>> Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome to the 2019
Commemoration of Law Day.
My name is Jane Sanchez and
I have the honor of serving
as the 25th law librarian
of Congress.
Law Day is a national day
to celebrate the rule of law
and its contributions
to the freedoms
that we Americans enjoy,
a day aimed to promote
and remind everyone that we
should appreciate the liberties
and cultivate respect
for law, which is vital
to our democratic way of life.
In 1958, at the urging
of Charles Rhyne,
who was then president of
the American Bar Association,
Law Day was first proclaimed
by President Dwight Eisenhower
to recognize our country's great
heritage of liberty, justice,
and equality under law.
In his proclamation, President
Eisenhower especially urged the
legal profession to take a
leading role in promoting
and participating
in this observance.
In 1961, Congress,
by joint resolution,
officially designated May 1
for the celebration of Law Day.
So, every year throughout May
the legal community reaches
out to communities across the
nation to stimulate appreciation
and critical thinking about
the founding fundamentals
that so easily can
be taken for granted.
This event is our small
contribution to that tradition.
We are very pleased to have
with us today Bob Carlson,
current president of the
American Bar Association,
the world's largest voluntary
professional organization.
Bob, welcome to the
Library of Congress
and thank you for your time.
>> Thanks, Jane, appreciate it.
>> So, just a little bit about
Bob, and I'm sure he's going
to blush right now, but Bob is
a shareholder of Corette, Black,
Carlson and Mickelson PC, a
law firm in Butte, Montana.
He has served in many national
and state bar leadership
positions,
including as president of the
State Bar of Montana and chair
of the ABA's policymaking
House of Delegates.
He's also served two terms
on the ABA Board of Governors
and its Executive Committee, and
in the ABA House of Delegates
as both Montana state
bar delegate
and as a delegate at large.
He's a life patron fellow and
past state chair of the Fellows
of the American Bar
Foundation and was a member
of the executive council
of the National Conference
of Bar Presidents.
Bob's other professional
affiliations include
International Association
of Defense Counsel,
Defense Research Institute,
Montana Defense Trial
Lawyers Association,
and former board member of the
Montana Justice Foundation.
Before entering private
practice, Bob was staff attorney
for Montana Department
of Business Regulation
and a law clerk for the
Montana Supreme Court.
He earned his BA with honors
from the University of Montana
and his JD from the University
of Montana School of Law.
Before we start, I
just wanted to mention
that we are allowing some time
after I ask some questions
for your comments
and your questions.
So, please, be prepared
to ask questions.
And I encourage you to use
this opportunity to jump
into the conversation.
So, let's move on to
the first question.
The theme for this year's Law
Day is free speech, free pre --
free press, excuse
me, free society.
Freedom of speech of
press, association,
assembly, and petition.
This set of guarantees protected
by the First Amendment
comprises what we refer
to as freedom of expression.
Without it, our other
fundamental rights would wither
and die.
But in spite of this
preferred position
in our constitutional hierarchy,
the nation's commitment
to freedom of expression has
been tested over and over again.
So, Bob, what do you believe
are the limits on free speech
in a democratic society?
>> Well, the limits are, to
a certain extent, what the --
what the public is
going to permit.
The Constitution says that no
government may abridge those
basic rights, whether
it's speech or free press.
And that doesn't -- isn't --
doesn't make it limitless,
but it certainly puts a heavy
burden on the government to try
to restrain that speech.
Certainly, it's not limitless
because you can't, you all know,
go into a crowded room or a
crowded theater and yell fire,
that's potential for public harm
outweighs that person's right
to exercise what some
would call free speech.
There are authors
over time and judges
that have argued
that it's broadened.
There's popular on t-shirts,
what part about may not
abridge do you not understand?
But there are limits, and
the limits are generally
that you can't defame
somebody with a cause.
You can say that if you want,
we're not going to prohibit you,
but if you make a false
statement against somebody,
you will be held accountable.
If you make a false
representation
about a product you sell,
you will be in some form
or fashion held accountable.
It's not limitless, but
it's critically important.
And it's more important,
I think, both here
and around the world,
than really it has
been in a long time.
