 We're ready for our last panel. So please Take your coffee Okay, folks There we go Please find your seats Please mute your cell phones Please return your trays to an upright and locked position Okay, so we're gonna start our last panel It's been a great day so far here at the Knights of Equal Symposium on tech politics in the media Again, just a reminder if you're following along on Twitter You want to join in the conversation use the hashtag KF Civic Hall? given the Knight Foundation's long Engagement with an involvement in supporting the press as a vital institution in in our country As well as our long-standing interest at personal democracy forum and how People participate in the process as fully as possible. It seems really fitting that we should end today with a panel looking at The First Amendment freedom of speech freedom of the press and Prospects for the near future And I'm going to let our moderator Chris Hughes introduce the panel. We have a really esteemed panel here to join us Let me just say that Chris has been a longtime member of the personal democracy forum community and worked in a Keyway as online Organizing director for the first Obama campaign You know him more recently for his work serving as a trustee of the Knight Foundation And he also has a new project on economic security the economic security project Which maybe he'll say a little bit about and I hand it over to you Chris Thank you Mika and Thanks for everybody for being here. Thanks to Civic Hall and the Knight Foundation for making this event possible I have had the distinct pleasure of being a trustee of the Knight Foundation now for almost five years which Believe it or not Is the longest-serving board that I've been on and it's an incredible organization So I'm so honored to be a part of it and to have the opportunity to Moderate a conversation with all of these folks today So we are ending the day with a very big question What is the future of the First Amendment and the backdrop as all of you know are an Increasingly is an increasingly difficult environment in Washington. Certainly this past administration did Did not meet the expectations of many failed many people's expectations when it came to the First amendment and its relationship with the press But for many people whether you're on the left or you're on the right It seems like even darker clouds loom in addition to that public opinion is shifting faster than Perhaps anyone would have expected even just a few years ago I know it's been a major topic of conversation today and distrust in the media is at all-time highs and Millennials in particular are leading the way with with their with their own pessimism when it comes to the media and the media landscape So with that we have an esteemed panel to help us figure out how to navigate these waters The good news is that I Am not a lawyer the bad news is everybody else up here today as a lawyer But we have all agreed that we are going to keep our remarks as As direct and as concise as possible each one of these folks has prepared some introductory remarks And then we're going to move into a conversation ourselves and then bring many of you into it So let me just introduce each one of you and then I'll turn it over to Lynn to get us started On my left is Lynn Oberlander Who is the general counsel at first look media which I'm sure most of you know publisher of the intercept amongst many other projects After that is Jamil Jeffries formally of the ACLU and is now the founding director at the Night First Amendment Institute, which Is is housed at Columbia and an incredibly important burgeoning institution and then finally Floyd Abrams who senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Rindell so with that I'll turn it over to Lynn if you'll kick us off and give us some of your your thoughts on the landscape before We get more specific in the talk right. Thank you. Thank you Chris I'm really I have to say I'm just delighted to be part of this panel to be here in this spectacular library and to be part Of this day, so thank you Without repeating too much we all know that the election and the incoming administration has had a Surfeit of press related issues and it has galvanized the public and the media like no other in recent times I have been at Jamil and I have been at a number of events recently There have been a lot of discussions about what this means for the press for the First Amendment for the public And it has it has been really just I want to start by saying it's actually been incredibly motivating it President elect Trump, I can still call him president elect has shown tremendous hostility to the institutional press and also of course to individual journalists, but he is Very very much a creature of the media and I don't think we can forget that because I actually don't think the future is Going to be quite as bleak as as many of us have been saying it He needs the press you know that he reads his coverage Very closely and I and I think that that is really something important to to keep in mind There are however Substantial risk to press freedom They include briefly lack of access to the White House limitations on government transparency Even more leak investigations if such a thing was possible Attempts perhaps to weaken the libel laws and perhaps an inability to show our great First Amendment Are shining light to other countries because perhaps it will be Tarnished One of the greatest risks, I think at least to the First Amendment is not what the administration might do But how the Trump president Trump's president elect Trump's language and treatment of the press here to four Might spur others across the country to act Local local government local people individuals who feel like suing and I think that that's a real risk But I do think it's also worth noting that many of these possible threats were coming no matter who won the election The public I think we've seen over the last couple of years has grown quite concerned about how their personal information is gathered and used By the government. Yes, absolutely, but also by private companies as the citizenry goes around their daily business The ease with which ostensibly private information can be hacked and dumped for reporters and less benign forces to rifle through has riled America Both Republicans and Democrats Not just the DNC hacks, right? But the Sony hacks the hack of Colin Powell's emails. We've had a whole series of hacks, which I think have Much of the country has been a little upset with how much private information has found its way Available whether it's reported on or it's just available And I think that they have it's led to an environment generally that people can individual legitimately ask Whether there are any limits on what can be made public Now We are all lawyers and I know everyone here knows this but you all may or may not know it There is a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2001 called Bart Nicky v. Vopper I'm trying to keep this very concise because I know nobody wants to hear about court cases But the Supreme Court then sort of answered the question and basically the court said that if the media