We have our votes already for the most part. Need to be going into africanamerican churches. Into theo be going hispanic communities and the barrio to make sure jeb and policy right on this, we need to go there first to listen. What they want is to be listened to. Listening is empowering. First we have to listen. And our party has failed in going into those places because we have said, well we dont get instant gratification back, therefore why go there . We narrow our sites. The fact that these folks know that we were troubled and they want to hear from everyone, we need to go up there and campaign and show up. For jeb bush,it ben carson, and chris christie. Thank you senator. Thank you. [applause] thanks for coming. There is more road to the white house coverage coming up later today with republican candidate donald trump. He will be speaking to supporters at a rally in clear lake, iowa. We will have that at 5 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Students around the country are working on cspans student camera contest. We are following students as they produce their video. Here is a tweet from indiana. Wayne eightfort great students were happy to hear and carson address uncontrolled breed and another from maryland address gun control. And from maryland there is 100,000 dollars in prizes with a grand prize of 500,000. The winners will be announced march 9. For more information visit student cam. Org. Has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on cspan two. Is aten eastern, book tv the university of wisconsin with Professor William p jones to discuss his book the march on washington. That wass a Movement Really going to the core of many peoples beliefs about what this nation should be. And it didnt change a lot of minds. Did meet a lot of people to their positions of hatred. And then after near and then afterwards with fox correspondent james rosen, who looks at the career of former Vice President dick cheney in. Book cheney oneonone no one on the right has attracted more vitriol from the left, more intense vitriol on the left, then dick cheney with the exception of the possible person he served with, george bush, or richard nixon. Molly crabapple talks about her journalism and her latest book, drawing blood. I have only had five published pieces ever when i got the book deal. People really like them. I had this delusional fantasies aat since i had arisen 200,000 word essay it would be like writing a 50,000 word essay, it wouldnt be that hard. Watch book tv all weekend every weekend. Back atournalists look the terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in paris last january. They will talk about the effect the shootings have had on freedom of expression. The newseum hosted this event. Gene good afternoon. Id like to welcome you to the night studio at the museum. Those of you watching the live stream, and those of you joining us on cspan, glad to have you with us. The newseum and its programs, comprise the only organization in the world dedicated to Free Expression and the five freedoms of the First Amendment. Our exhibits online and in person, we hope, in form remind all of us of the importance and the fragility of those basic human rights. We hope that we help you explore the freedom and the meaning of freedom in an age of continuing technological innovation. By embracing the role of open discussion, we hope we engage in the central debates of our time. We gather today to recall one year ago on january 7, terrorists invaded the offices of Charlie Hebdo. In the name of, as i believe the terrorists said, punishing the staff for perceived blasphemy of publishing satirical cartoons of the muslim prophet mohammed, 12 people died, were murdered. In that process, the concept of Free Expression worldwide was challenged. After that initial attack, there were many reactions. Most immediately, millions in france and around the world adopted the slogan we see on the shirt here, i am charlie, as an expression of support for the journalists and others who died in the attack, but also for the concept of Free Expression and perhaps the right to offend. Elsewhere, those deaths were seen as the inevitable outcome if not the appropriate punishment to a perceived blasphemy. In this past year, those responses have all continued. There have been increased calls for support of Free Expression, but also restrictions on muslims in france and around the world on how they practice their faith, new laws on freedom of expression and immigration, and at times, in the u. S. , a call to reexamine an old standard that has kept the government from restraining free speech. Is there a need to revisit that in a time when terrorists can reach out via the web . Before we move into our discussion, we should also note that this is the 75th anniversary of another event, one that marked a more hopeful moment for freedom and Free Expression. That is u. S. President Franklin Roosevelts four freedoms speech. At the time, those four freedoms that roosevelt enumerated, speech, worship, freedom form want, and freedom from fear, were voiced at a time when the world stood on the brink of what would become world war i. The battle had already begun in europe. America would enter a little less than 12 months later. Those four freedoms symbolized what the goal of the United States and the allies and what was to become the United Nations stood for in that fight. They were incorporated in the early version of human rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. A former colleague of ours heads the fdr museum in hyde park, new york. This morning, he wrote, as tyrannical leaders achieve their goals, as democracy and journalism are under attack from extremists around the globe, and as surveillance and technology threaten liberties