It's -- we have so much power
in the palm of our hands to do
and say things really, to a
certain extent, in anonymity.
And we need to come to grasp
with what's appropriate.
And so, the best way to
do that is to have people
who hear conversations, people
who don't agree with something,
people who are listening
to somebody make
comments, make remarks.
It's not to shut up.
It's not to politely look away.
It's to say, listen, that's not
appropriate in this setting.
And we can't sit on our hands.
We can't expect anybody else
to defend those rights for us.
It's also not appropriate for,
I mean, everybody can complain
and say I didn't
get a fair shake,
the story wasn't accurate, but
when you argue that members
of the press are traitors to
this country, when you argue
that there's some treasonous
impact, those things take hold,
in part because, frankly,
not everybody pays attention
to what those words
in the Constitution say
as much as they used.
And that sort of populist
movement, both here and abroad,
is really something that we need
to start dealing
with every day, so.
>> Okay. While the
text and the principle
of the First Amendment
have not changed over time,
courts' interpretations
have indeed changed.
Judges, lawmakers, and
scholars sometimes struggle
with balancing strong speech
protections with a necessity
of maintaining a
peaceful society.
So, what are your
thoughts about this?
For example, what do you think
of the changing interpretations?
More importantly, how do we
appropriately protect even
unpopular or hurtful speech?
>> Well, I think
if you're talking
about government intrusion, I
think we have to protect it.
I think just because
somebody says something
that you may not agree with
or I might not agree with,
doesn't mean that it
should be prohibited just
because it makes
you uncomfortable.
Your role, as I said earlier,
is to speak out on your own
and sort of drown
that voice out.
So, the more people that are
talking about cooperation
and collaboration and getting
along there are, the less people
to listen to that
one person yelling,
whether it's an anti-religious
slogan, a racial slur,
or whatever, they are
going to not listen.
That person is going
to literally be the lone wolf
crying in the wilderness.
And that's -- it takes a society
that's committed to that,
committed to saying,
listen, I might not agree
with what you have to say, but
you have the right to say it,
but there are certain
limitations on how you do that
and certain ways to go about it,
and you can't turn
that into a threat.
So, there's a fine line between,
sometimes, between hate speech
and threatening violent acts.
One thing is probably protected,
the other, the violent act,
the incite to riot, the incite
to take action, that's
not protected.
So, there, I think that's
where the line is coming.
And it's getting tougher in part
because the Constitution was
written 200 and some years ago,
and when they talked about
a free press, I mean,
that's literally, they were
talking about, you know,
a solid building where
printing presses were operating,
putting out a newspaper
or putting out a magazine.
Today, we all, if you
reach into your pockets,
you all have a printing press
like in the palm of your hand.
And how do you deal with that?
Government doesn't really,
shouldn't really control
that unless there's some
violent threat there.
But in terms of who controls
what you say on this,
whether it's Twitter or
Facebook or whatever,
you've signed a contract
just to get on that page.
You signed a contract with
those private businesses,
and they do have a
right under the contract
to control what you say.
You also, as a listener to this,
you have a right to turn it off,
or you have a right to fact
check it, or you have a right
to speak out against
it and disagrer.
That's what the marketplace
of ideas allows us to do.
It's a free and open
marketplace,
and certain voices
need to be louder.
>> Okay. Let's move on
to freedom of the press.
Is there a difference
between freedom of speech
and freedom for the press?
>> Well, going back to the
original derivation, there was,
I think, some, in the
author's mind it was important
that an individual
could stand up and speak
against the government.
But it was also important that
there was an organized group,
a business enterprise,
if you want,
I think it was President
John Kennedy that said,
it's the only -- the press is
the only business enterprise
that's specifically
guaranteed in the Constitution.
And I think in their minds
there was a difference,
and I think there is
still a difference.
Because I think we
still need to --
those lone voices or the
collective voice still need
to look at an organized press
that is providing us with facts
so we can make decisions.
And organized press that
is standing up, truth --
speaking truth to power, you
need that collective group.
You need that organized
presence there
to protect the individuals
who are speaking.
Constitutionally, legally,
I don't think it's --
I don't think they're
treated that much differently.
