tv Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell Arguments Impact CSPAN May 29, 2018 9:02pm-9:59pm EDT
cities releases the annual state of cities report examining urban trends and priorities. at noon eastern on c-span two, the cato institute considers congress's war powers and how congress can reassert themselves in the decision process. at 2:30 pm, the state of climate action in the u.s. and globally. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.
more on the 1988 supreme court case, hustler magazine versus jerry falwell on american history tv. ahead, a panel discussion about the arguments presented in the decisions impact on editorial cartoonist and other first amendment cases. the symposium on satire was held at the university of minnesota. i will introduce george freeman, the moderator of the panel quickly. he is currently the executive director of the media lab resource center. prior to that he counseled the law firm of jenner and block, for many of us he will be forever associated with his role as assistant general manager of the new york times company where many of us worked with george when he was in the forefront of many high-profile cases. he speaks frequently on these and other topics as you can imagine and he teaches at columbia, new york university and the graduate school of journalism. george, take it away.
>> thank you jane. thank you very much. the good news is,we are low-tech guys, we have no audiovisual, we will not play around here with this machine. we will just talk. two other things that i would note, the two justices got beaten up in the last panel, while i think that it chief justice rehnquist very much deserves to have done so, there is one good thing about them, i went to amherst college, you would be surprised to know that justice rehnquist son was the leading scorer in amherst college basketball history, there is something positive there. as to justice scalia, i am no great fan, but the fact is, justice scalia was a strong first amendment judge who was usually on the right side of first amendment cases including the most critical one, the
flagburning case. he was on the side in a 5-4 decision saying flagburning was okay and could not be punished. he was not a bad first amendment justice. >> to my right is a professor at the university of michigan and a law practice in our. next to him is a professor of communications at the communications school at whitworth university in washington state. to her right is jonathan peters, john is a professor of communications at the university of georgia. i have got to know him a little bit because he is a press freedom correspondent at the columbia journalism review in new york. on the far right, probably not where he belongs is steve
green, an editorial cartoonist for the san diego union. so, let us get started, we do not have a lot of time, i want to start with the opinion itself, discuss satire and in the main, talk about 30 years later and what the legacy of the cases and how important it was and the influence and affect today. going back briefly to the opinion, justice rehnquist started his opinion by saying that the material was clearly false, and they do not protect falsity, they protect truth, and also, it was intentional affliction of distress and the defendant in his deposition said, the aim was to hurt falwell, the aim was intentionally intended to inflict pain, given that that is the way that the justice started, how did they ever come around to turn that around to a decision in favor of the publication?
it was a bad start and the premise is all pretty negative. >> one corrective know, justice rehnquist did something a bit wrong at the beginning, this is useful because it helps to highlight how outrageous the satire was justice rehnquist as the parity suggested that falwell's first sexual experience was an incestuous drunken rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. that is a cleaned up version. if you look closely it says he had to get a go out first. this gives you some idea of how incredibly charged this was. i think that rehnquist has an impulse and a problem. the impulses that this is protected and understands the historical importance of satire, the problem is when we
think about protected speech we don't think about it from the fact the speeches outrageous or intentionally false. there is a sense in which all satire is knowingly and intentionally false or intended to stick a pencil in someone's eye. that is not generally the criteria that we think about when protecting speech. in my mind, while the result is spectacular and i join everyone in celebrating the outcome of the case, the analysis is tortured. he has to say that outrageousness cannot be a standard which is certainly right, then he goes on and imports an element of falsity into the elements of a claim even though it is not there, then it is elevated according to new york times versus sullivan. this is gymnastics to get to the result that he wants. i think that that says something about him, he was
willing to work hard even though he was struggling intuitively with why this was the right outcome. what he does not do is explain why satire is important, we understand he is cheerleading for it, if you look for an explanation, it is missing in action. >> erica, do you want to add to that or deal with the question about the court's decision of did it go too far or not far enough? how would you evaluate this? it struck the right line for a broad application to freedom of speech. my particular area is i student speech. when we look at student speech cases and how they embrace the protection of satire, we do see them echoing the language of hustler, especially the idea of plausibility, including for a unique audience of young people. the idea that outrageousness is subjective and that we can
evaluate the intent of the speech and how it will be received, ended up being a highly speech protected precedent in the area of speech regulation where that is the norm. >> john? sure, maybe i can speak to the wider utility of the case, despite the analytic deficiencies, i will try to do this through the vehicle of recent litigation involving john oliver and hbo. coal magnate, robert murray, recently sued hbo and john oliver. in my work, fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, was mixed in the litigation. oliver's show for those of you that are unfamiliar, it is a weekly program in which he offers a satirical view of all manner of current news issues.
