The controversy over sex and violence in the media is of course as old as the media themselves each time a new medium of communication is invented. It has sparked public anxieties about the more Vivid more readily disseminated descriptions or depictions concerning all controversial subjects and in our society sex and violence are always at the top of the list given our society's simultaneous paradoxical assassination and a virgin at the same time consistent with our Fascination the earliest and the heaviest uses of each new medium are for communications concerning sex and violence off. For example, pornographic videos are widely credited with having made the VCR a household appliance the human desire for sexually-oriented words and images.It's so consistently strong that some experts see it as a major motivating force. If not, the major motivating force behind the development and use of all new Communications media throughout history starting as far back as Stone Age sculpture in cave drawings just two weeks ago. There was a New York Times story which made this point about CD-ROM technology according to the Story Experts believe that it was The Lure of virtual porn that is spearheading much of the innovation in this field as the X equipped hardcore meets hard drive, but now I'd like to turn to the other side of our society's paradoxical attitudes towards sex and violence namely it's a version just as each new Communications Medium as soon use for sexual and violent expression such use intern.Soon call leads to call for censorship. We saw this phenomenon very vividly this summer reports about The widespread availability of sexual and violent expression on the internet spurred Congressional efforts to impose sweeping new Cyber censorship America's paradoxical love hate towards sexual and violent expression was well captured by my fellow Minnesotan Garrison Keillor a few years ago when he was testifying in Congress in defense of the National Endowment for the Arts. The Nea of course has been repeatedly attacked for funding sexually-oriented art Garrison Keillor quipped. My ancestors were Puritans from England who rides here in 1648 in hopes of finding greater restrictions that were permissible under English law at the time.The First Congressional hearings on television violence were held back in 1952 when fewer than 25% of American households had TV sets when the violence rates in the crime rates were among the lowest in the century and when violence among youth was actually decreasing but so eager where politicians and the public to blame TV for something that they attacked it for problems. They did not even have so media sex and violence along with attempted censorship of them have been with us as long as the media themselves lately though. We really have seen a stepped-up wave of sensorial measures coming from virtually every government agency and supported by many and did I suspect most segments of the public from across the political Spectrum this past summer, for example, we heard highly-publicized harsh attack.Turn the media by politicians from Bob Dole to Bill Clinton who both gave major speeches attacking sex and violence on TV. And in films this summer. We also heard similar critiques by citizens from William Bennett to C Delores Tucker. Whoever attacked rap and rock lyrics As misogynistic and violent ABC commentator, Jeff Greenfield athletes plane to the broad political support for censoring TV violence, for example, as follows. He said conservatives are allowed to hate TV violence because it's produced in Hollywood and sold in New York. Now that Moscow isn't an issue. Those are the two least favorite cities of cultural conservatives. Liberals are allowed to hate it because it's produced and programmed by powerful corporate interests and supported by corporate advertisers. In other words attacking TV violence as a political matter is aboutnot as risky as attacking illegal aliens who commit environmental crimes Bass those with the ACLU clients too. I might add. Jeff point was proved this summer when broad bipartisan majorities past several sweeping sensorial measures. For example, the Senate voted 84 to 16 for the so-called Communications decency act better known as the Exxon Amendment which would vastly suppress sexually-oriented expression and all telecommunications including cyberspace and other provisions of the comprehensive telecommunications bills that the Senate and the house both passed this summer would severely restrict the televising not only of material that is deemed inappropriately violent, According to some Media or government official but also of material that such a fishel's might deem indecent or otherwise objectionable quote-unquote moreover many state legislators have passed or are seriously considering similar repressive measures now all of these assaults on media sex and violence. Raise important questions of both law and ethics or professional responsibility for lawyers for journalists for politicians. And for all of us why the legal issues are hotly debated. I actually think they are quite simple in my view and that of many if not most constitutional Scholars censoring media sex or violence is unconstitutional. In fact, the ACLU is planning to bring a lawsuit which we have all set to go out when and if any of the measures I described are finally enacted. I'll briefly explain why I believe this challenge will be successful and then I'll turn to what I think are the more difficult and subtle aspects of the analysis namely the ethical questions to let me lay out my basic conclusions in a nutshell and then I'll elaborate on each of them first media sex or violence is constitutionally protected free. Speech but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is positive or should be insulated from criticism. Second criticizing media sex or violence is also constitutionally protected Free Speech. But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that yet is positive or should be insulated from criticism. In other words. Let's not since or anyting in the realm of media sex or violence, but let's ensure everything in that realm