But it's certainly different
taking on, for instance,
the New York Times or Fox
or CNN or any major outlet
versus saying to some
person on the steps
of the U.S. Supreme Court
who's yelling something,
it's a heck of a lot easier
to control that because
that person's bandwidth,
if you will,
is however far his
voice will carry.
The press has a -- has a
very clear role to play
in protecting this democracy,
and they need to do their job.
They need to do it right.
They need to make sure that they
call out instances of fake news.
They need to make sure
that they check their facts
and that there is a clear line
between, which is, these days,
sometimes blurred, a clear line
between the factual portion
of the newspaper and
the editorial page.
>> Okay. Does a free
media mean a free society?
How do they intersect?
>> It would be nice
if it was that simple.
It -- that's a tough one,
because of there is
an intersection point.
You need -- you need
a free press
to protect society's freedoms.
But just having a free press
doesn't completely protect that.
You need other ramifications.
You need other things
to protect it.
You need people protecting
your due process rights
and your property rights and
a whole host of other things,
but having that as the sort
of the backbone or the beacon,
if you will, that's going to
shine the light, the spotlight
on what action is good or
bad, you definitely need
that to keep it -- to
keep a society free.
Will it do so by itself?
No, because I think that needs
all of us, all of us agreeing
to have that faith
that we are going
to not believe everything
we, as I used to say,
everything we read
in the newspaper.
Now, we have to broaden,
everything we read on Facebook
or everything we read or hear
on a major 24-hour news channel,
we need to check it out.
We need to think about it.
And we need to be open
to the possibility
that other views
might have some basis.
And we need to figure out how
to get divergent views to sort
across and sort of figure
out a way to meet in the --
in the middle so we can
move this country forward.
>> Excuse me, I'm getting
over a cold, so I apologize.
Many feel more free to say
or post whatever they want
on social media, and they
believe they are safe
in doing so.
Their perception is that the
First Amendment protects them no
matter what.
How do free speech and
social media fit together?
>> Well, the simple
answer and the short,
the really short answer is,
they fit perfectly together.
You should be allowed
to express your views,
regardless of whether or not
anybody agrees with them.
You should be able to
express [inaudible].
It is that whole -- the
question is, what is your right
on a social media platform?
That's a -- pretty much ends
up being a contract right
between you and Facebook, or you
and whoever owns that platform
and that you sign that very
long consent agreement,
which I'm sure one person in
the room, maybe two, have read.
>> Read.
>> And I have a friend
back in Montana
who reads every single
one of them,
and I don't know how he has
time to do anything in his life,
because those things --
>> They're crazy.
>> Because those things
go on a long time.
And, but most people just
automatically hit that button.
So, it might not be a
bad idea to start there,
as when before you hit
that button you might
take a little bit of time
and at least skim through
to see what you're --
what it is that you're
actually agreeing to.
Frankly, you're agreeing
that they can take something
down if they don't
agree with it.
>> Right.
>> Now, that's got -- that
has some other issues.
It -- we all want to think
about it in terms of, well,
it's going to protect
us from hate speech,
it's going to protect
us from being --
somebody trying to incite
violence, somebody trying
to do something that we, in a
civil society, don't agree with.
But it can also be used
to control what gets on.
It can be used to
control a message.
So, how do I -- what
message do I want you to get
and how am I going to
make sure it's effective?
And the data analytics
now allow you to figure
out where you've
been on Facebook,
what things you've
liked, what things you --
so, what are your
interests and try
to gear a message that's to you.
And it may sound like
it's coming from a source
that you can trust, but that's
where you all come in again.
You have to figure out, is
it a source that I can trust?
Because there's a
lot of information,
there's way too much information
out there for the average person
to process by themselves.
So, there are companies
that are very reliable
that do check things out.
And you need to take the
time before you start
sending something.
We've all seen, you know,
something, oh this, whatever,
let's -- romantic story or
whatever and it's just all fake,
right, or somebody
trying to help a stranger
and everybody walks by, this
one person does and the whole,
you know, I hope it happens
more, but it, you know,
most of these are just to
tug at your heartstrings
and they're not actually fact.
It gets more complicated
when you're in a situation
where it's politics at play,
whether it's a celebrated
court case,
or something that's going on,
and you're getting a message
that tells you what
you want to hear,
that really isn't a
free press either.
