WEBVTT

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
What if you own a hotel,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and one of the key principles
in your mission statement

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
is a commitment to treat
all employees and customers equally,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
including on the basis
of gender and religion?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And then a large group
books an event at your space,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and when you look at the booking,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
you realize that it's a religious group,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and one of their key principles

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
is that women should never leave the home

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and should have no opportunities
for professional development

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
outside of it?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
What do you do?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Do you host the event

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and get criticized by some,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or refuse and get criticized by others?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In my work, I counsel organizations
on how to create rules

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to navigate ideological disagreement
and controversial speech,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and I defend my clients,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
whether in court or from the government
when their actions are challenged.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The structures I recommend
recognize the real harms

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that can come from
certain types of speech,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but at the same time seek to promote
dialogue rather than shut it down.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The reason is that we need disagreement.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Creativity and human progress

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
depend on it.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
While it may be often easier

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to speak with someone who agrees
with everything you say,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
it's more enlightening
and oftentimes more satisfying

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to speak with someone who doesn't.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But disagreement and discord
can have real and meaningful costs.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Disagreement, particularly
in the form of hateful speech,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
can lead to deep and lasting wounds
and sometimes result in violence.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
And in a world in which polarization
and innovation are increasing

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
at seemingly exponential rates,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the need to create structures for vigorous
but not violent disagreement

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
have never been more important.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The US Constitution's First Amendment
might seem like a good place to start

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to go to look for answers.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
You, like I, may have often
heard somebody say

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that some form of a speech restriction,
whether from an employer, a website,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or even somebody else,
violates the First Amendment.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But in fact the First Amendment
usually has little if any relevance at all.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The First Amendment only applies
when the government is seeking

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to suppress the speech of its citizens.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
As a result, the First Amendment
is by design a blunt instrument.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
A narrow category of speech
can be banned based on its content.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Almost everything else cannot.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But the First Amendment has no relevance

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
when what we're talking about
is a private entity regulating speech,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and that's a good thing,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
because it means private entities
have at their disposal

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
a broad and flexible set of tools
that don't prohibit speech,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but do make speakers aware
of the consequences of their words.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Here are some examples.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
When you go to university,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
it's a time for the free
and unrestricted exchange of ideas,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but some ideas,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and the words used to express them,
can cause discord,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
whether it's an intentionally inflammatory
event hosted by a student group,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or the exploration
of a controversial issue in class.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In order to protect
both intellectual freedom

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and their most vulnerable students,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
some universities have formed teams
that bring speaker and listener together,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
free from the possibility of any sanction,
to hear each other's viewpoints.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Sometimes students don't want to meet,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and that's fine,
but in other circumstances,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
mediated exposure to an opposing view
can result in acknowledgment,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
recognition of unintended consequences,
and a broadening of perspectives.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Here's an example.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
On a college campus, a group of students
supporting the Israelis

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and those supporting the Palestinians
were constantly reporting each other

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
for disrupting events,
tearing down posters,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and engaging in verbal confrontations.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Recognizing that most of
what the students were reporting

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
did not violate the university's
disciplinary code,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the university invited
both groups to sit down

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
in a so-called restorative circle

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
where they could hear
each other's viewpoints

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
free from the possibility of sanction.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
After the meeting,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the ideological disagreements between
the groups remained as stark as ever,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but the rancor between them
significantly dissipated.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Now obviously, this doesn't always happen,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but by separating reactions to speech
from the disciplinary system,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
institutions of higher education
have created a space

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
for productive disagreement
and a broadening of perspectives.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
We're all biased.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
I don't mean that in a bad way.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
All of us are influenced, and rightly so,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
by our family background,
our education, our lived experience,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and a million other things.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Organizations do have influences,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
most importantly the beliefs
of their members,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but also the laws
under which they are governed

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or the marketplace in which they compete.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
These influences can form a critical part
of a corporate identity,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and they can be vital
for attracting and retaining talent,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but these biases, as I'm calling them,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
can also be a challenge,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
particularly when what
we are talking about

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
is drawing lines for allowing
some speech and not allowing others.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The temptation to find speech
harmful or disruptive

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
simply because
we disagree with it is real,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but equally real is the harm that can come
from certain types of expression.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In this situation, third parties can help.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Remember the hotel trying to decide

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
whether or not to allow
the religious group to host its event?