and expression, fdrs bold vision is as vital as it was 75 years ago. Those five freedoms of the First Amendment, as our ceo noted after the terror attacks in paris, for a nation and a city intrinsically tied to liberty, those cowardly acts still seek to diminish our democratic rights and freedom of expression. The newseum is pleased to present this program today, and we hope to discuss the issues raised by this terrible incident. One day short of a year ago, it is for me the embodiment of the best response to these attacks. The marketplace of ideas still exists and we can have a robust discussion worldwide about the very basic rights and freedoms of humanity that held true in 1791, 1941, and again in 2016. Let me present our moderator, Delphine Halgand from Reporters Without Borders. Delphine thank you for all your amazing work and all the amazing work of your colleagues at the institute to champion the First Amendment freedoms. Thank you for hosting us. Thank you for organizing it with Reporters Without Borders to come, rick perry, the First Anniversary of Charlie Hebdos tragedy. We report on press Freedom Violation all around the world. A network of local journalists report for us in 130 countries to monitor press Freedom Violations. One year ago, i was working at our paris office on january 7. One year after, i still dont have the right words to express that shock. In the newsroom, with automatic weapons, it was something we could hardly imagine. And actually, paris was attacked again. We were even more hurt just a few months ago. We observed that these last years have been marked by an extreme level of violence targeting journalists. We all have in mind the carefully staged beheadings of journalists, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the increase of kidnappings. 110 journalists have been killed in 2015. 110. The deadliest countries were syria, iraq, and france. I look forward to our discussion today. I want to thank Caroline Fourest for being with us from paris. I will start with her today, to year from her. I want to thank robert cornrevere, renaud beauchard, gene policinski, and had us gold. Thank you for being here. In a sense, we want to discuss what has changed for freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and liberty of religion in france, in the u. S. , and around the world. What is the difference between freedom of expression in france, in the u. S. . What are the red lines . How has blasphemy law or National Security law impacted that freedom . How should we respond to the information war launched by groups such as isis on social media . Those are some of the questions i look forward to discussing with you all. To start, i want to introduce you to Caroline Fourest. Shes a very well renowned journalist. She is the editor of magazine and a former contributor of Charlie Hebdo. You just released an essay, in praise of blasphemy, why Charlie Hebdo is not islamophobic. The book is available in english on ebook. I invite you to read it, because its vitally important to read it. Caroline, just after the attacks, Charlie Hebdo has been portrayed by some people as islamophobic. When they came here in the u. S. , to receive awards, they pointed out that in 10 years between 2005 and 2015, out of a total of approximately 500 Charlie Hebdo issues, only 38 covers were dedicated to religion, and seven to islam. Caroline, i think its important to start by explaining what is Charlie Hebdo, how important our curtains in france, how Charlie Hebdo staff is today are they still under Police Protection . And then i will ask you to talk to us about how the french press reacts, and more about your essay. First, can you explain briefly what is Charlie Hebdo and how is Charlie Hebdo staffed today . Caroline thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to speak about this issue. [indiscernible] its not only the newspaper that you know today described as islamophobic because they mock fanatics from all religions including islam, Charlie Hebdo is also known in france has [indiscernible] during the 1980s and 1990s, more, because during the 1990s, all the movements [indiscernible] they took their cartoons from people who work there today. Not only were they described as islamophobic and racist after their death, this is incredibly painful. When i asked to explain [indiscernible] they were strongly open to every cartoon and the most talented and funny guys ive ever known. People can twist their intentions, their cartoons, put them out of that context. This is actually what those people are doing. I really want to point that out. I want to insist on that. Its not only unprofessional as journalists to describe Charlie Hebdo as islamophobic, it is dangerous. This word, islamophobia, is confusing the intention, the fact that an artist for a newspaper wants to be able to [indiscernible] describing it as racist against muslims by calling them islamophobic is not only wrong, it is really dangerous. It is putting a target on the head of those journalists, on those cartoonists. It has already killed those people. It is maybe going to kill tomorrow others. To answer your question, how is Charlie Hebdo today . They are living like prisoners. They are all under Police Protection. They have been targeted by al qaeda. Not only by terrorist groups, also by famous politicians who say they will pay for them. We are in that situation today. [indiscernible] if you want to target the real racism, that exists and that Charlie Hebdo is denouncing, then you should [indiscernible] it is not just phobia against islam. Phobia against muslims is racism, which is something we all want to fight. Delphine thank you, caroline. I want to go into what you explained in your essay. You went into what i would translate as global