back in june 2017, oliver aired an episode in which one segment focused on nicol, and the coal mining industry. it more -- coal , and the coal mining industry. it more specifically focused on donald trump's participation -- >> let me interrupt for a second, as an editorial cartoonist of 30 years ago, is he the same as 30 years ago? >> yes, that would be fair, certainly not just all over, but the likes of stephen colbert, jon stewart, others that engage in satire and parity. in this case, the segment begins by looking broadly at donald trump's effort to curry favor of coal miners and then pivots and introduces you to robert murray 5 minutes and. robert
murray is the founder, president, and ceo of murray energy corporation whose operations across the ohio river valley. it is the largest privately held coal company in the united states. oliver's commentary was sharp and humorous. murray was introduced as someone who had been a fierce critic of president obama's coal policies. for example, oliver said that marie looked like a geriatric dr. evil. -- marie looked like a geriatric dr. evil. one person dressed up in a costume to deliver the message each [ bleep ] bob. this relied on official reports on murray's
statements and included video clips and screenshots in which the segment itself was relying. several days later, murray sued hbo and all over for defamation, emotional distress and invasion of privacy. one of the stories that was cited on the show and offered as a screenshot was a story that i had written for the columbia journalism review in which i had documented murray's record of suing journalist cartoonists and editors and the record of threatening to sue. in speaking of the wider utility despite analytic deficiencies, i will give you a few examples of how hustler came to be used in some of the litigation around marie. -- around murray.
>> let me interrupt, with those cases have been won if not for the hustler case? >> i do not know. the fact that hustler is itself relies heavily on new york times sullivan, i think you could fairly argue that hustler is part of the sullivan progeny. hustler of course addresses questions that sullivan did not . otherwise, the court would not have accepted sullivan for a decision. would we see a different result in cases like these without sullivan? in this litigation specifically, i aed cases and claims were brought and most of this addresses it head-on or sullivan does not, you can make the argument that in an alternate universe it could go another way. what do you think len about the case, where you around when
the case was argued? my recollection was and i think roslyn alluded to this in the last panel, we were scared of this case, looking back, it was unanimous, it seems like an easy case. at the time, the facts were so bad that we were all scared. in fact, i remember that the new york times did not participate in trying to win the case when it went up for cert in the supreme court. one was granted and they were going to take the case and we then grudgingly got involved. it so happens that i found the memo that i wrote to the publisher and editor of the times asking them for permission to join the amicus brief. it starts out, the first line of the memo, which is supposed to support the publisher and says, although the brief would put us in the position of supporting hustler and larry flynn, it was not like there was a great outpouring of sympathy for the side that we were on, it was more a matter of duty of trying to make sure that the law does not get worse
. >> i remember there were only two problems with the case, the facts and the law. the facts were just dreadful. it was an incredibly controversial defendant, the speech was monumentally offensive. the deposition was a disaster. he admitted that he tried to inflict intentional emotional distress on falwell and asked if he was making a mockery of proceedings he said yes. he called the lawyer on the other side an [ bleep ]. it was probably the worst deposition in the history of law. if you think about sullivan, what sullivan did was take a torch that had established elements and elevated the burden of proof to existing elements. but this is different, there is no falsity element or necessarily based on speech.