Publishes something that they didn't that was wrongfully gotten right something was stolen something was improperly recorded But the media itself didn't do anything wrong in in They weren't responsible for getting the material for doing the wrong thing that was just sent to them Perhaps over the transom in an envelope or through secure drop And if it was newsworthy and in the public interest then the media could not be punished for publishing that true information And and that has been it's a tremendous It's a great case. It makes a lot of sense to us But I think that given what's happened with the emails You may begin to see some pressure around the case those cases at the edges What what is in public in the public interest perhaps not I don't think that I actually don't think I'm curious what the Panelist think that the holding is going to go away But I do think there may be some tension around what constitutes public information and newsworthiness I Also, there's been a lot of discussion about whether Trump can effectively loosen the libel laws and I actually don't think he can I think that that's really great Law that's been set and I'm going to read I every every time I give a talk I'd like to read one of the great quotes from the Supreme Court so about the first amendment So I apologize, but I think it's incredibly important in New York Times v. Sullivan Justice Brennan, which is the one the case that constitutionalized Defamation law Brennan wrote Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound National commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide open and they may that it may well include vehement caustic and sometimes Unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. I Think that we will be returning and returning to these words in the coming months and years Now but other changes that I think we might see you the question really was what kind of challenges to the first amendment I don't think we're going to see a weakening of the libel laws But I do think we may see sort of the Challenges along the lines of what's gone on in Europe So a rise in the relative importance of privacy or privacy Compared to sort of the first amendment rights of free expression So as in Europe as many of you know There is already an equilibrium between article 10 freedom of expression and article 8 right to privacy in under the European Convention on Human Rights And I would say an increased appreciation of the reputational risks of having everything easily available on Google The right to be forgotten upheld by the European Court of Justice in 2014 has permitted citizens to petition Google and other search engines to delink content that they are no longer happy with Essentially wiping out such information from the public record. I think that there is a big risk that those principles are going to move over to These shores. I mean there's already been a lot of pressure on Little parts of it on expungement laws for getting people's rid of people's criminal records on taking things that were really classically public information like When you applied for gun permit or mug shots and taking them off of out of the public record And I think we're going to see more of that happening And and that I mean I think that was happening anyway, but I think we are going to that's going to be a pressure point I'm good. I know I probably running out of time right to keeping it snappy so two minutes All right, so then I will say that we were also asked to talk about the question of social media and what kinds of responsibilities the big platforms might have Now Facebook and Google are not fortunately government entities, and they are not therefore restricted by the First Amendment And as I'm sure many of you know section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives the Platforms an incredibly broad immunity From policing the third-party content that's on their sites True and untrue so legally they actually have very little responsibility for what what what's there what other people put on their platforms? But I do think there are again some pressure points against Google and Facebook certainly public perception They are very responsive to how they are perceived by the by the people And right now they are also not doing so well Fake news controversy is only just latest of challenges to Facebook, etc Consider last spring's discussion over whether terrorists were using their discussion groups to recruit potential jihadists. I Think and I hope that we will see greater Transparency from these from the social media from the algorithms Maybe we'll learn a little bit more about how why we're getting certain information why we're not I think they'll probably should be they'll probably create more tools that Individuals can use to mark or flag content that may violate some terms of service But I do think that all of those things all of those tools will come at a cost to the populace I mean those are essentially even if it's not sent government censorship It is certainly a restriction at some level of the kind of content available on these platforms Which leads me but but the platforms are incredibly powerful, right? I mean they are everyone and not everyone may agree but they have a commanding presence in how people receive their news and I think maybe we should be talking about or thinking about the social media platforms as the new town squares the new malls Where the only restrictions on speech that should be allowed are reasonable time place and manner restrictions I'm just throwing it out there because I but I do think that there is we have a real tension with the power of the social media Verses and the way they have control over what conversations are happening and yet It's in conflict with with really with with lots of things including section 230 But I do kind of think that they are They're really equivalent to going to the mall when I was a kid and screaming in the middle, you know the fountain so come back to this because I think it's an important point that That we need to delve into a depth, but to me if I can turn it over to you to give us some opening thoughts Yeah, so so first Thank you for inviting me to participate in this is great and I Share Lynn's trepidation about the incoming administration Given his record as a candidate It seems entirely possible to me that President Trump will blaze new paths and harassing and investigating Even prosecuting people for what they say or what they post or what they tweet or what they print If the Justice Department takes its cues from the president, I suspect we'll see The material support laws stretched even further than they've already been and applied even more aggressively To activity that's protected by the First Amendment We're now accustomed to seeing the espionage act used against whistleblowers, but as Lynn mentioned We may see it used against the press too Those laws the material support laws and the espionage act they sweep very broadly by their by their terms And so if the Trump administration wants to criminalize dissent, there's a sense in which they have the tools already at their at their disposal More generally, I feel more bitterly