intimidation. Can you explain what you mean, exactly . Caroline i mean that one of the most one of the dangers that journalists are facing today in the world is not only censorship or intimidation coming from states. We know that. We know how to react to that. But it is probably even worse, the intimidation coming from movements on the ground who are not states, maybe like isil terror state, and who can kill to silence you, to forbid you to speak, to forbid you to criticize. Today, among the journalists who died that you mentioned, most of them have been killed by terrorist groups. So we are really in the middle of this tornado. We are facing the necessity of defending freedom of speech, freedom also to fight in a time when states are taking measures against the freedom to fight against terrorism, but at the same time, our First Priority is to stay alive. I did many papers on the assassination [indiscernible] i followed so many cases of accusation of blasphemy. What changed is, before, i was used to going to Charlie Hebdos life. There is a difference between danger in india, a democracy. So you see, more and more it is not only [indiscernible] it is dangerous for journalists and freethinkers. I would add that which is more painful . If you read salman rushdie, it is well explained. What is the most painful part . You are asked to face Death Threats. But when youre hearing commands from the democrats, not only coming from the fanatics or terrorists playing their role, but when democrats are helping the terrorists by accusing people of being islam a phobic or going too far or being provocative when they are defending freedom of expression caroline it is a great transition point to the point i wanted to raise with robert, one of the u. S. Leading First Amendment lawyers. Recently, you worked on many cases related to free speech on American University campuses, which could seem weird from france, to hear about that. Actually, there is a lot of free speech on the campus last year. Would you say the u. S. Is becoming excessively politically correct . Or did you see freedom of expression and freedom of [indiscernible] robert great question, thanks for that. I think there is a real connection between what is going on on american campuses and what we are seeing as a global phenomenon and discussions about the meeting and extent of freedom of expression. The question comes down to, do you protect the right to offend, or do you protect the right not to be offended . The First Amendment of the u. S. Constitution is predicated on, and decisions have reinforced the notion, that we do not have freedom unless there is a freedom to offend. That has been decided in cases involving many different scenarios over the years, that all of our freedoms depend on being able to protect the rights of people who offend us the most. I think it is important to stress that freedom of expression is a bigger concept than what the First Amendment provides. That is our local ordinance in the u. S. We think it is a model for how to protect freedom of expression. But freedom of expression is broader as a concept than what the law provides. Legal systems around the world have various protections for freedom of expression, including the ones in europe under the European Convention for human rights, which provide a balanced approach that balance other interests against the primary concern of freedom of expression. To measure the impact on freedom free speech overall, it goes back to global intimidation. That is bigger than a legal issue. To assess the health of freedom of expression, you have to look at that legal structures. Secondly, at the level of courage that citizens are willing to exercise. There are very frightening and intimidating factors. What is known in american law as the hecklers veto has become the ends the assassin. The assassins video veto. Notion developed in the law that we cant permit hecklers to limit the rights of people trying to make their point. But now, it has become more sinister and deadly with the notion of the assassins veto. It is a natural question to ask, how courageous are we being when it comes to these expressions . It is one thing to wear a je suis charlie button. It is another thing to not publish the images in the wake of the events in paris. It is important to delphine how do you explain that . Robert people are scared. There is global intimidation. You can see that in an example like the disruption of the premiere of the film the interview, after north korea threatened retaliation if this silly parody made american theaters. I bought a copy of the cd, i figured it was my duty to do so in light of everything. Not a great movie, but im glad i saw it. And so, you know, you have to ask yourself, what if other basic freedoms were threatened by violence . If foreign powers or individuals in Foreign Governments decided other aspects of the First Amendment were simply things they couldnt tolerate . What if, for example, a Foreign Government or foreign terrorist decided it really offends them if people attend Church Services in the u. S. . You or anywhere. How would we assess the behavior of people it they decided, oh, well. Im sorry. I cant go to church. They said they would hurt knee. Hurt me. It is understandable to be afraid when there are real threats. If we dont find some collective courage, we lose freedom of expression regardless of what the law says. Delphine thank you. I will turn now to the other french person at the table with me. You are an adjunct professor at washington college. You work in the French Institute of judicial studies. You translated into french the court and the world. Your background with the society to promote knowledge and understanding of legal matters, i wondered to come to the professor and you