 One of the good things about this course is that there's always new stuff in the news about the course. So I want to read a couple of articles that just came out. This is from September 2nd. It's an article written by Dr. Twain, who's a professor of psychology at San Diego State University. His book is I, Gen, Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up, Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy, and Completely Unprepared for Adults. And this is what he says. In the past few years, many U.S. college campuses have become embroiled in controversies over free speech. Students have insisted on, quote, safe spaces to protect themselves from ideas with which they disagree and have demanded the dismissal of faculty members who offend their sensibilities. Campus speakers have been disinvited when students object to the point of view. Such events were rare just five years ago, but now seem to occur constantly during the school year. Why has this happened? First, I, Gen, is the generation of young Americans born in 1995 and first to spend their entire adolescence with smartphones in their hand, puzzling as the recent campus controversies might seem, they are rooted in unique psychology and life experiences of their cohorts. First, I, Gen, grew up in an era of smaller families and protective parenting. They rode in car seats until they were in middle school, bounced on soft surface, playgrounds, and rarely walked on from school. For then, unsurprisingly, safety remains a priority even if it's early adulthood. This is distinctively an I, Gen idea that the world is an inherently dangerous place because every social interaction character is the being hurt. To faculty administration, we grew up in previous eras. College is a place of being challenged by new ideas. Members of I, Gen disagree. They see college as a place to prepare for a career in a safe environment. They don't necessarily see a connection between participating in big social and political debates and getting a job at Payswell. All of these I, Gen factors have combined to create a perfect storm in U.S. colleges. It isn't hard to see why these young people looking for safety and practicality now clash so regularly with their elders when controversial ideas arrive in campus. There was recently a speaker who was invited to speak in Williams College, which is in the Northeast. His name is Christina Summers. Let me tell you who she is. She was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a member of the Board of Advisors of the Foundation of Individual Rights and Education. She teaches ethics at Clark University, has published several books including articles and books published in the New York Journal of Medicine, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Washington Post, known for her defense of liberal feminism and her critique of gender feminism. Her book, The War Against Boys, is one of the New York Times notable books and has lectured in more than a hundred colleges. She gave a talk and the response to the talk was she was called a racist and a white supremacist. She was insulted by rants that consumed the majority of the question and answer period. At the one step, students shouted at you, at the speaker, at the administrator seemed to affirm the heck was video ceiling. That time out gesture that it was time to end the event. For each challenging question asked of her, there were at least five personal attacks for either at her or at the moderator. One student started yelling aggressively, blaming the moderator for his parents' qualms about his sexual orientation. As I stood for at least five minutes, other students stood up and explained that they were better than the speaker because she was, quote, stupid, harmful and a white supremacist. This was last week. At Brandeis University, recent Lady Brandeis canceled a play about the comedian Lenny Bruce at the Sun Students and Faculty Express Outrage about its content. One criticism was that the play unfairly portrayed the Black Lives Matter movement. A Brandeis theater student who led the campaign against the campaign told Boston Globe that it portrayed black characters with a ridiculous and vicious notion and they were caricatures. The plot censored around a main character who listened to audio recalling according to Lenny Bruce, which sparked discussions over racial epithets and how Bruce's material translated to contemporary time. Donald Trump Jr., the son of our president recently gave a speech at the University of Texas on October 24th and as reported by Mother Jones, he said, politically liberal professors and administrators foster an atmosphere that makes conservatives afraid to be vocal. Trump moved to the topic of free speech by citing conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro's recent speech at the University of California, Berkeley. While officials acknowledged he had a right to be on campus, they coddled students by offering mental health professionals to talk about how the appearance of impact their sense of safety and belonging on campus. That showed that liberal universities think conservative speech is equivalent to violence. And then Trump engaged in a mock dialogue between the liberals and the conservatives. Quote, free speech is all right with us, but it's hate speech we want to ban, the liberals say. We're all right. Well, you're right. Nobody likes hate speech, we tell them, but exactly what do you mean by hate speech? Trump said, oh, that's easy. Hate speech is anything that says America is a good country that our founders were great people, that we need borders. Hate speech is anything faithful to the moral teachings of the Bible. Trump mocked the arts colleges that were used for preparing students for underwater basket weaving and feminism degrees, not preparing them for the real world. Quote, you all snowflake. So yesterday I looked up the definition of snowflake, not in Webster's dictionary, but in the Urban Dictionary. Here's what you are, according to the Urban Dictionary, assuming you're snowflake. Quote, a hypersensitive, irrational person who can't stand to have his or her worldviews challenged will be offended in any perceived or even slightest way. They will have any number of emotional reactions in community character and on motives. Blocking on social media, shouting, interrupting, threatening, assaulting, etc. They often live in an echo chamber of their own beliefs and surrounding themselves exclusively with people and opinions they agree with. The term is often used to describe people left leaning but can also be applied to right-winging people. And in one of the articles in which you have your materials that was written by Erlich Baer, who was the vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity at New York University, he said the following. Wide spread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable, and entitled snowflakes is wrong. The recent student demonstrations at colleges, campuses, against myosinopolis, which was here, and others, should be understood as an attempt to ensure that conditions of free speech for a greater group of people rather than censorship. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good. But it has regrettably been easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between the younger generations over sensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth. We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding. The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the apparent value of a given view with the obligations to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of the community. What is under severe attack in the name of an absolute notion of free speech are the rights both legal and cultural of minorities to participate in public discourse. The snowflakes sense a good year before the election of President Trump that insult and direct threats could once again become sanctioned by the most powerful office in the land. What its proponents forget is that freedom of speech requires vigilant and continuous examination of its parameters. And unlike invoking a pure model of free speech that was never existed, the danger to our democracy is clear and present. We should thank the student protest as the activists and other overly sensitive souls for keeping watch over the soul of our department. So, question for you is are you a snowflake? Let me start with Olivia. Are you a snowflake? No. Why? No. Do you think Milo's should have been allowed to come to campus and see? Yes. And what should the school have done with regard to the protest against him which broke windows and cost the school $100,000 in debt? You realize that the $100,000 that the school spends eventually comes down to your pockets because it's going to result in an increase in your cost intuitions. So are you prepared to spend that money so that Milo's gets to see? Yes. Because? Well, for a few reasons. First of all, when we were reading our facts like our case today, there was a lot about how, you know, heckler's veto and whether or not we should protect the speaker, protect the crowd. And we talked a lot about that in class. And I definitely think that you need to protect the speaker by maintaining the crowd and by making sure it doesn't become violent. I think that because a lot of students on this campus or even not students on this campus are scared to hear what he had to say and didn't want to hear what he had to say. And based off of, you know, past precedent, think that by protesting or rioting or whatnot that they can stop him from speaking. And I think that, like, no matter what he's saying, he has the right to say it. Some of what he was going to say, according to himself, was that he was going to read the list of 10 students on campus who are actually here illegally in illegal immigrants. And by exposing these people at this time, given what the administration wants to do and Jeff Sessions wants