the concern was, if, and this was a serious concern, if every public figure and plaintiff in the country could get around new york times versus sullivan through the simple expedient of change in the claim, the new york times versus sullivan was dead and we could have a great memorial service for this. it was over, it was a scary case and scary for the reasons that if you told us that rehnquist would write the majority opinion, we would not have just been scared, we would've moved to other countries. that was a daunting proposition as well. >> steve, you actually do cartoons, rather than having academic speculate on the importance of the case or the importance of satire, what are you thinking about when you actually produce your editorial cartoons? why is satire so valuable? >> i think this is because you
are taking something, satire is looking at something, whether it is a person or idea, and you are basically saying, you are not as important as you think you are. there are different ways that you could knock this person or that thing off the pedestal. there are different levels of outrageousness that you could apply to do that. and, first of all, i am up here because i did take the lsat when i was trying to figure out what i was going to do after college. i scored in the bottom 5th percentile, but still! i did take the lsat. i guess what i would say about this is, what is great, we do not have to worry about it, we take this for granted, this
landmark ruling. if you consider our compatriots and other countries doing editorial cartoons, you just really have to realize how lucky you are that we have something like this. >> anyone else of the non- cartoonists want to comment on why? there's a lot that says we do not protect falsity, we protect truth. as in the sullivan case they say we stretch the truth, but here we are going out of our way to protect falsity. we do this in aid of the value of satire or parody, why are we doing this? why is the judicial system recognizing or making exceptions about satire and parity would allow it to do this? i am an easy to talk about my
views of satire in front of those to do it for a living and know the answer. my own sense is that a lot of the power first with first amendment is this imaginative process where the world looks different, donald trump with a pigtail at the back of his hair, or donald trump with the toilet for his mouth, or something like that. what it invites you to do is compare the alternative reality to lived reality and ask us to start considering how fair the comparison is and if it is legitimate. this does this efficiently and quickly and through a variety of devices like words and images and humor. it cuts across social economic lines. what i think is the lost opportunity in the hustler case is that there would have been a chance for the court to talk about all of the things that make satire not just defensible
, but sort of a glorious part of our history of freedom of expression and i believe that opportunity was missed. >> if i could add to that briefly, speaking to the larger question on protecting false speech, i think that ours is a country in which we have accepted the idea that public officials and public figures ought to bear a heavier burden than say a private person in terms of the scrutiny that he or she can be exposed to. that is a point made clear in the new york times sullivan decision and the court in that case in opinion offered by justice brennan, discusses at some length the concept of breathing space and is the idea that we protect some false speech that has not met the fault burden that was created because we are afraid that if we held public officials and officials to lower standards, it would be easier for them to sue and to win and this would have a
chilling effect on public discourse. this is a point made most recently in the snyder v phelps case which doubled down on the idea that we are a country in which we have chosen to protect speech at the expense of some emotional harm and even some falsity. >> i should point out that sullivan has been referred to a lot, it change level lot entirely and basically constitutionalize did and said it applies to libel which had not been the case before that, whether it should or not is a question that academics can struggle with, but it has for 55 years and it never really has been an opportunity or hope to change that. luckily, libel is constitutionalize and the rules change from basically libel being a good claim if it was
defamatory -- the inflammatory and had damage to a high standard of fault on a publisher if the subject was a public figure. this really has been rejected everywhere else in the world. i can this week from jamaica and was talking about the british commonwealth nations. britain, australia, canada, they have rejected pleas from press lawyers to say adopt the american sullivan rule. they have rejected this as to press friendly and empathetic goal to the reputation interest of celebrities and public leaders and so on. this is really the reason that everyone is talking about this. it totally changed the landscape and made us unique in the country as opposed to any other country, including our brethren in english speaking countries and throughout the world. i think that you are absolutely right that it really touches this case deeply and all cases
like it. let me asked -- ask steve a question that troubles me a little bit on satire. you have to assume that the reader, whether it be a cartoon or written parity, gets it, that they realize that this is kind of not true. in the hustler ad it says, this is not to be believed at the bottom. it is a parity. i received an email not too long ago of something that was purported to be an interview with an nfl player that was cause i illiterate. it turned out that it was kind of making fun of those that said that football players were illiterate. when i read this for the first time i could not really tell. i was not really sure, is that a problem? if people take this for the truth, then it seems to me that we have a major problem of whether or not it is harmful and hurtful and there should be liability. how do you deal with that?