in you and ask you the difference between freedom of expression, freedom of the press in france and the u. S. Taste tell us about hate speech prosecution in french and how Charlie Hebdo has been prosecuted many times. Can you expand that simply . The beginning is to look at the text. If you look at the First Amendment, Congress Shall make no laws, that is a unique way of expressing freedom of speech. When you look at the declaration of the rights of man, you have a very different form of expression, freedom of speech. I can read an article of the declaration, nobody [indiscernible] and then in the article, more on point about actual freedom of speech, it ends saying, every citizen may speak right and [indiscernible] but shelby shall be [indiscernible] you have very different ways to express those basic freedoms. Then, what happens is, in fact, you have come i mean, the statue of 1881, which lay down the framework, you have freedom of the press. What you see is that statute has remained quite unchanged. One important date is 1919. That is a statute [indiscernible] in the statute, [indiscernible] negation of crime against humanity. [indiscernible] article 24 of the statute of 1881, [indiscernible] racism or racial hatred. It is all but down with good intentions, except that i think that explains why there is no [indiscernible] to legislate a matter of freedom of expression. It creates a situation where basically, gradually, we went to a situation which is not characteristic of the problem we face with islamophobia. [indiscernible] to expand de facto censorship [indiscernible] two matters of religion and beyond. [indiscernible] equal act done in religious [indiscernible] you have that Chilling Effect of islamophobia. Everybody criticizes [indiscernible] we are criticizing the fact [indiscernible] racist basically. [indiscernible] the whole unique community. In the way, they are the new [indiscernible] that is a we see right now. [indiscernible] expression of racism. [indiscernible] you have that Chilling Effect of people saying, no, no. You cannot criticize [indiscernible] on top of that, another tendency which i think is something that derives more from something from Global Attitude and from an american [indiscernible] which is this kind of fear of any interruption of [indiscernible] of speech, of money. When you see money is equated with speech, you have basically all the [indiscernible] circulates freely. In fact, [indiscernible] so we see some illustration [indiscernible] delphine would you say there is no limit to the First Amendment freedoms . Or what other limits . Robert of course there are limits. Some First Amendment critics would say people are too interested in an absolutist view of the First Amendment. It is more less of an argument. I dont know if any Court Decisions defend the First Amendment. It is not protect simply the use of words. You cant have a bank hand a bank teller a note and say, give me all your money and i am protected by the First Amendment. There are limits by the rule of law. And the ways that line has been drawn by the courts has typically been whether the threat of violence, the realistic threat of violence. The test for incitement is whether or not the speaker intends to bring about an immediate violent breach of the peace, and whether or not those words are likely to cause that immediate breach of peace. There are certain very specific categories the court has said are unprotected by the First Amendment. Cases have refined that list and narrowed it quite a bit over the years. That is in sharp contrast to what you see under the European Convention of human rights, where instead of having a limited list of words that are types of speech that are not protected. You have an amorphous and expanding list of concepts that are not protected by the First Amendment. The government possibility to regulate speech in the United States based on its content is governed by a standard called strict scrutiny, which puts the burden of the government to prove that there is a compelling need to restrict speech and requires the government to use the least restrictive means of restricting speech, whereas in europe, the concept is called proportionality. You have a measure of appreciation where the European Court of human rights will sort of air on the side of governments in able to enforce laws in favor of what the National Interest was that prompted their restriction. There are different ways of looking at the two. The differences, in the american system, we err on the on the side of protecting speech rather than on the side of government power. It is not an absolute view but it is a speech protective view. Delphine maybe lets go to the media reporter here. You were born in tel aviv and you covered the Media Industry in the political world. Im curious to hear your views on how religion has been covered during this crazy u. S. Election campaign, and comments about muslims to religious correctness. Where are we . How do you see this debate . I do want to say, if you want to reconnect cert of if you want to read an excerpt of carolines book, i highly recommend it. By the ebooks, as well. It has been an incredibly fascinating time on the campaign trail. Things you never thought would be said, and sent by candidates sent by candidates that would still be candidates after they send them. It is relieved and fascinating. In a way, you find yourself almost, it is a most like almost like a catch22, where on one hand, a lot of the candidates want to protect, they say they want to protect free speech and freedom of religion, but they are calling for a database of a certain type of religion. In terms of how the media covers it, i have never, and i am young, i have not covered that many elections. I dont think the media has