including both some media depictions and some criticisms of media depictions. Let me now briefly elaborate on my first conclusion that media sex or violence is constitutionally protected free speech and it censoring it is therefore unconstitutional as a parenthetical or footnote law professors are fond of those I am excluding for my remarks. Relatively narrow categories of sexual and violent speech that the Supreme Court now holds to have no constitutional protection in any medium including print. I specifically the subset of sexual expression that satisfies the definition of obscenity which among other things requires that it lacks serious literary artistic political or scientific value and the stops at a violent expression that constitutes an intentional incitement to imminent violence Beyond these specific exceptions though sexual and violent media expression is and should be constitutionally protected the simplest way to summarize the basis for this conclusion is for me to quote from a letter that I co-authored and sent to Congress two weeks ago in opposition to all four currently pending measures to restrict TV violence. I'll let me briefly outline those measures the first would establish a federal television ratings Commission. To create rating guidelines for quote violent and objectionable close quote programming. It will require broadcast signals and it would mandate that new TV sets contain a chip capable of blocking out the rate of programs. This is the so-called v-chip proposal is essentially identical to the first except that the ratings guidelines would be issued by the Federal Communications Commission FCC 1/3 would authorize the FCC to prohibit all violent programming during hours when children comprise a substantial portion of the viewing audience. Finally 4th pending proposal would establish a federally funded report cards that would identify the most violent programs and their sponsors. We and listed several dozen distinguished constitutional law professors and other first amendment experts to sign our letter to Congress opposing all four measures. Here is a portion. Bar explanation for that opposition these bills suffer from several common constitutional defects first, they restrict violent expression fully protected by the First Amendment, which may only be restricted when it is both intended and likely to incite imminent violence. No programming on television Rises to the level of that exacting standard second. The First Amendment does not merely prevent censorship as it is commonly understood but it also prevents government from creating obstacles additional Financial encumbrances or discouragements for speech that falls fully within its protection. Finally the proposals also involved a content and Viewpoint bias that cannot be reconciled with the Constitution NE definition of violence that failed to follow the incitement standard would be fatally overbroad encompassing expression that would almost universally be seen as so Play beneficial finally, even if these proposals had no other constitutional flaws. None would satisfy the requirement that any such regulations must be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling State interest. This is particularly true. Since there are technical means that are not dependent on government intervention and better facilitate parental control of children's viewing blocking devices that allow parents to restrict access to material day select without relying on subjective and add hot determinations made through government initiative. In light of these clear constitutional principles censorship is not an appropriate response to Media sex and violence that we might just like her that we might even believe to be dangerous. I'll be at in more subtle ways. Then intentionally inciting to imminent violence that leaves us with two options first, we could change our current legal standards and lower the First Amendment. There are two censorship and that is exactly the argument that is made for example by those feminists alluded to in the introduction who want to censor what they call pornography namely sexually explicit expression that is subordinating or degrading to women. They contend that such expression leads to violence and discrimination against women but significantly they concede that there is no evidence to satisfy the current exacting clear and present danger standard no evidence that info. Pornography create a clear and present danger of violence or discrimination against women. In fact and Catherine McKinnon's latest book only words her concluding argument in favor of censoring pornography with respect to the question of whether it does in fact harm women is there is no evidence that pornography does no harm. In fact what she is trying to do and what the Canadian Supreme Court did to at the instigation of McKinnon and her co-conspirators in Canada is to change that burden of proof so that rather than those who want to censor speech having to prove harm those of us who want to protect speech would have to disprove her. Dad is in fact a very very dangerous directions to go it would lead us back to the now-discredited so-called bad tendency test that was applied earlier in this. Century and was used to censor everything including the teaching of marxist literature in college and university courses on the rationale that if people read these mark this work, they might develop ideas that are antithetical to capitalism that might make him sympathetic to an overthrow of the United States government and because of this speculative bad tendency that was used to justify censoring speech if in fact we go down that road obviously there would be no freedom of speech for anybody including Catherine MacKinnon herself. I think her speech has a bad tendency to undermine the First Amendment. For all of these reasons we must focus on our second option for responding to Media fear. We don't like and that we believe might well have some serious negative impact, even if they don't rise to the level of a clear and present danger and this is what I call send Shoring as opposed to send suorin and other words exercising our