confident that the concept of national security Which is a concept that's been much abused over the last 15 years Will continue to be exploited to the detriment of the freedoms of speech and the press Justice black famously observed in the Pentagon papers case that the word security is a broad vague Generality that can readily be invoked to quote abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment I think that he meant that as a as a caution or a warning, but I worry that the new administration will read it as an invitation Some of the the most significant threats to the freedom of speech and the press are likely to be more subtle less visible indirect In in recent years Congress has expanded the government surveillance authority over and over again Even as technological change has made surveillance more intrusive and less costly The chilling effect of that surveillance is very difficult to measure, but it's very real There was a study a few years ago researchers for Human Rights Watch and the ACLU Interviewed journalists from major media organizations about the impact of government surveillance on their work The journalist said that fear of surveillance was dissuading would be sources from contacting reporters and making existing sources more reticent Surveillance was quote constricting the flow of information concerning government activity Sources were more reluctant to speak even about matters that were unclassified But the chilling effect was felt most acutely by journalists who were investigating issues relating to national security and law enforcement and intelligence I think that overbroad secrecy presents another kind of threat The media and civil society can be a real check against government abuse We've seen that again and again But only if we have access to information about the government's policies and practices The Obama administration has not been particularly cooperative on that front The Obama administration withheld key documents about national security policy releasing them only after a federal appeals court ordered them to It invoked the state secrets privilege to insulate controversial national security policies from judicial review And just yesterday the Obama administration Justice Department issued new guidance Instructing federal agencies to construe freedom of information act requests more narrowly a Cynical effort to undermine an important appeals court ruling and It also as we all know prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined President Obama's decision to commute Chelsea Manning's sentence was I think compassionate and even courageous But it's worth remembering that Manning was charged with aiding the enemy Sentence to a term of 35 years and her sentence was commuted only after seven years imprisonment She served more time in prison than any whistleblower in US history. I Think it's safe to assume that President Trump will be even less transparent and even more hostile to leaks More hostile to the journalists who report them and more hostile to the sources and whistleblowers who supply them Some civil libertarians are harshly criticizing President Obama for his refusal to pardon Edward Snowden And I think that they're right to criticize Things will get worse though Mike Pompeo who's likely to be Trump CIA director says that Edward Snowden should be executed So against this background and this is the last thing I'll say I Think we're going to be very dependent on the courts Whether the courts are up to the task of protecting individual rights in the context that we now Unexpectedly find ourselves in we'll see The courts have been extraordinary differential to the Obama administration's national security arguments And I worry that the habit of deference will be difficult to break In my view it'll be a disaster if the courts don't approach the new administration's claims very differently Then they approach the last administration's claims. It'll be a disaster if they defer as a matter of course If the government says that national security requires withholding information or imposing gag orders on technology Companies or characterizing disclosures to the media as aid and comfort to the enemy the government should be compelled to explain why Especially where government policy implicates individual rights the courts have the responsibility To test the new administration's arguments and assess the evidentiary basis for its factual claims Trump's administration should be afforded the deference that it earns and no more than that Thank you, Floyd So we start two days from today Look around the room now, so you'll remember today as a day before two days from today We start on a new adventure for the country and as we try to think of How it's likely to go in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of the press I Think it's worth a few more general observations one first president Trump I gag but President Trump Will not be the first president to be angry or dismissive of the press It was Jefferson after all Who said that? Even the least informed of the people have learned that nothing that has published in a newspaper is to be believed And it was Jefferson who writing to a 17 year old boy who wrote him a letter saying that he wanted to be a journalist Wrote the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than one who reads them In as much as he who knows nothing is nearer the truth than one whose mind is filled with falsehood and errors Now it is ludicrous nothing less for me to talk about our new president in the same sentence as Jefferson Who I should say More than anyone else is responsible for the fact that we have a bill of rights at all and that we have a First Amendment at all And who led the fight against the alien and sedition act of 1798 which was of course aimed at his followers So what should we expect what? Who can we look at that that is not ludicrous to look at I had a look back at The Nixon administration the Nixon I think hated the press In a way that at this moment President-elect Trump does not I think that will come but but but I Don't think I don't think he's really there yet I Was struck by reading a letter that Jen McGruder who worked in Rick for Bob Haldeman under Richard Nixon Wrote to Haldeman in October 1969 a year after President Nixon took office Dealing with what should we do about the press? He had three ideas He said first we should begin an official monitoring system of television news and commentary As soon as the FCC chairman that they had nominated takes office Because this could empower the administration to threaten broadcasters with non-renewal of their television and radio licenses Second he wrote I'm quoting we should utilize the antitrust division To investigate various media relating to antitrust violations and third we should utilize the internal revenue service As a method to look into the various organizations We are most concerned about President Nixon did all that and more We had a vice president then who was out on the hustings Speaking denouncing the press and the strongest I would say vile as terms We had enormous pressure put on the press by the Nixon administration Particularly