tv Discussion on the First Amendment CSPAN May 5, 2018 3:00pm-4:12pm EDT
>> the people who work from setting up to provide enough water bottles. all the details that make this a fun community event in columbia. had a few in our panel. so i want to let you know who serving. one of our guests had a health difficulty so we wish him all the best for a speedy recovery. we welcome our panelists, doctor john johnson and doctor stephanie. our first panelist as per professor emeritus from university of northern iowa where he received the distinguished scholar award and the award for faculty excellence. he's offered books and legal history including the struggle for human rights.
in light of student marches he will consider where we stand now in terms of the disruptive standards set forth. and the idea of money is speech. her second panelist is a former newspaper editor and reporter. current professor emeritus at the university of new jersey. she's received the highest teaching awards available. she's author and co-author of multiple books on media ethics including the handbook of -- which was honored by the national association of communication. so look at the difference between line of fake news, how speech can be driven a foregone heard in the public square of the relationship between speech regulation social media. the third panelist is the
award-winning author of the best-selling book, triangle. former editor at large of time magazine where he offered over 60 cover stories. currently the colonists of the washington post. he will consider two aspects of the current status of free speech. the reality that most people have more power to speak more freely than ever before the challenge of society to prove that the openness of free speech is viable in comparison to efforts to control speech. then the professor and chair of the black studies department. author of numerous articles in the book including race and identity music culture. discuss race, music and culture in relation to the first
amendment despite how somebodies are either silence, vilified or punished. there will open it up from q&a. now handed over tour panelist. >> thank you. [applause] first, let me thank the folks at the book festival for making this possible and inviting me. it came as a surprise. i enjoy being with other distinguished authors. i consider myself a teacher and professor and author is secondarily. but i'm here. there are two things that carly asked me to talk about today. first, student free speech and
light of the distressing events of parkland in february, the center sex with my own work on tinker versus des moines which i published a few years ago. and second is the place of money and speech were his money speech? there are other things we can talk about but that is my task. let me go to student speech. when i came to iowa in 1988, i met some people that said your constitutional historian, maybe you should look into this case the greatest case from iowa. and it's really not that well known outside of iowa. i know about it from constitutional history.
but the contacts i had in cedar falls and waterloo introduce me to the tinkers. christopher and some of the other players. that gave me a sense of the people involved in constitutional law and history. we tell you about the case. i'm sure it's familiar to many, but not everyone. in 1965, the united states was just stumbling into the war in vietnam. the first major protest in washington, d.c. was held that fall. a group of islands like called the iowa peace community took a bus to d.c. they participated in a small way in the march. none had speaking roles. on the way back they said, we
need to keep this feeling a live. need to tell the people of iowa that there something wrong with this world. and 65, those of you who are of a certain age remember the war was pretty popular then. new york times and the washington post had positive things to say about it. standing up against it or as young people decided to wear black armbands to clasp was unusual. that's what the iowa peace community decided on the bus back to iowa. a small story, nobody knows who first came up with the idea of black armbands. but john told me it was a descendent of herbert hoover. very distant cousin or defendant
descendent who came up with th this. students, couple who were on the bus and many met afterwards decided in two days in december of 65 they would wear black armbands to class. you say big deal. you may not just be a big deal. but and 65, particularly after the first young man from des moines died in the war, to wear a black armband was considered quite an affront. by my estimate there were only about three dozen young people who wore black armbands on those two days in december of 18000
students in the des moines schools. not very many. attention focused on three of them who became the main plaintiff. mary beth tinker who was in eighth grader, john tinker who is a tenth grader, and christopher eckardt was also a tenth grader. they wear their black armbands. chris turned himself in at the beginning of the day, he walked into the principal's office and said i am staging a civil nonviolent protest against the war in vietnam. i am wearing this black armband a new pastor resolution saying you can wear them so i want you to expel me. so they did. john did not wear his the first day, he wore his the second day that he had a dark suit coat on and you can even see it. until finally someone said if