own free speech rights rather than terminating someone else's media journalist and Executives exercise their First Amendment, right and also act in an ethical and responsible fashion when they voluntarily decide not to publish or are certain material that they think might have adverse consequences and readers and viewers exercise their first amendment rights when they criticized certain materials and urge the media not to disseminate them if viewers band together to organize demonstrations and even boycotts against certain Media or their sponsors, Those activities are protected by the First Amendment freedoms of speech and Association despite the economic pressure. They exert and the Supreme Court has expressly held that the Supreme Court has often said in a free Society the appropriate response to speech you find offensive or dangerous is not censorship but counter speech or speech not less. So the fact that the media have free speech rights certainly doesn't mean that we have to agree with her approve of what they choose to say and exercising those rights to the contrary. We are free to exercise our own free speech rights to express our disagreement or disapproval and indeed are discouragement. We may try to persuade the media not to exercise their rights or one could also say not to wield their power in certain ways. This type of private persuasion is as inconsistent with the fur at is as consistent. With the First Amendment as Government coercion is inconsistent with the First Amendment support counter speech or send Shoring as a legal or constitutional matter. I also believe it raises some difficult ethical issues difficult and important issues lately. These have generated quite a bit of confusion. So I'd like to lay out some observations and guiding principles some of these way in favor of criticizing the media but someway against it let me start with three observations on the positive side first criticism of media depictions, May well lead to the chilling or even cutting off of the criticize expression still it's not only constitutionally protected but also in many instances, ethically Justified I have to stress at the outset that this potentially suppressive impact of criticism of media expression. Is an important concern in some cases? It should counsel self-restraint and deter us from engaging in Center. I'll discuss that further later when I come to consideration that way against criticizing the media in the present context though. I want to stress that criticizing the media I can in some instances be ethically Justified precisely because of its impact in stifling expression that may have adverse consequences lately. We've seen some confusion between constitutionally unprotected censorship and constitutionally protected criticism. And I recognize that there might well be some troubling borderline situations after all as I've already explained the first amendment can be violated through measures that indirectly suppress Beach as well as by heavy handed over government censorship, but government officials have Free Speech rights to and they're free to use those right to express their individual opinions about the media including critical opinion. So long as they do not impose those opinions through government regulations. There's one recent situation. I'd like to discuss in which too many government officials politicians journalist and others falsely accused President Clinton a violating First Amendment rights when he simply criticized certain media expression in my view though he acted in a way that was not only perfectly constitutional but was also ethical and responsible 5 days after the Oklahoma City bombing last April claim gave a speech right here in Minneapolis in which he strongly criticized hate-mongering over the airwaves suggesting that it had helped to create an atmosphere conducive to actual violence Clinton emphasized that he was not advocating any God. Censorship but rather only criticism by concerned citizens never the last he was immediately accuse especially on the so-called hate radio itself of endangering freedom of speech the next day at Iowa State University. He can explain why his criticism was completely consistent with both free speech and responsibilities. In other words. It was justified as a matter of both law and ethics. He said yes stand up for freedom of speech Yes stand up for all our freedoms including the freedom of assembly and the freedom to bear arms. But remember this with freedom comes responsibility and that means that even as others discharge their freedom of speech if we think they are being irresponsible, then we have the duty to stand up and do say so to protect our own freedom of speech. In some criticisms of media content including media violence and socks can well be ethically Justified not just constitutionally permitted a second positive aspect of such media criticism is that they may well promote other Liberties other civil liberties in addition to freedom of speech. I hope I've made it clear that I completely defend the media is Free Speech rights to depict violence, but I think there is a specific danger to civil liberties flowing from some such depictions. So I certainly exercise My Free Speech rights to criticize those moreover if that criticism would lead to fewer violent depictions of the sort that concern me, I believe that would have a net positive impact on civil liberties and the specific violent depictions that I'm talking about are the news the excessive exaggerated distorted news coverage of crime. This has fomented a panic about the criminal problem in our society is created on particular fear of certain groups that are distorted Lee shown as being responsible for Crime namely young African-American males that's created particular fears on the part of certain members of our population who are distorted least shown as being the preponderant victims of crime namely women and I think that this inhibit people's freedom of movement it heightens racial and gender tensions and it leads to public and political support for repressive and ineffective so-called anti-crime measures National statistics show