That really isn't
necessarily free speech.
That's trying to
control what you think,
and sometimes we
let them do that.
So, back again, the whole --
these freedoms --
we have to fight.
It was interesting.
I had a conversation,
it was more about an
independent judiciary,
but I think it's applicable
here, with somebody
from a foreign country
about six months ago.
And the comment was
that, you know,
in 2003 we established
an independent judiciary
and we established this and
we had this constitution
that protected speech and press.
And then we went back to doing
the business, we were trying
to fix our economy,
we were trying
to do all these other things,
and we got distracted
from that moment.
And we weren't fighting
every day for free speech
and an independent judiciary
and now we're in trouble.
And the person looks
to me across the table
and I'm not sure exactly what
I'm supposed to say, but I do --
something comes to me and I
don't know if it's good, bad,
or indifferent, but
here's what it was.
Listen, we've been at
this for over 225 years.
We fight every day.
And we don't take weekends
and Sundays off when you're --
when it comes to
protecting those values.
So, that's incumbent on all
of us, to sit there and think
about that and make sure
that we get this right.
This is a great experiment in
democracy, but it only goes
so far as what the people
in this room are willing
to sacrifice for it.
>> Okay. So, do you
have any other thoughts
about this year's -- this
year's theme of free speech,
free press, free society?
We wanted to give
you an opportunity
to just take this
where you would like.
>> A couple.
So, and I've sort of
woven it into some
of the remarks already.
But we -- this country is
really a unique place to live,
and we really have a great
tradition of recognizing
in our Constitution
the importance
of free speech and free press.
And when we were thinking about
picking a topic for this year,
one of the purposes of
Law Day is to educate.
It's not to -- and it's not to
necessarily stay on the topics
that are easy, stay on topics
that don't engender some debate
and discussion, and it just
came to us that this was --
this was the perfect time
to have this discussion.
It was the perfect time to
remind people of the importance
of civil discussion and the
importance of civil debate
and the importance of
being able to accept it
that you may not always be right
and that the world is
not always going to agree
with you, and that's fine.
It may be just that the
other person's point of view,
or the other person's, not spin,
but the other person's feeling
[inaudible] are actually right.
And you can only do that if
you have somebody pointing the
facts out.
People should believe
the news media.
They should believe
what's printed as fact.
They should check it, but
they should have some ability
to have faith in that.
I'm a big sports fan.
I'm a big baseball fan.
And, you know, every newspaper
and every magazine has
typographical errors.
But when I look at the
box score, you know, I --
from a reputable newspaper,
I believe that, you know,
Gary Sanchez went two for four
and had a homerun and two RBI's.
I mean, I like -- and the
score is what the score is.
We actually need to
get back to that --
that our press, who has an
obligation, too, in this role,
that they are trusted.
I think we have a lot
of good journalists,
a lot of good newspaper
people, and a lot of good people
who are willing to
dig the facts out.
So, we have to find those folks
and be able to trust and listen
to what they're saying.
That faith in the
system is very important.
It's gotten us this far.
Is it going to continue?
You know, that's up to us.
From an association standpoint,
since I am the president of
and speak for most of the
lawyers in this country,
my thought is this, it's
up to us to help fight,
but it's up to the media,
it's up to journalists
to participate in that.
Because that First
Amendment protects everybody,
and we need both the
legal institution
and the institutional of a
free press to work together to,
when necessary, speak truth
to power, when necessary,
make sure we get it right.
So, this is a great exercise.
Thank you for hosting.
Thanks for your hospitality.
And I appreciate
your sometimes not
so easy questions,
but thank you.
>> Yeah, you're welcome.
So, now the true test comes.
We're going to open up
questions to the audience.
Who do we have?
Right here in front.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Oh, why don't you
go ahead and then --
>> You have the microphone.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you for this
interesting discussion.
In your comments you suggest
that the press has
protected status.
If so, who makes
that designation
and what criteria should they
use for making that designation?
>> Well, first of all, the
Constitution protects them.
You know, make no law
that shall abridge.
The government shall make no law
that shall abridge the freedom
of speech and the free press.