you want to make a point have to take off the coat. so he did, and he was expelled. mary beth tinker who is in eighth grader, i've kept in touch with her over the years and she's now receiving social security. she wore her black armband and was sent home. so, these three people and a few others who were armbands had violated a hastily formal gated law school policy that it was against school rules to wear black armbands to protest the war in vietnam. there have been other occasions when people had wore black
armbands before so in the minds of some people there was a double standard. and this would figure imparted to the decision. the case started when the iowa civil liberties union agreed to take on the case for the young people who were suspended from the school. the school was an agency of government and under the first amendment congress shall make no law and state governments and state agencies should make no law -- so the hope was the first amendment and i was civil liberties union took the case any young man named dan johnston who is a lawyer, drake graduate
lawyer and my, he told me when i interviewed him he said this is my first real case and it went to the supreme court. it's been all downhill since then. that's not true. but dick took the case and through the federal district court and court of appeals finally argued before the united states supreme court. the district court upheld the school policy banning the armbands. the appeals court flipped and had two hearings. the u.s. supreme court heard the case in november 1968. that was the month and almost to the day that richard nixon was elected president. the case was decided the next february.
the united states supreme court through justice fortis decided the constitution did not end at the schoolhouse gate. in the first amendment applied to students. this is the high point of student rights for the supreme court. justice black, civil libertarian on many issues but not a student rights in this case created a lot of interest and attention. if you know your supreme court history, you know that 1969 may have been the most liberal moment for the entire supreme court. shortly after the personnel changed, the culture and history
changed the most of the decisions from the 70s through the early '90s involving student rights have cut away at tinker. what justice fortis said in his opinion that nonviolence the speech is appropriate even if it's the size is not substantially disrupted or materially interfering for the schools. good legal language that gives a lot of room. to make a long story short, most decisions since the tinker case have found disruption student protests have found to be disruptive and have led to
expulsions that were upheld. including one from missouri involving student newspapers where the supreme court decided the students could be journalists to appoint but that their statements were controlled by the school's administration. it was an agency. let me jump quickly. we all know what was happening in the last few months. another school shooting, and i will not get into the policy what to do about that. but what impresses me is what the young students have done since parkland. in my opinion they have change the direction of student speech.
you've heard statements by many who are very articulate and in some ways much like the tinker's and chris eckardt they stood up for their principles were able to make their point. this is still unfolding. we don't know what will happen but the parkland cases one that is fascinating. yesterday we saw walkout, march for our lives and i would say one of the things the parkland students and those that participate in the walkout around the country have learned as they can make their feelings best known outside of school by leaving and not risking what might happen. yesterday i talked with -- and there's a small walkout.
it is ironic they had me coming in this specialist to talk about student protests and students were leaving. but not many of them left. so those who stand out benefited from it. let me in this part of what i have to say. citizens united, you've all heard about that decision. in 2010, the united states supreme court determined that a portion of the election law was unconstitutional. an organization name citizens
united was promulgating a particular opinion and had created a film critical of hillary clinton. this was challenged in the challenge had to do with whether there was an issue of free speech. the court looked at it and said, this is a moment in history where an organization, as long as it's not contributing directly to a political party, an organization can spend what it wants to make a point. this led some people to say the court has said money is speech. those following this were given a large megaphone and were
allowed to say three things including things that we might call fake news, to make a point. election law that tried to limit expenditures didn't apply to organizations that were not contributing directly to a candidate as long as they were making a point. what this has done is change the way we look at free expression and i think it's a decision that needs to be revisited. i don't like the idea of an organization being able to say what it wants as long as it doesn't contribute directly to a political party. but this is the law. i will stop there. thank you for your time.