that a person's chances of becoming a victim of a violent crime actually have decreased since 1981 to cross. The country fear of crime is rising many sociologists pin the bulk of the blame for the current national obsession. Panic about crime on the mass media is increasingly extensive and Relentless coverage of it in short while we don't have an actual crime wave. We do have a media crimewave? Let me cite just a few statistics since the early 1990s TV attention to Crime has more than tripled last year the three major broadcast networks aired more stories on crime then on the economy Health Care reform and the historic midterm elections combined in 1994. There were 9 times as many murder stories as in 1990, but during the same. The actual crime rates were decreasing including the rates for murder and other violent crime now to distort their crime coverage, even more the national and local news often focus on the most gruesome a typical crimes committed a full 30% of the media cover. Is aimed at a mere Point 3% of all crimes committed and these numbers are not stood by the national obsession with OJ Simpson case the network did give as much nightly coverage to the OJ case as they did to all crime news as recently as 1992 when the current media crimewave begin for all its hype though. The Simpson case accounted for only a fraction of TVs crime news, even without that case crime news had doubled between 1992 and 1993 and murder news had tripled again at a time when those actual crime rates are decreasing Professor George gerbner a pioneering scholar of the effects of exposure to Media violence has noted the potential adverse impact that this kind of exaggerated crime covered can have specifically on people civil liberties in a recent. Article George and his co-authors concluded that by teaching at the world is a violent and frightening TV fuels feelings of anxiety insecurity and mistrust according to these experts the sense of danger vulnerability in general malaise intern invites exploitation and repression as they explain fearful people are more dependent more easily manipulated and controlled more susceptible to deceptively simple strong tough measures and Hardline postures both political and religious. They may accept and even welcomed repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities and other anxiety that certainly sounds like exactly the mindset that has generated so much public and political support for so many repressive measures in the realm of crime Lately from the Draconian crime Bill to the so-called Omnibus counter terrorism act which the ACLU Maintains its more accurately labeled the ominous counter Constitution Act during a recent debate on the crime Bill Joe Biden reflecting that the Senate have the same exaggerated sense as did and fear as to the public said that the mood of the Senate is such that if somebody proposed Barb wiring the ankles of jaywalkers, it would pass he then proposed voted in favor of this bill, of course. So the exaggerated distorted media coverage of actual violent crime plays an important role in undermining our civil liberties there for as a civil libertarian. I enthusiastically welcome the voluntary decision that certain media have made to tailor their own crime coverage accordingly. This is a decision that is completely consistent with professional ethics and responsibility as well as with constitutional right that according to news reports. I've read some of the media Outlets that have made these decisions are right here in the Twin Cities including WCCO-TV and ka-ari ka-ari TV. This leads to my third point on the positive side of the media criticism Ledger not only do Free Speech Advocates such as yours truly have the same right as someone else does to criticize media depictions that we believe have some negative effect beyond that. We also have a special responsibility to engage in such criticism. The ACLU always does this whenever we defend the First Amendment rights of speakers whose ideas are antithetical to civil liberties ranging from members of the Communist party on the left two members of the KKK and the Nazi party on the right all of which have been our clients or I should say there free speech rights have been our client. I'll let me read you a portion of the relevant long-standing ACLU policy the right of all groups to express their opinions must be defended regardless of the point of view. They express however, when a group of spouses positions adversely affecting civil liberties the AC You should vigorously present its position while defending the group's right to speak. The ACLU should also emphasized that the loose accusations of these groups can create an atmosphere of caution in which dissident views will not be expressed. Now that last point is very important here as always the Touchstone. The ethical Touchstone is responsibility while some criticisms of expression may be responsible others may be irresponsible and lose irresponsible accusations against broad groups can suppress legitimate to sandwich would be and antithetical to free speech in a democracy but to go back to a previous example, I don't think that Clinton's criticisms of hate-mongering were in that vein indeed. I think the proof is in the fact that far from stifling criticisms of him and of our government his speech and Annapolis to the contrary Unleashed an outpouring of even more such criticisms and the ACLU point about the special duty of free speech Defender is to raise our own voices against messages. We see as destructive and dangerous was also made by Bill Clinton in his Minneapolis speech after the Oklahoma City bombing. He said if they insist on being irresponsible with our common Liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties when they say things that are irresponsible that may have egg Regis consequences. We must call them on it the exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more Unforgivable. Now, let me turn to the other side of the Ledger on censuring or criticizing media sex or violence. I've just explained why it media violence and other expression might not be beneficial and therefore