to do, it would put them in danger of actually being taken from campus and being deported. Isn't that an act of violence through words? Did he be allowed to say that? If you know that's what he's going to do and you're one of those vulnerable people, is it okay to let him show up and talk about that? I think yes, because if he's not allowed to say that, where do you draw the line of what's like emotional harm and what's not hurting someone? So he should be allowed to say that. And if in fact we want to create on campus, or some people want to create a new Nazi group, and they want to march on campus with swastikers and big signs, is that okay too? Can we let them come on campus and talk? There was an article that said that when the Republican Party here, the Republican Club here, wanted to have a street speech week, the estimate would be that it would cost the university approximately $500,000 to protect the group of speakers. Eventually it was canceled, but that was what it was. Is it okay to spend $500,000 to protect people who might be Nazis, neo-Nazis, KKK people? If they want to speak and people want them to speak on our campus, I think yes. And if I decide that I want them to speak on campus and their speech, their presence actually intimidates you and upsets you, what's your choice? Just look away, like Hohenstack, just don't look away. Do you think there's a difference between a Nazi speaking in Charlottesville and a Nazi coming on campus and speaking? Is there any responsibility that the government has to protect college students that it might not have in the public square? When you come to a library to speak, when you go to a library to study, if somebody comes into the library and makes a lot of noise, we should stop that person, right? Well, I mean, and it talks about in this packet, there are certain limitations, like a circumstance of time, you know, how we talk about you can't have, like... Time, place, and matters. Yes, that matters. Okay. And why is there such a thing as a time, place, and matter restriction? Why do you think that? Because when you go to a library, the purpose of going to the library is to read library books. And the government, Cal, creates a space with library or library budget where you should have the right to come and be comfortable and should be quiet and should do what it is that you come there to do. Correct? Okay. So nobody can come to you. Isn't that the same when you come to Berkeley to study? No. I think the definition, which is something I found kind of hard to, like, really gain a definition for it in this case. But, like, competition of ideas and having an academic environment, people really disagree on what that is. And I think that it should be, like, all ideas. You should have to be protected from a certain idea no matter how offensive or no matter how much you disagree with it, no matter how uncomfortable it might make you. I think that's when academic growth is made and when you can start pushing your ideas and becoming, you know, more knowledgeable. I don't think it's when you protect it. So if you are put in fear of actually being deported or being objectified, just get over it. That's the answer. The government, Cal, has no obligation at all. Do they? I'm asking you, do they? Do they? Some people think they do. Some people think they don't. What do you think? Is there no limit to any change, any limitation that Berkeley can impose upon any speaker based on the content of the speech? None. Is the time, place, and manner of speaking on a college campus exactly the same as speaking in the public square? Or should there be some different criteria? What do you think? I think that although the line, it's hard to draw, I would completely disagree and say that having names called out of people who could potentially be deported from your speech, I don't think you should be justified. I think the university is obligated to provide a space where students feel comfortable to learn and feel safe. And I'm not saying they should be protected from all speech that they disagree with. But when it puts them in danger and prevents them from being able to feel comfortable in a classroom where there's supposed to study and supposed to get an education, or maybe even cause them to get deported and prevent them from getting that education, I don't think that should be allowed. Certainly I can stop somebody from speaking out in this classroom because this is my classroom and we're talking about a second man. If you decide to stand up and talk about a pro-Nazi theory, I can say that's not the topic and we can stop it. But what about in the public square? Should I be able to stop you in the public square? I wouldn't say so, but at the same time, I think it's important to note that a lot of the reaction to Mala's invitation or other speakers, it's not like people said, oh, he's going to read these names and it's going to incite violence or cause issues. It says, oh, he's a conservative who doesn't agree with oftentimes the general liberal ideology on campus, so that's why he shouldn't come, right? Maybe that's not the reason, but that's oftentimes, you know, the reason that organizations like him keep going. Well, Anatolyz makes his living demeaning people what he does. He knows it, he says it. He sees himself as an entertainer. He says he is not threatening, but if you just read his words, they are very demeaning to people based upon characteristics of the people, race, color, gender, immigration. They are demeaning and attacking. He acknowledges that. He says, oh, this is just me talking, but you know what? If you're the object of that, that's upsetting. That's upsetting. And I would ask you, when Milo's comes on campus, invited by a Berkeley group, and the university spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money, so that he can speak and demean you and your fellow students. Is that 100% okay? There's no limitation here on? Specifically, inciting violence than there's a real limitation. Yeah, but that begs the question, because when he comes on campus, how do you know what he's going to incite violence or not? And if he incites violence, whose job is it? Is it his job to keep quiet, or is it the government's job to stop the violence? Well, I was just going to say, I mean, the idea of the first amendment is, you can't stop someone from speaking, and so you should prosecute the people who actually do the violence, not the people who incite the violence. And I mean, this is the problem that I have in this particular instance, because it's like the people who don't have Milo to speak, or they're asking the state, or they're asking the government actor, in this case the university, to restrict him from coming, but yet his speech, in this case calling on documented students, as a foreign as it is, is trying to incite not violence among other people, but it's inciting violence by the state to come and deport them, which is a legitimate, I mean, interest for the law. I mean, as unfortunate as it is, right? And so, but then this gets the question of, well, is it illegal to actually be here? No. It was illegal to cross the border. That was the act that was illegal. It's not illegal to just be president of the United States. I mean, Milo addressed that. And so it's like, you know, this is the problem that I have, but it's like, he's inciting violence, but not necessarily among the supporters to act against these students. He's asking, in this case, it would be ICE to come and deport them. It doesn't matter if he says that here, or in the public square, or in a video that he posts on the internet. I mean, is there any difference? Okay, let me unpack it. First of all, to the individual who could be the object of that speech, does it matter, do you think, to that individual, if it's the government who's going to incite the violence against the individual or the group of people around them? Or I might argue that to the individual who was going to be the object of the violence, the individual's the object of the violence, and it's a distinction without a difference to that individual as to who does it. Now, it may be a distinction on a legal sense of who does it, but I don't think that's a distinction that we're going to get a lot of mileage on. Where I would ask you to think about and consider is, I think you have a strong First Amendment argument. If Miles gets a soapbox and stands up in a public square and says, let me give you a list of people I know here illegally, right? My question is, if you take that soapbox and with the permission of Cal, put him on campus and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect him because you know it's going to be a problem because it's happened already, there's already been a problem, it's going to happen again, right? And aren't you endorsing that speech and to you students who show up here, someone spent a lot of money for you to be here, maybe you did individually, maybe the state did, maybe a scholarship, I don't know who it is, but someone's paying a lot of money for you to come here to get some benefit. And if his speech or a Nazi speech or somebody else's speech makes you as an individual feel threatened, upset, victimized, the object of violence either from your neighbors or the government, isn't that a violation of the trust that the university has implicitly told you, come here and we will give you the opportunity to learn and protect you from this kind of stuff. So that's not the point of the university. I mean, it's just not me that you can, that the university can censor as much of greetings that you get. I'm asking that's the question. No, I mean it's not permissible because I mean the university, I mean there have been, it was Kate Bisch versus University of Missouri and then the other case involving the college Republicans at SFSU, it's like this is the university, I mean number one you're choosing to be here, it's not like secondary education, this