So, they have -- they have
an inherent protection
in the Constitution.
What they do with that sort
of answers your question.
Are they trustworthy?
Have be shown -- has a
particular newspaper,
a particular TV station,
a particular author,
shown that they are
what they say are.
Facts are facts.
There really isn't too many
ways you can slice, you know,
Gary Sanchez hits a
homerun, there's two people
on base, that's three runs.
You can't -- that's
a fact, okay?
It's the -- it's the
blurring -- what gets the --
creates the problem in my mind
is the blurring between my spin
on those facts or my opinions.
Those are -- there's an
editorial page, an opinion page
in newspapers and magazines
and on TV for a reason.
When you're reporting something
as fact that is an opinion,
that's really just an opinion,
that's where the problem is.
And it's up to -- it
really is up to --
it's not up to the government,
because the government
is precluded.
It's up to the people
to make that decision.
It's up to them to say,
okay, I don't agree with you
and I'm not going to continue
to spin this out on Facebook.
I'm not going to link this
and two thumbs up or whatever,
I don't do Facebook so,
whatever emojis there are.
It's not -- you know, it's up
to you to get to the bottom line
and maybe post a comment that
says, you know, I checked
and this just isn't accurate.
>> That's not quite my question.
>> Okay, sorry.
>> Who is -- who is the press?
Is WikiLeaks press?
And are they --
>> Well, that -- yeah, okay.
So, today just about --
>> In this modern
era, you don't have
to have a printing
press is, I think,
the challenge we're facing.
>> Today you -- I'm not
sure that WikiLeaks,
I don't know how you
would define them,
because they do the
dictionary thing,
they do the biography thing,
they do a variety of things.
The question is, how --
what is their purpose
and what are they trying to do?
As an organized group,
if they're trying --
if they are publishing
things that they put
out in the public field
to, that are facts,
that are supposedly
fact-based and they're arguing
that those are fact-based,
they may very well fall
into the protection
of the press.
If they're -- but the press
isn't completely protected
from a private citizen filing a
lawsuit saying you defamed me.
You went beyond what's
protected speech.
You went and, you know,
you lied about me,
it ruined my reputation.
So, there are those
controls over it.
But today I agree with you, the
lines are blurred in terms of,
is a blogger, is that --
is that part of the press?
So, the evolution
is not done yet.
But I think that if you are
posting something that's opinion
based, solely opinion based,
then you're going to have
to be responsible
for the ramifications
of what that opinion is.
If you're truly -- there's a
place for that in the media,
but there's really more
of a place for facts,
and investigative facts and
telling us what's happening,
reporting the news, telling
us there's a storm coming,
telling -- whether it's
natural or manmade,
that's the real role that I see.
That's, I think, what the
Constitution was looking at.
They certainly didn't
foresee 200 some years later
that we would have all this
technological abilities.
So, that's an evolving process,
but I think it all still
comes back to the individual,
the purchaser of
that information,
whether you pay for it or not.
You're actually paying for it
because you're giving your time,
which is valuable, to something.
You want to make sure
you're getting the facts
so you can make a decision.
>> We had a question right
up here in front, right here.
>> Hi. Presidential criticism
of the press are
generally portrayed
as undermining the
First Amendment.
I'm wondering if the office of
the president itself, you know,
his constitutional office,
has free speech rights
under the First Amendment?
And, if so, is not
criticism of, you know,
the institutional press simply
an exercise of protected speech?
>> Well, first of all,
criticism, just to be clear,
criticism is not a bad thing.
Criticism of -- government
criticism of the press,
you didn't get facts right,
I don't agree with you,
I don't agree with your
philosophy, is one thing.
Accusing a member of the press
or the press of being enemies
of the state or traitors,
that's a different story.
And if you're -- if you're using
a constitutional office to make
that point, then you
go back to, you know,
can the government create
any laws or any restrictions
on that constitutional right?
Now, it says Congress may
not, but an institution
of government, I think, has a
hard time, if they're acting
as that institution,
constitutionally based
institution of government,
that's a different story than
I'm the president, I don't agree
with what you're saying.
Presidents have disagreed
and fought with the press,
they've commented on
judicial decisions forever
in this country.