i look forward to hearing from the other panelist. [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm going to do a bit about what i do with my students. i have the good fortune to be here as an ethics person which means i get to ask uncomfortable questions about things we might normally accept. and that will be my role on this panel. to maybe think about things differently. the first point i want to make is that -- free speech in this country. you cannot use scoops of mashed potato to substitute for ice cream and commercials. you cannot put marbles on your both syria to make the cheerios
rise to the top so they look more appetizing. we cannot libel people. and we were so ready. the supreme court says if one of us jumps up and shouts fire in the theater, you could be in trouble. so one thing that's important to understand about the first amendment as most of the time we can say what we want but it's not know regulate shannon -- the second thing is that there are other functioning democracies who don't have a first amendment. britain. france, germany, india. so the notion that somehow to be a democracy yet have a first amendment i find problematic.
i don't find is problematic that free speech helps democracy. but the notion that it has to be preserved constitutionally i think we can look and say, doesn't always work that way. just because we think about it that way in this country doesn't mean we have the only or best answer. i was really grateful that the person who introduced us read the first amendment. because she set me up for my next point. the first amendment is clear. government make no law, which i think includes president trump at i don't think he thinks that. it does not include sinclair broadcasting. for those who don't know,
sinclair broadcasting is a fairly conservative with owners, they on many small to medium market broadcast stations. over the past three years they required their news folks to cover stories in a certain way. or most recently to read the same statement about fake news on all of their news outlets. so, if you go to -- they did a fabulous job of editing and catching all the anchors reading the same statement at the same time. the first amendment doesn't speak about sinclair. it only speaks about government. so the question becomes in the
first century is the danger from government, from president trump, from mitch mcconnell? from the governor? or is it from sinclair broadcasting? we have constitutional protection of one but not the other. that's the first thing in a goes with what doctor johnson said. this is know about money. not just about rights. the second question task is to look at us, i have the microphone, i get to speak. where are all of you? free speech as we think about it is not just about being able to
say i think within limit, it's about being able to be heard and about the access to communication. about the notion that when you get the microphone has to get some responsibilities. it's also the notion that there certain groups of people in society but don't get access to the microphone. so the question that arises is the first amendment for who? and in what context? in other times and it's really important to not give me the microphone so you can have it? the third point which comes with the other two is once you get the microphone and sometimes very difficult for people to .
i'm sure many of you have not set a room with a college professor with this problem. but just in case, try fox news, try msnbc, this is the place where you can make an argument that even though we like to say theoretically we have unlimited possibilities for speech, i will readily claim i have limited bandwidth. i have only 24 hours in the day and so many brain cells and only so many of those are conscious at one time. it is possible for there to be so much crap in speech that the
thoughtful, the provocative, the things that make me think and rethink, don't get the space. in a broadcast they don't get the time. but if you can't find it on the internet and you can't find it in the washington post or the new york times, then we have an aggregate problem about average and sometimes awful speech taking up so much time, space, and energy that we don't have the ability to access good-quality speech, the speech that helps us to the common work of being citizens in a democracy. two more things. fake news.