is higher education, so there are, there's a sense of like less security that you have as an individual. Yeah, you think you're paying a lot to be here. What's given on this is just a quote from one of the cases we were at Pinker. They said that speech should be allowed if it does not interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without covering the right of others. But the court never tells you how to do that. The court never tells you where to draw a line. You think we should draw a line, alright? Where do you draw a line? You're sitting now, you have the power, right? The cases before the court or before the school and it's a split decision, you've got to vote. Tell me what you tell the Republican club, the Democratic club and maybe the neo-Nazi club if they're formed or the KKK club if they're formed. What do you tell them about how to invite speakers and how not to invite speakers? Especially that everybody gets it. And you don't think everybody gets it, huh? How do you decide it? Okay, good. You know that I don't care what you know, I care what you think. But what do you think? Think. Now, what do you do? Give me a criteria. I think you want to look at what the speech is going through and although, and I mean, I think you have to look at the idea of the speech and whether or not the speech will incite violence, whether it will, I mean, there's that line of like, yeah, you can offend someone, you can make someone feel uncomfortable, but that line of discomfort and extreme vulnerability to harm in some way, whether that be the government supporting you or making you go and commit suicide because you feel so, I mean, that line is very hard to draw, but I think that there is some way maybe that you can determine hate speech and, you know, define that through some sort of language. Well, and you want to give it a shot. If this was easy, it would have been done already. So trust me, this is not easy. It's not easy, but you have to decide someone, because that's my next question is, who gets to decide when we get to decide for ourselves when we bring on campus or not? And the answer is if you don't like what he's going to say, don't show up on the jacket, by the way, or do we protect the vulnerable amongst us and not permit anyone or any group of people to bring anybody here to say anything you or she wants. That's the question. There's something in this case about how do you protect... Which case? No, it's in one of the articles. It's basically whether or not you protect the individual who is now the minority or to protect the majority and, you know, then you think who's being the vulnerable one. Is it really all the people who feel unsafe by something that's said or the person that their rights might be taken away? And I think that the vulnerable person becomes the one that their rights might be taken away if they can't speak. And I think that you have to look at, even though the majority might think something, like the minority speaker will let's say it's Milo or let's say it's the Republican group on campus, their right to break speech that shouldn't be abridged is just as legitimate as another person's. So when you're trying to protect wonders of people by potentially saying and censoring them and saying, no, you can't say this, this is going to affect someone else, that's now taking away someone else's rights. Okay, but if I come on campus with a big sign that says Muslims should not be allowed in the United States and certainly should not be on the perfect campus, and every Muslim who sits in a seat in Berkeley takes away a seat from someone more deserving. That speech, you should allow that. Okay, and the person who happens to be Muslim who came to Cal to get an education, what do you think that person is going to feel at that time? I think it's really unfortunate and I think it's not something that... Just too bad on that person? But that person's speech rights are not being taken away? Because she's trying to draw a line, how do you draw that line? It's so simple, you can't... Well, the first question is, do you draw a line? No. Then the next question is, where do you draw it? And the third one is, he gets to draw it. So your answer is, and Christian's answer is, you can't draw one and so you don't draw one, right? What are you doing? I think, like, there's nothing intellectual about... I think the point of the university is to engage with an idea from a critical standpoint and have a discussion and have a productive debate. But certain views of an obviously racist degree like that have no intellectual merit and cannot be engaged in a college classroom. Just to say that a Muslim does not have any purpose here is so ruinous to someone's sense of self-worth that it doesn't belong in terms of just, like, a university. People have the right... A university should prioritize the safety of its students over just, like, speech like that, I think. Right. And so the university makes a decision about whether or not speech is going to upset somebody or not and then speech is going to upset somebody. I do think that their line for sure needs to be drawn because obviously there's... I mean, they try to make it like a liberal and conservative issue, but we're not talking about, like, a tax plan. It's talking about something that is, like, immediately destructive to someone's sense of belonging. Like, to say that you don't belong in this country, at this university. How can someone, like, how can someone study under those circumstances? Very difficult, but the question is, how do you know what it is you have to say or can or can't say if the government is going to come to you and say, well, that's whatever someone's feeling you can't say. I thought the definition in the Berkeley speech was pretty adequate. Why? Just to say something that is so severe and pervasive and objectively offensive, and it's so substantially impaired the person's access to university programs or activities, that the person is effectively denied equal access to the university resources and opportunities on the basis of race, color, national ethnic origin, alienage, sex, religion, sexual orientation. I would accept that. Good. Who gets to decide what speech is going to do that or not? The victim or the speaker or the government? I think it would have to be the government. Okay. So the government is going to decide whether you can talk when not based upon how it affects somebody else. Isn't that a heckler's veto? Aren't you losing your First Amendment right to speak because it's going to land poorly on somebody? Yes, but I don't have a couple of facts. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abridged in so many historical examples. Like, why does it become absolute in this context but not in so many others? I don't know. I'm asking. So you permit Berkeley, the university, which is the government, to look at a speaker and based upon, of course, the history of what the speaker said and say, you know, this is going to hurt somebody who's a minority or a minority person and we're going to stop you from speaking. And that's okay. Yeah. The government can censor speech and advance the speech because it may impair somebody's ability to learn at count. Yeah. Okay. I think that, I don't know. I have this grief because I think that protecting someone's ability to speak, I don't think you can restrict someone's speech based on what you think they're going to say. For instance, with Milo, I don't think, regardless of any of the hate speech that he knew he was going to put forth unless he was proposing a direct attack on individuals or followed through with that, which he was going through with some documented students, I think that is the line for all changes to speech but I don't think he can restrict that before. And I think it's... Let me ask you this question. How does the government know what he's going to say when he says it? That's my... What do you think? I think we need to discuss this. I mean, if you could look at fire speeches and stuff, I don't think you know what someone's going to say before they're out there. So you've got to let them speak in any way? Yes, but I think that the government or whatever the authority in the situation is holds the right to stop someone's speech. People used Milo's example earlier this semester and you're talking about a loaded gun versus a list of undocumented students. If you see someone holding a loaded gun and you have the right to stop them from having it, if you see someone with a list of undocumented students you have the right to stop them. What's the difference between me holding a gun and pointing it at you and Milo speaking? What's the constitution? Do I have a constitution to take the right and the right to hold a gun pointing at you? No, this is where I personally believe the line should be drawn. Go ahead. Where should it be drawn? It should be drawn when your speech directly incites violence towards another individual. And it's the government's responsibility to stop the speech, not to protect the person from being targeted by it? Well, in this case the government is the one who would harm. Okay. Yes. I think it is the government's job because Cal, in this case, is acting with the government and Cal has made a promise to undocumented students to protect them. And so it is Cal's responsibility. And protect their feelings and protect their sense of safety. No, not protect their feelings. Protect their physical ability to be in this country. Or somebody who had the big sign that their Muslims don't belong in this country but you're a Muslim and you're legally. I think that is okay. I think the important, the thing that resonated me the most is what we read is the article by the ACLU about how restricting hate speech on campuses does nothing but kind of patch over the symptoms of a bigger problem, which is that our country is extremely racist and negative. And so if we don't allow those viewpoints