 So be some music and then I'll get it. So radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Saturday afternoon. I am super excited to have as my guest today Fleming Rose. It's been a long time since we've talked. So just having an excuse to have an opportunity to talk to Fleming makes this fun and makes this enjoyable, so I'm looking forward to this. We're going to be talking about primarily free speech, but feel free to ask questions about other topics related to Fleming. I'll just quickly give you a little bit of background, but we will get in during the interview into more of the background. Fleming, are you still a senior fellow at the Kato Institute? No, I'm not. Well, normally I'm still on the website. Tell us a little bit about what you're doing now. You said you're part of a new media company in Denmark. Yeah, I'm the Edison Chief of Digital Media that we founded two and a half years ago almost, and it's called the Freedom Letter. And I write a weekly newsletter. It's also in an app and it's on sound called Free Thinking. And then I'm doing two podcasts, one related to the war in Ukraine. It's called Free Ukraine, where I'm the co-host. I mean, I was a correspondent in first the Soviet Union and then Russia in the 90s and the 90s. And I'm also doing a podcast with a former top official in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was posted in Washington, Beijing and Berlin. And it's called Freeze Diplomatic Post. Freeze is his first name. So it's in his name. So that's basically what I'm doing. But of course I'm still following the free speech debate, even though it's a sad story. It's a sad story. It's only gotten worse. I think you and I met first in Boston 17 years ago in, I think, October 2006. I think that's right. So Fleming and I met after he published the famous Danish cartoons. We'll talk about that in a minute in a newspaper that he was the cultural editor and foreign affairs editor at the time. And the Android Institute at the time, you know, there was a horrible response to the cartoons, both in terms of how the Muslim world response, but also how the media responded in the United States and elsewhere. So we took it up as a free speech issue. And that's how we met. We met at a variety of free speech events that we sponsored. And, you know, we've, we've stayed in touch over the years and done many events, both in Europe and in, and in the United States over the years around this issue. And I delve deeply into this free speech issue. It really has come now to the forefront we were talking before the show around the Danish government considering and I think the Swedish government is also considering banning the burning of the Quran. In fact, not your own sweet government is not going to do this because they have recognized that is it is contradicting their constitution. Oh, and it's, it's, it's, it's a big irony, because if you go back to the cartoon crisis and I also I had to extend my thanks to you and the Iran Institute back then because that was a difficult time for us. So I really appreciate your support back then and your interest in, in, in, in these matters. No, the irony here is that in, I mean, Denmark and Sweden, we are neighbors. And we have all always considered ourselves as a freer country in Denmark than Sweden. And, and this has been especially the case around the debate about immigration, where Denmark has, you know, we have had that debate in a, in a far more frank and direct way than in Sweden. But here it turns out that Sweden, in fact, even though I mean, I mean, there's a far more, there's far more at stake for Sweden and for Denmark. Because, you know, one of the reasons Sweden is debating this is because they are applying for NATO membership. And the Turkish President Recep Erdogan has said, you know, you will not get into the club unless you punish these people. Then at some point he's maybe changed his mind, but we don't know because the Turkish parliament still has to vote on this. So we'll have to wait and see. But, but, but so far it seems that Sweden will not pass a law similar to the one that will be proposed in Danish parliament when, when our parliament convenes in the beginning of October. And what do you think it's a probability that it passes? It's, I mean, it's almost certain. Okay. Well, of course, I mean, anything can happen in politics, but, but, but the fact of the matter is that this is the majority government. They hold a majority in parliament, so they don't have to, they don't have to make any compromises or changes. So if they agree among themselves, then now is a process where civil society actors can supply, you know, their proposals, proposed changes, make references to international law, human rights conventions, precedence and other stuff. But, but, but I think I'm, I think it's, it's pretty certain at this point. I mean, there might be minor changes. Yeah, one of one of one of the big, I mean, it's, it's an incredible law proposal. And I should just remind our viewers that Denmark, in fact, we got rid of our blasphemy law in 2017. That blasphemy law had been on the books, you know, since forever. But it had been a sleeping law. It hadn't, it, it, it, it, you know, nobody, nobody had been convicted in Denmark for blasphemy since 1946. Even though, you know, some Muslims organizations in Denmark, they tried to take me and newspaper that I worked at back then you don't suppose to court. But, but, but that was civil cases and they, they, they lost all of them. So, so this is really, you know, I think a game changer in terms of the status of free speech in Denmark. I mean, we still have to see how this is going to play out in, in, in reality. But, but the, the reason why I'm saying that they might make changes is because they, in fact, they have included art into the law proposal. I was going to ask you how extensive is it's it's not just the Quran. No, no, it's not, it's not only the Quran because you can't do that that would be discrimination against other religions, but I still think it is a very discriminatory law because it doesn't protect what non believers hold important. It's, it's, it's a law that, that, that, that, that wants to criminalize improper treatment of holy books or books that faith communities hold sacred holy books and religious symbols. So, you know, it might also be a crucifix. And you, you might know and this serenity famous installation called the peace Christ. Yeah, I think it's from 87. And, and, and sereno. I mean, it's, it's a crucifix with an image of Christ in human urine. His own, as far as he is telling, but the, the irony here is that he is in fact a Catholic himself. And it's not in order to mock Christianity. It is in fact to depict the suffering of Christ on the cross. So that's, that's just one example and there is another one. I was in New York in 2018 and I went to a gallery down in Chelsea, where there was an in retrospective exhibition with the late British conceptual artist his name is John lay fame. And, and people can Google this if they want to why we are speaking and, and, and the installation is called God is great. And, and it is a copy of the Bible, the Quran and the Talmud, torn into pieces and layered in a piece of glass. And, and, and they found it that work in, in, in many versions in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, order to, you know, depict a situation where these holy books are very vulnerable to, you know, outside exploitation for all kinds of reasons. But you know, this, this is just two examples. But would ban these the law would would say this is this is illegal, because it desecrates a holy book to particular community or in this case all three communities. Yeah, I mean we'll have to wait and see, because, because the, the, the government has been very eager to say that they don't want to introduce censorship against art. But the problem is, as one director of a very famous art museum in Denmark said, the politicians Denmark they have no clue about how art has developed within the past two, three, four decades. And so called performance art. We have an Iranian woman of Iranian descent in Denmark was in fact, tearing the Quran apart in front of the Iranian embassy. In order to demonstrate her outrage against the suppression of women within Iran. And the minister of justice when he was confronted with this example. He said, Oh, I think he she she better find another way to express herself, which of course is is an incredible arrogance. And that's part of what we don't want. We don't want the courts and politicians deciding what art is and what it isn't what counts as expression and what counts as a Wednesday start banning expression. There's no limit to it. There's no end to it. I mean we have some we have some very disturbing precedence in history. And, you know, when when you have done this in different parts of the world and what kind of political regimes do these things. And here you have a government in a country that labels itself a liberal democracy. So I think it also I mean it's it says a thing or two that even in a democracy. If you give politicians, you know the right to do whatever they want. It's, it's quite often very difficult to differentiate between the way politicians are acting in a democracy and in a non democracy and that's why we need constraints and limitations on on government. Yeah, I think what saves the United States is not our politicians what saves the United