so the very introduction yesterday, i do read this ethics book and it does name names. is coming out in its ninth edition. it's not here for sale though. you'd be amazed at the response again when you : news organization and say that you're doing an ethics book. almost complete silence. in every issue. because people are worried you're the ethics lady waking your finger. most the time ask how did you get to that decision. how did you decide you'll break tradition not in your opinion
column but on news column. that's an ethical choice that i wanted to understand. but they weren't happy when i called to ask to talk on the record about it. the point about fake news is that in the process of doing the book had to grapple with what does it mean to have fake news. the closest i could come to his it's a parallel between lives. so in order to fly up to do three things. you have to stated, you have to know is false and three, you have to do it to get power over somebody else. lies are what give us power. whether it's a white lie or a whopper. i think that's at the classic news the one thing that so troubling about fake news that
it's not done just because, it's done because someone wants power in a system and it's articulated so often and repeated in a way that there is no way for the truth to find in. and we can talk about that more later. we always come down to two issues. it used to be just one. the first is what we do about hate. , there is a school of thought that says the remedy for hate speech is more speech. as a journalist and somebody who spent last five years i can tell
you one remedy is to go out cover what that speech does to people in their daily lives and to put that on the front page of the paper. i firmly believe that. i also think there's a rational argument that says that the united states is there some kinds of hate speech that are so insidious and crippling and so profoundly and he made that we should at least every once in a while think about this was in
our constitutional prerogative to protect us against that speech. i never really thought about that side of the question much until a few years ago when my husband and i had a german exchange student staying with us. and he was extremely bright and all of a sudden he wanted to look for in american history class of past fascism and nazis. so say go to the internet, not in germany. that's illegal. he could find it here. i don't know if the germans have a better solution we do but i think for me it's become an honest question. how do you grapple with hate. lastly how do you grapple with facebook this is where i do wish there is not campus. i will say a few things about facebook. first, a lot of what has been
discussed about facebook, facebook follows you and it watches you. if you like to be followed and launched, then maybe that's an okay place for you to be. but i don't. second, mark zuckerberg, despite what he said owns the information on facebook. you don't. so when you put stuff on facebook it says. it is not yours. is that okay with me? it's not with me. and lastly i find the notion of facebook ethically problematic. my job as a journalist is to strip it down just say what i
think the core responsibilities. to let you know about people and circumstances that you would not normally encounter. that's my goal in the public service i provide. the washington post, bless his heart has told me a lot about donald trump. the person who i didn't care to know or was curious about the more i find out about i'm not happy. but journalistically they're doing their job. the giving information about a person or place that i would not normally have bone. what does facebook do, it divides people up between my friends and non- friends. it says in order to be on facebook i have to segregate myself totally people i already
know the people who share my experiences. and when mark zuckerberg invented that platform -- i don't want to be that person. and i certainly don't want to be that professional. i try very hard not to be that. so for these reasons when he answered the question about facebook being regulated, my answer is yes. the same way new york times and the washington post is regulated. his media companies and his obligations and responsibilities to meet. so i hope this is give any things to think about. i look forward to the q&a. [applause]
>> that was incredibly provocative. while of them may respond to every point, i'm going to go quickly so you all can respond to a lot of interesting stuff. i would say that the issue that both professors have raised up until the are not issues of less freedom in america but issues created by more. the great press critic of the 20th century once wrote that freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those -- and there's a lot of truth to that. this is more powerful than any newspaper i have ever worked for it can record any moment, edit
that moment and it can automatically communicate that potentially to the whole world. so that while we do have a microphone, it's possible that one of us will say something potentially inflammatory or an error, or stupid and somebody might have their device going. they could publish it and it could quickly become far more significant and widely heard than anything. so we see it again and again like in the tinker case i was trying to do the math in my he head, 1965 was the armband, 1969 was a supreme court decision february 14 was the crime and
buy a month later millions of students throughout the country or marching. the students who are organizing that march which back in the day was about as big of a megaphone as you can have in the united states, they had moved that bar within two or three weeks. the power of individuals created by this device and all that it implies is astonishing. every person now owns a press. the question becomes can we survive that much free speech? already some of the most powerful governments led by some of the most thoughtful people in the world have firmly decided
their society cannot survive this. you can do that in china or in russia, you cannot do that in countries all across the world, because they decided their countries and government cannot maintain power if their people have the access to the power of mass communication. we on the united states because we have the first amendment are doing the opposite. were doing a radical experiment and what happens if every individual potentially owns the press. say the answer is up for grabs. if we use that power to divide into groups they carry on no
conversation that drive opposition, if we create lucrative business models is fox news and others have done and go around the internet, people making a lot of money. that i'm not sure that bodes well for the united states. i hear from people and they don't feel like the countries coming together and getting stronger in the stand age. let's take another example of something that happened last week a couple of young african-american men were quickly thrown out of an area, left in handcuffs.