to be expressed, if we pretend they don't exist, we're just doing every one of the service. But I think the important thing is the university can do this once. Another thing that really resonated me was the idea that by devaluing someone else's humanity, you are effectively removing their right to speech and that you're removing them from this year. So if you're telling an undocumented student they don't belong here, you're devaluing them from the community and we're removing their right to speech. I think the correct response would be to help those people be put on a level playing field so that their speech is valued as much as the person here is devaluing their community. But the person who's here, let's say illegally, how is that person's speech being infringed upon by a young Milo so somebody's sending over long? But I think it's the broader idea, not their speech, but the broader idea that their community is less valuable and so their ability to participate in the public sphere of speech is undermined. So you would limit that speech on campus, correct? No. You would not limit it? No, I'm saying I don't think that's me to be limited. I think the speech of those people whose lives are being valued should be... That's right. No, I don't think it should be limited. I think it should be fostered. So you should foster the speech of the people who say undocumented people should go home and love themselves along in this country. That speech is okay on campus. That speech is okay on campus. So you could foster the speech of the undocumented people. Right. Is there any speech on campus that you would say doesn't belong on campus? That, but it's explicitly a pattern. And saying to somebody, calling out the names of 10 people who are here illegally doesn't personally affect those people? I do think it personally affects them. So can they have that speech? They can have that speaker. I think they should stop that speech before... What are you saying today? See, that's the point. Whose day? The university should be allowed to invite whatever speaker students want to come see. For instance, Hula. I think he got up there and was holding a list of students. The university should stop them from speaking out that way. Physically unplug the microphone. They've done it when he's been heckled. I understand that. I'm asking if you think that's okay. Physically unplug the microphone. Yes. And when Lewis Farrakhan came a couple years ago who has said in other contexts, the only thing wrong with Hitler is that he didn't kill enough students, that's okay too if it hadn't become a sale. And we should encourage people to speak out against him. Yes. And there is no limit to what anybody can say. And if you can say it in the public square, you ought to be able to say the perfect answer. Besides like personal tasks. You see, but here's the problem. In concept and broad theory, of course, we shouldn't attack people as a bad thing, et cetera, et cetera. But someone has to decide which speech does that and which speech doesn't. And the someone who decides that is the government. And my question is, is that okay to have the government look at what someone's going to say and say this speech is okay and this speech is not okay? Maybe it is okay to do that. Maybe it's not okay to do that. What I'm trying to take you is that it's, you can't just say we shouldn't be saying these things. I agree with you. Maybe we shouldn't. But when someone wants to say these things, is it the government's right obligation, duty, power to say you can't speak because of how it's going to be with that person? And the second part of that question is, is there a distinction between on a soapbox in the public square and on a soapbox it's role possible? Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. But I'm asking you to understand that that's the idea. I think it's also important to know that it's easy to discount these opinions as extremists. Like if a person comes on campus, like Milo for example, I mean Milo, as he's playing, it's on a pretty extreme side. But speakers, for example, have to pay for abortion, or pro-life, who are very pro-life, for example. And come on campus and people protest. They have no right to hateful in setting violence. But at the same time it's important to remember sure it can be disagreed upon. 50% of the country staunchly agrees that they're right and have the right to speak about pro-life values and it's something that should be instilled in students. So I think it's also important to note that personal opinion is one thing, but it's easy to flip it the other way and have no other degree of talking about it. I think the same thing that you take away right, so here's what I'm not on the other hand. I want you to make a decision, right? Of course we should all be nice to each other and say nice things, and yes, I agree with you. But do you have a very specific circumstance? You've got the First Amendment, and you've got the government, Berkeley, and you've got a speaker. And the question is not whether or not a speaker should or shouldn't say something. It's whether or not the government, Berkeley, should stop someone from speaking because of the effect that the words will have on someone else. And that's the question. And why don't you answer yes or no? No. It should not. So all speech is good on campus in the same way that it's good out there and in the same way out in the world, if I threatened to kill you, I shouldn't be stopped. And if I do it on campus, I should be stopped. But if I say Muslims don't belong in this country like the President of the United States was right to say that, that speech is okay on campus as well. People can disagree and people can have protests against it peacefully, but it's okay to have. So all speech is good. It doesn't change once you come on campus. Correct? As long as it doesn't explicitly incite violence against individuals in which case the government has already put it forward. There's a distinction between inciting violence against individuals by third party and inciting violence in the crowd. I don't think anyone disagrees that if you create a violence like yelling fire in a crowd of theater creates a violent response which is false. But that's not the same as saying something about somebody if someone else is going to create a violent circumstance. Well, that's my question. How about you? Yeah, at one point I want to say that I'm not really comfortable with the government restricting anything. For example, slide voting. One of the judges is like, oh, there's no proof. You can't just maybe excuse how to allow any speech. It doesn't matter what they say. You know Nazis can come on and say whatever they want to say. The Ku Klux Klan can come on and march down the streets and say anything they want on campus. And there's no restriction on speech on Berkeley campus that don't exist in the public square. And the fact that it a fan as a student who came to the study makes that person feel unwanted, threatened, concerned, victimized just too bad to get over it. Yeah, because if someone's a fan, it's on the street, you don't have to protect that. That's right. And here that's my question. My question is, does that change when that speech is on a college campus? And you say no. Because campus is a government organization, it's a government entity. So it's a library. Yeah, it looks like that's a content user. Right. So you're saying that content-neutral decisions are fine in any circumstance, but the government should never limit content. And if the anti-file or anybody else comes to protest, it's a job of the government to stop the protest and let the speaker speak. Even if it costs $500,000 to do that. Your money. It doesn't matter what the reason is. Just as an aside, by the way, this is a picture I put in of the Hexel veto. Anybody recognize where this came from? I'm curious. This is from the Frankenstein. This is the Frankenstein mod. I'm going to get Frankenstein. Anyway, yeah. So we've been talking constantly about this government stopping someone, like stopping whatever. So what if, so let's say Richard Spencer, literally advocating for genocide here. Richard Spencer is here. One Richard Spencer with a microphone works as a hundred Berkeley students. They're not fighting, but it's just like there's like a line drawn between them or whatever and then they're just shouting at each other. And the Berkeley students drown out Richard Spencer because they just have a lot more people, so they just drown their voice out. Does that count as restricting your free speech or does that not? Because there's no, it's just like two groups speaking at each other and they're just, okay. So that is the Hexel veto, right? I don't like what you're saying. I'm going to Hexel you and prevent you from speaking. In that circumstance the Hexel is other listener. Okay. The question we have is why is the responsibility of the government in that is it the responsibility of the government to stop the Hexel or is it the responsibility of the government to get Richard Spencer all of the state? In both cases you're, no matter what you're doing you're restricting someone's speech. I think so. Yeah, because you're either restricting the speech of the speaker by telling him to stop or you're restricting the speech of the people that are reacting. Richard should not do whatever then it's just you'll make you see that strong one. So I think government out just let them let's prove them speak as long as they don't punch each other in the face or burn down a building or whatever, let them let them out. Okay. So here you are on college and this I'm Berkeley and Spencer or Milo or Ann Coulter or any of these people or Lewis Barrett can't come to speak and there's a whole group of students don't want him to speak or her to speak because of the content of the speech and the response is to not let that person speak by him or anything. And your argument is