television no internet then of course but television senior executives called in Threatened or semi-threatened If they didn't tone things down in terms of criticism that's all those years ago half a century ago What can we expect of this administration at best? I think Maybe this sort of Trump-like tit for tat with Merrill Street the press says something bad. He responds with something bad. I I sometimes think that if if the Pope says anything bad about our new president The next tweet will say first he's overrated in terms of what he knows about Catholicism and Second he ought to pay attention to wayward priests and not me right sad That's Problem is all that's sort of for real It could be that it could the press can be an irritant and maybe he'll just brush them off tweet them away and the like But I think it'll be much worse than that because I Think we can predict without knowing what the event will be That's something Unpredictable as to its specifics some leak Some some offense by the press is more likely than not to so offend the president That he will seek to take steps Which would be? extremely Threatening to any notion of freedom of the press or freedom of speech and Then it will really rest with with all of us To somehow coalesce And it will rest with the press organizations themselves To be prepared to fight back Not to behave the way our large corporations are in the last few days each announcing How much more money they're about to spend or how many more people they're about to hire? We'll see what really happens on that front. What we know is that it has happened because of fear of This president coming to power and being angry at them speaking ill of them Calling their market causing their market to Fall and diminish So it's going to take a lot of work And it's going to take a great deal of perseverance on the part of the communications industry to resist Because I think It is hard to imagine When one one sees the things that irritate bother Lead the president-elect to say the sort of things he does about the press. That's nothing nothing Compared to what's likely to happen once he's in office and So it's going to fall to us and it's going to fall to the journalists and it's going to fall to the journalistic organizations to really be as Rough as possible in response That when they're threatened they fight back When they're maligned they respond That they use the courts instead of simply letting the administration if it chooses to do so To use the courts There's going to be a very busy active and dangerous time And and all of us are going to be called upon to engage in a very serious sort of resistance So That was wonderful. Thank you for setting the stage and giving us some some context here So I'd like to go somewhat narrow on a legal question then zoom out and and ask a little bit more about the The general trends of the time that we live in but narrowly Picking up on one of your concerns from decades ago, Floyd There's been a trend over the past five to ten years in a lot of media organizations To incorporate themselves as 501 C3s So as public charities think of pro-publica the Texas Tribune In fact if anything it feels to me like the trend these days is in in the media landscape is that if you do serious journalism You realize that it's not necessarily going to be profitable And so therefore you choose the not-for-profit route Historically one of the concerns was always well the only issue is if that 501 C3 status can ever be revoked for For fear that you know the IRS can claim partisanship rather than being in the service of the public good and Generally people weren't so concerned about that You could imagine though a scenario today in which a more active Executive branch actually does pursue that and if they're not able to affect for-profit companies perhaps they could go to some of these burgeoning institutions that want to call out the administration and really give them a lot of Heat stress or perhaps even something more existentially threatening through the IRS Is that something that you guys are concerned about and how or how would you advise those folks in the media world who are thinking about being not for profits versus being for profits when they weigh the the the risks of freedom of speech limitations I'm not really up enough on the financial side except that it's a dire of the of the media industry to really pass upon a Assessment of risk. Obviously, you incorporate it to 501 C3 you play by the rules of 501 C3, which is very permissive right now And you run the risk of an unfriendly administration Taking steps to change What what the law is? That may happen I'm I don't think I'm not prepared to sort of advise them especially, you know small entities That that they shouldn't go that route in terms of trying to survive. I would say that in the new internet world It is the smaller entities Which are more likely than not to be at risk first That even though the courts have provided enormous protection of the internet and I'm rather consistently so That that you know companies that can't afford real insurance Individuals who have no idea when they speak that they can be sued for libel by billionaires Who can put them out of business if they're in it. I think the Situation with gawker is one of the most dangerous and not enough talked about situation in terms of risk to the press Because the press more and more is at financial risk because For what all the reasons that our economy leads this to be true and all the reason that new technology Leads it to be true that the large American media institutions many of them are at peril for economic reasons and You know a libel lawsuit a big libel lawsuit a Billionaire suing to put them out of business as occurred in the gawker case It's very dangerous stuff That sort of begs the question. How do you guys think about or define the press in general? I mean if a website publishes an illicit Sex video for instance, I mean any website What makes it the press and thus worthy of defense versus a Blog that is just peddling in illicit in illicit material I mean these are these seem like the challenges that the courts would have Immediately in front of them and would be a challenge not just from a legal definitional perspective But when it comes to protecting the rights of journalists For defending against them for the incoming administration or anyone who wants to pursue them We can speak specifically about doctor if you'd like I mean, I think listen blogs are our press or they're I mean if they are They are journalists. They can be journalists. I mean not all of them are but certainly somebody who has the intention of Finding news reporting news and publishing it even if it's an individual, you know on the on the second floor They're covered by the First Amendment in the same way that the New York Times is and I think the risk as Floyd's talking about it is that they Don't have the financial resources and frankly the big media companies don't have the financial resources anymore to to put up a fight These are these sex tapes You know, I think that the law I think they would have talking about gawker They would have won on appeal that but