ever been in a situation where they find themselves wanting to be objective and cover things straight down the line. But having to cover something with a straight face that they might find obscene. Only in the last couple months have i started to see the media actually start to react in calling what some people might consider a spade a spade. You still see the holding themselves a little bit because of the sanctity of the object of this of the objective nest of the press. In europe, it is different. Reporters are willing to state what they view is ridiculous or not. In the u. S. , we have this, you could almost consider journalism, objective journalism, a religion. Some people in here to it, who say, i will never say who i vote for or if i am registered. I will never say, i can say some say things, but you have a new form, new journalists, who, we have seen it at buzz feed. That is a millennial site where the editor in chief has said, you on social media, you are allowed to call donald trump a racist if you believe that. Delphine you think donald trump couldve been prosecuted for hate speech in france . Definitely, yes. Im a big fan. He is now the head of the new zealand institute. You are one of the founders of usc. You are a writer of a National Column called inside the First Amendment. Lets go inside the First Amendment. How do you see the danger of religious correctness in the media . Is this a real threat to journalistic freedom . To the freedom to make us love, the freedom to offend . It is interesting. The religion of objectivity has been the religion most journalists have an here to drop my life. There was always the journalism of opinion. We started with journalism of opinion. The First Amendment was to protect the vitriolic editors that took part that that covered elections funded by the candidates themselves. Editors didnt publish the cartoons when they first came up in europe and again around the time of Charlie Hebdo. I think the editorial process there, and it is the First Amendment freedom to publish, that in a perverse way allows you not to publish. If we are honest, particularly in 2006 after the initial publishing in denmark of the cartoons about the muslim prophet mohammed, much of that publication came about to show that you could, to stand up to laws that were in place, or loss that had been in place and repealed, which someone would fear would come back. There was a must they lack of journalistic reason to publish. There was some, but it was really more of a statement, saying, i can publish this if i want to for all these reasons. Having the right to publish also gives you the freedom to decide as an editor not to publish. Robert how do you tell that story without publishing the cover of Charlie Hebdo . Many did not. The decision initially, and to some degree with the cover, west to say what editors always do. It will offend some of my readership. I can describe those cartoons. In a manner that lets people understand without having to necessarily publish them. And repented repetitive publishing. I draw a distinction between, on cable news, where this thing was repeated over and over again, where i am utterly familiar with these cartoons, where there was no need better for understanding. There was no benefit of understanding. So i think the First Amendment says to editors, and still does in the u. S. , you have this right to make a decision about what you will publish. When it comes to religious, to blasphemy, we have no s no effective blasphemy laws in the u. S. The solution has been unlike in europe, where there is, and it worries me about the call to reexamine the clear and present danger standard, there is a necessity for the law to step in. We rely on a marketplace of ideas. No matter how offensive, no matter what the repugnant, repellent language and imagery that might be put out, absent the clear and present danger, the immediate threat, the answer is more speech, not less. The restriction produces a pushback, it may glorify the band speaker the banned speaker. In the age of the internet, you cannot stamp out an idea. If i published that cartoon in moline, illinois, if i didnt publish it in moline, illinois, if you didnt, you did that with a certainty that there was absolutely no barrier to 95 of your audience seeing the imagery. Some editors chose to take the issue that we wont put it on the front page or an image that is static that you pass by the you are not a willing recipient of the information, but we will give you a link to a website where you can, and you make the decision to see it. Some say that is cowardly or ducking the issue. I think there was purchased from some editors who said, if i am on a table or in the rack or visible somewhere, people can be an unwilling person seeing that. If you make a conscious decision, we will provide it. If i could pick up about your points about editorial standards, the notion of whether or not journalism must be, or must have the pretense of objectivity, i wonder, where is hl mencken when we needed so desperately . Can you imagine him covering this campaign . It would be priceless. The closest thing we have had is jon stewart. He is no longer on the daily show. With respect to your points about the right not to publish, the right to speak and balls right not to speak. Involves the right not to speak. That is editing, not censorship. It is an important distinction. But there is a serious reference between that and having an editorial policy that says, you will not publish four letter words even though you have every right under the First Amendment to publish them. And not publishing something because there is annexed arnel threat saying, if you publish that, we will kill you, that if the situation we have here that makes it so radically different