that the government should just remain neutral, make sure nobody does any visit the violence of the other. Yeah, because either way you're restraining some of the ability to speak. And it's the government's responsibility to just get out of the way. And so the loudest voice gets to be heard and the minority voice doesn't get to be heard. And there's no obligation of the government to allow minority views to be expressed. No, that's that's a different thing. It's like, but isn't that the next result that whoever speaks loudest gets to talk and whoever doesn't speak loudest doesn't get to talk? Well, maybe that's okay and maybe that's your decision that I want to know. So yeah, so if that's happening um Let me stop you here. It's not if that's happening. That is happening. When that happens I think that the only time that we should let that happen is if the top of the speaker or of whoever either the majority or the minority produces like produces like something or has the produced things um called the paradox of tolerance. You can't let intolerant people gain the majority or else tolerance is destroyed and then the intolerant wins and then tolerance doesn't exist at all. But that's a philosophical statement that I would agree with you. But now you have to implement it and somebody or some power has to make a decision in advance about which speech is tolerant and which is intolerant. That decision is the government and my question is do you want the government to make that decision? Do you want Donald Trump's administration to make a decision about which speech is tolerant or which is intolerant? Because if you say this is my philosophy and I want it implemented by governmental force then that's what you're deciding. Maybe that's what you are deciding. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't decide. I just want you to know that that's the decision and philosophically these are wonderful comments and we ought to have them. But then you have to translate it into someone has to do something and to someone whether it's Berkeley administration or the federal government or the state government has to out and you have to instruct them on what to do or what the parameters are and my question is what do you instruct them to do? I just remembered something we were talking about usually a lot of voice for real and I was just remembering after Ben Shapiro came to speak I was watching a video on YouTube of the protest is outside and he was going around asking them what they're protesting and I think it's important to realize the context and the history of the person and the people who come here to protest sometimes I would argue that it is not the minority that are trying to protest to have their voices heard it's a very extreme experience on those in opening Berkeley really to incite violence and to get on the floor and to get attention and some of them didn't even know they were protesting I think that's also like something to keep in mind we keep talking about like are you willing to pay like half a million dollars that's coming out of your tuition to protect your speakers or are you willing to also know that in the first place the reason why we need to protect the speakers is because there are people who are inciting violence and in the first place the responsibility to protect the speakers is all that's applied I mean I agree that if someone has speakers making like a direct impact on someone but you don't know what they're going to say if they're like coming here and say well I think a lot of the time people like speakers like may have a different opinion on groups but like for example calling out people like to be deported is like a direct impact on someone if someone who's protesting you know a lot of them shouldn't be here I think it's interesting there was just somewhere in the reading that said like the best way to combat hate speech is to do more speech and I think like all of that's a very like also important to note that once people make very extreme views that I would say the majority don't agree with like love themselves a week like belong to the country that you can't argue with someone who's not willing to listen and if someone like for sure they're rude and for sure they be after they be called like the cops we call them but if they're listening to us don't think like you're not listening to us so you're right and philosophically I accept everything you say but now you have to make a decision you are the governor you are the chancellor of Berkeley you're the president of the United States you're somebody in power and you have to make a decision do you have a set of criteria based upon what the speaker is going to say or do you say everybody gets to speak and if there is violence I'll deal with the bottle yes which one? you let everybody come on regardless of who they are and what they're going to say yes except I think it's interesting to do that like I think Milo should have been allowed to come the first time like back in February but like well he wasn't allowed to come back to specifically incite violence and I think that's where the school could draw the line so would you throw the line and say no you can't have Milo's come back the second time and he has made like specific remarks that he's going to explicitly act individually I think it's hack that makes you an expose I was like here in February but wasn't he really angry that he was allowed to come speak yes of course he did do we care whether or not a speaker is angry or whether we make decisions about whether we like the speaker to come on is it about what the speaker feels or is it about what the listeners feel or is it about everybody putting their kids in herself but that's a decision you got to make that's a decision and not knowing as I've said before that's the beginning of wisdom knowing what you're doing I think in a perfect world with a good speech and bad speech like racist speech not racist speech you can nearly draw a line that's allowed or not but since we don't live in that world I don't think a speech coach can do that without speaking for the day without having all of these problems and I acknowledge that a lot of speakers are not promoting the speech for this course and some of the speech might not be productive but I don't think we believe in this like that so your answer as the person in charge who gets the vote converted or not is you let everybody come and if there's a riot you protect the speaker and stop the riot even if the speaker is going to say things which are materially harmful to an individual or oppress the individual or say you don't belong on campus and make that person feel less wanted less able to get the education he or she is entitled to get by coming here I think I would morally object to what they're saying but I don't think you have to protect them the speaker so if I'm a Muslim student or an undocumented person and I come to you and you're the administrator and you get to decide who comes and I say look if you let that person come it's going to be painful to me harmful to me, upsetting to me it's going to be hard for me to come to this class it's going to be hard for me to learn I came here, someone's paying a lot of money how can you let this happen to me your answer is get over well it's kind of I think it's a little bit different you can see you probably I will first see it it's kind of complicated but that's the problem you see it's easy to philosophize about what we should do we should be nice and love each other and not hate each other and I agree with you no one would be disappointed but then there comes the moment in time where the person in power has to decide something let that person speak and spend a half a million dollars to protect that speaker of your money or stop the person to speak because your obligation to everybody is going to be offended and that's the decision and that decision implicates here the first amendment and the cases that we read and that's what you're going to have to decide well I agree with the idea that if it's directly targeted at someone then you can amend it with my role he explicitly said that we had a lot of people and he's going to expose them and I think that also put a lot of like having the load is done I can stress that I can drink beer obviously you don't know for a lot of speakers what they're doing in school and my experiences in that speech was mutually based before him and this is my intention this is what I'm going to do I think we have the right to limit it and I think that the overarching goal of the university is to foster safety and to have equal benefits to and have a sense that directly violates someone's ability to learn and be able to laugh that's where he goes okay so Richard Richard Spencer was invited to come to Cal and amongst the other things he said which I reprinted is in thinking about immigration and migration and not care less whether someone filled out the paperwork correctly or passed the citizenship exam I oppose the immigration of an African who waits his turn and generally wants to be an American conversely I would gladly accept thousands of Swedish boat people who wash up on our shores you let me speak pretty attacking on a group of identifiable people who will come to campus and are on cal it's very time you let me speak I mean I don't think it's directly touching me what if he does name and I have a list of all the African-Americans who are here on our read it off well you don't have to read it off pretty clearly it's directly attacking a group of people based upon an identifiable coherent characteristic of who they are you let me speak you would let me speak because because it would I think the government has an interest in contacting with people in a big big by just to fulfill this one thing if they are going to pass it or if the goal of the immigration is to teach them to be like this that is really not here anymore and the government gets