States is that we have a constitution with the First Amendment and courts that are still respected and still uphold it at least for the most part. So, yeah, sorry. I was going to say. How did we get here so so maybe we can do a little bit of history of this idea of free speech in in Europe in particular. Europe which is considered you know free speech in a sense for the concept was invented in Europe it is an enlightenment idea coming out of coming out of the enlightenment. It's basically coming out of, of the walls of religion I would say that, you know, because quite often there is this contradiction, some people say between the right to freedom religion and the right to freedom of expression and the coherence is somehow in some kind of tension with freedom the fact that the matter is that they are all different sides of the same coin. I think it's easier to understand in the United States because in the First Amendment, you, you in fact you unite the right to free assembly, the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of speech within you know one article, the right to freedom of expression, but in, in, in Europe, there is a different understanding but if you go back and look at history, and the way the concept of religious tolerance came into the world. Basically, I mean Protestant and Catholics killing each other for decades. Finally, you know settling on on on on this concept of religious tolerance. But just to just to give an indication, you know how difficult this is I mean when when this concept was introduced in parts of Europe, especially Germany, France, the Netherlands and other countries as well. The tolerance of people belonging to a different faith implied that the minority, yes, we do not kill you anymore but if you want to practice your faith, you have to do it, you know in the basement. So nobody can see you and and and later there was this this agreement that the minority they could go outside town and and and you know celebrate their version of Christianity but they could they could not do it within the town itself. And, and, and then you had, you know, Catholics and Protestants living different parts of of the town they did not interact, even though you had this concept of tolerance. And finally today you can you can have. Yes, Catholics, Jews, Christians, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhist non believers living with on in the same block. But it's just to give you an indication that that you know, I mean, people people think that, you know tolerance is just about being nice and polite and turning the other cheek I don't think so. And I also think that that the tolerance, you know, involves a lot of pain that it's, it's, it's painful to be exposed to ideas and opinions that you actually dislike. I don't think we should romanticize, you know, free speech and tolerance. I mean, you and I, you know, believe in these concepts, and you think they are worth fighting for. But, but I think we should not deny the fact that it's not easy and and and sometimes, you know, it hurts. So, so Europe. I mean this is a very messy evolution as you're describing it's it's been it's a very messy process to go from a general idea of religious tolerance to slowly the acceptance of other religions and the acceptance of a broader of free speech. When do you think was kind of peak liberal Europe in in the sense of of of accepting free speech when when when was the best of times. Well, I would say that the golden age might be 20 years from end of the 60s until maybe somewhere in the 90s. And of course it's part of, you know, the, the young people that there were big young generations who wanted their way I'm not saying that they you know they were better people or anything like that but but but they were fighting against authority and the established order and in that was to do that you had to be in favor of free speech. But of course when they finally got into power. They turned to be less supportive of what they have had fought for earlier but that's you know that's, I think I mean that's maybe you're on that's my biggest, most important takeaway from, you know, the past almost 20 years I've been involved in this debate that that it is true I think that every human being has a drive for freedom that we we want to be free we strive to be free. But but people tend to forget the other part and that is that what we mean by that is that we want freedom for ourselves and for people who who think like us. Yeah, and speak like us. But we, we, we don't want freedom for people with opposing point of views, and people, you know, preaching a different face or different political ideologies, and so on, and so forth and and and what really surprised me during this debate, you know was how vulnerable in fact freedom of speech is you know I belong to a generation, I grew up in the 70s. And I, you know worked as a correspondent in the Soviet Union, and I was very critical of that machine I cooperated with dissidents who had been imprisoned and who had the Soviet Union for the West. And kind of, you know, I had this naive illusion that that the support of free speech in the West was, you know, very strong. But I've learned that that's not the case. And I think it has to do with human nature. You know, our, you know, social psychology that that we are social animal. We belong to groups, we conform to groups, and we tend to demonize and ostracize out group individuals. And we just want to shut them down. So, so, so free speech and tolerance, which is, in fact, I mean free speech is conditioned on tolerance I think is not about nature, human nature, it's about culture. It's not about education. It's about practicing. It's in fact something you have to learn. And because of our stone age range, you know, every time when somebody is saying something that you really that really pisses you off. I mean your instinct is, please shut up, or switch off the television and throw away the newspaper. That is our instinctive reaction. And that's how you know it's so deep in our brain and that's I think that's also why the battle for free speech can never be won. Because there is so much within human nature that that takes us in in in different directions. So I think I'm more pessimistic and more optimistic than you so I, I, I don't think human beings naturally strive towards freedom, sadly. But I, and I do, but I do think we can win freedom and freedom of speech achievements. And they require, they require, as you said, they require real education and really thinking and it took philosophers and it took thinkers and you know, post the religious wars and it took the funny fathers in America to write a constitution. I mean, this, this is a major human achievements after 100,000 years of a species as a species. And it's going to take a long time for the for for this to become part of a sustained culture. It's, you're right it's the people are too tempted by kind of the laziness I would call it of the the stone age mind right the laziness of not having to think and not. And I think tribalism, and this this collectivism are lazy answers to challenges it's, it's, it's again, you know, when you don't have the self esteem and the courage and the and the thoughtfulness to think for yourself then it's easy to latch onto a group that that will shield you and tell you what to think and tell you what to do. And that's the sense I don't think people strive to freedom if freedom means individual freedom. You know, they're much more likely you know I use the example of Braveheart the movie Braveheart which I don't know if you've seen you know, and they and they, there's a scene in the movie where they're all yelling freedom and they're going into a battle and they're fighting for freedom and I are they really there for freedom. What they're there for is they want a Scottish king to rule over them, not an English king to rule over them. It has nothing to do with freedom as we understand the concept it has more to do with clan and tribe and things like that so sadly until we culturally eradicate that element from from humanity it keeps coming back. Yeah, but I mean, so you are more optimistic in the sense that you believe that it is possible to win this battle for good, because my, my understanding is that that every generation has to, you know, take its own battle for free free speech and they don't do that. You know it's it's like going to the fitness center in a way if you don't go to the fitness center, you will not be in good shape and I think it's the same with free speech. If you don't practice it, then all these mechanism this tribal mechanism, this social psychology was will just click in like this because that is the default position. I agree. I agree. So you have to continuously fight but it's the same fight that I see more broadly. You know, for people have to engage their mind. They have to think they have to reason. Reason is the achievement. Once you do that, freedom of speech I think is obvious it's it's it's it's an application. And, you know, we constantly have to fight to get people to think, but when you can get people to think and once that becomes I think culturally habituated. Then yes, you'll still have to engage in this but it'll become a lot easier and this is why I think the United States is a little bit better, only because and it's got lots of problems but only because it's instituted into because of the institution it was kind of became