from anything else that we face. Delphine i want to, blasphemy, allegation, free speech all of the world in bangladesh and russia. We are talking about half the world pass countries. They have laws penalizing black this blasphemy. Eight countries are members of the eu. We think of bangladesh and saudi arabia, where a blogger was sentenced for insulting islam to 1000 lashes. We are talking about that against selfcensorship. Lest we forget, just this year, we have had people in bangladesh hacked to death in different circumstances for raising questions about religion. The intimidation is not, as you note, limited to journalists being afraid. Now, anyone who speaks out. Lets not just focus on islam. These antiblasphemy notions infect all sorts of national laws. In october of this last year, the polish Supreme Court upheld a fine against a woman who said the bible was written by people drunk with wine and smoking some stuff and she believes more in dinosaurs than the bible. That was upheld as being an acceptable law. The monty python classic life of brian was banned in certain color in certain countries. In norway and sweden, they ran ads saying, its so funny it was banned in norway and sweden. These valuable protections for freedom of expression of the European Convention uphold these laws. It is not confined just to islam. To round out my observations about, i think now as these threats increase, as we see this isnt just the threat of the moment, there probably is more necessity to say, i will publish. I am for publishing everything. I suspect editors now say balancing the idea of offending someone in their audience, it is an ongoing, continuing and growing right across, i think editors now would make different decisions than they may have made a year ago because the context is different. The necessity to stand up to what is clearly, now, not an isolated incident, or a two time, but kind of, now, this constant push to restrain, restrict, and intimidating and intimidate. Caroline, in your opinion, do you understand newspapers like the New York Times not publishing the cartoons . Do you feel as though, in the aftermath, i know you refer to this in your essay, but do you believe in the aftermath, they should have as a show of solidarity . Or do you understand that they would link to coverage of it elsewhere so it is not publishing it themselves . Caroline i would expect to [indiscernible] i think there was a problem with the sound. When we decided in 2006 to publish [indiscernible] of the Prophet Muhammad, it was a it was not for the pleasure. Just so you know, i have seen those cartoons three months before it was published. It was a colleague of mine who asked me, does Charlie Hebdo want to publish them . I didnt think, maybe, [indiscernible] but we have our own publication. We dont need to publish the cartoons. But three month after that, when the campaign to kill the danish cartoonist to, the Death Threats started and not only [indiscernible] when an antecedent burn in syria and iran an Embassy Burned in syria and iran, because of the cartoons, our decision was a journalistic, it was to say we will speak about this [indiscernible] but how can we think about it without showing the cartoon . It is not making any sense from a journalistic point of view. When my colleagues are being killed in the course of publishing the cartoons. [indiscernible] by journalists from the usa and the u. K. To see the cover of Charlie Hebdo was going to answer for that. The sweetest one in the world. The Prophet Muhammad crying and saying je suis charlie when they saw the cartoons, they started criticizing without showing it. I found myself in an entrenched position after a hard day, being interviewed, saying for the one millionth time, critics of the cartoons that nobody was showing , that they cannot have a judgment about that, and when i tried to show it because, as a journalist mostly, i went people to have their own idea on the cartoon. They did express their huge, they did expressly apologize not for printing this, but for the believers who could be shocked by Charlie Hebdo. Can you imagine what is the message of that . The message is, what Charlie Hebdo is doing is deeply wrong. They are doing something so horrible that you cannot even see, we cannot show it. New york times [indiscernible] about the danish cartoonist. [indiscernible] and they refused to show the cartoon, of course. [indiscernible] we did attack a painting in the usa. The New York Times did show the painting that was accused of being blasphemous from those catholic extremists. My question is, why does the New York Times show the cartoon or painting when they do offend catholic extremists, and why not when it offends muslim extremist . The only explanation is fear. The fact that you can be killed for that. I dont have any problem that they are saying didnt show the , cover of Charlie Hebdo. My colleagues have been killed. They are so afraid, they didnt show the cover of Charlie Hebdo because they are too afraid. This is the only honesty. We are asking for it, actually. Gene i want to say we received some criticism when we posted the cover the day after it was published. The only explanation or, not even an explanation but the only answer i had was, understand we are publishing this for the purpose of information, not insult. We have an obligation. We post front pages of the front of our building every day. They are newsworthy. Particularly the international publications, this was newsworthy. It was a necessity to do that there. Thankfully, we have not been subjected yet to the threats you have faced and her colleagues have faced. That was an important distinction to make that our intent was information. Whether it is to provoke discussion, it was a legitimate purpose to inform