Transcripts For CSPAN Attorney General Freedom Of Thought An

Will continue the intellectual journey thats higher education. I loved my education experience so much and i suspect you do too. You will discover new areas of knowledge, you will engage in debate great and small, and many of the views you have will be challenged and some of your views may even change. You will, if your institutions follow our nations historic and Cultural Education traditions, pursue truth while growing in mind and spirit. In short, we hope youll take part in the right of every american, free, robust, sometimes Contentious Exchange of ideas. As you exercise these rights, realize how precious, how rare, and how fragile they are. In most societies throughout history and in so many i have had an opportunity to visit as a member of the Armed Services committee, to some of the most difficult places on the globe, such rights do not exist in these places. Openly criticizing the government or expressing unorthodox opinions could land you in jail or worse. Let me tell you about one example that occurred one autumn when a few idealistic University Students came together as a group to advocate for a felt political need, wanting to recruit others to their cause , they staked out some ground on a campus walkway popular with students and approached them as they passed. They said things like, do you like freedom . Do you like liberty . And then they offered these passersby a document that they revered and believed represented these ideals. The United States constitution. These young proselytizers for liberty did not block the walk way, did not disrupt surrounding activity, did not use intimidation or violence to further their cause. Nevertheless, a Government Official labeled this behavior provocative and in violation of government policy, and when the young people bravely refused to stop, citing their right to free speech, the local official had been arrested, handcuffed and jailed. This troubling incident could have occurred under any number of tyrannies where the bedrock american ideals of freedom, thought, and speech have no foothold whatsoever, but this incident happened right here in the United States. Just last year. At a Public College in battle creek, michigan. A state official actually had students jailed for handing out copies of the United States constitution. Freedom of thought and speech on american campus are under attack. The American University was once the center of academic freedom, a place of robust debate, a forum for the competition of ideas. But it is transforming into an echo chamber of Political Correctness and homogeneous thought, a shelter for fragile egos. In 2017, the foundation for individual rights in education surveyed 450 colleges and universities across the country and found that 40 maintain speech codes that substantially infringe on constitutional ly protected speech. Of the Public Colleges surveyed , which are bound by the First Amendment, fully one third had written policies banning disfavored speech. For example, at Boise State University in idaho, the student code of conduct prohibits, quote, conduct that a reasonable person would find offensive, close quote. At clemson university, the student code of conduct bans any verbal or physical act that creates, quote, an offensive educational work or living environment. Close quote. But who decides . What is offensive and what is acceptable . The university is about the search for truth. Not the imposition of truth by a government censor. Speech and civility codes often violate what the late Justice Antonin Scalia are rightly called the first axiom of the amendment, which is that, as a general rule, the state has no power to ban speech on content. F in this great land, the government does not tell you what to think or what to say. In addition to written speech codes, many colleges now tolerate free speech only in certain geographically limited free speech zones. For example, a student recently filed suit against Pierce College in california, public school, alleging that it prohibited him from distributing Spanish Language copies of the United States constitution s free the School Speech zone. The size of the free speech zone . 616 square feet. Barely the size of two dorm rooms. These cramped zones are eerily familiar to what the Supreme Court warned against in a seminal 1969 case, a case about student speech. It said, freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right to be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven. College administrations administrators have also silenced speech by permitting the hecklers veto to control who gets to speak and what messages are conveyed. In these instances, administrators discourage or prohibit speech if theres even a threat it will be met by protests. In other words, the school favors the hecklers disruptive tactics over the speakers First Amendment rights. These administrators seem to forget that as the Supreme Court put it in watson vs. City of memphis more than 50 years ago, Constitutional Rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to the assertion of their exercise. This permissible attitude toward the hecklers veto spawned a Cottage Industry of protesters who have learned that School Administrators often will capitulate to their demands. Protesters are now routinely shutting down speeches and debates across the country in an effort to silence voices that insufficiently conform to their views. A frightening example occurred at middlebury college. Student protesters violently shut down a debate between an invited speaker and one of the schools own professors. As soon as the event began, protesters shouted for 20 minutes, preventing the debate from occurring. When the debaters then attempted to move to a private broadcasting location, the protesters, many wearing masks, a common tactic used by the detestable ku klux klan, cold fire alarms, surrounded the speakers and began physically assaulting them. In short, students