LITTLE BIT.

BUT JUST RECENTLY, WE'VE NOW HAD A SERIES OF LAWS PROPOSED AND I THINK I BELIEVE ONE IS SIGNED IN FLORIDA THAT ARE BEING CALLED ANTIRIOT LAWS THIS GETS US AGAIN TO ONE OF THE FREEDOMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT NOT THE FREEDOM TO RIOT BUT THE FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE.

AND SO LATA, I'M WONDERING A QUICK TAKE ON THAT?

ARE THESE LAWS ARE GOING TO RUN INTO FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES?

>> DEPENDING HOW THE LAW IS CRAFTED THERE MIGHT BE A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE OR NOT.

HONESTLY, I THINK THESE LAWS IF THEY ARE AIMED AT PROTESTS, AND SOMETIMES IT IS AIMED AT LIKE MAKING PEOPLE LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHER PROTESTORS.

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS PEOPLE PROTESTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY BUT MY GENERAL PROBLEM IS A LOT OF THE ANTI-PROTEST LAWS WE HAVE SEEN PASSED IN STATES OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, ARE THAT OFTENTIMES THEY SAY WELL IF ONE PERSON WHO IS INVOLVED IN A PROTEST COMMITS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE OR TRESPASSES ON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY THEN ANYONE INVOLVED IN THE PROTEST IS LIABLE FOR THAT.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

[INAUDIBLE] IT HAS A CHILLING EFFECT IN THAT IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO TELL IN ADVANCE WHERE THEY MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE FOR TAKING PART IN A PROTEST EVEN IF THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT EXERCISE THEIR LAWFUL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

I FIND THAT TO BE A DISTRESSING TREND THAT STATES ARE TAKING THE PATH.

IN MY OTHER LIFE I AM A VOTING RIGHTS LAWYER AND I THINK THAT PROTESTS AND VOTING GO HAND IN HAND THEY ARE BOTH WAYS TO EXPRESS ANY CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM AND I THINK ANY LAWS THAT MAKE PEOPLE AFRAID TO EXERCISE THAT FREEDOM ARE JUST A TERRIBLE IDEA.

>> YOU'RE BOTH A VOTING RIGHTS LAWYER AND A FIRST AMENDMENT LAWYER NO SHORTAGE OF WORK THESE DAYS.

WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT.

I WANT TO TURN TO SUZANNE AS THE C.E.O.

OF PEN AMERICA, I KNOW EVERY YEAR YOU PUT OUT THE LIST OF BANNED BOOKS AND WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WE OUGHT TO SPEND A FEW SECONDS ON BOOKS.

CAN YOU TELL ME HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGE IN THE CHALLENGES LIKE THE NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO BAN BOOKS THAT WE'RE SEEING WHAT IS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST?

>> YES, SURE.

THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN FAIRLY CONSISTENT.

WE DON'T PUT OUT THE LIST OF BANNED BOOKS THAT IS THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION.

BUT WE WORK WITH THEM AND WE DO ADVOCACY IN CONNECTION WITH BANNED BOOKS.

WE JUST THIS WEEK PUT OUT A LETTER WE HAD MARGARET ATWOOD AND AUTHORS WHOSE BOOKS HAVE BEEN BANNED IN THE TOWN OF LEANDER, TEXAS, A SUBURB OF AUSTIN.

AND THE -- RATIONAL THAT WE SEE REALLY INCREASE HAS TO DO WITH BOOKS THAT ARE DEALING WITH ISSUES OF DIVERSITY, RACIAL ISSUES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I HAVE TO CUT YOU RIGHT THERE.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING TONIGHT'S PROGRAM.

THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH-IN ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN AND YOU CAN FOLLOW US ON Facebook AND TWITTER.

YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.WCNY.NEW YORK.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.