a part of the culture in a way that I don't think it became a part of it. So it's, it's habituated into the kind of into how Americans think about life and how Americans think about the world. I think that will fade as people stop thinking as people stop engaging with the efforts because it takes effort. It's you're never going to get to the point where it's where we have an instinct of free speech that is not going to happen it always will require thought and efforts and energy and in that sense it has to be fought for every time in you, every time in you. So, can I ask you a follow up question just to clarify I mean what what what do you mean by reasoning and thinking here. Let me ask you that question first. You're on. So I think the reason is to observe reality using our senses accept, you know, accept that there are facts that there's that there's truth. Use your mind to integrate those truths that requires an understanding that truth can only come from human reasoning from logic from from thinking it doesn't come from revelation. It comes doesn't come from the world of forms the platonic world of forms. It comes from the human mind engaging with reality and and from certainly until Aristotle and until the Greeks, human beings didn't even think about it right because they were too busy surviving and philosophy didn't exist and they didn't consider it. And then of course what's dominated most of human history over the last 2000 years is religion and religion in a sense is the opposite religion says, Well, the truth is revealed. It's it's conveniently it's not revealed to everybody. So we have to rely on the people it's revealed to to tell us what to do. And so people could could they didn't have to engage in thought and I think that the real change happened. You know it happened slowly but you know you know during the Renaissance and the enlightenment individuals started to get the sense I can think for myself. I can engage with reality I can discover truth. I don't need authority. I don't need the church but I also don't need a king I don't need authority and I think that explains the explosion of Liberty explosion of freedom that happens during that could suddenly individuals. But but it takes but they also realize that now that means personal responsibility. That means I have to think for myself that means I have to engage in the start and I think that's why you get more individualism in the last 200 years and ever in human history. Because of the realization that we each individual have a mind and can think and discover truth for oneself. Okay, you know, I mean, the way I look at this is because I was I just wanted your clarification because you you talk about reasoning and thinking. And I think basically I mean, nobody can prevent you from thinking the way you want the the the the the critical, you know, point is where you take your thinking out into the world. So I think there is an important distinction between, you know, thinking, speaking, and acting. And, and Natan Cheransky, whom I have had the privilege to interview a couple of times. He read this book, he wrote this book, The Case for Democracy, where he talk about what he calls double think. You, I mean, you can think one thing and then you can say a different thing and do a third thing and he's he basically says and in a oppressive society, like the Soviet Union, you had. Yes, you had some true believers who in fact believed in the ideology of the system, maybe five, six percent. Then you had, you know, the true dissidents who were courageous enough to speak their minds, in spite of the fact that they had to serve long prison sentences sentences or were exiled or lost their jobs and things like that. And then you had, you know, 85% in the middle. You know, who, who in fact, if you ask them and and said to them there will be no consequences of whatever you say then then a lot of people would have joined the dissidents but they didn't do so. So, you know, they they they still had the freedom to think, but they did not dare to to speak their minds publicly. So I think I think that so I think the two related that is, I think that would force is placed upon you like it was in the Soviet Union. It's a very rare individual who not only speaks but also really thinks people might complain, they might be unhappy, they might not like the system but are they really thinking and if they're really thinking and understand the full of their own life. I think more of them will be dissidents and of course if 85% were all dissidents, the system wouldn't exist. The system. That's exactly what happened when when and when that when they when they took away, you know, the punishment. Yes, in your mind about the percent of 70% of the population they didn't want that system. Yeah, but so it's it's so so I agree with you that that's what matters in the end is the expression of that thought and the ability to express that thought. And that's what politics is about it's it's it should be about protecting us protecting our ability to express ourselves and to live in accordance with their own thinking. And of course, unfortunately, most political system do the exact opposite. And it's to protect us so going back to Danish cartoons are going back to burning of the Quran, the political system should be there to protect you from so that you can do cartoons. So you can burn corons, so you can do offensive things that's so that you can express yourself so you can act on your judgment on your thinking, even if you're thinking and judgment are wrong, stupid, irrational. As as as it often is. But I do think, you know, I, there's a reason I think why I mean one of the reasons I think for example why countries that are free you find innovation, and you find economic progress and countries that are not free you don't find that. And I think a big part of that has to do with thinking. You know, if you know that in order to get something done, you have to go through five committees and other people have authority over you, you have to ask permission, you just don't do it you don't even start. Right. And so you suppress your own thinking it's like self censorship. The 85% of the people in the Soviet Union hated the system, but they didn't really want to really think it through and they didn't want they didn't know what alternative they wanted they just didn't like what existed. And when they were given the opportunity, they marched they acted, but, but they didn't have, they didn't spend time as the dissidents that really articulating what it is about the system they didn't like. And because the incentive wasn't there the incentive was to stay quiet not think do your job, keep your head low. And, and, and that expresses itself in every aspect of human life is so you need liberty to liberate the human mind because the human mind won't function completely if it's just inside itself. It has to express itself ultimately in the world outside. Well, I would just add that I mean I agree with you in the sense that the vast majority of people in the Soviet Union like in every other society so we should not single amount. They are conformists. And the, I mean, the, the, the, the deeper reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I mean, there were many, but I think the most fundamental was of course, the disintegration of the economy. And, you know, that's that's what the majority of people. And that's what that's what motivates them. And, and when life gets worse and worse, when you have, you know, high inflation salary is not being paid on time and what your own is getting inflated. You cannot buy the goods you want and so and so forth then that that is, that is, you know, the time when you have these revolutionary moments where in fact the masses can be put into a motion, even though the ideas for this has been prepared by a very very small group of people many years and sometimes decades. And it's always like that if that small group happen to be good, maybe like the founding founding fathers in the United States then what they put in place lasts a long time and people conform to the good. If you get a good society or relatively good society, if, if, if the people who start us off are bad, then people conform to the bad sadly, and, and it's very hard, it's very hard to change and it takes a crisis to change but then the change if the change is not fundamental about how they think about the world, then they just revert off into another form of conformity and authoritarianism and I think maybe Russia is a good example of that where, you know, we went from the Soviet Union to kind of a mafia state, but which the people kind of accept right of oligarchs and, and, and, you know, not a liberal free place, because it's hard to go from the one to the other without a really intellectual revolution. Yeah, yeah. I, I made one note when you spoke about the United States. What is it that makes you more optimistic on behalf of the United States when it comes to free speech I mean I'm now watching this from a distance, and, and underlying our conversation about free speech is also the relationship between culture and law. And I agree absolutely with you that the United States has the best protection of speech in the world. And every time a case comes before the Supreme Court. You know, they make the right decision, you know, as I understand it, the in accordance with the First Amendment that the that there can be no government, you