1
00:00:00,640 --> 00:00:03,128
What if you own a hotel,

2
00:00:03,128 --> 00:00:05,778
and one of the key principles
in your mission statement

3
00:00:05,778 --> 00:00:09,069
is a commitment to treat
all employees and customers equally,

4
00:00:09,069 --> 00:00:13,025
including on the basis
of gender and religion?

5
00:00:13,025 --> 00:00:15,953
And then a large group
books an event at your space,

6
00:00:15,953 --> 00:00:17,545
and when you look at the booking,

7
00:00:17,545 --> 00:00:19,554
you realize that it's a religious group,

8
00:00:19,554 --> 00:00:21,322
and one of their key principles

9
00:00:21,322 --> 00:00:23,057
is that women should never leave the home

10
00:00:23,057 --> 00:00:25,643
and should have no opportunities
for professional development

11
00:00:25,643 --> 00:00:26,844
outside of it?

12
00:00:27,045 --> 00:00:28,028
What do you do?

13
00:00:28,028 --> 00:00:29,163
Do you host the event

14
00:00:29,163 --> 00:00:30,889
and get criticized by some,

15
00:00:30,889 --> 00:00:33,624
or refuse and get criticized by others?

16
00:00:33,624 --> 00:00:36,844
In my work, I counsel organizations
on how to create rules

17
00:00:36,844 --> 00:00:40,972
to navigate ideological disagreement
and controversial speech,

18
00:00:40,972 --> 00:00:42,957
and I defend my clients,

19
00:00:42,957 --> 00:00:46,643
whether in court or from the government
when their actions are challenged.

20
00:00:46,643 --> 00:00:49,870
The structures I recommend
recognize the real harms

21
00:00:49,870 --> 00:00:52,290
that can come from
certain types of speech,

22
00:00:52,290 --> 00:00:56,993
but at the same time seek to promote
dialogue rather than shut it down.

23
00:00:57,177 --> 00:00:59,787
The reason is that we need disagreement.

24
00:00:59,787 --> 00:01:02,021
Creativity and human progress

25
00:01:02,021 --> 00:01:03,241
depend on it.

26
00:01:03,241 --> 00:01:04,507
While it may be often easier

27
00:01:04,507 --> 00:01:06,658
to speak with someone who agrees
with everything you say,

28
00:01:06,658 --> 00:01:09,668
it's more enlightening
and oftentimes more satisfying

29
00:01:09,668 --> 00:01:11,503
to speak with someone who doesn't.

30
00:01:11,503 --> 00:01:15,291
But disagreement and discord
can have real and meaningful costs.

31
00:01:15,496 --> 00:01:18,326
Disagreement, particularly
in the form of hateful speech,

32
00:01:18,326 --> 00:01:22,336
can lead to deep and lasting wounds
and sometimes result in violence.

33
00:01:22,336 --> 00:01:27,209
And in a world in which polarization
and innovation are increasing

34
00:01:27,209 --> 00:01:29,225
at seemingly exponential rates,

35
00:01:29,225 --> 00:01:33,643
the need to create structures for vigorous
but not violent disagreement

36
00:01:33,643 --> 00:01:35,723
have never been more important.

37
00:01:35,723 --> 00:01:39,532
The US Constitution's First Amendment
might seem like a good place to start

38
00:01:39,532 --> 00:01:41,117
to go to look for answers.

39
00:01:41,117 --> 00:01:43,720
You, like I, may have often
heard somebody say

40
00:01:43,720 --> 00:01:47,657
that some form of a speech restriction,
whether from an employer, a website,

41
00:01:47,657 --> 00:01:50,365
or even somebody else,
violates the First Amendment.

42
00:01:50,365 --> 00:01:55,481
But in fact the First Amendment
usually has little if any relevance at all.

43
00:01:55,481 --> 00:01:58,490
The First Amendment only applies
when the government is seeking

44
00:01:58,490 --> 00:02:00,518
to suppress the speech of its citizens.

45
00:02:00,518 --> 00:02:04,188
As a result, the First Amendment
is by design a blunt instrument.

46
00:02:04,188 --> 00:02:08,261
A narrow category of speech
can be banned based on its content.

47
00:02:08,261 --> 00:02:10,487
Almost everything else cannot.

48
00:02:10,487 --> 00:02:12,854
But the First Amendment has no relevance

49
00:02:12,854 --> 00:02:17,092
when what we're talking about
is a private entity regulating speech,

50
00:02:17,092 --> 00:02:18,093
and that's a good thing,

51
00:02:18,093 --> 00:02:20,293
because it means private entities
have at their disposal

52
00:02:20,293 --> 00:02:24,406
a broad and flexible set of tools
that don't prohibit speech,

53
00:02:24,406 --> 00:02:28,075
but do make speakers aware
of the consequences of their words.