>> i'm trying to think of as examples and i cannot off the top of my head. there have been times when people have a reaction similar to this. you chalk this up to maybe stupidity in many cases. >> in my case, that is easy. >> [ laughter ] >> or just the fact that maybe people are not that sophisticated about satire and humor. then there is the issue of as living in a polarized time and people and emotions kind of overtake intellect. they cannot think this through. they just get so heated, oh, you are talking about topic x or i love donald trump so much, how dare you?! you do not have a normal discussion about something that other people might. erica, what about
specialists and student speech, this could be part of the class that steve just talked about, people that are not that sophisticated or not that knowledgeable, a couple of questions, number one, does the paradigm that we just discussed come into play in satire that is aimed at students and student newspapers or what have you? secondly, i would ask, does hustler apply in student speech or are there other cases like the tinker case which kind of overrides or has to work with it to say that even so, if there is disruption in the classroom then it should not be allowed? >> one interesting thing that several speech satire cases bring up is, will the student audience understand this? and how important it is to create opportunities for people to engage with setters to develop skills so that as adults and citizens and voters, they
can engage with speech and understand it better. when key phrase from tinker v des moines which is the 1969 case that conveyed a broader first amendment right to free speech is this hazardous freedom. this is an experiment as all of life is an experiment. when we talk about speech we talk about risk we see this in the public school speech cases and in the discussion of satire. this is a risk, but this is an important one and one worth taking so that young people cannot only learn how to create satire that is meaningful and purposeful, and good, but also to engage with it and identify and we do look at what is the likelihood, the possibility of young people to see satire that is created for them by their peers to understand it that way . and the protection of this is
important so that they can start to develop those skills. we do look at student speech in public schools differently. the tinker decision which does convey first amendment rights to student speech absence of substantial disruption to the academic environment, or a collision with the rights of others has come in and some of these cases, courts have been cautious and they have reminded schools that you cannot restrict speech strictly because of undifferentiated fear . it cannot be i just do not like what they are saying or i think there is a possibility that maybe, sort of, kind of, we will see a disruption. there has to be solid evidence, we have to see the outcome. the collision with rights with others, that has come in in satire, parity, or humor is targeted at people because of physical characteristics, things like race, ethnicity, or gender. in those situations we have seen some student speech
regulation of satire be upheld because it ostensibly undermines the ability of some students to engage fully in their education. can i ask you, i got that in your paper, but that comes out of a whole cloth and political correctness, not out of law. the phrase i guess of the supreme court is that it would obstruct others or interfere with the rights of others. my sense was, if that meant a particular person and not 50% of the universe like all females or all races. that is the way that it has been used and it strikes me that that is political incorrectness and there is no legal basis for that whatsoever, in my being extreme? >> it is a unique application and one loveoked a closely because there is a question of e we trying to skirt the law
and the intends by idtifying here is one person that has been hurt and therefore the speech can be regulated and what does hurt me? we tried to talk about this last night in terms of this trolley cartoon which is really not about an individual but about a huge religion with hundreds of millions of people. it is hard to see that that would harm the interests of others unless we are talking about others in a global sense. >> george, i sense a unifying theme the reminds me of something i say to my students. let me give you basic law of the first amendment, it is cause i knew tony them, for every action there is an un- equal and opposite overreaction. we definitely see this in the school speech cases. the case that john is talking about, where you have a person suing over an interview with mr. nutter butter.
and this one, the case that we are celebrating today, these are two disclaimers that explicitly say, what kind of moron do you have to be to conclude that this is a good lawsuit to bring? i really think that one of the unifying themes that you can find here is an impulse, people are offended or there is a reaction or sometimes there are great impulses to make students lives better or safer, but they do fall into a category of an overreaction so many laws get struck down when they are scrutinized carefully. going back to the case that we are celebrating here, everyone has their own answer, what was the point of this ad? what was the point of this satire? who was it aimed at? was it aimed at advertising? was it aimed at falwell or his mother? was it aimed is trying to be as outrageous as possible for the sake of outrageousness? does anyone have thoughts on that?