know, interference with speech, except for very limited circumstances. And that's, that's, that's different in Europe, that's true. But when I look at the culture of free speech. In the United States, I must say that, you know, quite often, I think it's in in inverse shape than in, in at least some part of of Europe. What's what's what you're taking this. Yeah, no, no, I think I agree with you. I think the reason I'm optimistic, I'm not really optimistic, but the reason I'm more positive in the United States is because of that legal protection we've got, we've got this really good court case right now in front of in front of the text you're going to go to the Supreme Court around the government's attempts to sense the social media to tell social media what they can and cannot do. Yeah, and the courts are ruling perfectly the courts are ruling right. But I agree with you, there is a culture of self censorship. There is a culture of a lack of willingness to listen to opposing points of view of certain types. I think it's on both sides of the political spectrum. It's not even unique to one. You know, it's it's the far left is maybe worse on many regards but you know the attitude of the right towards media and towards others is bad as well. It's without the Constitution, we would not have free speech in the United States it would be gone by now I think that's absolutely right and the only thing saving us today are the courts. Not a good position to be in not a good position at all to be in. Yeah, so what would you give me a sense in Europe. So you don't have the courts but what's the culture like so what what is, is there, is there less of the self censorship is there less of this constraints and free speech. I mean, I, I, I think that I mean usually from afar, you see Europe as so much kind of homogeneous unified place and we have the European Union with. What is it now after Britain left is it 26 or 27 countries but but there are you know six or seven countries waiting to join. We'll see how that works out. So in that sense, Europe is in in flux, also because of the war in Ukraine and how to manage the relationship with Russia both short term and longer term but but but but my point is that. Historically, I think that the strength of Europe has been that you had so many political entities in such a small space. So they could compete with one another and learn from one another teach one another you know if something isn't working in Denmark it might work in the Netherlands if it isn't working in the Netherlands it might in Belgium. You know, city states in Germany, France, so on and so forth. So, so I think in that sense, this unification of Europe in many in in in certain respects it it kinds of undermines the spirit the foundational spirit of Europe that made it strong. The diversity in the way you organize your economy your political system, and so on and so forth. So that that's just to indicate that that that at a foundational level I think Europe is very diverse. And it's very difficult to speak about Europe as some kind of unified entity also in terms of free speech culture and even law. So that's part of the fact that the European Union is trying to impose, you know, universal standards. When it comes to to to speech. I mean we still have some countries that have blasphemy laws. We have many countries who do not have blasphemy laws anymore. We, we do have some countries that have very far reaching hate speech laws, and other countries where hate speech laws are not applied to the same degree. Say, when it comes to hate speech laws, which is a little bit strange maybe, because there is this Anglo Saxon connection that in United Kingdom, I mean this is very, very far reaching. And I mean where you have people being arrested for posting things online that somebody says is hate speech even though it's it's it's legal. While I would say in a country like Norway, they have been very, I think they have, they have been very cautious when it comes to applying their hate speech law and you are allowed to say things in Norway that you would never be allowed to say in in Britain or in France. And just to make a final, you know, comparison. The European Union has obliged every member of the Union to introduce laws criminalizing Holocaust denial. But we have not done that in Denmark. Norway has not done that and and and and we, we, well then then then the, the, the irony is that many countries in the former eastern block, they do not remember the Holocaust what they remember is the oppression by a communist regime and a communist regime that that killed minorities. One minority or another so when they were forced to introduce laws against Holocaust denial they said okay, but then we'll also have to introduce a law criminalizing denial of the crimes of communism. And then somebody came up with a law okay if you want to do that then we also want to introduce a law criminalizing the denial of the occupation of Latvia by first not Germany and then the Soviet Union so these memory walls have really been triggered by Holocaust denial laws and and it's, it's, it has also inspired both Russia and Bangladesh to introduce very tough laws in fact with reference to European Holocaust by laws back in 2014. The Russian parliament passed a law criminalizing defamation of the Red Army during World War two. With reference to the German law. And, and in Bangladesh, they have, they have introduced a law criminalizing minimization of the number of victims during the Civil War back in the beginning of the 70s, even though the official number. Surely, in fact, is wrong. It's far less so so in, I mean, in that sense Europe has inspired not only new members of the European Union but also far away countries and of course that is, that is bad and I mean I, I think in in general. We have, we have many more legal limitations on speech than you're doing in the in the United States and it's, it's getting, it's getting worse. And, and I mean speaking about this, probably coming law against improper treatment of objects considered the sacred for faith communities. I think in fact that proposal is connected to the broader international geopolitical situation. You may know that do I see the organization of Islamic countries, they have within the UN system for decades, tried to implement a new international human rights standard, accepting that blasphemy is human rights violation. And they have tried to compare and equalize hate speech will blasphemy, that is, if you, if you criticize at religion, it's like racist speech. And, and, and I would say I mean, I mean I'm, I'm strongly against this law, I think it's stupid and on wise for so many reasons but I also have to acknowledge as a free speech advocate that it's far easier to argue for the right to publish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad than it is to argue for the right to burn books, because at least within a European tradition you know burning books gives us very bad associations. Even though of course there is a huge difference between burning books, where this is introduced by the government within a totalitarian society that is genocidal, and, and then burning books as a kind of political statement within a liberal democracy where minorities are protected by law. And of course, you know, once, once you, once you bridge the rights for expression, the right to action like this, where no physical force is actually being applied to anybody. It's a slippy slope and we know that slippy slopes exist. In a sense what you said earlier, I mean all of the free speech issues in Europe seem to have started with the Holocaust denial, the laws against Holocaust denial right after World War Two in Germany. And that kind of sets the precedent for in fact not because that you know you're on that was one of my big surprises when I looked into this because during the cartoon debate. A lot of people said to me oh, you have to be aware you know what happened to the Jews in Europe and now the Muslims are the Jews of Europe and what you are doing is very similar to the anti-Semitic cartoon. So I looked into this issue and it turns out that in fact, the, I mean, yes, you had, you had similar laws in Germany like that, but it wasn't laws against Holocaust denial. In fact, they had a law against defaming the memory about deceased people or something like that. The Holocaust wasn't in fact mentioned specifically. The Holocaust denial laws, that wave began after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Interesting. After 1989. That's astonishing. I mean, for many years, there was no talk about criminalizing denial of the Holocaust in most European countries. No, this is in fact an act of the European Union in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and part of some kind of new, I would say universal value system where the memory about the Holocaust is key. But my argument against this is, I mean, if you look at the Holocaust and all the genocides that happened during World War Two, they happened, you know, due to first cooperation between two totalitarian regimes, Stalin, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and then the fight against one another, one another, where both of them eliminated minor ethnic religious, other kinds of minorities on their territories. So if you, if you, if you really want to, if you want to be consistent in your memory and reading of those events, then your reply to the Holocaust