engaged in a violent riot to ensure that neither they nor their fellow students would hear speech they may have disagreed with. Indeed, the crackdown on speech crosses creeds, races and religion. At brown university, a speech to promote transgender rights was canceled after students protested because a jewish group cosponsored the lecture. Virginia tech disinvited a n africanamerican speaker because he had written on race issues and they worried about protests disrupting the event. This is not right. This is not the great tradition of america. And yet, School Administrators have bent to this behavior. The effect is to coddle and encourage it. Just over a week ago, after the orwellian named antifascist protesters had successfully shut down numerous campus speaker events in recent months with violent riots, berkley was reportedly forced to spend 600,000 and have an overwhelming Police Presence to simply prove that the mob was not in control of their campus. The home of free speech. In advance, the school offered counseling. In advance, of this speech. They offered counseling to any senset or faculty whose of safety or belonging was from bend by a speech shapiro, a 33yearold harvardtrained lawyer who has frequently been targeted by antisemites for his jewish faith and who vigorously condemns hate speech from the left or right. In the end, mr. Shapiro spoke to a packed house, and to my fainted, noo one unsafe, and no one needed counseling, i hope. Yet after this small victory for free speech, a student speaking to a reporter said in reaction, i dont think berkley should host any controversial speakers on either side. That, perhaps, would be the worst lesson to draw from that episode, i firmly believe. I know that the vast majority of students like you, at the constitution center, need no lecture on the dangers of government imposed group think. But we have seen a rash of incidents, often perpetrated by small groups of those students and professors unable or unwilling to defend their own beliefs in the public forum. Unfortunately, these trends have been tolerated by administrators and shrugged off by other students. So let us directly address the question, why should we worry about free speech that may be in retreat on our universities . Of course, for publicly run institutions, the easy answer is upholding free speech rights is not an option. But an unshakeable requirement of the First Amendment. As Justice Robert jackson once explained, if there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion. Opinion. But even setting aside the law, the more fundamental issue is that the university is supposed to be a place where we train virtuous students. Its where the next generation of americans are equipped to contribute to and live in a diverse and free society filled with many, often contrary, voices. Our legal heritage, upon which the founders crafted the bill of rights, taught that reason and knowledge produced the closest approximateation of truth. And from truth may, hopefully often, arises justice. But reason requires discourse and frequently argument, and that is why the free speech guarantee is found not just in the First Amendment, but it permeates our institutions, our traditions, and our constitution in this free, unique, exceptional land. A jury trial. The right to crossexamine witness. Speech and debate clause. The very art and practice of lawyering. All of these are rooted in the idea that speech, reason, and confrontation are the very bedrock of a good society. In fact, these practices are designed to ascertain what is the truth. And from that truth, good policy and actions can be founded. Federalists against antifederalists. Abraham lincoln against stephens. Dr. Martin luther king against george wallace. Indeed, it was the power of dr. Kings words, his speech that crushed segregation and overcame the violence of the segregationists. He was unrelenting in making a clear, moral argument that in the end could not be denied. Words over violence. So many times in our history as a people, it was indeed speech and still more speech that led americans to a more just and perfect union. The right to freely examine the moral and immoral, the prudent and the foolish, the practical and the inefficient, and the right to argue for their merits or demerits, remain indispensable for a healthy republic. It has been known since the beginning of our nation, James Madison knew this when, as part of his protest against the alien and sedition act, the speech codes of his day, he said that the freedom of speech is, the only effectule guardian of every other right. And in a quote that im reminded of daily in this job, Thomas Jefferson knew this when he said in words now chiseled in his monument, i swear upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the mind of man. No little matter there. So soon you will be, perhaps, a professor, University President , attorney general of the United States, maybe president of the United States. And you will have your own pressing issues to grapple with. But i promise you that no issue will be better decided with less debate, with indifference from the audience, and with voices not listened to and unheard. There are those who will say that certain speech isnt deserving of protection. Theyll say that some speech is hurtful, even hateful. They will point to the very speech and believe and the belief that we abhor as americans. But the right to free speech does not exist only to protect the ideas upon which most of us agree at a given moment in time. As Justice Brandeis eloquently stated in whitney vs. California, if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacy to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. And let me be clear. Protecting free speech does not mean condoning violence like we saw recently in charlottesville. Indeed, i call upon universities and all americans to stand up against those who would silence Free Expression by violence or other means. But a Mature Society can tell the difference between violence and unpopular speech and a truly free Society Stands up, speaks up, for cherished rights precisely when its most difficult to do so. As Justice Holmes once wrote, if there is any principal of the constitution that more imperatively calls for the attachment than any other,s the principal of free thought. Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. For the thought that we hate. And we must do so on our campuses, University Officials and faculty must defend Free Expression boldly and unequivocally. That means president s, regents, trustees, alumni as well. A national recommitment to free speech on campus is long overdue and action to ensure First Amendment rights are overdue. Starting today, the department of justice will do its part in this work. We will enforce federal law. Defend free speech. And protect students Free Expression from whatever end of the spectrum it may come. To that end, we are filing a statement of interest in a campus case this week and we will be filing more, im sure, in the weeks to come this month we mark the 230th anniversary of our constitution. What a remarkable document indeed. The longest existing constitution in the world. And it is an extraordinary thing. This month, we also mark the 54th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in birmingham. Four little girls died that day as they changed into their choir robes because the klan wanted to silence their voices for civil rights. But their choices were not silenced. Dr. Martin luther king would call them the martyred heroins of a holy crusade for freedom and dignity. I urge you, really, urge you, to go back and read that eulogy an consider what it had to say to each of us today. This is the true legacy and power of free speech that has been handed down to you. And you can be sure it made people uncomfortable when Martin Luther king spoke about segregation, particularly in the south. This is the heritage that you have been given and that you must protect. So im here today to ask you to be involved, to make your voices heard, to defend the rights of others to do the same. For the last 241 years, we have staked a country on the principle that robust and even contentious debate is how we discover truth and resolve the nations most intractable problem. Your generation will decide if this experiment in freedom will continue, nothing less than the future of the republic depends on it. Thank you all, its great to be with you. [applause] thank you, mr. Attorney general, for those remarks. Know, this talk has atrabted considerable interest from the student body as well as my colleagues. We have questions that have been submitted by students in attendance today. Many of these questions are actually similar. They ask about the same question. I have to say the most popular question concerned, you may be surprised to hear this, the nfl. So heres one iteration of. Can you comment on the recent debate over nfl player protests . Does it concern you that these players are being condemned by many including the president , for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and protest . Mr. Sessions well, the president has free speech rights, too. He sends soldiers out every day to defend this country under the flag of the United States, under the National Anthem and the unity that those symbols call on us to adhere to. So i agree that its a big mistake to protest in that fashion. Because it weakens the commitment that we have to this nation that has provided thus freedom. I would note, of course, that the players arent subject to any prosecution, but if they take a provocative act they can expect to be condemned and the president has the right to condemn them and i would condemn their actions, not them as human beings, but i dont think that was a good there are many ways these players with all the assets that they have, can express their political views other than in effect denigrating the symbols of our nation, a nation thats provided our freedom to speak and act. As a matter of fact, the next student question is a followup on what you just said. Let me read it. If the methods citizens have thus far employed to register policies and are unsuitable and divisive in the administrations eyes, what can citizens do to properly register their opinions. Mr. Sessions people have a right to register their opinions, to protest, criticize, in any number of ways. I guess its up to the owners and the people who create these games and pay for the ball decide what you can do on a ball field. But freedom of every individual player is paramount under the constitution. Its protected. And we have to protect it. I think that its not a contradiction there. How much does context matter here . Are those whose viewpoint in the minority in a particular community, such as a Cultural Education<\/a> traditions, pursue truth while growing in mind and spirit. In short, we hope youll take part in the right of every american, free, robust, sometimes Contentious Exchange<\/a> of ideas. As you exercise these rights, realize how precious, how rare, and how fragile they are. In most societies throughout history and in so many i have had an opportunity to visit as a member of the Armed Services<\/a> committee, to some of the most difficult places on the globe, such rights do not exist in these places. Openly criticizing the government or expressing unorthodox opinions could land you in jail or worse. Let me tell you about one example that occurred one autumn when a few idealistic University Students<\/a> came together as a group to advocate for a felt political need, wanting to recruit others to their cause , they staked out some ground on a campus walkway popular with students and approached them as they passed. They said things like, do you like freedom . Do you like liberty . And then they offered these passersby a document that they revered and believed represented these ideals. The United States<\/a> constitution. These young proselytizers for liberty did not