people we we felt it should be out there. Delphine i wanted to discuss National Security consequences we have seen since the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the attacks in november. The New York Times yesterday published an opinion piece expressing the extreme concerns towards the push to diminish Civil Liberties in france. I want to ask the question of, are we [indiscernible] french patriot act . Did we learn anything . And have you seen in france and in the u. S. , National Security of using freedoms [indiscernible] shelley start shall we start with i am curious about the election. We have seen this, some people say they would restore some of the now limited surveillance. Is there a general trend in with the candidates today, when they feel they must say about National Security . Even at the cost of limiting freedoms . Hadas the trend i have seen is that they would do whatever is necessary to keep people safe. That is the theme of this election, fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of muslims, fear of black lives matter activists. It is beer that translates into anger. That is fear that translates into anger. We will do whatever to keep you safe. That is when candidates and voters get them comfortable. They say, i dont want you tracking me, but after an attack happens, they say, how did we not know . Gene they are saying, you are tracking me, when attract them . Why not track them . Robert the National Security apparatus built up to vacuum in the metadata from records, while it looked like we were on a course towards some correction towards that, we still had a Current Administration that was issuing more subpoenas for journalists than any in history and threatening prosecutions under the espionage act. Finally, the essay the nsa program has ended. The debate has been refreshed by the attack in paris. You know have president ial candidates saying that it is a mistake to rein in the nsa. That we need to have all kinds of limits including having registration for people of a certain faith. Fear definitely is the theme. It definitely has an adverse impact on Civil Liberties. How do you see the debate in the french press of National Security versus freedoms . Caroline people in france love to debate. We think a lot of about those measures. Most of the french today are more concerned about facing the it. Attack and preventing probably radicals come almost 3000 in syria who can come back and do a terrorist attack. [indiscernible] four guys with kalashnikovs can kill more than 100 people. The First Priority of most of the french is to have better intelligence service. But on the left, we are very concerned about not going too far in the name of this fear, the security situation. There is a big debate about, shall we or not put emergency measures in the constitution. So we continue to debate. From a journalistic point of view, we are well protected. Today, if i compare my situation to the situation of many friends i have i know that in the 90s, they were under the stress of terrorists. At the same time, there were with a totalitarian state. They can really do a lot of abuse in the name of fighting terrorism. We are not today in that situation. We can trust the state to be quite balanced about all of these. The situation we are more worried about of course is one , day, you can imagine that if the terrorist attacks continue every month, in a few years, i dont know if we can be able to continue to stop the rising of the extremes. I dont know. People will be really exhausted. I want just to fill you more, i am hearing a lot of worries about france in the u. S. Media. Even france cannot Say Something like donald trump just said in his campaign. Of course, he will be under persecution from [indiscernible] you dont think a Campaign Today its more then extreme right. It is just insane. Delphine you studied the security laws in france. What are your concerns . I think its messy what is going on right now. You have a project of reforming the constitution, which basically was announced a couple days after the attack in november. That project contains two important measures. One which could strip other, whichnd the would screen, shield the search and seizures for the search and seizures. They want to shield that. This is really something, its heavy. If we look at the number of statutes that have been passed , we have a newm one, which comes next year. Intelligence that was passed in april which announced the french government [indiscernible] internet provider. Basically, to have access to all of the metadata, the right of surveillance. Then, you have the statute in december 2014, which was passed because a lot of youth, young radicals are going to fight in syria. That created the offense of individual terrorism. That is basically, to say that a conspiracy [indiscernible] that is how inventive the government is. If you look, you have another statute in france that was, there was assassinations of soldiers and Jewish Population in 2012. [indiscernible] many, many statutes, at least, i think you have four on one and four on the other just on antiterrorism. The common point between the statutes, and that is where we see the biggest threat, is in fact, more and more we are moving to criminalize not activity, but intention. This is where we are engaged on a very slippery slope. It has changed from the criminal law which was based on deterrence retribution to a , criminal law which is based on some form of what we call [indiscernible] it tries to preempt the acts. It is a product of criminal law. This is really the trend. When you look at all the statutes, it is always about collecting more data to preempt. We translate what we dont use. It for example, and another statute, november 2014, which extends the