54
00:02:28,075 --> 00:02:29,685
Here are some examples.

55
00:02:29,685 --> 00:02:31,302
When you go to university,

56
00:02:31,302 --> 00:02:34,939
it's a time for the free
and unrestricted exchange of ideas,

57
00:02:34,939 --> 00:02:36,359
but some ideas,

58
00:02:36,359 --> 00:02:39,383
and the words used to express them,
can cause discord,

59
00:02:39,383 --> 00:02:43,687
whether it's an intentionally inflammatory
event hosted by a student group,

60
00:02:43,687 --> 00:02:46,390
or the exploration
of a controversial issue in class.

61
00:02:46,390 --> 00:02:48,724
In order to protect
both intellectual freedom

62
00:02:48,724 --> 00:02:50,502
and their most vulnerable students,

63
00:02:50,502 --> 00:02:54,572
some universities have formed teams
that bring speaker and listener together,

64
00:02:54,572 --> 00:02:58,591
free from the possibility of any sanction,
to hear each other's viewpoints.

65
00:02:58,591 --> 00:03:00,483
Sometimes students don't want to meet,

66
00:03:00,483 --> 00:03:02,902
and that's fine,
but in other circumstances,

67
00:03:02,902 --> 00:03:06,572
mediated exposure to an opposing view
can result in acknowledgment,

68
00:03:06,572 --> 00:03:10,966
recognition of unintended consequences,
and a broadening of perspectives.

69
00:03:10,966 --> 00:03:12,768
Here's an example.

70
00:03:12,768 --> 00:03:16,393
On a college campus, a group of students
supporting the Israelis

71
00:03:16,393 --> 00:03:20,198
and those supporting the Palestinians
were constantly reporting each other

72
00:03:20,198 --> 00:03:22,786
for disrupting events,
tearing down posters,

73
00:03:22,786 --> 00:03:24,985
and engaging in verbal confrontations.

74
00:03:24,985 --> 00:03:28,531
Recognizing that most of
what the students were reporting

75
00:03:28,531 --> 00:03:31,331
did not violate the university's
disciplinary code,

76
00:03:31,331 --> 00:03:34,618
the university invited
both groups to sit down

77
00:03:34,618 --> 00:03:36,719
in a so-called restorative circle

78
00:03:36,719 --> 00:03:39,480
where they could hear
each other's viewpoints

79
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:41,715
free from the possibility of sanction.

80
00:03:41,715 --> 00:03:43,182
After the meeting,

81
00:03:43,182 --> 00:03:47,053
the ideological disagreements between
the groups remained as stark as ever,

82
00:03:47,053 --> 00:03:50,412
but the rancor between them
significantly dissipated.

83
00:03:50,646 --> 00:03:53,198
Now obviously, this doesn't always happen,

84
00:03:53,198 --> 00:03:56,818
but by separating reactions to speech
from the disciplinary system,

85
00:03:56,818 --> 00:03:59,929
institutions of higher education
have created a space

86
00:03:59,929 --> 00:04:04,048
for productive disagreement
and a broadening of perspectives.

87
00:04:04,274 --> 00:04:05,617
We're all biased.

88
00:04:05,617 --> 00:04:07,863
I don't mean that in a bad way.

89
00:04:07,863 --> 00:04:10,273
All of us are influenced, and rightly so,

90
00:04:10,273 --> 00:04:12,266
by our family background,
our education, our lived experience,

91
00:04:12,266 --> 00:04:14,767
and a million other things.

92
00:04:15,284 --> 00:04:17,494
Organizations too have influences,

93
00:04:17,494 --> 00:04:19,919
most importantly the beliefs
of their members,

94
00:04:19,919 --> 00:04:23,005
but also the laws
under which they are governed

95
00:04:23,005 --> 00:04:25,297
or the marketplace in which they compete.

96
00:04:25,297 --> 00:04:28,817
These influences can form a critical part
of a corporate identity,

97
00:04:28,817 --> 00:04:32,220
and they can be vital
for attracting and retaining talent,

98
00:04:32,220 --> 00:04:34,795
but these biases, as I'm calling them,

99
00:04:34,795 --> 00:04:36,314
can also be a challenge,

100
00:04:36,314 --> 00:04:38,650
particularly when what
we are talking about

101
00:04:38,650 --> 00:04:42,237
is drawing lines for allowing
some speech and not allowing others.