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Rather than having to make
a complex, on-the-spot decision

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
about that group's identity and message,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the hotel could instead
rely on a third party,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
say, for example,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the Southern Poverty Law Center,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
which has a list of hate groups
in the United States,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or indeed even its own
outside group of experts

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
brought together from diverse backgrounds.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
By relying on third parties

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to draw lines outside the context
of a particular event,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
organizations can make content decisions

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
without being accused of acting
in self-interest or bias.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The line between facts
and opinions is a hazy one.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The internet provides the opportunity
to publish almost any position

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
on any topic under the sun,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and in some ways that's a good thing.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It allows for the expression
of minority viewpoints

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and for holding
those in power accountable.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But the ability to self-publish freely

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
means that unverified
or even flat-out false statements

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
can quickly gain circulation and currency,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and that is very dangerous.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The decision to take down a post
or ban a user is a tough one.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
It certainly can be appropriate at times,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but there are other tools
available as well

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to foster productive
and yet responsible debate.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Twitter has recently started
labeling tweets as misleading,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
deceptive,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or containing unverified information.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Rather than block access to those tweets,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Twitter instead links to a source
that contains more information

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
about the claims made.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
A good and timely example
is its coronavirus page,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
which has up-to-the-minute information
about the spread of the virus

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and what to do if you contract it.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Rather than shutting down dialogue,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
this brings more ideas,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
facts and context to the forum,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and if you know that your assertions
are going to be held up

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
against more authoritative sources,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
it may create incentives
for more responsible speech

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
in the first place.

NOTE Paragraph

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Let me end with a hard truth.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The structures I've described
can foster productive debate

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
while isolating truly harmful speech,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but inevitably some speech
is going to fall in a grey area,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
perhaps deeply offensive

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but also with the potential
to contribute to public debate.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In this situation,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
I think as a general matter,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the tie should go to allowing
more rather than less speech.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Here's why.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
For one, there's always the risk

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that an innovative
or creative idea gets squelched

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
Almost by definition,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies
about how things should be.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
So if an idea seems
offensive or dangerous,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
it could be because it is,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
or it might simply be
because we're scared of change.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But let me suggest that even if
speech has little to no value at all,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
that deficiency should be shown
through open debate

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
rather than suppression.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
To be very clear,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
false speech can lead
to devastating real-world harms,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
from the burning of women
accused of being witches in Europe

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
in the 15th century

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to the lynching of African-Americans
in the American South,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
to the Rwandan Genocide.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The idea that the remedy
for false speech is more speech

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
isn't always true.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But I do think more often than not
more speech can help.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
A famous story from First Amendment
case law shows why.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
In 1977, a group of Neo-Nazis
wanted to stage a march

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
through the leafy, peaceful suburb
of Skokie, Illinois,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
home to a significant number
of Holocaust survivors.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The City Council immediately passed
ordinances trying to block the Nazis,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and the Nazis sued.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The case made it all the way
up to the Supreme Court

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and back down again.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The courts held that the Neo-Nazis
had the right to march,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and that they could
display their swastikas

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and give their salutes while doing so.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
But when the day for the march came,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and after all that litigation,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
just 20 Neo-Nazis showed up

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
in front of the Federal Building
in Chicago, Illinois,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
and they were met
by 2,000 counter-protesters

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
responding to the Nazis' messages of hate

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
with ones of inclusion.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
As the Chicago Tribune noted,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
the Nazi march sputtered
to an unspectacular end after 10 minutes.

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia,
and indeed around the world

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
shows this isn't always
how these stories end,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but to me the Skokie story is a good one,

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
one that shows that the fallacy
and moral bankruptcy of hateful speech

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
can best be responded to
not through suppression

99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999
but through the righteous power
of countervailing good and noble ideas.