That's fine.
That's part of the process.
That's part of the give-and-take
of the marketplace.
But the line has to be drawn
when acting as governor
or president, you basically call
somebody an enemy of the state
for exercising their
constitutional right,
that is a problem, and
that has consequences.
That has downstream consequences
that incite people to violence.
Not -- maybe not intended,
but in this society,
we've seen plenty of examples
over the last 20 years
of something said, something
by a powerful person, both here
and around the world,
that has led
to direct attacks
on people's lives.
There is a -- there is
a line there that needs
to be carefully followed.
>> Over here.
>> Thank you for your
very interesting remarks.
And I absolutely agree with
you that press has obligation
to provide information
that people should believe
information [inaudible]
in most media.
But what can be done if media
it is used by a government
to provide influence, or
sometimes it becomes propaganda.
For example, now [inaudible]
ongoing discussion [inaudible]
Russia today media outlets.
Are they really performing
journalistic work,
or should they be registered
as -- foreign agents?
France, for example,
recently passed a special law
under which foreign broadcast
can just suspend it for --
within a period of three months
before national elections.
[Inaudible] administratively
stopped all Russian government
TV broadcast on its territory.
Our own radio [inaudible] Europe
radio liberty is investigated
now because of suspicions that
it was probably infiltrated
by central Asian governments,
and our radio station provided
information, which was favorable
that says governments.
What can be done in [inaudible]?
Is there a borderline
between freedom
of speech and propaganda?
>> So --
>> Thank you.
>> Just going to roll it
back to the topic again.
That's the constitutional
protection
of free speech and free press.
What you're talking about, in
my mind, I mean, fake news,
fake press, is not a new
term in the last four years.
It's getting more mileage,
but it's not a new term.
It's been around for
a very long time.
And it's been, to a certain
extent, taken to an art level
or an artform by some
foreign governments
over the past decades, whether
it's in Germany, whether it's
in Russia, whether it's in
-- to control the press.
And so, I don't consider
that a free press.
If it's government sanctioned,
government sponsored,
government run propaganda, then
its government run propaganda.
That is the antithesis
of a free speech
and a free press situation.
So, you know, you've got to deal
with that and you've got to deal
with where's the
source of the news?
Where is it coming?
And there's some --
it's not a new thing.
There's been some very
sophisticated propaganda
machines throughout history.
We have to figure out a way
to break through that and say,
what -- you know, what is right?
What is fact and how do
we react accordingly?
And it's hard work.
You know, this is --
this democracy thing,
this free speech thing, the
constitutional right stuff,
this is -- this is hard work.
It's not for the --
it's graduate-level
civics, you know, every day.
And we need to -- we need
to buckle up and buckle down
and do our jobs, too, as
people, not just lawyers,
but as citizens of this country
or people that have come here
to get the freedoms we have.
We have to -- everybody has got
to fight for those every day.
And turning off propaganda
is the best way to it.
>> Anyone else?
I'm looking.
>> Oh, sorry.
>> Over here.
>> Is eroding public confidence
in the First Amendment
a bellwether
for the next generation
legal decisions
on the First Amendment?
>> You're going to have
to give me that one again.
I lost something --
>> Yeah, I didn't quite hear it.
>> Sorry.
>> Closer, okay.
Is eroding public confidence in
the First Amendment a bellwether
for the next generation
of legal decisions
on the First Amendment?
>> I'm not sure I know
the answer to that.
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm
qualified to answer that.
From a standpoint,
hopefully we can work --
programs like this can work to
get the public confidence back
in the press, but whether or not
there's going to be a change,
decisional change from basically
all the way to the Supreme Court
on free speech, free press,
that's what your
question is, I don't know.
I mean, it's -- I
think in my mind most
of the court is pretty
protective of,
at least at this point, of free
speech, free press, that right,
that fundamental right, and I
-- there are limits, obviously,
and I don't know that
anything that's going
on right now is really a
bellwether or like is going
to suggest that the court
is going to move away
from protection or move
to more restrictions.
That would be interesting
to see,
but I'm not sure I can
answer it as an expert.
Because that's, technically it's
not my field of law, but also,
it's -- I'm not sure the two
are an equal equation, so.