i do not know enough about the background, but was fault will a big critic of hustler? presumably he was because of the nature of what they did. i think he was just trying to stick it to them, as we say. >> that makes it even worse from a legal point of view because the name was to inflict emotional distress which is the name of it. that makes it better that the right side won so to speak. does anyone have any other thoughts on the purpose of the ad? >> if you take larry flynt at his word in the deposition that the idea was to cause harm to jerry falwell and knock him off a pedestal, he has asked all of these questions directly in the deposition and that is the reason that len mentioned this is the worst deposition in american law. you can line up the elements and he is taking them off
himself in the deposition. if you take flynt at his word, the idea was to take a self- righteous leader of the moral majority and in doing so caused some emotional distress. >> self-righteousness is one of the most delicious targets for a satirist. >> good point. george, i think there is an important question, but this part of the texture that is part of satire. and this could be making fun specifically of follow-up. this could be making fun of the way in which self- righteous people get ad contracts with people like come party. there is satire that is instantaneous in the way that it works. this i think is ironic that justice rehnquist says this is like a distant relative of the
satire that we honor. this is like the relatives that sits at the head of the table, this is way outrageous and really pushing the boundaries. it is also complex in terms of what it might be saying. let us go to the legacy d where we are today. let me start by asking you, if the supreme court got this case today, but the hustler case never existed, how would it come out? would it come out the same way? i think with the president it would come out the same way because the court would follow their opinion of 30 years ago. if there is no hustler case back in our universe, what would today's supreme court which is pretty good on first amendment but not all that good in other ways, how would they come out?
>> i suspect it would come out in much the same way for reasons you mentioned, this is been for the last 30 or 40 years a highly speech protected core across a variety of first amendment questions. i think that the president that hustler relied on has been unchanged since the time of hustler and if we pretend that hustler did not happen and we say in the 1990 malkovich case, it will take the ball further down the field. that was a case in which the u.s. supreme court said that language and hyperbolic language and that getsfirst amendment protection. i think that even though that case did rely on hustler, it relied more heavily on new york times sullivan, the case that we keep discussing.
i do not know that you would see good reason to have the supreme court changing what had as different reasoning. >> i would say it would be longer, there would probably be more concurrences and there will be a lot of come away don't like the decision, but we will make the decision. >> it is possible that you will get this, the supreme court has been reluctant to identify new categories of unprotected speech, the animal torture case, the animal court torture case in stevens, the violent videogame cases, the supreme court has had no interest in creating new categories except for justice alito who thinks new unprotected categories could be okay. maybe you get the sense from him but generally it comes out the same. i have a bad feeling that if we did not have hustler,
that most of us in this room would be in leavenworth right now with a thin-skinned leader. >> i was struck last night with your question to ann if the lawyers were involved, i cannot remember who the question was too, but the response was, we just work with our editors. as much as i am invested in the participation of lawyers and their well-being, their answer is so clear that this largely becomes a conservation effort between journalists and editors and not having rear shape what you are doing. it is not only that you are out of leavenworth, but you have substantial opportunities to really do what you have to do. >> do you ever talk to a lawyer steve? i know your former lawyer was a
fun guy to work with i do not think you shied away from him because he was a terrible lawyer, but did you ever think about legal stuff, do ever talk to lawyers or as suggested, is it not even in the landscape which is a good thing? >> it is not in the landscape, this has freed you from the legal stuff and now we have discussions with the editors, at least i do about what is fair and what is the best way to make the commentary, or the fairest way as opposed to, will we get in trouble? is defending an entire religion something that is okay under that criteria? >> for me, personally, yes sure. >> or your editor? >> it would depend on the cartoon. >> okay. >> and on the religion. [ laughter ] >> that as well. len, what is the legacy of the case, how important is it
today, why are we here? to go back to something that john was hitting at, one of the things that comes out of the cases that you cannot do an end run around the new york times sullivan standard, you cannot call it something and get away with it. that is terribly important. hustler sets the stage for snyder versus phelps which is an opinion where the supreme court goes further in being skeptical about such cases. this becomes more editorial judgment then legal judgment which i think is tremendously helpful. i think that this has a great legacy, not completely untroubled, sometimes when you try to apply the fact that there were so many disclaimers and the fact that the speech was outrageous and the fact that you would need an olympian level of gullibility, those
things to some degree limit the application of the case, but it still has a strong influence. and what len mentioned, this is the second emotional intentional distrust case that the supreme court decided in 30 years was the case with fire -- terrible facts, and we are saying, will we join these people that we hate in the interest of the first amendment ? to do so we have the point to all of the places in the amicus brief where it was written that the defendant was heinous, we do not like these people, we have nothing to do with them, this is the westborough baptist church that basically protested outside of military funerals so that when a serviceman came back in a body bag and they had a funeral for him in a church, like what happened in the actual case, they protested, albeit with police authorization
, 1000 feet or 1000 yards away from the church and they would protest and say that the death was deserving because the u.s. believes in homosexuality and this is punishment in exchange for that belief, that is why this guy died. the father of the dead serviceman finds out about the protest going on at his son's funeral and sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress. a terrible fact, but again, the media more or less, some of the media signed on in favor of the westborough baptist church and a- one with them sensing that the church won. the free-speech value won despite some disgusting facts.