they didn't get to an appeal and that presented a and the fact that they the way that case went Whether that they were just by the size of the judgment And they couldn't bond it. I mean you can argue about what exactly was going on But that they couldn't bond it that you had to put up a 50 million dollar bond just to take an appeal On a jury verdict that had six people on the jury That is a huge First Amendment problem regardless of what you think about the content that Gawker posted or published in my mind And they were denied their right to an appeal On First Amendment grounds Their appeal When they weren't denied on First Amendment grounds, but they would have had an appeal on First Amendment grounds So I think that was you know really problematic I will just take back to your other question on non-profit stuff. We have looked at this. I mean the restriction on 501c3 is is that you can't endorse a candidate, right? There's there are there is And that's and that's pretty clear But I think Floyd is correct and you raise a very interesting question that the amount of It's very loose the regulations of 501c3 has have been incredibly lax and If they were to come after if the IRS were to try to take away one of you know Pro Publica's tax exempt status like their coverage I think that would make a phenomenal case Like that would be a great case that I would hope the night First Amendment center would you know Would take on So I think this is I think this is sort of a crucial point. And so let me just belabor it The you have to distinguish between the strength of the legal argument and the strength of the entity right because a lot of these organizations these smaller Media organizations They may have very strong legal claims, right? It's maybe the Trump administration tries to pull the IRS tries to pull a 501c3 Status from one of these organizations and maybe they have a very strong legal claim that it's viewpoint-based and therefore Violates the First Amendment But you need to have the resources to actually defend yourself or to prosecute one of those those cases and the vast majority of Entities that find themselves in these kinds of positions don't have those don't have those resources This is like the Tectur example that some of us were exactly Tectur Tectur is a great example of it But you know for a Tectur actually in comparison to many of the you know, I've talked to many tiny little tech companies that were That received national security letters they received these you know subpoenas essentially ordering them to disclose information and They had problems with the demand from the government or they wanted to challenge the gag order that had been placed on them but they didn't have the resources to hire lawyers to do that and you know, there's a very short list of Organizations that are able and willing to provide legal representation for free But once you get outside those organizations, you know, you're out of luck It's a real problem. I'm sorry. I just want to add in response to your question to the although the although the Supreme Court today is in my view and Other people's although it's disputed to some extent one of the most pro-first amendment courts. We've ever had It is not especially pro-press court or a press freedom court What they've done is basically to expand a Good deal of law protect and freedom of speech for everyone what they haven't done They haven't had the cases but they wouldn't do it. I think is to provide any sort of special protections for the press So it becomes all the more important for the court if that is the case and That may be the best one can hope for the new Supreme Court for the court to be urged To continue the process of expanding First amendment free speech rights. So I don't think we're gonna have a lot of cases where the Issue is going to be are you a journalist or are you not a journalist? That could come up with confidential sources, but They aren't taking confidential source cases right now. Anyway, it could come up with access to certain events But it's not going to come up much And and the real effort I think of the First Amendment bar and great new organizations like to mills has got to be to Keep the pressure on To get broad and broader still protections across the board So Yes, the internet user at home doesn't have to show here. She is a journalist or does things like journalists do But an American citizen American speaker an American entitled to First Amendment protection Great, so I have two more questions and then we're gonna open it up to Timer one here both of which are sort of cultural about the cultural backdrop of what's happening with the First Amendment and the law these days There has been a lot of talk about Millennials and free speech particularly on campus these days and as we all know Millennials are now the largest generation in the United States and and Have very different free speech attitudes a court at least according to Pew and Gallup and other researchers than previous generations Do and a Pew survey just from last year Four in ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people from publicly making statements that are offensive to Minority groups. This is double if not triple what the rates are in other generations Do you guys think this is a historic shift is something really happening here that is different than other periods if so is it permanent and likely to last and Is if it is What can be done about it? Well, you could teach civics in junior high school again I Mean there really has to be Really gotta be a better job of training kids About what this country about is about at its best and I just don't think that's happening Yeah, I don't know if if I mean there have been these very well publicized incidents in which you know People are obviously over sensitive to To controversial speech, right? I'm not sure that I see a crisis In in campus speech. I do think that there are you know, they're we're at a moment where equality issues are At the forefront in a way that they haven't been you know certainly since the 1970s right and In my view there are student groups that are making very legitimate demands that are motivated by equality considerations and Some of the backlash some of some of the characterization of this crisis of speech on campus is actually a response Not to over sensitivity about speech but to the the substantive equality demands So I I want to be very careful about you know I I don't want to defend you there I could list a dozen incidents in which I think students were too sensitive to To the speech that they characterize speech as a threat when it was actually just Speech they disagreed with those instances are easy to find right, but I don't want to I think it's it's it's too easy kind of write off what's going on on campuses as You know a bunch of snowflakes, I don't think it's that simple I think that there are legitimate equality demands students want those demands heard and at the same time there is and you know there there I think that there's a kind of association a dangerous association of free speech and Reactionary ideas, you know, I think we need to do sort of collectively people