state of emergency until february 26. You have change of term from the prior 1955 state of emergency. The important term is to substitute activity for behavior. If you have reason to determine that an activity, and a behavior, is potentially dangerous, you can do a search and seizure. Delphine we will have to say goodbye to our audience. Now, we can welcome questions of the audience. We have microphones on either side of the room if there are questions. Conduct versus ideas. Beyond that, you have a continuum from conduct two words to thought. Again, one of the examples going back to the sedition act, the liberty of lincoln to restrain newspaper editors, restrain ideas around world war i, world war ii, we see attempts to respond to hear by a governmental intention to limit somehow an idea by preventing or jailing or imprisoning or banning the practitioners are the people who propose these ideas. Over again, we learn the best way is to express the idea we do like and have currency. We have a program in this room not long ago on battling isis and the ability of isis to capture the attention of the world or the internet. We have done a program with the act the eye director about counterterrorism the fbi director about counterterrorism. The attempt to restrain and restrict, to ban, is either ineffective or in the short or long term. I think that is one of the great things that, as we take the lessons of Charlie Hebdo, even facing these tragic murders and acts by terrorists, is that we cannot surrender the idea of safety over the idea of freedom. It has to be our ultimate defense. We know from history that that ultimately is what triumphs. Robert that translates beyond safety to a question of offensiveness. If you take the notion of the antidote to bad speech being more speech, and take an example like the Westboro Baptist church, this is people who are from kansas who believe all the ails we face is because of homosexuality, so they protested funeral saying hateful things. The Supreme Court addressed whether their speech was to harmful to be protected. It takes the notion of hate speech and distills it into a pure form. The question is how you deal with that. Ask yourself are they persuading anybody of anything . You take those messages and it tells you the marketplace of ideas is not just their message that goes out unfiltered. The marketplace of ideas is not just what they say, but what others say in response and what the audience cheers heres and comes away with. Allowing these people to spew hatred didnt slow to drive in the u. S. Towards marriage equality. It did not cause people to be less tolerant. Instead, people saw them for what they were and made their own decisions. In terms of the best antidote for hate speech being more speech, two things illustrate that with the Westboro Baptist church. One is, whenever they protested , you would see people with signs saying really funny and outrageous things in response. More importantly, when the patriarch of the church died, outside his funeral, you had protesters, not even protesters but people standing with signs, saying, we are sorry for your loss. What better response could there be . Delphine we will take a question and then i may ask you for closing remarks. Sir . Please. I am a fellow here at the Museum Institute and a professor at catholic u law school. I wanted to ask you about coverage. Most of the discussion today has focused on the victims. What i would like to ask you to address is, why havent we seen more coverage of the criminals . I believe the professor mentioned, these are criminals who are doing the murders. They have attacked the same weekend they attacked a jewish grocery store. Why arent we seeing indepth coverage of who isis is . The assumption appears to be that they are right wing, but we dont know who they are. What i wonder is, why the press isnt really covering who isis is. Hadas i would argue the press has been covering who isis is. One of the Biggest Barriers is the access. It is difficult to get into syria and iraq, where a lot of these militants are. There have been really great coverage. One pops to mind is the huffington posts investigative piece into the mothers of some of these european sons who have gone into, who have become isis militants and how the process happened and why. I think we are starting to see more of it, but you are right, there should be more coverage. A lot of it is the barriers to being able to go there and live through it and being able to go there and get access to them. I think now, vice news has done a lot of great coverage. Delphine the atlantic didnt investigation. Gene there is a change in posture of journalists around the planet. We are seeing it from Reporters Without Borders and or and others. People were murdered directly by what they call terrorists. Journalist and the past were the mechanism by which your message got out. There was a neutral part, they were seen as a way to get your message out. Particularly if you were an Insurgent Group where you didnt have the power of government to control or at least insert themselves into the media of a country or region, you needed those reporters to come in and talk to them, and reporters could go into a encampment of a rebellion or to a group that was, a terrorist group, the invited in because that is how you got your message out. Now, it is not even a neutral circumstance for journalists. It may have been needed in the past. They are now an antagonist to your ability to control your message about the group and go rightly be a the internet to take the message out. One of the limitations that has come up as a result of being able to communicate more information asked her to a greater audience is, the ability of terrorist groups and whatever to get their message out