somebody was filming that. beautiful thing, when global. it's phenomenal. one of the most powerful companies in the world is within a week now to there, closed on the stores for sensitivity training. i promise you, that young black men have been getting thrown out of stores at retail establishments in the united states of america since there were retail establishments. this is a new. what happened wasn't new, the fact that we caught it was. but how is america experiencing that? are we experiencing as an approved -- where we experience it is a step back there is more
hate in america. the more understandings we need to come to but i'm not sure were creating the mechanisms for those conversations. i would think that this is next essential issue for the united states of america. can we cope with this much free speech? are we going to embrace it as a people of good faith trying to understand what people who disagree with us are saying and doing, or we going to edit it in a way that creates more division in a intention? i'll leave it there. [applause]
>> good morning. i'm stephanie and i'm part of the university of -- what i want to do with my two minutes is focus on the nuances that black people have been racing since the declaration of independence. since david has reminded us that people could be publishing them to try to step carefully. i think one of us is set appear ready, as we as a professor black studies or just a black person, a question or i want to
know more and have more conversation. for example, the case of -- the black armbands the could take off and put it back on, like that's a choice you're making when you're making that kind of statement. versus this black skin that i walk around in every day and my son and daughters and husband walk around in. they cannot take it off. so the irony that john had to go asked to be expelled, i find it very interesting and ironic. i find it interesting that when we have the first amendment, for who? who are we talking about?
the question of facebook, yes it's a lot but there's some of us who only heard about # black lives matter through social media. we don't have the luxury to sit in our homes and our streets in columbia and no that's out there. we can only find it through social media, twitter, and facebook. i know these are important questions but the impact those of us who are black, or people of color or immigrants. you can tell already that i am all three. >> i want to talk about the gaps between -- and reality. when was that written in 1776,
when the founders talked about all men are created equal were black people included in that? that's a universal question we go back to with the study of the black experience in the united states. black people at that time were slaves, they were treated like animals we only have to go back to thomas jefferson and read what he said about black people there and i will just ask you to go and read that. then that with a statement about all men are created equal and you'll see a think that it's
inarguable that black people were not included in that. so the first amendment was written i'm not convinced that black people were included in that. i want to talk about the ways in which black people are punished and vilified natalie for they say, but for just their very being. david has already talked about the starbucks situation, these black men were just sitting there. how many of us have sat at starbucks? a couple coffee can last me like five hours. if that, i may not even buy one. yet these two men were innocent sitting there. they have been internationally and publicly humiliated on the color of their skin.
black people are vilified if we remember mohammed ali and his statement about the vietnam war and how he was vilified by the government. i find it interesting that black lives matter that whole movement has -- the mission that the fbi now has a new category of terrorists called black extremists black identity extremists. it's written into the fbi's handbook. i find it interesting that colin kaepernick peacefully, without
any militants, despite its -- you decide to take any during the national anthem and he is so vilified by not only society but also the president of the united states who calls him and others who have questions about the many men about the starbucks guys but men even worse, martin entry trayvon martin who is been killed by the police, that's all caps nick was. he was holding his country to the standards it stands for. and yet, the president of the united states called him a son of a pitch. i don't know how many of you have watched roseann's bar of the same national anthem.