should be criticized even though it is constitutionally protected. But turnabout is fair play criticism of media violence and other expression likewise might not be beneficial and therefore should itself be criticized even though it to is constitutionally protected. So just as media self-restraint might well be the ethical professional irresponsible responses regarding violent sexual or other images likewise individual self-restraint might well be the responsible response regarding certain criticism of violent sexual or other images. Well media critic certainly have the free speech right to voice their criticisms that does not I mean that their criticisms are correct or constructive to the contrary. We are all free to express our disagreement disapproval and discouragement up some of what the media critics are saying, we're certainly free to criticize the critics and in some instances. We also have an ethical responsibility to do so just as many critics contain that contends that some media images cause certain dangers of which we should be aware likewise, I maintain that some criticisms and private protest against media images also cause certain dangers of which we should also be aware first as I've already noted private pressures May well have the very same end result as Government censorship namely Banning particular types of expression indeed some forms of private protests are at least as potent as direct government. Directions for example consumer or Advertiser boycott therefore for those who want to preserve the fullest possible diversity of information ideas and perspectives private economic coercion should be no more palatable as a practical matter than governmental coercion recall. For example, that the most vicious attacks on free expression during the McCarthy. Resulted from private actions such as blacklisting in the TV and film Industries. This point was made by Marjorie Hines the director of the ACL use art censorship project a few years ago when some feminists were boycotting the publisher of American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis due to its gory descriptions of brutal misogynistic violence in urging feminist to think twice about boycotting books. Margie made the following observations. The goal of boycotting a Bookseller is to suppress or sensor some literature because of its offense of content all those censorship by private individuals or groups doesn't raise the same legal questions as Government censorship. It does raise some of the same moral and political questions in both cases censorship has the same dangerous purpose to shrink the expressive landscape The boycotters Hope through economic coercion to impose an idiot logical litmus test on works at Publishers and booksellers consider for sale or publication. Criticism of the media entails a second major danger, which is well illustrated by what's going on throughout our political system right now. And that is the danger of diversion diversion from the actual causes an actual manifestations of troubling societal problems protest against expression are always motivated by concern about some underlying serious societal concern a problem and certainly increase violence, especially among our youth is a terrible tragic problem, my friend and co-founder of a group called feminist for free expression Marcia Palais. I has talked about the great soothing appeal of censorship. It's such an easy quick fix quote on quote to blame the block to scapegoat the image of only we didn't have those violent images that would be a way of dealing with actual violence in our society. Unfortunately this kind of Scapegoating through censorship is at best an effective and at worst counterproductive it diverts attention and resources from the actual violence against actual people sometimes in blatantly hypocritical ways. I forgot sample lately politicians of all Stripes have been hypocritically hiding behind a purported concern for children and four children safety protecting children against violent Sazon alleged justification for censorship are the many pending censorship measures specifically Target media and entertainment Farms that are particularly appealing to young children including TBH video game computer networks and rap and rock music in addition to the legislative measures that I previously described in June a federal court in Washington DC upheld unprecedented Federal restrictions on cable and broadcast TV and radio ostensibly to protect From exposure to vaguely defined indecent material but these measures violate not only the rights of the putative late benefited children, but also the rights of adult all without doing anything meaningful for children's welfares restriction such as those and approved by the DC Court deprived parents of the right to shape the upbringing of their own children by making their own decisions as to what cable or broadcast material their children will or won't be allowed to see and they also deprive all adults of the right to decide what they will or won't for you or listen to all of us are relegated to seeing or hearing only the material that the government deems fit for some children. Now often politicians and others who say they are seeking to protect children are really aiming to restrict adults rights to that's why I said earlier that they are hiding behind their purported. Turn the Children's Welfare org sample. This Summer's Massive Attack on Cyber porn was heralded by lurid images of children being unwittingly bombarded by sexual images on the computer screen Time. Magazine's July 3rd cover is the most notorious example, it featured a horse trick and zombie-like child mesmerized by a computer screen the headlines layered cyber porn, exclusive a new study shows. How pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids... And Free Speech? Experts know how inaccessible as a real factual matter how inaccessible sexual and other controversial material is on computer networks in contrast with TV images which flowed the screen at the touch of a button this computerized material may only be obtained by going through such steps as submitting credit card