102
00:04:42,486 --> 00:04:45,522
The temptation to find speech
harmful or disruptive

103
00:04:45,522 --> 00:04:47,882
simply because
we disagree with it is real,

104
00:04:47,882 --> 00:04:52,469
but equally real is the harm that can come
from certain types of expression.

105
00:04:52,635 --> 00:04:55,161
In this situation, third parties can help.

106
00:04:55,161 --> 00:04:57,213
Remember the hotel trying to decide

107
00:04:57,213 --> 00:05:00,467
whether or not to allow
the religious group to host its event?

108
00:05:00,467 --> 00:05:03,910
Rather than having to make
a complex, on-the-spot decision

109
00:05:03,910 --> 00:05:06,512
about that group's identity and message,

110
00:05:06,746 --> 00:05:09,347
the hotel could instead
rely on a third party,

111
00:05:09,347 --> 00:05:10,734
say, for example,

112
00:05:10,734 --> 00:05:12,601
the Southern Poverty Law Center,

113
00:05:12,601 --> 00:05:15,030
which has a list of hate groups
in the United States,

114
00:05:15,030 --> 00:05:17,282
or indeed even its own
outside group of experts

115
00:05:17,282 --> 00:05:19,765
brought together from diverse backgrounds.

116
00:05:19,765 --> 00:05:21,483
By relying on third parties

117
00:05:21,483 --> 00:05:25,076
to draw lines outside the context
of a particular event,

118
00:05:25,076 --> 00:05:28,245
organizations can make content decisions

119
00:05:28,245 --> 00:05:31,498
without being accused of acting
in self-interest or bias.

120
00:05:31,664 --> 00:05:34,441
The line between facts
and opinions is a hazy one.

121
00:05:34,441 --> 00:05:37,545
The internet provides the opportunity
to publish almost any position

122
00:05:37,545 --> 00:05:40,181
on any topic under the sun,

123
00:05:40,363 --> 00:05:42,115
and in some ways that's a good thing.

124
00:05:42,115 --> 00:05:45,674
It allows for the expression
of minority viewpoints

125
00:05:45,674 --> 00:05:47,928
and for holding
those in power accountable.

126
00:05:47,928 --> 00:05:50,019
But the ability to self-publish freely

127
00:05:50,019 --> 00:05:53,262
means that unverified
or even flat-out false statements

128
00:05:53,262 --> 00:05:55,691
can quickly gain circulation and currency,

129
00:05:55,691 --> 00:05:57,544
and that is very dangerous.

130
00:05:57,544 --> 00:06:01,063
The decision to take down a post
or ban a user is a tough one.

131
00:06:01,063 --> 00:06:03,498
It certainly can be appropriate at times,

132
00:06:03,498 --> 00:06:05,575
but there are other tools
available as well

133
00:06:05,575 --> 00:06:08,242
to foster productive
and yet responsible debate.

134
00:06:08,242 --> 00:06:11,163
Twitter has recently started
labeling tweets as misleading,

135
00:06:11,163 --> 00:06:12,315
deceptive,

136
00:06:12,315 --> 00:06:14,889
or containing unverified information.

137
00:06:14,889 --> 00:06:17,942
Rather than block access to those tweets,

138
00:06:17,942 --> 00:06:21,378
Twitter instead links to a source
that contains more information

139
00:06:21,378 --> 00:06:22,930
about the claims made.

140
00:06:23,113 --> 00:06:26,457
A good and timely example
is its coronavirus page,

141
00:06:26,457 --> 00:06:30,027
which has up-to-the-minute information
about the spread of the virus

142
00:06:30,027 --> 00:06:31,810
and what to do if you contract it.

143
00:06:31,810 --> 00:06:34,172
To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.

144
00:06:34,172 --> 00:06:36,207
Rather than shutting down dialogue,

145
00:06:36,207 --> 00:06:38,091
this brings more ideas,

146
00:06:38,091 --> 00:06:40,709
facts and context to the forum,

147
00:06:40,709 --> 00:06:43,661
and if you know that your assertions
are going to be held up

148
00:06:43,661 --> 00:06:45,721
against more authoritative sources,

149
00:06:45,721 --> 00:06:48,390
it may create incentives
for more responsible speech

150
00:06:48,390 --> 00:06:49,707
in the first place.

151
00:06:49,707 --> 00:06:51,743
Let me end with a hard truth.

152
00:06:51,743 --> 00:06:54,570
The structures I've described
can foster productive debate

153
00:06:54,570 --> 00:06:57,405
while isolating truly harmful speech,

154
00:06:57,405 --> 00:07:00,409
but inevitably some speech
is going to fall in a grey area,

155
00:07:00,409 --> 00:07:01,808
perhaps deeply offensive

156
00:07:01,808 --> 00:07:04,902
but also with the potential
to contribute to public debate.