as happening due to how two totalitarian powers acted, then your key point should be, you know, we have to insist on free speech. We have to insist on fighting for everything that goes against the logic of totalitarian regimes. But what we ended up, in fact, doing otherwise. Yeah. So going back to the culture in Europe, are there parts of Europe where the culture free speech is healthy or relatively healthy as compared to other parts of Europe? Yeah. I mean, I still think the culture free speech in Denmark is pretty strong. And even though the government has a majority in parliament, there is a very vocal opposition to this proposal. And a lot of people are speaking out, even though the government, I mean, they are playing the security card, as in fact, was also the case during the cartoon crisis that if we do this, you know, terrorist acts might be committed, it might undermine our national security and so on and so forth. Here is a powerful movie. Here is a powerful movie. Without that, because that's also one of the things I learned, and you had the same in the US after 911 with the Patriot Act, you know, if you can frame an issue about privacy or about freedom as a matter of life and death. And life is about security and death is, you know, if you allow free speech, and if you don't have the right to violate people's privacy, we will all, you know, might all be dead at some point, then everybody will vote for security. And that is exactly the way non-democratic governments operate all the time, but the fact of the matter is that if you prioritize security every time you have to make this choice, then you will end in a police state. And you know, life by definition is dangerous. We are all going to die at some point. So, so, so you have to be willing to take certain risks in order to, you know, have freedom to speak your mind. Even though I mean, if you trigger the right buttons and trigger certain fundamental instincts in human nature, and we saw that during COVID, in all liberal democracies, I mean, people were willing to sell out immediately. So, so, no, but I just want to say that I think United Kingdom is, I mean, I think free speech culture there is really in danger. I think in Germany, historically, but in Germany, there is a very strong philosophical tradition, you know, speaking about reason and history of ideas. So, in fact, in many ways, the Germans are quite rational. So even though they have this history and they have these awful laws, you can still have, you know, a quite free debate, I think, in Germany. When it comes to France, you know, they're very good on the right to criticize religion. We know Charlie Hebdo, we admire Charlie Hebdo. And but that's because of the history they had this fight between the Catholic Church that was very powerful and society. So, so, so the French have a very vivid memory of the way religion and institutionalized religion can be used to oppress speech. And that's also why that religious satire is so wild. And very, you know, I mean, you could never find religious satire in the United States, the way you have it in France. But my understanding was that the French government was going after Charlie Hebdo at some point and, you know, regarding some of these what they considered hate speech that Charlie Hebdo was engaged in. In fact, no, they have not been been been prosecuted and I think the French government has been very supportive and I think it's very interesting. You know, when we have this proposal in Denmark about, you know, burning soft holy books, the former French ambassador to Copenhagen, who was present at a public meeting about blasphemy that was attacked by a terrorist and one individual was killed. I remember that back in 2015. He came out now, criticizing the Danish government and saying I love Mark but I think that it's really wrong. So, but but but another thing is that within French societies that are Charlie Hebdo is still dividing dividing the public but but I mean they, they have been supported by the government. They have very heavy security. So, yeah. And you feel safe today is, you know, I remember the days where you traveled to big Danish. Well, no, I mean, I can't complain around I live in a country where, which is quite unusual, you know, I'm not a politician. I'm not a member of the royal family. I'm not, you know, I'm not on the on on on on the usual nomenclature of people who have a right to protection. And and and in spite of that, the Danish government and the Danish police has taken care of my security during all those years. So, I mean, I feel very privileged. I mean, of course, you know, it's it's not easy to, to, to live with that level of security, but but I'm very grateful to the Danish government that they took, you know, this task upon them. If I had been living in the United States, I would have had to pay for this for myself, which would have been impossible. We saw what happened in Southern Manushti. Exactly. And that's, you know, that's that's even though I mean I I don't feel any immediate threat to my life at this moment, not at all. And I don't think that the Danish police or intelligence service, you know, see any red lights blinking. But but but but I've always been, you know, of the opinion that there is no expiration date for this. And and the attack on Salman Rushdie, to me, was exactly a reminder of that fact that you you. Yeah, it's, I mean, you can never be sure. Also, because of the internet turns out that this young man, I mean, he was not alive, I think when, when, when the static nurses were published. And only read about this on the internet or whatever and he was even I think maybe was born in Lebanon or was born in the United States. So he had no immediate relationship to, to that part of the world. You know, I think that you have to accept that you shouldn't kid yourself in the sense that just because you don't feel an immediate threat. Now that at some point, some crazy person, you know, might show up and do something. That's the sad state of the world. So so we have some questions here from some of the listeners. Let's see this is for Fleming. Does the proposed law prohibit on the actual burning of holy books or also computer generated simulation videos. Is this is this an issue. Is there a more general movement to sense of visual experiences. Do you know, yeah, yes, I know. Yes, they're there. For instance, there was the case in France and this is also where the Danish government is transparent and honest, because they say that in a lot of countries this is forbidden. They also point to France and it is true that if you, if you burn the Quran in a public space in a public space in, in, in some places in France, you can be prosecuted. But that is a violation of public order. It's not about, you know, holy books. Okay, it's like that. And in fact, there was a guy who burned the Quran and and took a video of it and put it online. And he was acquitted. Okay. But, but, but, but, but the Danish government is also trying to include this kind of exercising your, your, your free speech. And they're also including not not paintings, not cartoons, not sculptures. But, but the point is that they have not included performance art, art, performative art. I mean, if you if you if you, and a lot of modern art is done that way, you know, some kind of theatrical performance. And so, so in, in, in theory, they, they, they, I mean, at the current stage, this kind of art would also be included, but they have received a lot of criticism so I think they might want to exclude this but the reason why they're doing this is because you know where you're on where is the limit between art and not art. And I mean, we do do do we want a judge to decide what is art, what is not what what is fiction or what is fiction. But, but, but they have done this because they want to prevent a situation where, you know, the individuals who at the current moment are doing these performances with Quran's should not be able to say oh this performance. No, I mean, you cannot go off. This is why we have to be absolutist with regard to these issues and, and you know you have free speech it's it's how you express it whether through art or through performance or through just an article or speech or burning. As long as you're not using physical force and others, the state has no business, the state had no business in it. And speaking about the slippery slope because the interesting thing here is, you know, they want to exclude cartoons because of the cartoon incident. And other kinds of expressions that might be offensive to believers and then Danish media, you know, they they approached Muslim communities in Denmark and asked them, you know, if we ban Quran burnings, will you also see cartoons or, you know, other kinds of expressions targeting religion as offensive and they said, of course, I mean, you shouldn't only ban Quran burnings you should also ban X, Y set and so on and so forth. So Francisco asked, could you give an example with okay to limit free speech is the threat of a terrorist attack enough of a reason. Yeah, I mean, in that sense I'm, I'm not really speech absolutist in the sense that I don't think that there isn't any legitimate restrictions and free speech many. I mean, fraud. You're not allowed to lie in court, for instance, perjury. I don't think you should legalize incitement to violence. I think people have a right to privacy as long as they are not public