who feel Who are sort of deeply committed to the First Amendment need to do a better job of Making the case that the First Amendment belongs to everybody that this is something that Minority groups should value if anything even more than anyone else I think that collectively we have not made that case very well So, you know, I don't want to you know, I definitely don't want to downplay the You know the concerns about Oversensitivity, I think that those are either those are legitimate concerns, too But I don't want to I don't think it's fair to pretend that it's all about, you know That kind of oversensitivity just to have a little debate up here I think your vocabulary is on the tepid side. I don't think it's over sensitivity We used to call it censorship And and one of the things that's happening and I agree that there are mixed motives for it But yeah, one of the things that's happening is that conservative speakers can't get to speak on campus, right? And that's just a reality now. We had a situation that Fordham here to Year and a half to go Fordham Republican Club was barred from inviting Ann Coulter to speak I mean, this is madness and it's worse And it really is illustrative of what I think is a much broader problem. I don't disagree with what you said about the other side, right? Yeah, yeah, no, I think that's right and and Oversensitivity is not the right word for that. I think that censorship is the right word And that's not the only instance. I think that there are many instances like that So, you know, I don't want to I think that though it's important to focus on those and not to Understate the significance of those kinds of events. I just don't want to you know, I don't think that we should Exactly we shouldn't damn the whole generation because of So with one last question I'll invoke a little bit of moderators privilege and just weigh in a little bit on this censorship question myself because I Absolutely share the concern that everybody speaks the same talks the same and Believes the same or at least that's the risk when you have that kind of censorship I also really worry about the kind of self censorship that creeps up in rooms like this like I'm not sure I'm tempted to ask for if there's a Trump supporter in the room to raise your hand, but I won't because I'm Skeptical that there is one and if so, I don't want to put you on the spot, but there was one in the last panel I know you're right but The point is is like this censorship also has a way of Creeping in so that it is there is no central authority Sensoring in the way the word is but instead the tools and the ways that we communicate not this will bring us back to Hopefully you're one of your first comments Len Create rooms days communities even cities where Voices are almost completely silenced and that happens here and that happens in The middle of Trump country and so that's not so much a legal question but more for me at least about The way we value, you know civil discourse in in our country So it does tie back to the last question I wanted to ask very quickly before we go to everybody else is around the role of social media and What extra legal responsibilities do you think or perhaps they should even be enshrined in the law? that companies like Facebook or Twitter or You know Instagram, I mean you could go through a long list have to guarantee Basic free speech we've all read about these core of people who sort of determine what is What is acceptable or not on the network and that is only I think going to expand is there more conversations around misinformation? fake news misleading news The more attention that it seems is directed at how to manage these problems means there's more and more of a risk of Us taking the responsibility to determine what is what should be free speech out of the realm of the courts and Into the realm of the corporations like like Facebook So I guess how concerned are you guys about that and do you think? There are what what expectations would you hope to have for the leaders of those companies to make sure that? Free speeches continued to be a value. I think that one of the great reasons that we have such Such and this may not be popular in this audience But they're one of the great reasons that we have such trash on the internet and that you even have this discussion about it You have the trolling that you have the kind of not safe spaces for people to engage in public discourse on the internet is because of Section 230 of the communications decency act. I mean I think you could legislatively Not touch anything, but you could get rid of the immunity for Providers this is I'm not saying we should do it because there are there are costs to it But you could get rid of the immunity and and then people would be like regular old communication. You want to insult somebody You are liable to be sued for it and and then and I mean it plays it I'm not I'm not saying that's the solution I'm just saying that that is that we we need to understand that one of the reasons that this is all Happened is that we have created a structure where there is no legal recourse essentially for people who are harmed by the speech and So we have in some ways created this incredible Place for free speech, but without any of the traditional Sort of barrier either barriers to entry or or deterrence factors and so I'll just say that Yeah, I think that on this issue of It was just I know it's just a part of your question with the issue of so-called fake news that the To me that that both options are bad, you know the one option is Facebook does nothing, right? and We've seen the results of Facebook doing close to nothing on that on that particular issue and it's very hard for people to judge the reliability of particular links that you know sometimes False facts yet distributed very widely You know as a saying goes before the truth gets its boots on right But Facebook doing something is also a bad it's also a bad option right you don't want or at least to me It's a it's a dangerous thing the idea of Facebook being the arbiter of what's true and what's false I actually think that this idea of external fact checkers is a You know presents its own risk, but that all the options on the table. It seems like the one that Is least dangerous the idea of Facebook, you know essentially outsourcing to Independent parties the the obligation to check facts in some sense and then the facts aren't actually censored, but there's a flag of some kind that you know indicates the The The external parties view of those those facts, you know there there are There are some risks with that other people have pointed them out But of the options that have been seriously discussed to me that seems like The the least risky least dangerous And I think this is an area where the difference between the government and a private company However large and however powerful is is worth keeping in mind The First Amendment Protects us against the government all sorts of speech racist speech threatening speech of Almost anything but a media harm about to occur as a result of the speech itself I think I think it's not too much for us to ask of Facebook and its competitors