157
00:07:04,902 --> 00:07:06,971
In this situation,

158
00:07:06,971 --> 00:07:08,588
I think as a general matter,

159
00:07:08,588 --> 00:07:11,974
the tie should go to allowing
more rather than less speech.

160
00:07:11,974 --> 00:07:13,518
Here's why.

161
00:07:13,518 --> 00:07:15,018
For one, there's always the risk

162
00:07:15,018 --> 00:07:17,971
that an innovative
or creative idea gets squelched

163
00:07:17,971 --> 00:07:19,872
because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.

164
00:07:19,872 --> 00:07:21,899
Almost by definition,

165
00:07:21,899 --> 00:07:25,568
innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies
about how things should be.

166
00:07:25,871 --> 00:07:28,522
So if an idea seems
offensive or dangerous,

167
00:07:28,522 --> 00:07:29,865
it could be because it is,

168
00:07:29,865 --> 00:07:33,345
or it might simply be
because we're scared of change.

169
00:07:33,382 --> 00:07:38,177
But let me suggest that even if
speech has little to no value at all,

170
00:07:38,177 --> 00:07:41,584
that deficiency should be shown
through open debate

171
00:07:41,584 --> 00:07:43,148
rather than suppression.

172
00:07:43,148 --> 00:07:44,600
To be very clear,

173
00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:48,109
false speech can lead
to devastating real-world harms,

174
00:07:48,109 --> 00:07:50,979
from the burning of women
accused of being witches in Europe

175
00:07:50,979 --> 00:07:52,414
in the 15th century

176
00:07:52,414 --> 00:07:55,767
to the lynching of African-Americans
in the American South,

177
00:07:55,767 --> 00:07:57,309
to the Rwandan Genocide.

178
00:07:57,309 --> 00:08:00,377
The idea that the remedy
for false speech is more speech

179
00:08:00,377 --> 00:08:01,867
isn't always true.

180
00:08:01,867 --> 00:08:05,433
But I do think more often than not
more speech can help.

181
00:08:05,433 --> 00:08:09,160
A famous story from First Amendment
case law shows why.

182
00:08:09,160 --> 00:08:12,645
In 1977, a group of Neo-Nazis
wanted to stage a march

183
00:08:12,645 --> 00:08:15,899
through the leafy, peaceful suburb
of Skokie, Illinois,

184
00:08:15,899 --> 00:08:18,730
home to a significant number
of Holocaust survivors.

185
00:08:18,730 --> 00:08:22,478
The City Council immediately passed
ordinances trying to block the Nazis,

186
00:08:22,478 --> 00:08:23,899
and the Nazis sued.

187
00:08:23,899 --> 00:08:26,855
The case made it all the way
up to the Supreme Court

188
00:08:26,855 --> 00:08:28,259
and back down again.

189
00:08:28,259 --> 00:08:31,327
The courts held that the Neo-Nazis
had the right to march,

190
00:08:31,327 --> 00:08:33,294
and that they could
display their swastikas

191
00:08:33,294 --> 00:08:35,459
and give their salutes while doing so.

192
00:08:35,459 --> 00:08:37,713
But when the day for the march came,

193
00:08:37,713 --> 00:08:39,508
and after all that litigation,

194
00:08:39,508 --> 00:08:41,310
just 20 Neo-Nazis showed up

195
00:08:41,310 --> 00:08:43,995
in front of the Federal Building
in Chicago, Illinois,

196
00:08:43,995 --> 00:08:46,448
and they were met
by 2,000 counter-protesters

197
00:08:46,448 --> 00:08:48,992
responding to the Nazis' messages of hate

198
00:08:48,992 --> 00:08:50,524
with ones of inclusion.

199
00:08:50,524 --> 00:08:52,694
As the Chicago Tribune noted,

200
00:08:52,694 --> 00:08:57,205
the Nazi march sputtered
to an unspectacular end after 10 minutes.

201
00:08:57,205 --> 00:09:00,507
The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia,
and indeed around the world

202
00:09:00,507 --> 00:09:03,213
shows this isn't always
how these stories end,

203
00:09:03,213 --> 00:09:05,879
but to me the Skokie story is a good one,

204
00:09:05,879 --> 00:09:10,326
one that shows that the fallacy
and moral bankruptcy of hateful speech

205
00:09:10,326 --> 00:09:13,193
can best be responded to
not through suppression

206
00:09:13,193 --> 00:09:17,314
but through the righteous power
of countervailing good and noble ideas.

207
00:09:17,314 --> 00:09:19,087
Thank you.