have you seen that? it is terrible, it is a mockery. and yet president trump calls her up when she starts her new show to congratulate her. he's not a son of a bench. >> and then we come to the ways in which her arguments are raised, many years ago a black woman called -- part of the hash take me to move limit. nobody talked about it until last year when alyssa milano brought this up. she's the same words and same #
and she becomes the face of the movement. i find that interesting. why were we not listening earlier even appear on stage we have talked about wonderful students in parkland, florida. we have students write here at the university of missouri who stood up to raise their voices against the injustice of killing both black people and their hometown to ours away in st. louis, and also asking us in the administration to think about what it means to be black on a campus where there called the n-word daily. and we were not listening. so is watching to see how my friends and neighbors would
react to parkland. and i compared to how my friends and neighbors reacted to concerns to a group of black students on our campus at the university of missouri and the reactions are very different. the purpose students have acknowledged that they learned a lot from watching students -- i find it interesting that that they have said that society still sees them as the heroes, they are our hope of force for tomorrow and students here right in our midst were punished and vilified. that we even wrote a loss into our bylaws at the university of missouri to make sure that never
happens again. then we have already mentioned -- so the declaration of independence and the first amendment was all of that for? so the last week or so has been really encouraged by the announcement that the pulitzer prize was awarded to -- omar. kendrick lamarr is an african-american hip-hop artist whose music carries with it a lot of social concepts and messaging. his talking about please brutality. if you watch videos is asking us
as black folk and the wider community to think about what social justice and equality really mean. they gave that highest honor to a young rapper is pretty amazing. they voted unanimously for him. that's awesome and wonderful. and he has opened a few big award shows, and his things like plea shootings up there that are dramatize that i hope are waking us up. however, yesterday's going to my office listening to npr and their talk about the pulitzer prize and color calls in, couple : some of them said it was wonderful and so on, but a
couple called in and said this is unheard of, they should not have given it to him. he does not have a sense of musicality, if you know hip-hop there's a great deal of complex musicality in the genre. they took issue with it. so i waited in the moderator said well, what about bob dylan, he got the nobel prize, is that okay? and the caller said yes, that was fine. so again, what are we thinking? it's all about us now. i don't expect my neighbors or friends to use hateful words but
what i do expect is for us to carefully carveout the nuances of these big questions and how they impact not only folks or who predominantly white, but also folks who are also american that are somehow left out of the original suspense of this amendment and constitution. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i'm sure you have questions you like to ask. we have about 15 minutes for q&a. i tried to get people from all parts of the audience. please raise your hand and i
will repeat the question for the recording. >> please line up by the microphone if you have a question. >> just an observation that might come up later, is a rare for this many white people here in one place said the question like where the university with the professor and how -- when you want to protect the forces from.
[inaudible] >> i will say that as we were arranging -- thank you, that is a question the help there will be asked again and again in these kinds of panels. i hear there's a panel later on with no black folks on it. but that's okay. but i do think it's a great question. i know the organizers are sharing those questions. as we're organizing this backstage we did think through and david said -- without through the order. and david said he would go last and i don't know if it's because he was mindful of and a little bit may have been.
but his point was also that he was going to talk about starbucks as well and he didn't want to steal my thunder and i thought that was gracious and lovely. the great question. and then a question of what happens when allies and white folks step in to take over and asked these questions, that showed me how difficult it is for an ally to step up. how dangerous it is. he she lost her job. and really, i said i'm on record saying a letter that i wrote i
talked about the fact that my daughter was going to be a freshman here and i wanted more of -- on this campus so i can be sure that i didn't always have to be the one there for her. so i fully understand the reality of what's when you stand up. but it is so worth it. . . having that go viral is something new. we have to what we are seeing in
america is no different but we are just seeing it. can we handle it? >> next question. >> one quick observation which is that black people historically are the subjects of new ways of oppressing people. that certainly is true fake news. early in the obama administration -- which because people flinched and became the norm for a large segment. like many of us here i to listen to kpi a in a few weeks ago there was a story that is now possible using digital technology to take video of anyone saying anything and editing it, recombining it to make it look like they are speaking with their natural tone of voice or whatever and i have