to the size which she is originally I think it can well no you're in charge right now if you let me come on now the republican club, well I shouldn't say that some clubs, the alt-right clubs somebody wants to invite them on campus to speak you know what he says we don't know the secret and the reason you let me come is because we can connect with them certain individuals so now we're going to send them from here in states and we're going to pass and doing what they think they're going to do so any speech any individual on this campus from getting the full ability to participate could be banned from coming on and the government gets to the size of that speech before the speech is actually passed I think just the fact that I'm going to be free because of this speech well but you didn't need to tell me how you do that that's right, how do you do that well I'm sure it's going to be something like a trap factor that you didn't keep thinking of people because of the violence through their speech and not the way this speech should be populated versus other speeches where maybe they're saying offensive things but it's not directly making anyone feel like so to class there's an unsafe environment if you think there's difference between defending people and creating violence and that safety and they get to discuss it I'm going to suggest to you that there's a difference between standing in front of a group of people and say African Americans don't belong here there's one of them let's go get them and saying I don't think African Americans belong one is directly inciting violence against an identified person the other is expressing their opinion you see this distinction? you made that because I don't think that Spencer is saying anything other than this is my personal belief about this country and how it should be constituted but he shouldn't be allowed to do it then he should be allowed to do it because he's not directly causing violence but how do you know anything? well and if I am in the audience and I'm a white European male and I hear you speak and I guess you know that I go to get a baseball bat and go try to do it I think he's right I think that personally of course he wants to get out of line but that you just can't be done, I don't think it's possible that he can know if there are any circumstances here on the kitchen we're directly calling out someone's name but I think that he can be public square he can hear it and he can hear one sour he can hear it he can hear it I mean he didn't come back he was a speech musician and he's something that has been a reaction he has to be allowed to be allowed to hear if everyone in here would see without one of his partners on the kitchen it's a good thing that he's on the building for that I was going to ask there you know for his cause time that fits in all over this area, come together and it happens. And I think, I think maybe that we have to have, instead of someone willing to accept the rent, the work of someone else, whoever is making some good money, we'll have to accept that. And I think that will actually deter Brooklyn right now, because they don't want to respond so well. You know, when they said, a tree must fall on fire and break the windows in the SEC, I don't think they'll win. So if I invite you to speak and you create a reaction to throwing breaks the window, I'm responsible for what someone else did because of what you said? No, no, no, you're not, it's not like your fault, but I think this idea that it's going to happen for the 50 people, it's going to happen on the dollars, and that because the people who are in that third, I don't know, that's the last time, that the idea that we're getting this is that you, as Brooklyn's manager, is not actually responsible for paying for the security of that and getting, you know, the U.C. San Diego and keeping it all the way up. Someone asked me for that, and I don't think it's fair that it's the city to do it. So, so you can invite, I can invite anybody I want to speak, as long as I pay for the security to the ministry, that's the criteria. So that kind of eliminates minorities from inviting controversial speakers on campus. I don't have the money, I mean, the students, they're like, you know, they don't have a, they don't have a half a million dollars going around. And then that's where you do it. But why should I, as a student on Cal, be limited to who I want to have on campus to talk to me? Because I can't afford to make her believe. Isn't it the government responsibility there? Unless the speech is bad speech, right? And we've read some cases about what is bad speech? This is threatening somebody, fighting words, both the yelling fire and the theater. But this is his opinion. He has an opinion. This is what his opinion about what this country should be. We have a president who has an opinion of what this country should be. You've got an attorney general who has an opinion. We've got everybody who's got opinions of what this country should be. But if that person comes to a campus which would create a negative reaction, we ban that speaker because they would invite two or other people who can't afford to pay their bill. Maybe you do. I'm not saying you don't. What I'm saying to you is that when you make that decision, you need to know that's the decision. The end result is that a lot of people don't come together to speak. Maybe that's okay. But when you say that, what you're saying, you have to know that's what it is that's going to happen. I think that the government of New York can never make a pumpkin. And then that is never the right thing to do because you never know what the person is actually going to say. And then they can look immediately and say the opposite of what they want. I think the university of the state cannot step in until there's something that is imminent while it's actually going to happen. The university's responsibility is one, keeping the students safe. But at the same time, you cannot deny students, because speaking of speech is the right to make that speech and the right to acknowledge it. So by removing a speaker in a way that you're also taking away some students, you actually want to hear the speech, you're taking away those students' rights to listen to that speech. And then that is never okay until something really got happened. People start thinking each other, things start turning down. I think at that point, the university can step in. And if there's any particular student that feels comfortable about the speech, the university could do something afterwards to direct personal attention to them that we're sure about they're safe on campus. So Christian would say, you punch the people who throw the bombs or punch you, you don't punch the people who speak. You punch the people who do the violence, violence is against the law. You create violence, go arrest the people who are violent. Why stop me from speaking? I have a personal benefit to write. Congress shall make no laws in the right of speech. Congress is the government, the government is Berkeley, Berkeley is Brooklyn. You can't speak or someone else is going to be violent. I don't want to speak for you, but... I think all that harassment and that that sequel is actually following that suit around and telling that you are not allowed here. And furthermore, the campus and the university are not endorsing that speech. Rather, they're endorsing the right to speak. If they were endorsing that speech, then they would film them too. That's just my view. And then finally, I think all of this... This whole discussion can be resolved in terms of the content of my speech with R.A. Davis and I think all because in that the court unanimously ruled that the ordinance, once statute of any kind, cannot continue otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subject of this speech. And so in this instance, as unfortunate as it is and unfortunate that my role as to target these people, no state actor can limit speech based on the subject and the safety of the gay and the documented immigrant. And so it's the whole idea that, you know, he can be restricted. I mean, I don't know, I mean, the university in this instance he has been put in university in this state actor and so he cannot limit that. And this whole discussion will be harassment and being put on the basis of blah, blah, blah, blah. The court has said, so sorry, you know, unless you're being, like, unless it's clear from the nature, it's kind of like you want to fall around to not restrict that speech. Similarly, if someone came to campus and said, back if you need to go to hell, I may be offended but unless those people are following me or the gay men and following the class and trying to stop me from entering that class they have the right to speak until they try and hit and hit and hit at my ability for class, participate in, you know, learning. So I can come on campus and speak in a university and tell them back hall and say things and that's okay but if I go out into school and you happen to be there and have an energy then I shouldn't. So this is the location. No, you have to walk through it to get here. Well, you can walk around. I mean, then, like, you just, like... So he can avoid the speech regardless of how offensive it may be or whether that's the job. Government doesn't know... I'm asking, I'm asking. So if you're offended by someone's speech, if one is offended by someone's speech on campus, the answer is don't listen. Yeah. Period. Yeah. All right. It's certainly an easy decision. So everybody gets to come on campus. Yeah, I mean, you just also you need to flip it. What about the counterfactual? What if someone feels, you know, like, what if some, I mean, and some, I mean, and I'm sure there are people who feel this way because of the American president, what if someone says, well, your speech will defend me at the right hand. And I do believe a lot of people do. I mean, I don't know that