and I think it that they will be inevitably drawn into this To to engage in a level of content control Hopefully from the outside Hopefully with a very light touch But but that for example their policy their expressed policy about racist speech. I think is correct The government couldn't do it Facebook does it or tries to do it and and I don't see anything Inconsistent in that and and I think that they should is it dangerous sure it is but I think it's both inevitable and Hopefully ultimately Useful I haven't done a great job of holding time But we do have just a couple minutes if there are one or two questions out there from the audience Thank you. This is a really great panel So my question is gonna sound slightly perverse, but if the government really does crack down What do you think of the prospects of transnational? Cooperation or sites like WikiLeaks or something Trumpy leaks whatever you want to call it Being the safety valve so that we can still get pertinent information out in public view See I do WikiLeaks as a problem not a solution So maybe that's too easy for for me. Yes We can import into this country Ideas that may be thought too dangerous, but you know, we are the exporter I mean, we're the exporter of more Terrorist pornography Nazism I could give a list of things which were impossible Before more modern technology and is impossible for good reasons, but impossible to ban I mean, we are more of a source of Nazi like propaganda to the world Than any place else and all of the world put together and So I don't look to Foreign sources to protect us let alone ones. I think are essentially anti-American and in their nature I'm not sure if I understood the question, but but to the extent it was it was a question about whistleblowers and transparency so There I think we're gonna be very dependent on whistleblowers under You know in a kind of weird way It's never been a harsher landscape for whistleblowers not withstanding the pardon of Chelsea Manny You know the the the landscape for whistleblowers is very bleak. They've never been Punished as severely as they're being punished now It's now routine for the government to use the espionage act against even people who leak to the media rather than Provide information to some foreign intelligence agency so it's a bleak landscape for whistleblowers But on the other hand, you know with an administration that is promising to be even more secretive than an administration that was quite secretive And an administration that is already saying that it's going to be even less forthcoming about Some of the most important policies, you know, I think we're gonna be very dependent on whistleblowers And I think one one, you know, I've never been a member of the media but one question I think for the media is well, what is the media's obligation with respect to those whistleblowers and the defense of those whistleblowers, you know the The Guardian and the Washington Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for the reporting about Edward Snowden What what is the obligation of the media organizations that? you know, we're lauded for their reporting based on the information provided by by this particular whistleblower and You know, there's been a kind of I think strategic Distance that the media organizations have always You know cultivated if that's the right word between them and the whistleblowers. I wonder if if That needs to change In the new world we are we're entering great. We have one last question so You know everybody's worried about the erosion of press freedoms and as you've discussed open source documents What is the strategy for not playing defense and waiting for these things to happen? What should the Washington Post and the New York Times do? to challenge these things and what what would your strategy be well, I'm not trying to dodge the question but Even even the Trump people haven't done anything yet So so I Mean look I I gave a speech to a media group a few months ago and Surprised many of them by saying that that I thought journalists and journalistic organizations ought to take a hard look at using the libel law To protect themselves In situations in which they are falsely accused and the like in a way Which is genuinely harmful and meets all the constitutional tests. I think that that That I mean there will be A limited number of affirmative sort of steps that can be taken extra legally The press can take still more steps to assure that their confidential sources are not Easily or or comfortably found Now the problem there is not a press problem The problem is a technology problem and a government will problem In terms of you know, it's so easy to get travel records now and telephone records and the like You don't have to call a journalist anymore So it's going to be difficult and I'm sorry. I don't have any And answers Accept that I do think that the press ought to make an effort Without just protecting their own but but to have a certain level of Fellowship With with the with their profession and the field and the people in it and the people who speak Who are attractive and unattractive and do good and bad things and the like that that they you know They they really ought to be ill feel a sense of fellowship Which I think is not often felt There are also I mean I've just a response I mean there are also some affirmative steps that have been going on that we could put a little you know We can continue to work on a federal anti slap Law would allow would would provide additional protection a federal Reporters shield law which you know vice president Pence was in fact one of the sponsors of Sort of the last go-round There and even though it may or may not I mean the last time I had a huge hole for national security cases You could argue that any shield laws bet you could argue I mean there's difference of opinion But you could argue that any shield law is going to be better than no shield law At least for certain cases at least in the federal court, you know after the Fourth Circuit decision I mean there are a lot of so there are sort of affirmative legislative things That we could be banding together to work towards there's also more Affirmative acts access type cases both FOIA, but also state-level Private records to make to think about making good law in terms of some of the information that really there should Should be available so there are smaller things, but I mean you know Floyd is right nothing's happened yet I just add that we almost had a federal shield laws or weak, but but useful and But for WikiLeaks, we would have one Yeah, so it's just less concretely on on that question I think the most important thing I mean not that these aren't you know important ideas But I think that the most important thing is Getting in the right mindset for this new administration I was I was Interested to hear Floyd use the word resistance and his you know in his remarks, but I think there's a kind of You know the first time things happen Things will happen incrementally right and there's this great line from Justice Jackson's opinion in in Barnett Which is the flag salute case from 1942 in which he says we avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings And I think you have to see that first incremental step not just for what it is in itself But for what it could become and in order to do that you have to be in the right mindset You have to you have to understand what this administration has proposed to do over time what it's What it's sort of Larger goals are what it's larger philosophy is and you have to understand these seemingly incremental policy changes In the content in that sort of broader in that broader broader context I think that's really important and the last thing I'll say is that Some of these issues are bigger than the press and it's important that you know It's important that the press be you know united on some of them but it's also important that the press be united with other other parts of civil society and and You know when it comes to issues like Equality issues when it comes to issues that that are more structural transparency issues or issues relating to Conflicts of interests, you know, they some of these issues may not seem to be the natural You know focus or the net the the kinds of things that the press as a you know collective Would advocate on but I think that it may be that that some of these issues are so important to our Democracy and so important to the the vitality of the democracy that there needs to be a larger civil society Coalition and I think some of those alliances are already being created now. I think that's a that's a good thing It's a fitting note to end on so thank you. Thank you guys Thank you so much My name is John Bracken from Knight Foundation for those of you weren't here first thing in the morning That was what a great way to end end the conversation I just want to say a couple words of of thank you and I also want to I pay attention to my boss Chris, I'm lucky enough to be able to call Chris Hughes one of my bosses or at least one of my bosses of my boss And so I wanted to echo go back to something that I mentioned in this this morning around our emphasis on local I love New York My grandparents met here in New York both my parents were born in New York, but we're very cognizant that in the in the Theme of bubbles that New York does not look like always and in the conversations We're having here in Detroit it here in New York are different than we might in in other cities so one thing we've been talking about actually leading into this meeting and the The depth and richness of the discussion today has affirmed it for a lot of us Jennifer, why don't you come up if you or come over to come back to your stage part? Because this is If there's a look at your hand, Mike But so we're gonna I just spoke with Katie locker who's our representative in Detroit and just spoke with My colleague in Akron, Ohio and if and just got a thumbs up from my colleague Matt Hagman of Miami So we're gonna craft versions of these conversations Grounded locally in each of those night cities the cities where night foundation works deeply so in Akron, Ohio where we actually started In Detroit and in Miami later this year as a starting point And and so thank you for giving us that inspiration if today had gone badly. We wouldn't have had that idea Jennifer I don't know if you want to Hi, I just wanted to use this opportunity to tell everyone that we have one more day For night foundations news match program. So at the end of December Thanks to our board of trustees We got approval for a one point five million dollar fund to match donations to 57 not-for-profit news organizations most of them are local around the country And I'm gonna tweet out the link so that you can see which one of those 57 news Organizations that you would like to donate before the deadline tomorrow night why Local John Bracken my colleague told you our roots began for night foundation in Akron, Ohio and the focus of the journalism program is Very much focused on meeting local information needs It was just music to our ears to hear in one panel after another about one of the most powerful ways We have to fight fake news to rebuild and regain trust in journalism Is to focus on meeting local information needs in our communities so we can get all of your help With that with the next 24 hours to use the hashtag news match Check it out on the Twitter I will tweet out the link at Jennifer Preston is my handle and please support local news Organizations not-for-profit news organizations across the country. Thanks so I need to announce a fund to last week at night foundation with with several other funders we announced a Fund focused on artificial intelligence and its impact on and the ethics and governance related to it And I had that discussions that led into that Lat that today as I was listening and what came to mind is the notion of if we think that the internet has had a Disruptive impact on news and information and the way we engage with elections today, you know the coming role of Increased machine intelligence. I think is is gonna make what looked like the last 15 years look like a walk in the park I think that the the ability for these new tools to alter every aspect of civic society Is is great. So I would just plant that seed as we As we begin to sort of get our footing in this new world The last thing I wanted to say what is two things one for follow-up conversations If you want to be involved with the Detroit Akron or Miami meetings or anything else We stood up a slack instance today using the same hashtag. So it's kfcivichaul That slack comm if you want to join the conversation or Pitch ideas or talk to us any of us about what you want to see come next and lastly I really just want to thank civic hall in the entire team This was just a pleasure both Intellectually and it was smooth and and really thank you guys so much special thanks to Elena to Mika who I think is still outside working Olivia Danielle Chloe all the volunteers who have been here Thanks a lot what Besides thanking John and Jen Preston I just wanted to just really point out that how lucky are we to have the Knight Foundation Working to build this field at this particular time in our country's history. I Don't I don't I don't know of another organization that's more dedicated to building the field And so we're very lucky and privileged to be working with them all of us are Yes, in particular, I want to thank our illustrious team Danielle To Mika and Elena who are here somewhere they three people put this thing together very quickly And I also wanted to highlight Mika Sifri's work who really curated all of the The panels today and the the trust in in his ability to pull this together I rely on greatly we all rely on greatly and please come back and get more of it at personal democracy forum June 8th and 9th. We're gonna continue this conversation and for those of you who can Please come visit at Civic Hall Civic Hall org is the website. We're downtown at 22nd Street in the Flatiron district We're gonna continue this conversation every day at Civic Hall for those of you who can come and visit us And with that let's have a couple of drinks and celebrate our community and have a few laughs and Keep our fingers crossed for Friday. Thank you very much