block the walk way, did not disrupt surrounding activity, did not use intimidation or violence to further their cause. Nevertheless, a Government Official<\/a> labeled this behavior provocative and in violation of government policy, and when the young people bravely refused to stop, citing their right to free speech, the local official had been arrested, handcuffed and jailed. This troubling incident could have occurred under any number of tyrannies where the bedrock american ideals of freedom, thought, and speech have no foothold whatsoever, but this incident happened right here in the United States<\/a>. Just last year. At a Public College<\/a> in battle creek, michigan. A state official actually had students jailed for handing out copies of the United States<\/a> constitution. Freedom of thought and speech on american campus are under attack. The American University<\/a> was once the center of academic freedom, a place of robust debate, a forum for the competition of ideas. But it is transforming into an echo chamber of Political Correctness<\/a> and homogeneous thought, a shelter for fragile egos. In 2017, the foundation for individual rights in education surveyed 450 colleges and universities across the country and found that 40 maintain speech codes that substantially infringe on constitutional ly protected speech. Of the Public College<\/a>s surveyed , which are bound by the First Amendment<\/a>, fully one third had written policies banning disfavored speech. For example, at Boise State University<\/a> in idaho, the student code of conduct prohibits, quote, conduct that a reasonable person would find offensive, close quote. At clemson university, the student code of conduct bans any verbal or physical act that creates, quote, an offensive educational work or living environment. Close quote. But who decides . What is offensive and what is acceptable . The university is about the search for truth. Not the imposition of truth by a government censor. Speech and civility codes often violate what the late Justice Antonin Scalia<\/a> are rightly called the first axiom of the amendment, which is that, as a general rule, the state has no power to ban speech on content. F in this great land, the government does not tell you what to think or what to say. In addition to written speech codes, many colleges now tolerate free speech only in certain geographically limited free speech zones. For example, a student recently filed suit against Pierce College<\/a> in california, public school, alleging that it prohibited him from distributing Spanish Language<\/a> copies of the United States<\/a> constitution s free the School Speech<\/a> zone. The size of the free speech zone . 616 square feet. Barely the size of two dorm rooms. These cramped zones are eerily familiar to what the Supreme Court<\/a> warned against in a seminal 1969 case, a case about student speech. It said, freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right to be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven. College administrations administrators have also silenced speech by permitting the hecklers veto to control who gets to speak and what messages are conveyed. In these instances, administrators discourage or prohibit speech if theres even a threat it will be met by protests. In other words, the school favors the hecklers disruptive tactics over the speakers First Amendment<\/a> rights. These administrators seem to forget that as the Supreme Court<\/a> put it in watson vs. City of memphis more than 50 years ago, Constitutional Rights<\/a> may not be denied simply because of hostility to the assertion of their exercise. This permissible attitude toward the hecklers veto spawned a Cottage Industry<\/a> of protesters who have learned that School Administrators<\/a> often will capitulate to their demands. Protesters are now routinely shutting down speeches and debates across the country in an effort to silence voices that insufficiently conform to their views. A frightening example occurred at middlebury college. Student protesters violently shut down a debate between an invited speaker and one of the schools own professors. As soon as the event began, protesters shouted for 20 minutes, preventing the debate from occurring. When the debaters then attempted to move to a private broadcasting location, the protesters, many wearing masks, a common tactic used by the detestable ku klux klan, cold fire alarms, surrounded the speakers and began physically assaulting them. In short, students engaged in a violent riot to ensure that neither they nor their fellow students would hear speech they may have disagreed with. Indeed, the crackdown on speech crosses creeds, races and religion. At brown university, a speech to promote transgender rights was canceled after students protested because a jewish group cosponsored the lecture. Virginia tech disinvited a n africanamerican speaker because he had written on race issues and they worried about protests disrupting the event. This is not right. This is not the great tradition of america. And yet, School Administrators<\/a> have bent to this behavior. The effect is to coddle and encourage it. Just over a week ago, after the orwellian named antifascist protesters had successfully shut down numerous campus speaker events in recent months with violent riots, berkley was reportedly forced to spend 600,000 and have an overwhelming Police Presence<\/a> to simply prove that the mob was not in control of their campus. The home of free speech. In advance, the school offered counseling. In advance, of this speech. They offered counseling to any senset or faculty whose of safety or belonging was from bend by a speech shapiro, a 33yearold harvardtrained lawyer who has frequently been targeted by antisemites for his jewish faith and who vigorously condemns hate speech from the left or right. In the end, mr. Shapiro spoke to a packed house, and to my fainted, noo one unsafe, and no one needed counseling, i hope. Yet after this small victory