you got this to speak. I don't know. So the question, you know... All right, the question is, whether or not the right to speak is different from the public square and Berkeley campus. And I'm getting the sense that your argument is that those who are blocking might will need to get to a classroom or physically blocked or if you're blocking my access to resources and if there are any resources on Sprout Hall, or in Sprout Hall yet, is there any resource in Sprout Lovers now? So any words? Unless there are counselors that are like, come over here, I'll tell you, you aren't Sprout Plaza. Like, you're not being restricted to any resource that is provided. So speech and words and in and of themselves are in the public square. And it's the government's responsibility to allow the speaker to speak. Well, I wouldn't say that the government has this goal of that. So you have to let them speak. But I'm just saying that you cannot restrict them from doing it. See, but that's a distinction without a difference because unless the government's going to put resources into Cal and protect Spencer from speaking, he's not going to be permitted to speak because he's going to be held. Well, but didn't we get back to this point? It was like, if you've had hecklers and they're trying to, I mean, they're not trying to stop them from speaking but just trying to speak over them. Oh, I think they're absolutely trying to stop them. Well, I mean, yeah, okay, well, then that's a different that's a different scenario. The hecklers are trying to say, you cannot speak here. That's not permissible. But if the hecklers are president and if the hecklers are just speaking over them, I mean, it was good for him. You know what I'm saying? I come on campus to speak. A group of people don't like what I'm going to say. They prohibit me from communicating my ideas and your office is the government. You're still speaking. If someone really wants to listen to you, they just have to go up really close to you and listen to what you say. I mean, again, it's like, I don't know, yeah. Well, look, not knowing the future, not simple stuff. Of course, this is hard. And I get invited to speak and I come up on the stage and I'm speaking or I'm spent and I get invited, I get up on the stage and speak. And hundreds of students are screaming and yelling so that I cannot communicate or cursing at me or the people who are as they've done another campus. And the government sits there and says, well, you know, a speech is speech is speech. You're really allowing a heckler to speak out. And the question is, I have a first amendment right to speak. I have a first amendment right to express an opinion. The government, through its inaction, is not allowing it to exercise that right. What is the right power of the government? One could argue and I get the argument that as long as it's just words, it's a competition of words, it's just we're not going to be. I get the argument. My question is, is that what you want the government to do or not? That's the question. That's not the answer. In regards to the kind of Congress don't make no law. I mean, yeah. I mean, it's too nice. The state has to just sort of, you know, hand it off. I don't know, you know, that's... Well, not knowing there's this garbage. Yeah, yeah. I actually probably, I would disagree with the fact that there are no students who've broken down the sprawl. I think it's grinning with them and on those bars with them, like, every time I walk through it. It's very different. You know, it's a student spirit. People are walking through it every day. Saying something there has pretty significant outreach in the Berkeley community. And I think that the government needs to take on the responsibility of limiting speakers before they come, because I think it's pretty foolish to just overlook the track record of the speakers who are coming. We have a pretty good understanding of their platform. I know, I know. But the thing is, with that platform in mind, they're coming to Berkeley for a reason, because it's a total instigation tactic. Like, they're political agitators and they know that Berkeley is this like quote-unquote liberal institution that is going to react very strongly. And then they can flip that kind of reaction from students and protestors to kind of pass a shadow on liberals like prohibiting free speech in the media. It works against kind of what's best by having these people come. So I think the government needs to need to step in because it's not just verbal speech, it's not just like a conversation. It's going to incite violence. We know it's going to do that. And then the government shall stop the speech, not stop the violence. Yes, because I think the speech and the violence are related. So the Ku Klux Klan wants to put up a table and roll plaza you prohibited. I would. And the Nazis you prohibited. And just because you raised the issue of the Berkeley campus code student conduct, which is important, one of the things you talked about off campus, off campus conduct, they're not going to read it. Student conduct that occurs off university property is subject to the code where it affects the health safety or the security of any other member of the university community or the mission of the university. So just because you're student in Berkeley, the color affects you and only you're off campus. You okay with that? Is that good? It depends. It depends on which way. I think in terms of talking about who can and can't speak, it's immediately related to the college and say it depends on that. You can't do that. Well, you can't. I'm not going to let you do that because you can't get away with that because somebody, the government, the university has to decide in advance. Do I let that person come? Do I let Spencer show up and talk? Or do I get a lot of cops to prevent violence at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money? Or do I not let that person speak? Or do I say to the people who invited the president, you've got to post $100,000, $100,000 bond, which effectively means you can't speak. So that's the decision. We're not talking about what's good and right and fair and proper. It's not about a decision that has to be made in advance of the speech to permit it or not and whether or not you permit it or not. I think if the Berkeley College Republicans or whoever is organizing these events, if they want to go to Martin Luther King and they want to have the same kind of speech and rally, then that's totally fine. What's the difference between doing it there and doing it here? Because on the college campus and immediately the Fringe is on the right with all the other students. All the snowflakes. All the snowflakes who are paying. So your right to speak, one's right to speak and be protected. Government protected depends upon where you speak. And that distinction is not a kind of place in the distinction. It's a content-based distinction. I think it can be content- It either is or it is. No, it is on the college campus. It's a content-based decision. And the government is okay on Berkeley campus to center, to prohibit speech based on its content. And that content, that distinction, that content-based is described in advance to the government now. I just think it's within the scope of the First Amendment and in accordance with this sweeping historical trend to limit content-based speech on the college campus. Okay, but I'm not going to let you get away with it. Because you've got to tell me and I run this campus whether or not I let the speaker on or not and you're telling me it's okay for me to make that distinction based on the content and I'm asking you how do I judge the content? Because that's what I have to do. I have to say this person speaks and that person does it because of content. Spencer gets to not speak, for example, if Eric Pan does it's all under content. I know that you can answer that question but I am suggesting to you that that's the question that has to begin. But we still know what Richard Spencer represents. We absolutely know. He makes it clear and he's being invited because of what you have to do. It's not like they're inviting a non-knowing quantity to come up and let's see what he has to say. We know what he thinks. We know what he has to say. We know it. But you don't know. I know it's really hazy and I guess kind of idealistic that we can draw a line but I think when you compare two really disparate examples like Richard Spencer and then say someone who actually has maybe used a disagreeable political agenda then there is a distinct line in between. And who gets to decide that line? The government, right? The government thinks that, oh my god, to criticize my policies you don't get to speak because I'm the government. Just think about it. I just wanted to... I think you've been convinced by the difficulties at the end of the reading of healthcare. I do not agree with what you have to say about the fund because you definitely like to say it. I totally agree with that. Regardless of the content? Regardless of the content. I think the money and how expensive it is to have all these seats this time I think the first and then you're right is sort of priceless. So I don't think it's groups inviting people to be responsible for paying for it. It's the government's responsibility to... Yeah, but you see in this context, in the Berkeley context you are set and thankful. You are thankful. All of you are thankful. Maybe that's okay. And I'm not suggesting it isn't okay. What I'm having you consider is that it's easy to say the other person should pay for it but in this case it's you. Are you okay to pay for this? Are you okay to pay the half a million dollars that the estimate would have been to protect a rich dispenser or a mileage monopolist or... It's not protecting those people it's protecting the right of them to pay for this. It's not protecting their ideas it's protecting their rights to pay. And