numbers and access codes all designed to me. I am available two consenting adults only moreover software companies are developing increasingly sophisticated blocking or filtering devices to let parents screen out selected sexual and other materials that they don't want their children to have access to so in light of these actual facts about the relative in accessibility of cyber porn the alleged desire to Shield children from certain materials Falls flat as a rationale for curbing content in cyberspace. What's really at stake is the desire to deprive adults of access to that material to this summer. I debated Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed on this issue on CrossFire essentially admitted as much he invoked concerned about making cyberspace family friendly and that's raising the Specter of imposing traditional family values on everyone in the United States. Not just children. Now the tendency to use a purported protection of children as a smokescreen for directly curbing adults, right is accompanied by blatant hypocrisy as far as children themselves are concerned Why politicians are eager to cite their Devotion to children as an excuse for limiting civil liberties of young and old alike. They are far less eager to adopt constructive measures that will actually Advanced young people's current well-being or future prospects and I think there are so many examples 4matic examples of this kind of autocracy that I could give from across the political Spectrum, but I think one such example an easy target is Bob Dole who at the same time that he is leading the charge 2 band images of guns on TV is leading the charge to repeal the ban on assault weapons on the streets. If we are in fact going to constructively respond to the actual causes of actual violence. What should we do? And I do think it is incumbent on those of us who speak against certain criticisms of certain media images. I think it is our responsibility to offer constructive Alternatives that are consistent with free speech and that would be effective. What are the constructive Alternatives from which our focus on media violence has been diverting us experts who have recently studied causes of violence and constructive approaches to reducing it have advocated education and other measures they have not focused on TV at all for sample in 1993 the American Psychological Association APA issued a study on children and violence. It concluded that the central causes of violence and children are abused rejection and neglected by parents and violence between parents other factors. It's I did were poverty the belief that education on job opportunities are closed because of racial and ethnic discrimination the failure to learn non-aggressive ways to deal with frustration and poor performance in school correspondingly to reduce violence and children the APA recommended most highly school programs that teach children such social and emotional skills as managing anger negotiating in solving disagreements in ways that do not involve intimidation and violence. So according to the experts the most effective measures for reducing violence and children would have absolutely nothing to do with the media. That's rather than continuing to have hearing after hearing on TV violence our government Resources with far better be snatched on such measures as combating domestic violence and rebuilding our crumbling public education system as journalist Kurt Anderson wrote it's time to stop shouting theater in a crowded fire. Moreover if one did Focus specifically on media related strategies for reducing violence, even these still would not include changing the content of media depictions rather. They would a man at the context in which those depictions are seeing specifically the attitudes and awareness that the viewer brings to Bear upon them such educational measures have been recommended by a wide range of experts including the APA the national research Council hand surgeon general's Workshop that reported to the me's pornography commission about sexually violent media images. All of these experts have endorsed what have been termed media literacy programs which would educate in critical viewing skills in 1992 three leading experts on the alleged links between exposure to television violence and actual violence professors Daniel Lance Barber Wilson and Ed donnerstein studied the comparative effectiveness of three possible approaches for severing such lengths Government restrictions on media voluntary labeling by the entertainment industry and media education. They unanimously concluded the solution. We find most promising is educational interventions. This social this is social science confirmation of the actual efficacy of the approach that has long been favored by Free Speech Theory namely more speech education information. Don't suppress raise your own voices. The more speech or educational strategy is better both in principle and in practice, I'd like to and with a quote from former Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas a great Free Speech Champion, which athlete capsulize us a spirit of my remarks. He said freedom of speech is a dangerous thing, but it's the safest thing we've got. Thank you. much First question do you believe executions should be televised why or why not and with the ACLU support and defend a TV station attempting to broadcast an ant an execution. First of all, the ACLU absolutely opposes the death penalty and the underlying executions again, here's an interesting bifurcation between reality and the image but given that we have lost all of our attempts to persuade the Supreme Court that it is inherently cruel and unusual that is administered in a racially discriminatory way that is administered in a way that is grossly inconsistent with due process because for example, I it's only poor people who are on death row and not and not rich people we've lost all of those arguments executions are now taking place at a rapid record rate in this society, and we would certainly be in favor of televising Our Hope would be it's interesting my impression from Reading surveys. Is that by and