for free speech, a student speaking to a reporter said in reaction, i dont think berkley should host any controversial speakers on either side. That, perhaps, would be the worst lesson to draw from that episode, i firmly believe. I know that the vast majority of students like you, at the constitution center, need no lecture on the dangers of government imposed group think. But we have seen a rash of incidents, often perpetrated by small groups of those students and professors unable or unwilling to defend their own beliefs in the public forum. Unfortunately, these trends have been tolerated by administrators and shrugged off by other students. So let us directly address the question, why should we worry about free speech that may be in retreat on our universities . Of course, for publicly run institutions, the easy answer is upholding free speech rights is not an option. But an unshakeable requirement of the First Amendment<\/a>. As Justice Robert<\/a> jackson once explained, if there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion. Opinion. But even setting aside the law, the more fundamental issue is that the university is supposed to be a place where we train virtuous students. Its where the next generation of americans are equipped to contribute to and live in a diverse and free society filled with many, often contrary, voices. Our legal heritage, upon which the founders crafted the bill of rights, taught that reason and knowledge produced the closest approximateation of truth. And from truth may, hopefully often, arises justice. But reason requires discourse and frequently argument, and that is why the free speech guarantee is found not just in the First Amendment<\/a>, but it permeates our institutions, our traditions, and our constitution in this free, unique, exceptional land. A jury trial. The right to crossexamine witness. Speech and debate clause. The very art and practice of lawyering. All of these are rooted in the idea that speech, reason, and confrontation are the very bedrock of a good society. In fact, these practices are designed to ascertain what is the truth. And from that truth, good policy and actions can be founded. Federalists against antifederalists. Abraham lincoln against stephens. Dr. Martin luther king against george wallace. Indeed, it was the power of dr. Kings words, his speech that crushed segregation and overcame the violence of the segregationists. He was unrelenting in making a clear, moral argument that in the end could not be denied. Words over violence. So many times in our history as a people, it was indeed speech and still more speech that led americans to a more just and perfect union. The right to freely examine the moral and immoral, the prudent and the foolish, the practical and the inefficient, and the right to argue for their merits or demerits, remain indispensable for a healthy republic. It has been known since the beginning of our nation, James Madison<\/a> knew this when, as part of his protest against the alien and sedition act, the speech codes of his day, he said that the freedom of speech is, the only effectule guardian of every other right. And in a quote that im reminded of daily in this job, Thomas Jefferson<\/a> knew this when he said in words now chiseled in his monument, i swear upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the mind of man. No little matter there. So soon you will be, perhaps, a professor, University President<\/a> , attorney general of the United States<\/a>, maybe president of the United States<\/a>. And you will have your own pressing issues to grapple with. But i promise you that no issue will be better decided with less debate, with indifference from the audience, and with voices not listened to and unheard. There are those who will say that certain speech isnt deserving of protection. Theyll say that some speech is hurtful, even hateful. They will point to the very speech and believe and the belief that we abhor as americans. But the right to free speech does not exist only to protect the ideas upon which most of us agree at a given moment in time. As Justice Brandeis<\/a> eloquently stated in whitney vs. California, if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacy to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. And let me be clear. Protecting free speech does not mean condoning violence like we saw recently in charlottesville. Indeed, i call upon universities and all americans to stand up against those who would silence Free Expression<\/a> by violence or other means. But a Mature Society<\/a> can tell the difference between violence and unpopular speech and a truly free Society Stands<\/a> up, speaks up, for cherished rights precisely when its most difficult to do so. As Justice Holmes<\/a> once wrote, if there is any principal of the constitution that more imperatively calls for the attachment than any other,s the principal of free thought. Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. For the thought that we hate. And we must do so on our campuses, University Officials<\/a> and faculty must defend Free Expression<\/a> boldly and unequivocally. That means president s, regents, trustees, alumni as well. A national recommitment to free speech on campus is long overdue and action to ensure First Amendment<\/a> rights are overdue. Starting today, the department of justice will do its part in this work. We will enforce federal law. Defend free speech. And protect students Free Expression<\/a> from whatever end of the spectrum it may come. To that end, we are filing a statement of interest in a campus case this week and we will be filing more, im sure, in the weeks to come this month we mark the 230th anniversary of our constitution. What a remarkable document indeed. The longest existing constitution in the world. And it is an extraordinary thing. This month, we also mark the 54th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church<\/a> bombing in birmingham. Four little girls died that day as they changed