the weird thing is, i would like someone to take this on, the u.s. supreme court in the last 30 years has decided two emotional distress cases which is a really narrow claim, almost never brought, almost never successful because what you have to show is that the behavior was basically unaccepted to civilized society , that is the really difficult standard to meet. in that same time period, only taking three libel cases which is kind of a weird balance between the claim that is brought all the time and something that we do not take all that seriously in the first place. any comments to any of that? i left you dumbfounded. >> [ laughter ] period one comment that i would make in general about two reasons that i like the hustler decision, despite the analytic deficiencies that len pointed out exist on several levels, one with the odd importation of
a libel fault standard and elevating that standard. another as len puts it in his paper, it is taking this case one step too far in the case that you could've resolved this most likely in the issue of outrageousness. where the state claims an issue was, can you raise the question or can you use outrageousness as a standard to judge an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and the court said no because it would empower an jury to use their own beliefs and biases to decide a case and that is to highly subjective. has the current president changed the definition of outrageous? it seems that he and indulges this every day, is it a problem that that is a moving target? >> i would argue that as i once said about a year ago, two quote lord ferris from game of thrones, -- to quote lord ferris
from game of thrones, donald trump would be content to be king if the whole world burned. we are better so to speak and i guess i do not have a sense of whether for these purposes the conception of outrageousness would change. sily if we look at this hustler decision itself, it takes a long view on outrageousness in the context of satire and brings up mass and tweed and others that go back many years. i do not know if in the short course of a few years of first candidate trump and then president trump's commentary, if we would have changed yet what it means to be outrageous. john, you were talking about the murray case, mary is a billionaire industrialist. and falwell was a major
celebrity, trump has sued all sorts of people for libel unsuccessfully, but had a lot of resources. there is a sense whether it is in emotional distress cases or libel cases, the people with lots of money are using the money essentially to force settlements out of the media, to get the media to cower, to chill their speech using litigation and their own resources as a tool, i think that you allude to this in your paper, the question that i do want to ask is, what is wrong with that? especially since when i started the practice and the media had lots of money, we basically used our resources to stall and beat up on plaintiffs and eventually get them to drop cases because they were expensive. using money and litigation is not exactly a novel idea.
speaking to that, number one would be, my fear of the effect of that on the effect of marketplace of ideas so to speak on whether it would create a chilling effect on speech. the other phenomenon that we have seen recently, and then again, this is not a new problem at all, but the merit of nature with many threats that have been made against journalists in news organizations. by an individual or organization with superior resources. if you consider about two years ago of a survey done by the american society of newspaper editors in which they were asked the question, do you feel that your news organization is prepared to go to court to fight for the first amendment? 53% of the editors said no. 27% of the editors said that they themselves had had to pull a punch in the case that they normally would have brought or
defended against in litigation rather than settling. if you move that to the context of freedom of information, a cousin of course to freedom of expression because we cannot communicate what we cannot gather, a recent night survey from an expert found that it was something like 50% of experts believed that freedom of information had gotten worse in the last four years and 90% believe that this was taken about one year ago and 90% believe that it will get worse under president trump. and i worry about the effect on public discourse and they worry about this in this environment where editors and freedom of information experts feel that this is not the most liberal
environment, liberal is a lowercase l. when trump was campaigning he said he wanted to open up libel laws, he does not have the power to do that, it is up to the court and the constitution, also, what he wanted from the lot is what the law is and he simply did not realize that, and what i wrote at the time was that you have to be careful because given his mouth, he is more likely to be a defendant in a plaintive and that has come about and he is using the very defenses that he was criticizing the media as having. he ought to be careful as to what he wants. we have time for a couple of questions from the audience, i cannot see, yes sir. quick question, in light of the merit of litigation, your polls and journalistic organizations have big staff
and attorneys and were increasingly in a world where blogs and bloggers and people like the courts not even journalism. and when it comes i have . [ inaudible question ] i went off 1.5 years. in a balanced world it and these are designed to allow a descendent who is on the receiving end of one of dismissed from court get the majority of these two have them issued and inconvenienced them do not have that protection
and you are left to defend against this with the usual tools of litigation asking for a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment to be awarded. all of that costs a large amount of money, i think that you are right, the people most at risk in this environment, they are not the new york times, it is not cbs, it is independent journalists, the blogger who has taken it upon him or herself to create police accountability videos, that is the person most at risk.