>> Great.
>> I'll turn this way.
>> So, a couple of years ago
there was a gentleman named
Richard Spencer who rented space
from the University of Florida.
He's a white nationalist.
And so, he -- the University
of Florida, of course,
provides a forum
for organizations
to rent space for their events.
And so, the University
of Florida
under the First Amendment had
no choice but to allow this guy
to come and give his speech.
And, of course, a lot of
people were upset by it,
and so there were
a lot of protests.
At the end of the day, it
cost the University of Florida
around $600,000 to provide for
the various security, you know,
state, local police forces
and security and whatnot.
The president of the
University of Florida suggested
that it might be appropriate
for the federal government
to provide for perhaps
a fund could be created
for what amounted to basically
an unfunded federal mandate
to state institutions to spend
money on security to provide
for venues for speech like this.
And so, I just wanted
to get your thoughts.
>> So, here's where I'm
going to draw a line.
It was a good question,
and I might have some
individual thoughts about it.
And today I think I've kept
my individual thoughts at bay
and stayed within the four
corners of the policies
of the American Bar Association.
And because the chief
policy officer
for the American Bar Association
is sitting in the audience,
I'm going to say I'm pretty
sure we don't have policy
in the association on that,
and as the spokesperson
for the association
I can't comment.
Sorry. I know it's not the
answer you wanted, but that's --
there are -- there are certain
restrictions that I have to live
on -- under, and I'm
going to do my job.
>> There's someone here.
>> Given that opinion and
conflict sells in the news media
and facts don't, what
would you recommend
as a potential starting point to
regain confidence in the media
when right now it
seems like everybody
who watches the news
is just angry?
>> Well, I think from
the public standpoint,
they get to decide what it is
that they watch and what it is
that they want to see and what
it is that's going to move them.
And that -- it's their right
to watch really pretty much
whatever they want in terms
of the news media and
decide their own minds if --
but if you -- if there's enough
people that want facts back,
that's a facts matter,
yes, we do want opinions,
we want educated people to
provide us some, you know,
information, some assistance,
and listen to both sides
of how they explain the facts
or how the facts matter,
then essentially you vote by,
you know, turning the TV off
or turning the radio off
or turning Facebook off
or whatever the source is.
The sponsors will
get the message.
And then they're -- and if
the message is delivered,
then listen, we want
more facts in our news
so we can make informed
decisions.
That might take some time,
but I think that's
the way to deliver it.
It is an individual, or
collective group of people,
that can take that action.
But what, you know, things --
certain things, you're right,
certain things do -- you know,
there's more bad news on TV
than there is good because
that gets people's attention.
So, sometimes we need to
have our attention, you know,
if there's a storm coming
and we need to be aware
that there's a storm coming.
But I think you collectively,
as citizens, you need to figure
that out and make sure that
when you decide what you watch
or what you want to watch
that you make it known
that you want fact.
You're smart enough, capable
enough to make your own mind up,
and you'll turn to the editorial
page or the editorial part
of the review, a TV program,
if you want to listen
to somebody else's opinion.
>> Here we go.
Right up front.
>> Just a follow up
on that question.
We seem to be living in
a time now where a lot
of people are not very
interested, this is sort
of the gentleman before who
said not very interested
in the facts, and a substantial
minority of people at least,
and if our society
moves in a direction
where that substantial
minority becomes the majority,
what does that have as an --
how does that provide us a
positive way to move forward?
>> Well, it's -- that's a
pretty gloomy picture, for one.
I think, you know, I don't
think it's happened yet.
And I think there's hope.
There's programs, [inaudible]
programs being done all
over the country.
There's -- and it shouldn't
just be for one day.
I mean, civics has to
return to our middle schools
and our high schools
and has to be taught
as robustly as any
other subject.
And we need to try
to figure out a way
to educate the next generation
of students that these rights,
they are, a lot of people
risked a lot to get us here.
And we are not doing a very good
job if we don't pay attention,
if we don't protect them, we
are not doing a very good job
of honoring their memories.
And I think we, as leaders,
have to figure out a way to get
that message across, that
facts matter, that facts
and data should be driving
their decisions on what they do,
and that -- which still, I
think, is the vast majority
of people that have
that feeling.