figures. And the media should only have a right to, you know, to investigate people's private lives is if it is somehow relevant for what they are doing if they are elected officials or it is somehow connected to what they are doing in the public arena. I'm, I'm, but I'm, I'm in favor of the viewpoint neutrality. And that is one of the distinctions between Europe and United States that that in, in, in, in, in Europe, we tend to, to criminalize certain points while a certain viewpoints while in United States, you cannot criminalize speech just based on the content of speech but we do that in in Europe and I think that is that is not a good thing. Yes, I agree with that. I mean, defamation fraud and incitement to clearly, you know, not protected, not protected in the concept of free speech. But you're asking about, I mean, Francisco, he is asking, is the threat of terrorist attack enough for a reason. No, I mean, that is blackmail. That is, if somebody says, and actually lots of people actually said this, Fleming, if you publish these cartoons, we will kill you. Then the government can't, the government's job is to protect Fleming, not to restrict him from publishing the cartoons. That is, you don't stop speech because of a threat of violence. If you do that, then free speech is meaning, meaning less. Anybody can can can threaten to silence other people and but it's exactly that's why we have government. It's to protect us from those kind of threats. That's what it means to protect free speech. But then that is exactly the dilemma. Because I think the vast majority would disagree with you on this point. And that is also why, in fact, within the broader public in Denmark in opinion polls, there is a majority who support that supports this. Really. But they do it for security reasons. But at the same time, they say that free speech should also imply the right to offend. And that's, you know, that's still good, but but I can just tell you a short story connected to the cartoons that illustrates this point in 2006. Not long after the, you know, the culmination of of this crisis, there was an opinion poll in Denmark. And at that point, only 43% of the Danes thought it was the right thing to publish those cartoons. In 2015, right after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, 65% said it was the right thing to do that, which is a constitutional majority. But then if you ask the same people, do you think you're supposed to should publish them again. Yeah. Then only 24% says, that is about fear. It's about fear. And you know, I mean, I, I, I worked inside, you know, it's posting until I quit exactly because of, you know, around this. And, and you know, the threat was very real. Yeah. And, and what do you do. I mean, you have responsibility for 3000 people. You want to a strange good reporters. You want good people to, to, to work there. You also feel a responsibility for, you know, if Danish properties being attacked outside Denmark, there was terrorist attack on the Danish embassy in in Pakistan in 2008. People died. There were many planned attacks, either on the newspaper or on me or some of the cars. The cartoonists were attacked physically. Yeah, exactly. I mean, Kurt Wistergaard, who passed away a couple of years ago, he was attacked in his home on January 2 2010 with a man came up with an axe. You know, this is this is a challenge, but this is why people like you are so important people who have the courage to do it anyway. It's because if we all submit to the threads, then free speech is finished, then it's then it's dead. And it's if you it's it's again, a slippy slope. So we stop offending Muslims, but then who's next, who do we who do we stop offending next and you know so it's sad that that people have to live under threat and it's sad that people are not courageous enough to stand side by side with the people who take these stands but submission. I have a question here on because I've been thinking a lot about this and I agree with you, but I, you know, I came to realize at the end of the day, when you have to pay a price. There are only very few people who are in favor of free speech. So, you know, I think it forces us to ask and answer the question, you know, why is free speech important. Because, you know, most people will say well free speech is important so we can exchange point of views but you know, where do we stop when when threats and threat of a terrorist attack physical threats, threats against the country against embassies and and so on and so forth and it turns out that that for most people. I mean, a lot of people will say and they also said to me during the cartoon crisis. Well, we can live without cartoons of the profit. I mean, of course the big deal. In fact, an anchor of a big Danish news shows said that to me and then I asked her, well you know I can also live without your TV show. So let's cancel it tomorrow. No, I mean, so this is this is where I think we go back to, I think free speech is crucial for any, any discovery of truth for human thinking as as we said earlier. What's the point of thinking if you don't act on it, part of acting on it is speaking. I think you go back to, to, you know, to the days of real blasphemy laws where people challenge religion and were burnt at the cross for challenging religion. There is no freedom there really is no freedom in any sense without freedom of speech. You wouldn't have published the Danish cartoons, if not for you having seen the self censorship going on in Europe around Muhammad. You didn't publish the Danish cartoons in order to offend for the sake of offending you published the Danish cartoons in order to point out the the this this phenomena that was going on in Europe and it was I think really important and and made a real difference. So it, you know, I don't respect people who just offend for the sake of offending right if there's no point to the offense. But on the other hand, they have a right to do it even if you know so I don't particularly like people burning corons. I don't think you like people burning corons. What's the point what they're not making anything. But if we ban one. There is no end to what we ban it there's a lot of people who do a lot of things I don't like in lots of realms of life. As long as they're not using physical force against me I have no right to stop them so I'm, I'm very much for. You know, we have to do it and sometimes you have to take risks and cultures who succumb to threats are cultures that are going to die. And, and I mean I think we are in for a rough ride in the coming years if not decades because you have this shift of power from the West to the rest and I think in fact that the Danish law proposal against Korean burnings is part of that story. Denmark Denmark I mean but but the irony here is that it's, it's a lot of people in other parts of the world, they, they don't understand this, and they see this as very offensive to Muslims. And we need, or the Danish government or NATO, United States need the support of other parts of the world in order to impose their will on Russia in the war against Ukraine. But I think the irony here is that we are, you know, we are saying that we support Ukraine in its fight for freedom, democracy, independence, and in order to do that we have to limit free speech in our own country. I just don't think it's. Absolutely. But that's geopolitics, but they're not just that we should, we should just drop that argumentation. And it turns out that, you know, some of the countries whose support we are trying to get by passing this law, you know, they, they are, they are might be even lists, might might be even more authoritarian authoritarian than the current regime. So here's a question about Ukraine. So we've got a bunch of questions. Let me turn to those. So if Ukraine wins, what do you think freedom of speech thought and would look like in a in a Ukraine that has won, let's say, and and what would be the major factor affecting, you know, that within Ukraine. What are what are the what are the factors to look for in terms of freedom in Ukraine post war, assuming they win, which is which is a very big if at least if you look at their own definition of victory which implies chasing Russia out from all occupied territory which I find. I don't think it's very realistic, at least if you look at events at at the moment, but I think it's a very good question and and thanks for asking it. I mean, I think we have been turning a blind eye to to to what is happening within Ukraine during this war. And that's very understandable, because we support Ukraine and and we think it is very important to uphold the principle of non viability violation of accepted borders. And if you if you accept the violation of that principle by force, you know, where do we end up. So, so that is of huge importance. I think, you know, as soon as we turn this narrative into a story about dictatorship against democracy. If we if we if we want to, if we want to phrase what is happening in Ukraine that way then we also have an obligation to look at the way Ukraine is, you know, treating managing these fundamental principles and and and to be frank that's that's not a that's that's not a nice picture. I mean, all political parties that are in favor of some kind of accommodation with Russia have been banned. So censorship is enormous. There, there are political prisoners in Ukraine. If you look at TV, they have unit, they have