students need in order to flourish within that. we see that both in k-12 and as well as college and university levels. i don't think anybody has complete ownership of the attempts to kind of sensor on that collusion with the rights of others. >> i honestly don't know. i would like to believe they have sort of fundamental value in allowing the speech, more speech rather than last. let's get more ideas out there, let's get government out of the way, so they could be discussed. i'm going to go with that's what i want to believe. >> yeah. i think it will be very hard to imagine the little justices endorsing the principle of hate speech along the lines that have been advocated for the
student speech. we are opposed to hate speech. sometimes what i do with my students, i hand them the piece of paper and pen and say define it for me. the minute you get into that project, the vagueness problems, the definition problems become sort of visible. and i don't see the liberal justice as a parting company. i continue to believe it is the descending voice.
>> and of free speech that satires use of false. it really would be protected under solid time. >> yeah, so john, that's a great point. and just slightly reframe that. sullivan and hustler are thinking about falsity both in different ways. and when we say the joint is jumping, we don't mean the room is literally going up and down.
what we're getting at, some sort of greater truth. those opinions are sort of united in that, in the effort, there are different ways to get at the truth. when it is an experiment, all life is an experiment, what he's getting at is the idea of trying to figure out how we define the truth. it is a complicated package, but you're right. >> oh, one last question. it is just an article allegedly spent. apparently it was comparable. >> by the way, i wonder why it was in it had compartment last night. i think that would have been appropriate. [ laughter ]
[ inaudible ] it allows you to get to something that you have never had in action. >> oh sure, it makes all the difference. and where it is presented as a news piece that says we just learned from independent sources that we have verified, that he had sex with a goat and his mother and so forth and so on. but one of the things is this deposition. he essentially said well that is really what we wanted to do. i, in fact, had affidavits that i still have somewhere, confirming this stuff is all
factual, but they wanted to call it a parody. so the worst definition in the history of america. [ laughter ] >> it is a miracle this case was won. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> okay, thank you, panel. thank you george freeman. i'm going to make one quick observation as people were walking down memory lane. i recalled it during the argument, allen isaacman who was arguing in support of the magazine said that the way that hustler magazine conducts political speech is not the way the new york times does. that the very outrageousness of the speech was the way that the readers of hustlers would communicate the idea. that's a critical point to keep in mind. live wednesday on the c- span network.
noon eastern on c-span, a discussion on countering violent extremism, the role of the state department. it's at the hudson institute. at 2:00 p.m., the wilson center looks at relations after the u.s. withdraw from the iran nuclear agreement. on c-span 2 at 9:00 a.m., the national league of cities releasing the state of the city's report, examining urban trends, priorities. noon eastern on c-span 2, the institute considers congress' war powers, how they can reassert itself. at 2:30 p.m., the state of climate action in the u.s. and globally at the world resource institute. commencement speeches all this week wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. hillary clinton, rex tillerson, james mattis, and canadian prime minister justin trudeau. thursday at 8:00 p.m.
eastern. apple ceo tim cook, governor john kasich, governor kate brown, and congressman luis gutierrez. on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, jimmy carter, betty devos, representative mark meadows, and atlanta mayor kesha lance bottoms. this week on prime time, c-span and cspan.org and on the free c- span radio app. next on american history tv, penn state university professor sophia mclindon talks about public satire. and its influence on public opinion. this 30-minute event was part of the symposium on satires held at university of minnesota. >> one of the great adventures of helping pull the symposium together with jane was to identify the scholarships in the last 30 years that