into their choir robes because the klan wanted to silence their voices for civil rights. But their choices were not silenced. Dr. Martin luther king would call them the martyred heroins of a holy crusade for freedom and dignity. I urge you, really, urge you, to go back and read that eulogy an consider what it had to say to each of us today. This is the true legacy and power of free speech that has been handed down to you. And you can be sure it made people uncomfortable when Martin Luther<\/a> king spoke about segregation, particularly in the south. This is the heritage that you have been given and that you must protect. So im here today to ask you to be involved, to make your voices heard, to defend the rights of others to do the same. For the last 241 years, we have staked a country on the principle that robust and even contentious debate is how we discover truth and resolve the nations most intractable problem. Your generation will decide if this experiment in freedom will continue, nothing less than the future of the republic depends on it. Thank you all, its great to be with you. [applause] thank you, mr. Attorney general, for those remarks. Know, this talk has atrabted considerable interest from the student body as well as my colleagues. We have questions that have been submitted by students in attendance today. Many of these questions are actually similar. They ask about the same question. I have to say the most popular question concerned, you may be surprised to hear this, the nfl. So heres one iteration of. Can you comment on the recent debate over nfl player protests . Does it concern you that these players are being condemned by many including the president , for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and protest . Mr. Sessions well, the president has free speech rights, too. He sends soldiers out every day to defend this country under the flag of the United States<\/a>, under the National Anthem<\/a> and the unity that those symbols call on us to adhere to. So i agree that its a big mistake to protest in that fashion. Because it weakens the commitment that we have to this nation that has provided thus freedom. I would note, of course, that the players arent subject to any prosecution, but if they take a provocative act they can expect to be condemned and the president has the right to condemn them and i would condemn their actions, not them as human beings, but i dont think that was a good there are many ways these players with all the assets that they have, can express their political views other than in effect denigrating the symbols of our nation, a nation thats provided our freedom to speak and act. As a matter of fact, the next student question is a followup on what you just said. Let me read it. If the methods citizens have thus far employed to register policies and are unsuitable and divisive in the administrations eyes, what can citizens do to properly register their opinions. Mr. Sessions people have a right to register their opinions, to protest, criticize, in any number of ways. I guess its up to the owners and the people who create these games and pay for the ball decide what you can do on a ball field. But freedom of every individual player is paramount under the constitution. Its protected. And we have to protect it. I think that its not a contradiction there. How much does context matter here . Are those whose viewpoint in the minority in a particular community, such as a College Campus<\/a> in need of any special protection . Will that be a factor that the d. O. J. Will take into account when setting its policies . Who is in the majority and who is in the minority in the given, specific, community . Mr. Sessions all of us need to understand that people who have minority views should be respected. And should be listened to them. And but i dont think we really need to apply any special rights to a Minority Group<\/a>. I think theres a danger, a greater danger that a Minority Group<\/a> might be denied the right to speak, to express theyre their views, somehow be suppressed. That should always be guarded against. But fundamentally, the constitution protecting everybodys speech. The majority and the minority. And thats, i think, the great tradition we have in this country. And i really we should defend it and i have felt, we talk about it a lot with my staff, young people right out of college, super talented young people, and theres an unease that things are going on on campuses that make them very uncomfortable. That they feel not free or affirmed when they express views that might be contrary to the majority. But i dont think the constitution says you would treat one Group Different<\/a> from another. I think fundamentally, everyone has the base exright to express themselves. We got a speechrelated question from students. And that is, it says this. As an advocate of free speech, how do you feel about the use of senate rule 19 to limit speech on the senate floor during confirmation hearings as was done to senator warren when she was criticizing your nomination to be attorney general . Mr. Sessions well, she certainly had the right to criticize my nomination and i think she really had the right to read the letter but she was blocked, at least temporarily blocked from reading. The senate rule 19 says you should not, its back to 1902 after a fistfight broke out on senate, it says you shouldnt personally disparage another senator. I was both a senator and a candidate. I think in general, the senate is one of the most open, debating forums in the history of the world. Robert byrd said there are two great senates and one of the them is the u. S. Senate. And people feel that. And we should be very cautious before we constrict any member of the senate from speaking on issues in a way they choose. You grew up in alabama, and you were a college student. So did you have any experience as expressing minority opinions in your college . What college was this again . Mr. Sessions huntington college. Great place. Did