unified, uniformed all TV channels in Ukraine so they only have one program running on all channels. And media freedom is quite limited they have, they had a new media law passed digital media would give which gives the government the right to close down digital media. And I think I mean all that is understandable in a situation where you your beseech you need to stick together. It's far more difficult to accept the descent. But the problem is, if you if you cultivate this way of behavior. And if it works in a war situation, then it's very easy and tempting to continue doing the same thing when you do not have a war or if you want, if you win the war and you have to build institutions and so on and so forth. And I think I think that what we should look for. Of course media freedom. The right for opposition parties who not, who do not disagree with the current government's Western orientation, I think they should be allowed. We might disagree with them. But you have to you have to fight that out in the political arena. But I think respect for my nurses is very important right now. Right now Ukraine has a very problematic language law, which is makes it very, very difficult for Russian, Hungarians, Romanians, Jews, Crimean Tatars to to publish newspapers books in their own language. According to the law in order to do that, they first have to publish it in Ukrainian, which means normal cost. You have to you have to do every publication into languages and I mean the European Council has criticized this. The Ukrainian government has said they want to look into this, but but but the problem with a society at war is that it's quite often get less tolerant. It gets quite intolerant. So I think that it's going to be one of the big challenges so that the kind of the kind of national unification. And and and you know this nation building project that is unfolding. I think the my concern is that that we should be very aware and the Ukrainians should be very aware that they should not build in an intolerant Ukrainian nation state based on an aggressive nationalism. It would it would be comforting to think that that Europe would place a lot of pressure on Ukraine if they want to do all those things but you know who knows. But I mean I do think Europe and United States has a lot of leverage because one of the other irony is of this story is that Ukraine is fighting for its independence, but it is now less independent that in that you know then it has ever been because it depends so much on outside support. I mean, we are financing the budget, apart from the fact that we are of course providing weapons support, but but but right now, Ukraine would not be able to survive economically, either. And then of course you can you can you can precondition that support on you know passing laws and accepting having respect for certain kind of principles and things like that. Let's see we've got a few questions from Richard he says, massive respect to Fleming for everything you do regarding free speech. It's the most important issue of our time. Where do you think there are young people who are interested in defending speed free speech. Where do you find those people. I mean you look for them. You engage with them. No, I mean I think a lot of young people have unspoiled instincts. And they want to be independent from their parents and the milieu where they grew up so so so they're kind of tuned in. So they might not be tuned in in other ways within the system, but I mean I think there is a lot of space for for making an impact on on young people and teaching them, as you say to think for themselves and and and and reason you know, I think they understand that that is what they need to do. In order to to to make a way of living and to live a good life and so forth. Richard also asked, do you think that attitudes of Europeans are shifting in a positive or negative direction regarding free speech. Many birds I talked to respect America's free speech culture. What about continental Europeans. No, I don't see any. I mean, I think this is a story that has been going on for decades. And, you know, you might have a new law there you might get rid of a law there but in I think in general, the bigger picture is pretty consistent. And we are in a free speech recession. And the new thing within the past 1015 years is that that speech recession is not only taking place in countries like China and Russia, but also in the West in the West years. So Richard I was asked, why would the negative trends towards free speech issues start after 1989. Do you think it was a lack of totalitarian communism in Europe that stood as a reminder of the dangers of speech restriction. So what is it about 89 that caused the shift in free speech. 89 but I was just struck by the fact that these laws were all passed after the fall of the wall. I mean, I think it's part of a broader culture that has to do with the fact that, you know, this concept of harm, the concept of hate speech, the concept that we should not offend of course we shouldn't but but this concept of the vulnerable human I think that's the biggest story about what culturally is happening in the in the West. Would you say it's a primacy of emotions almost that we are you people's emotions so much. Yes, yes, yes, yes, I mean if and we have to accept, you know, if you if you react emotionally, we have to, you know, accept that as a fact of life and accommodate you in accordance with you the way you react emotionally but I think behind this is this concept of the vulnerable human that that we are so weak. It's so vulnerable that we cannot be exposed to point of views that that we might perceive as hurtful or provocative and I think that is a very, very pessimistic and and outright wrong. I mean, look at what human beings have been able to accomplish under what circumstances for thousands of years. So I think we should be a little bit more optimistic about the resilience of human beings. I agree completely. Ginger asks, it really is about it really is about fear she says I had real concerns when I put a just we Charlie Hebdo bumper sticker, a tiny action in comparisons, and she still felt it. That's why I have such admiration for Fleming's fearless actions so good for you ginger. That's very true. And I don't think I mean fear is a very, very real notion. And and I mean I do not criticize and ridicule or mark people who who experienced fear. They're not different. I mean, I might have one reaction in this situation but I might have a very different reaction in another situation. So, so I mean that's real. And everyone has to deal with it, you know, according to the way you understand yourself and the situation you are in. Yeah, absolutely. And then he asks, why can't we have. Why is it the paintings of Muhammad a band. What is it about the image of Muhammad that is banned. That's a very good question. Yeah. The funny thing is that that there are a lot of images of the Prophet Muhammad within the Islamic. So, and if you if you if you look in the Quran, then there is no ban on depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. It came later there is in the hadith. There is, there is a verse there saying that that that that that it is only God that is allowed to create living entities. And and and that turned into, you know, first at depiction of human beings and animals and things like that. And then at some point within Sunni Islam not within Shia. I mean you until some years ago you could buy posters in Iran with images of the Prophet. But at some point it got banned and I think it also had to do with power. Because, you know, if you if you can depict holy figures, whom are you going to worship and not worship and how it is going to be to be exploited. So so in fact, in the beginning it was just the the depiction and not the cartooning of all the mocking of of the of the Prophet. But the bottom line here is that there is no ban as such within Islam on depictions of the Prophet as a foundational document. It's something that happened later in history. Because it's it's, you know, it's in the Ten Commandments, because Jews very religious ultra orthodox Jews don't have paintings. They don't allow you to draw. It was also in Christianity. It was in fact the second amendment, but it was thrown out. Yes. It was in fact in the beginning also part of the commandments within Christianity. No, it's it's one of the it's the second commandment, I think. So it's the second commandment. So they do ultra orthodox Jews take it very seriously to this day. But it has also something to do with images as such. I think you're on because images are very different than than than written words or spoken words. You know, the iconoclasts and and the way people get angry at images and want to destroy them. So so images and they also open for interpretations in a different way that that that that written texts are. So Scott asks a speech if a free speech gotten better or worse since 2005. I think we've already got an answer for that. Worse. And and I mean when when you and I met the first time and back in 2006. I would say that the Western world was still in the driver's seat. But but this free speech recession I mean he's also going in. Within our own sizes, but I think looking forward. I think there will be more pressure on us from the global south from non-democracies to put more limitations in speech with references to religion, history, ethnicity, and so on and so forth. Yeah. So you see this as having a real geo geopolitical dimension. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, I think that that that that the proposal by our government is right down that lane and I think until, I mean, I thought they had, you know, some very elaborated argument for doing this. But wait, but but but when they proposed it and they had to explain it, it just dawned on me they don't have a clue. They haven't thought this through. They are just finding some kind of ad hoc argumentation because either somebody told them or indicated to them. I think it's we think it's a good idea for the geopolitical picture in the world. If you pass this because it will be easier for the West to convince other parts of the world to join forces with us on this or that issue. Wow. Paulo asked, does lack of free speech facilitates suppression and repression of the mind? That's to you. Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think yes, as I said, I think when you when you take away the ability to act on your thinking, you limit people's ability to think. And there's a reason science explodes when we have relatively free speech and there's very little science when we don't have free speech. People just don't think in areas that they're told they should not and cannot and they might burn at the stake if they do. So maybe it takes a Galileo to be brave enough to challenge the authorities, but most people are just not going to go there. Whereas as soon as you liberate speech, suddenly people are thinking thoughts that and creating things and discovering things that nobody could ever imagine. Yeah, but don't you also have to be challenged sometimes in order to sharpen your mind. I think if you look at art and literature. A lot of great literature has in fact been written in citations that are quite oppressive. Take Alexander Sorenitsen or. Yes, but I think it's a lot more, it's a lot more. It's a start smaller numbers and it takes a lot of coverage for those few to do it. And of course they know there's an alternative out there. That's another thing in a world where some people are free and some are not at least the people are not if they have eyes can see that there is that option. And they can stand up in a world where everybody's unfree. I think the mind just shuts down. You know, I think there's an interesting experiment going on right now in China where for a long time post 1978. The Chinese regime allowed, at least in the realm of entrepreneurship and economics and science and engineering, they allowed some freedom and China exploded. And over the last 10 years, we've seen a slowly shutting down and closing and now to be an entrepreneur is risky in China and to come up with new scientific thoughts. I think that my challenge convention is challenging in China. And I think you'll see the consequence of that is if people are allowed to leave they will leave if anybody will take them. But if they stay, they will just, they'll be less thinking they'll be less innovation, they'll be less progress they'll everything will shut will slowly crumble I think you're starting to. I'm interesting to hear you take on this because I read. I think I read in several spaces now that in fact, a lot of Chinese scholars are returning to China, because of the anti Chinese mood in the United States that they feel discriminated in. Is that, I mean, is that the case. I don't think it's a I don't think it's a big phenomena but it definitely exists. Definitely fewer students are coming to America, because they feel they feel like they'd be discriminated and they feel like there's this racism against them. But I also think you know the United States is immigration policy has become very anti immigrants and and of course the, you know the first in anti immigration law America ever passed was against the Chinese in 1890 something. So it has a long history of discriminating against the Chinese. I believe that if tomorrow, some administration in America said, if you want to leave China, and you want to come and live in the United States, here's a green card. Millions of Chinese would leave and come to the United States but that's not going to happen that's my fantasy but it's not going to happen. Do you think, you know, generally I'd say over the last 10 years, I think American society has become more xenophobic, more afraid of the other, we've talked about the other as being a much more afraid of the other I think. Trump's presidency was was a turning point in American culture in terms of the first time for a long time it's always been there. There was this real appeal to fear and a real appeal to the evil of the other. And I think a lot of people respond positively to that and now it's become a part of American culture and it's, it's, it's very, very depressing because you know, when I came to American 87 I had a very much more optimistic positive in culture than I do today and I'm worried and afraid for where the future is getting. Is that is that because you were naive back then or because American culture changed. I think it's a combination. I think it's both. I think I was somewhat naive. And a lot of what I knew about America and a lot of what I internalized about America was a certain romantic vision of the didn't really completely match reality. I wasn't quite as aware of the history and the extent of you know I knew about slavery but okay slavery ended but it you know the legacy of racism did not end and it continued and is deeply I think embedded in parts of America. I also you know when I came to America this is this is I don't know you'll find this interesting. You know I Israel as you know I think is a pretty secular country in spite of the religionists, and I grew up very secular surrounded by secular people yeah those religious people over there. They self identified by wearing a Yamiko or something like that so we know who they are. The thing that shocked me about coming to America was how religious America was and how even secular people in America obsess about religion. That is their leaving religion was a big deal for them. I became an atheist when I was very young and nobody cared. I mean my grandfather care but nobody really care in America it's a big deal if you're an atheist. It's a big deal. And that was a shock to me and I was very naive in terms of the impact of religiosity on American culture. And I think that has something to do with what's going on today I think a religious mentality is a mentality that can easily be swayed towards these ideas of other ism and you know, and towards fear. Change the cultures also change it's gotten worse 911. I think made a worse 911 and the fact that, as we talked about at the time Americans wouldn't acknowledge who the enemy was. It was terrorism, global terrorism, right they wouldn't say the word Islam in the context of, I think that that kind of evasion and that kind of fear and the lying the politicians lied and manipulated the public I think that change was a great financial crisis. It voted it even more. And I think Americans lost confidence in the American system of government in the place in the world. And, and, and I think that was a real shock, which I think Trump just capitalized on. You, you, you expressed optimism in the beginning here on an optimistic note. I'm an optimist it's it that's the challenge right. Yeah I want to believe the things are going to get better and I do think they will ultimately but the path there is a difficult one it's not an easy path to get there it's it's one that's going to require courage and, and, and fighting it's going to require us to fight for freedom. Every generation has to fight for it, you know, there's no there's no way around that. Quickly Mark has a question about, are you still involved in Cato and if so is Cato doing anything around advocacy for free speech these days. I mean I have an informal relationship with Cato I'm not employed formally by Cato anymore, but yeah Cato isn't engaged in the free speech debate, very much so I think, and Cato is doing a lot of work on online communication which in fact is, you know, the most important front front line I think in the battle for free speech today and you alluded to it, you're on when you spoke about the Twitter files. I was really flabbergasted by the fact that you could have the FBI, the White House, the CIA, all kinds of government institutions collaborating with big tech and NGOs in fact in order to show accounts. And, and, you know, the, the, the new demon out there it used to be communism or that's today disinformation misinformation if you can label something disinformation disinformation, whatever that is. You, you somehow think that you have a legitimate right to to shut it down. So don't don't don't be fooled by this concept of disinformation. Absolutely. Absolutely it's it's it's it's kind of a, you know, they have they have a monopoly over the truth and and that's all that can be that's all that can be expressed and of course we know authoritarians have always done that that is that is the path to always a pleasure Fleming. Thank you. Thank you for spending so much time with us. I really appreciate it. See you and see you. I really enjoyed it. So I'm glad I hope we get a chance to get you. Yeah. But you'll be in Copenhagen. I will next month. So hopefully we can, I can see you next month. Good. I will be in touch. Good. Okay. Thank you. This was wonderful. Thanks for me. Thanks. Thanks.