large? Opponents of the death penalty tend to favor televising and proponents tend to favor censorship. Maybe that's because opponents are civil Libertarians who believe in free speech and opposition to the death penalty. I think it also reflects our hope that if people could actually see what we consider to be an inherently cruel and unusual act that they would revolt against it and that it might have some strategic help in calling bring about an end of the death penalty in this country. Just a follow-up oath of my own on that it does sound as if though that you are letting your own agenda indicate how you are a might be a strategic Advantage even if we thought there was not as even if survey showed that this would increase support for the death penalty as a matter of free speech principles, we would still defend the televising. So thank you for the opportunity to clarify that we actually did participate in the televising or the recording of an execution in California, which was not for public dissemination, but it was part of the lawsuit we brought in which we were now that we've lost challenges to the death penalty per say we're challenging particular methods of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment and this was death by gas chamber which still existed in California. So we were given the privilege of filming that for purposes of our lawsuit. Another question. Do you feel pornography leads to the objectification of women? Why are why not hard for me to give a short? When did answer to this question? It raises many profound issues that are discussed in my book and that is a plug for my book at first flight to have to start with the effect that the word pornography literally means all sexually exciting sexually arousing sexually provocative words and images. So we're talking about a vast amount of expression some of it. I suppose could be interpreted as quote objectifying women clothes quote some would not depending on the perceptions of the viewers, but let's assume for the sake of argument that there is some subset of sexual expression that would be viewed by some subset of those who look at it as conveying the message that women are sex objects that women are sexual beings in my view. That is no justification. Converse answering even that subset of expression even for that subset of viewers. Yes, women are sexual beings as our men among other things and I don't think that particular images or outwards that I emphasize that aspect are illegitimate any more than other depictions are descriptions that might emphasize other aspects of who we are our professional nature for sample. I think it would be a tragic set back to women's rights and autonomy and Humanity indeed if the price we have to pay for being viewed as full and equal citizens in participants in the economic and public spheres. That's the price we have to pay is that we may never be viewed and it never view ourselves as sexual beings. It seems to be the question your right side that you agree with Catherine MacKinnon more than you think Catherine MacKinnon is opposed to censorship this you would know if you represented her. Well both she and Andrea door are well aware of the power of censorship. Furthermore, Kathryn McKinnon's proposals are attempts to increase more counter speech that being the voices of women harmed by pornography in all of the killings work. I have never read a call for censorship. Why do you continue to misrepresent her give my talk today and I certainly make it at the outset of my book specifically on pornography, which is that the term censorship as it has been understood consistently by the Supreme Court as a matter of constitutional principle and as it operates in the real world, and I do share McKinnon's concern about real-world impact of what Talking about what we're advocating that censorship in theory and practical reality extends far beyond government laws that directly for Hibbett through criminalization certain expression and yet McKinnon and working continue to say that since they are not advocating use of the criminal law to suppress pornography their Fort they are not advocating censorship. I'll let me illustrate my point by citing. What I think is probably the best-known and one of the most important if not the most important Free Speech decision United States Supreme Court has ever issued United States versus New York Times vs. Sullivan decided in 1964 that involved a civil exactly similar to parallel to the civil law that is specifically advocated by McKinnon and working. We are somebody who does not like certain expression brings a tort lawsuit for debt. Images for the harm that he or she has said is caused by certain expression in the times vs. Sullivan case the tort was for libel or defamation and the harm was to injury to one's reputation in the MacKinnon dworkin model law. The lawsuit is for harm that is said to be caused by pornography and the remedy in both cases includes not only damages money damages that are paid by the person who engaged in the expression but also an order for injunction that is it you can get a civil court to issue an order prohibiting further dissemination of the libel in the one case or the pornography in the other case the exact same practical fact in terms of the injunction as a criminal prosecution and is the Supreme Court held in the Sullivan case in which it said those civil lawsuits for damages and injunction. Under the rubric of libel were unconstitutional because they had the exact same impact of a criminal prosecution namely suppressing the speech. I in fact the Supreme Court pointed out that the prospect of having to pay an enormous amount of Damages as a practical matter would even be more harmful in terms of stifling expression because the amount of damage isn't Bob dwarf the amount of maximum amount of a fine that you would have to pay in a criminal prosecution to only those who have an unrealistically narrow view of censorship. I would argue that the McKinnon dworkin law is not censorship and you have to understand that that narrow definition would require overturning a generation of Supreme Court precedents.