you have any experience being the minority viewpoint in your College Campus<\/a> . Mr. Sessions well, yeah. Huntington is a little methodist, liberal arts college. There were no republicans back then. Somehow, somebody, an english teacher had prevailed on me to start reading the National Review<\/a> and that had become what somewhat conservative in my thinking. But the establishment was the wallace machine, it dominated alabama. So we started our little effort, first time theyd ever had a Republican Club<\/a> on huntington colleges campus, my wife was member too. And so we battled, we campaigned, lost almost every time we campaigned, but and there wasntol, many republicans in the law school bunch, you can be sure. But times changed. Its amazing. Now virtually every statewide elected official in alabama is republican. So i have a sense i have a feel for what its like to stick in there for what you believe. And not kowtow to somebody who has a different view a majority view and they dont want to hear your view. They have a right to not have their mind dominated by, certainly by the government, and nobody else, really. Youre required, all of us are, to use our best judgment, to seek truth and try to do the right thing and full debate, normally clears the air, helps you make better decisions. That certainly was the idea of the founders. I believe its still valid today. Could you tell us more about this initiative that the d. O. J. Is taking that you mentioned in your speech, youre filing a statement of interest in a case . Whats this case . Mr. Sessions its a case about a Christian Group<\/a> that was attempting to express themselves in a way that any Group Promoting<\/a> any agenda, political or religious, we believe, should have been allowed to do. And were improperly, we think, constricted in that right. Constitution provides free speech, right to assemble, right to petition. It also provides the right to Free Expression<\/a> of religion. A little additional right there that is important. So we think that this case came up promptly because its got a deadline. For us to file. We can file a statement of interest without being a party in the case. Its one of the unusual rights that the department of justice has. Federal government has. To file a statement, a brief, without being a party in a case, and we think appropriate to kind of affirm what the proper parameters of free speech are in this at this college in georgia. We know you have to be at engagement and we have to let you go but, maybe the last question can be about this particular event. As you know, there are many protesters, both in front of this building and in the hallway outside this hall, including members of our faculty, who are protesting. This event is being simulcast in a classroom thats outside this auditorium so that everybody else can come, who couldnt come in here, could hear it there. And im wondering if you have any message, since the words are going to convey outside this room, any message to the folks outside this room, any folks to the folks who to whoprotesting and those here in the auditorium today . Mr. Sessions first id like to thank you for the opportunity to be with you. I know this is a talented group indeed or you wouldnt be in this law school. We respect your views, no matter what they are. We will defend your views. And the right to express them in appropriate and effective ways. Certainly the great tradition that this country has founded on. We would call on our universities and administrators and officials to intellectually push back against some of the trends that were seeing today. By which some people seem to think they have a right to block somebody elses beliefs and the expression of those beliefs. I think its a fundamental thing. I think if we teach that, if we teach the very fundamental necessity of that, then fewer people will feel they can have legitimacy by blocking someone elses speech. Particularly on the College Campus<\/a> my heavens sake, college theuses where it should be most. Sakes, youre forming your ideas. Youre thinking things through. It was such a fabulous time for me and i changed in a lot of different ways. Over that period of time. And im sure you will. So we celebrate the diversity of opinion. We celebrate your freedom to ask questions, to push back, to challenge what may be orthodoxy in many different areas. Thats part of americas heritage. And i got to tell you, the American Heritage<\/a> of law and Public Policy<\/a> and the way we approach it is very unique. Ive traveled the globe, ive been in afghanistan. We helped them write a constitution. But professor barnett, they had no heritage of it was written up here but it didnt their lives didnt impact that. So weve been blessed with a heritage that causes us to understand in a more deep way than most people in the world can why freedom is important, why debate is important, why free speech is important. So i would urge you to understand and think about the very uniqueness of this right that we have. Againstd it steadfastly anyone that would dominate somebody in their thoughts and speech, and i believe well be a better and more healthy republic afterwards. Its an honor to be with you. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. We really appreciate you coming. That was a great speech. I really enjoyed it. [applause] announcer cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service<\/a> by americas Cable Television<\/a> companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Life look at the election","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia600803.us.archive.org\/30\/items\/CSPAN_20170927_011200_Attorney_General_Freedom_of_Thought_and_Speech_Under_Attack_on_College...\/CSPAN_20170927_011200_Attorney_General_Freedom_of_Thought_and_Speech_Under_Attack_on_College....thumbs\/CSPAN_20170927_011200_Attorney_General_Freedom_of_Thought_and_Speech_Under_Attack_on_College..._000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240629T12:35:10+00:00"}