heard the word nazis and black people and things like that and it could be done with this group. how do journalists do that? you have enough trouble with thickness. the other thing is observation is that a few weeks ago there's a story that many of the techniques that were set up or used in the 2016 election were pioneered with concerned students in 1950. particularly questions of violence and so forth. what will we do? how can i trust anybody at this point? >> frankly, we can't trust you so there we go. [laughter] i want to say a couple of things in response to that smart question because i think especially in an audience like this we like to think that we
are immune. we are smart and educated and well read and reread washington post and no one could possibly pull fake news over on us. but there is really good evidence going back at least a decade that all of our us are susceptible to those influences as all the people who aren't in this room. being well-educated and being in the university community and being a journalist -- don't washington post has published big new stories. so, none of these make us immune and one of the things about the question is what are journalists going to do and i've got a different one what will be due and what are we as audiences going to do and as citizens what are they going to do? when radio put a story on the folks that were doing the algorithm that allows you to do the visual and one of the people they interviewed was a young woman and she was out somewhere
in silicon valley and one of the things they asked her was do you think that this our rhythm is okay and do you perceive any problems or potential problem with it. her response was interesting which was no, not really i think this will be used the way that is appropriate to. [laughter] i'm driving home and i 94 in detroit some trying to avoid a car wreck but i think that is the problem. we automatically assume that there is not the potential for mischief out there and there is not the potential for malevolence out there. i think both of those things are characteristic of fake news and what will happen with that together technology. >> and it's not the potential put aside what we may or may not learn about relationships
between russia and any operators in the united states but it is beyond question that the russian government is actively attacking american media not to help one side or the other but to drive us apart and it has worked so it's not something that might happen in the future but happening right now and some of us in this room may already have fallen for one or more of these things. in a way although without the technological power part of the problem is that and i'm looking around at the demographics in this room and i will safely say that most of us in this room grew up with what we thought was a normal. for media and communication but in fact was a very historically
accurate. when for a number of reasons involving the federal licensing of a broadcast band and so forth we had a few dominant media voices. abc, nbc, cbs and associated magazines and newspapers. there was an apparatus of editors and say what you will about how well they reflected america but they did clean it up. certain boundaries were checked and you're not allowed to do this or do that and if your mother says she loves you, check it out. [laughter] >> trust but verify. >> now work back into a period where it might seem familiar to our forebears in the 19th century when there were hundreds of newspapers and it was cheap
to start one and you can buy a little press this big and can move around on the back of a wagon and if you didn't work in one town you go to the next town and start your newspaper there. these newspapers had points of view and there was the republican paper and the democratic paper and the socialist paper and the conservative paper and the businessman paper in the german language paper and all of this and your job as the consumer was to understand that and filter for it. if you wanted to figure out what was real in the world you might have to read multiple papers or say that is horace greeley and he, you know is crazy or whatever it was but the consumer was an active filter of information. instead many of us grew up in a
time when that filtering was largely done for us and we became lazy and now we tend to be very easy marks for something that looks like it's been on tv and if it's on tv it must be true, right? [laughter] consumers have to become more active and educated and on the ball. >> we only have two minutes left so i think we will go with one brief question. >> about the regulation of press what do you feel about the press over exaggerate something like what happened with [inaudible]? >> who? >> [inaudible] a guy on youtube who hosted racially insensitive things on his vine and youtube account where he did very demented things to rats like
electrocuting them and all you had to do was check this box if you are 18 years or older so what do you do about situations like that where one person does something in because he does that he becomes famous? with the facebook he said we need to regulate what is filtered out or closed off -- >> i'm in favor of what lee said which is turn it off. the only reason he's famous is because people clicked on it. if you don't click on it he's not famous. the power belongs to all of us. >> i will do in ask you to respond to that because it has an element of hate in it that was directed at people of color
social media question? >> let me weigh in quickly. hopefully i will end on an optimistic note. david struck that that we have to be the filters now. we have to be the critical thinkers and i think technology and here i am an optimist technology may bail us out and we already know that gifts can be modified and we know how to deal with that and perhaps the dubbing of language can be identified by the right technological innovation which will help us out but ultimately it is up to us. we have to be the critical thinkers and the adults in the room. i am gratified to see so many adults here. [laughter]