as an administrator as a government as someone with the power to decide whether or not somebody will all content is equal or not is there any limitations that you would place on a speaker based upon your opinion? I would look to some C versus New Hampshire and the fighting board. Go ahead and... To demonstrate I'm still kind of confused by it but I think that's my head is based on fighting with support in any context but I do agree with that. So there is some content that you would look to to limit a speaker. I suggest that we do an event but I think it goes back to what she was saying before and that like Well just to review for everybody Chaplinski, someone went up to someone actually screamed at them directly and threatened them and the government said you can arrest that person for disturbing the peace that was going on site while of any rationing thing would react violently. I would suggest to you that if Spencer gets to speak on Berkeley campus it's pretty predictable that somebody is going to get really, really upset and probably throw a brick through a window. The reason why I know that is because it happens already it happens with my door. We know it costs a lot of money to repair the window that was broken and a lot of violence. We know it's going to happen. My question is you can't honestly and legitimately say I think the reaction is going to be we have to let this person speak because I think you don't know what the reaction is going to be and you've seen it. That's not the fair question. I think the fair question is we know what that reaction is going to be and Spencer or Michael or Ann Colton didn't just decide whether they're going to walk on campus and talk that person was invited by a genuine legitimate honest group of students of Berkeley just like you because whatever the reason is they wanted to hear the word spoken by that person. We know what the reaction is going to be we've been told and we've seen it. The question that you have to decide is you are now the government you are now the person in charge of Cal you now get to decide whether you let that person on campus or not. Why do you decide? Why don't you let them on? Because that's the issue. You let them on and you spend the money necessary to protect the people and you arrest the people who have ripped through the window. When that person is heckled because you know that person is going to be heckled it's not like oh my gosh I didn't realize somebody in the audience will be upset. What do you do then? You let them just heckle each other or you take the person to heckling and you bring them out. What do you do? The thousands of decisions you have to make and you have to make them in two contexts. One is you've got the first amendment and the other government here. You've got to live with that. That's a given. And the second is you know what the response is going to be and you have to decide what you do about that response. That's the question. I don't see why you would make a decision based on the fact that some people like you pay for what you throw to a school like if I don't want to plug in and this guy says I have the right to be in the club too right? It's a public place. I have the right to be in the club. But what's the difference between being on a campus? Well what? You know the difference. You don't know the difference? I do walk in the park. I may not be okay in the park. And when I go into the park it's not for a specific necessary purpose. You come here for a specific purpose and I don't pay money to go into the park and you pay money to come here and the park commissioner doesn't have an obligation to me to have a nice day but Berkeley has an obligation that's the difference between the parking lot. My question is not whether or not there's a distinction. My question is whether or not that distinction is sufficient enough to allow the government to send a speech on Berkeley that it would not have the right to censor in a public square. That's the issue that Berkeley has to face. That's the issue. Also, I think there is a difference because like between like say like causing violence and destroying property and people just yelling over the speaker because like causing violence and like making the speaker and stuff is illegal and yelling things isn't so how do you do that? What do you do? I do do the heck with the video, it's fine but... So Spencer comes on campus and everybody shows up when people show up and make a lot of noise that they cannot communicate and just let it happen. Yeah. And if there is violence, you arrest the violence. Yeah. And so you're really allowing a majority to censor a minority aren't you? Think about it. So I have a few quick things to take. First of all you take the heckler out because no matter if they're throwing a rock at the speaker or they're speaking so loud that you can no longer hear them or if they're stopping that person from speaking and at the end of the day the government has the role of protecting that speaker's feet against a majority and then also there is something said about if you know what this is going to come and I think that whole idea is really ruthless even if you know what they're going to say even if you think their words might incite violence at the end of the day people are still responsible for their actions. Someone can say anything they want to and if you decide to throw a rock or instigate violence that's your fault and the government has to stop that from happening and I think we kind of people are so responsible for their actions even the worst possible thing that someone could say and I'm not going to minimize these speakers are horrible and what they have to say is oftentimes too incite but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to say it and also I think that like the idea that the government should be allowed to draw the line on what content you can say you cannot say it can't be made and because it can't be made you cannot sigh on the side that like overly cautious you have to kind of let it happen and then follow suit because you cannot draw that long so let me unpack this a little bit I don't think anybody thinks that you don't like a speaker who has a right to throw a rock at them I put that open but here you have a speaker and the speaker is being effectively denied his or her right to speak because of other people's speech the question is what's the role of the government the role of the government is to protect the speaker that begs the question how do you protect the speaker their intent is to silence whether they're physically silencing them or literally speaking out of them so loudly or yelling at them that aren't threatening their life but are still like they're not being able to speak anymore their words are being shut down because people don't want to hear them and this whole system is set up to now allow people to be in their own echo chamber and whenever they don't like something they just silence it so you've got a half letter of the audience what makes it a the rg limiting that person's privacy no they can still speak they just can't stop it because they're talking to someone else to speak so any speech that stops someone else to speak the government is responsible so isn't it a function of who gets to speak first that person to get protected and the person to speak second government kind of are you okay with that I don't know I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be okay with that I'm just suggesting that if that's the rule then that's the rule, that's what happens I just think we all know what they're trying to do at the end of the day they don't want to hear the speech it's not like they're trying to voice their opinion if they want to have an actual conversation about it there are more reasonable ways to do that than to speak to the loudest that you can't hear the speaker and there's like a there is a line between someone trying to and giving someone a speech that's the problem and that is that somebody has to actually draw because you can't draw the line and say if the speech box is then you need to leave if someone is trying you just remove them let everyone else have the right to do that so your answer is and maybe that's the right answer is that because it's almost impossible it's not really impossible to draw a line you don't draw and you don't let the government draw and speech is you allow the speech to draw a lot of content and it's a government role to protect the speech carry a full stop we move on that's the problem but we don't have a governmental first amendment problem I was going to say it's not about who starts speaking first it's who has booked the venue and that's who has the right to speak who has been invited on campus to talk to the administration who booked a specific venue so they can share their viewpoints that's who has the right to speak that's why they have more right to say whatever they want rather than not echoing the audience I'll grant that point what happens if you now spend to come down to the next level then the administration can't do anything I mean that's just the free-for-all that's impoverished so you can follow somebody around and echo them and shut them up I mean if it's out and up harassing one person over and over again that's not harassing the facts are spend to stand up on it so box is full of positive speech you can't do anything so there is a head voice veto but you're okay so people's right to speak depends upon how it lands on somebody else maybe that's okay but what I'm asking you to take in is that if you say that if you can then what you're also saying is that people's speech depends upon how it lands on them maybe that's okay but that's what you're saying that's what we call the head voice veto maybe it's okay but allow yourself to take in the notion that if you make that right to change our revolution then it's telling you any last comment okay thank you I have papers for people