They need to -- they need
to make their voices known.
It can't be drowned out
by a minority of voices
on either side of the
political spectrum.
The group in the middle
that wants the facts,
that wants to collaborate
and cooperate and compromise,
they need to not be silent.
The silent majority needs to
speak out on issues like this
with respect to the importance
of these basic fundamental
rights
to the survival of this country.
>> There we go.
>> Were you a schoolteacher
before you did
>> this?
>> No.
>> Because [inaudible]
glaring at these people there.
>> No [laughter].
>> I'm following up a little but
on your remarks about the need
for ordinary citizens and
consumers of the news to kind
of vote with their feet or
vote with their attention
if they're trying to
perhaps hold the press
to a higher factual standard.
Would you see much likelihood
of any legislation or regulation
in the near term that would
provide for a certain amount
of protection for
individual speech
on social media platforms?
For example, if I were to try
to say express displeasure
with Facebook about something
I saw there, and I didn't feel
like it was enough for me to
just individually boycott it,
could I use a Facebook post to
broadcast the need for a boycott
of Facebook on Facebook
itself and be protected
in expressing that view?
Or, would with the -- you
know, would the company,
should the company
have the right to shut
down that type of speech?
>> Well, so it'd be interesting
to see what Facebook would
do in that situation.
I mean, contractually, I haven't
-- I don't know if the terms
and conditions -- I think
they can pretty much shut
down whoever they want
that's using their platform,
because it's a -- it is
a private contract right
that you sign on.
I don't know that legislating
somebody's right to do that,
which means restrictions
of Facebook,
necessarily solve the problem.
Although I'm not sure and I'm
not, like I said at the start
of this, I'm not a First
Amendment lawyer per se.
I'm not sure that Facebook is --
it encourages people to
speak out, encourages people
to tell us what's going on,
literally everything that's
going on in their lives,
it encourages that platform, but
are they part of the news media?
I'm not sure that it, as a
company, is a news company.
They provide a platform for
people to express views.
They provide -- so, and
certainly, some of the --
some of the things that they do
as a private company have
ramifications, whether --
there's been, you know,
testimony to Congress,
whether that's going to result
in anything it's hard to say.
One of the duties of, you know,
a free Internet is,
it's a free Internet.
One of the downfalls of
the free Internet is it's a
free Internet.
You get what you get,
and sometimes you
get what you pay for.
We need an open,
robust discussion point.
We need to be able
to find information,
but we also need
to act responsibly.
And since they're in the
private sector and not really,
what I would consider as press,
there are ramifications
I would think about that.
How far it would go, you know,
it's going to be up to Congress
to make, and the courts,
to make those decisions.
But you, as a person,
who says I don't agree
with you posting this, and you
post that on Facebook, I mean,
I would think as long
as you're doing it
in an appropriate
fashion that it would --
they would, you know,
let's see what they do.
It depends on how many followers
you have, I guess, right,
and how many likes coat gets.
So, but as far as legislating
that into it, I'm --
that'll be interesting to see.
I don't have an answer for that.
>> Okay, well, I think at
this point we can wrap up.
I would like to take
this opportunity to thank
and acknowledge the
2019 Law Day Chair,
Lucien T. Padda [assumed
spelling], a partner with Adams
and Reese LLP in
Memphis, Tennessee,
for his very valuable
insights and commitment working
on the First Amendment
law related theme.
Another thanks to the American
Bar Association Division
for public education
staff for their dedication
and tireless efforts
in producing a wealth
of free resources
on free speech,
free press, free society.
Also, I would like
everyone here to --
watching to follow the
Law Library of Congress
on our social media and
subscribe to our e-mail alerts.
Here's my advertisement,
at loc.gov/subscribe
so you can keep up with
our news and events.
And also, if you have some time,
please visit the collection
items display in the next room.
Our curators from the
Law Library of Congress
and the Serial and Governments'
Documents Division are happy
to provide explanations
and answer your questions.
Bob, once again, thank you
for being with us today.
And have a great afternoon,
everyone [applause].
>> Thanks, Jane,
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks.