Our moderator is a distinguished widely respected bloomberg columnist covering National Security and Foreign Policy and a Senior Correspondent for newsweek, the daily beast, the new york sun and the washington times. We are thrilled to have his unique perspective to guide todays discussion. The panel is yours. We have a terrific panel to discusdiscuss that so let me stn my far right Deputy Director of the middle east Research Institute since 2002 he served in many capacities including the government Media Relations efforts as the director of the government and Public Affairs and routinely graced major media and about the trend trends and d up in the muslim world including cnn, fox news, wall street journal, nbc and cbc voice of america and numerous other International Media outlets. Here we have christopher the chief counsel of policy for the National Security division of the department of justice serves as the chief of the office of law and policy at the National Security division which provides the legal and policy advice on the National Security issues that confront the department of justice. [inaudible conversations] speaking speaking native you have seen men and women young and old secular and religious on state media an independent social media and then to bridge the language gap last night at the media and the religious content it is an honor to be at this hall that the board of director members know very well former attorney general view kc and former fbi executive director one of the most troubling issues alongside the indoctrination is a phenomenon of antisemitism which is pervasive and deeply rooted in all three of those fears of media, schools and religious institutions. At the same time to amp lists amplify the voices of those in the world who fight back within their society against this hatred we learn closely the only holocaust survivor to serve in the house of representatives of the Foreign Affairs committee. Based on the largest of the world the congressmen brought forward the review act of 2004 with a special envoy to monitor as we begin a project only a tiny sampling of those of white supremacist with that somatic insight and it focuses on three levels of ideological , mapping out organizational relationships to have actionable information that can and is already led and to expose anti semitism for over two decades and now in the west as well is painful for all in these efforts with that shocking context every day children and grandchildren are holocaust survivors. And others like the executive director have a different direct connection growing up in pittsburgh at the tree of life synagogue and knew some of the victims they are so thank you for convening the summit and to call upon us to help to display the scope of progress we hope you visit as a resource for more of the content needed to expose and fight the hatred and we insist of all efforts to do so thank you. [applause] i am with the app here at the department of justice the National Security of division oversees the department prosecution of crimes relating to terrorism we work closely with the fbi and terrorism investigations and the Intelligence Community to include him one include crimes like by isis and domestic terrorism. Terrorist groups like isis and al qaeda are hate groups and they advocate anti somatic violence we are committed to using the counterterrorism tools and expertise to counterterrorist violence and we work closely with the Criminal Division for Crimes Involving hate involve terrorism so the topic of the panel is what is consistent with the First Amendment from our experience with respect to the First Amendment issues on the terrorism side to give our perspective in the legal and policy frameworks for us to counterterrorism we have powerful authorities on the terrorism side with respect to International Terrorism to ensure that its part of the National Security to not only prosecute cases but perform a role with respect to the intelligence communities of surveillance statutes. And that approach involving terrorist conduct and to explain and the internet specifically in those frameworks form this discussion. With the fbi and Intelligence Committee and also the domestic Law Enforcement activity you cannot open an investigation solely on speech of the First Amendment. And with the threat of violence and a threat to National Security. And then to be proactive to identify terrorist threats and then to balance those two things we just cannot monitor conduct and then to be protected by the First Amendment that constitutes violence or incitement of violence or solicitation of crime we have examples where we have pursued this case is over the years and with respect to social media at the department of justice and there is a lot of potential lovehate in 2015 and without foreign interference with russian interference online and then with the social media and the internet and to build their networks and their groups and the Communication Networks are largely domestic to reach a domestic audience with the First Amendment and log legal policy issues and the proper role of the Intelligence Community what we are seeing across the board. So the terrorism investigation involves social media with a encrypted messaging app that was broadcasting messages using public available to encourage those operatives to go offline but then we see that playbook from other types of group including other domestic groups so in addition to investigating crimes through the First Amendment as i just discussed given the limitations working the tech sector to help the public combat terrorism. The social Media Companies are not limited their terms of use but then to be prescribed under criminal laws so that we have developed with those close working relationships with those major providers and that model is monday would likely follow to use social media and other types of problems with those issues that we confronted and not just monitoring the internet we can share that with providers with those threat briefings and it helps them use their own efforts with their own terms of service with their algorithms to identify that is what we had been doing since 2015 and will be doing in connection with foreign interference and we think that has been effective generally we do not make those requests of those specific post store content with those threat briefings and provide information to the providers to more effectively monitor those systems consistent with the terms of service. That we have seen success encouraging fighters to be responsible to monitor the platforms twitter took down 165,000 accounts and facebook report last year was 14 million pieces of content into isis and al qaeda now we see facebook enforcing policies of the white extremist nationalist violent groups. That is the framework that we approached and with that domestic platform the policy historically on the intelligent side they are constrained so you can share information but isnt on monitoring but but to be seeing connections to that group and that activities to those in the United States leading to those investigations and terms of the authorities and roles of the proper government but for the government to have strong partnerships of Civil Society and is important so as long as you are not being threatening or demanding they attack take action along with that context and with that domestic speech than International Terrorism that the framework in these areas. [applause] and to his knowledge the considerable work of my colleague. And then also to be on the panel this morning and government officials and then with those with religious persecution. And to advance religious freedom. And then to combat research of antisemitism. And then to han to many of us of the dangers of hate and then the history of repeating itself 2019 but the answer is no there is a host of reasons why those challenges are different and during historys darkest hour. And then for those in this room. But in the end there are some simple reasons to happen because nobody cared enough to stop it not United States of america or family or friends uss st. Louis was not given refuge in the early nazi laws were received only through international protest. But somehow only more important to prioritize. And with the department of justice ambassador to london at the Second World War that the business of Law Enforcement apparatus most important nation in the world to fight antisemitism will be addressed by the top officials in the administration clearly not 1939 but it is the year 2000 when that violent wave struck france and government officials refused to acknowledge the issue for that importation in 2015 the Uk Labour Party which for generations through that anti summative in some and then to free the current one flee the country. And 2019 and germany for a nation that has an everything right to make amends for the holocaust. Because then with those that it could endanger their safety but here at home after pittsburgh and 2019 is cause enough for concern. What we do now as a nation and one out of three say they have been harassed when 80 percent say they dont reported to the police because they dont feel anything would change and then site themselves as jewish. It has always been different in the Jewish Community feels the brothers and sisters in europe and then to combat and ties summative sum that runs counter to the nations values to protect the right to free speech i would like to touch him as chief sources of the global and domestic perspective the balance between protecting jews and political speech for over 15 years to identify three primary sources of anti summative is a one anti semitism from those extremist ideologies in the name of islam. From the right is what many of us recognize he is easily jews are not loyal americans and yet we have twice witnessed the deadly consequences and then to allow that to cloak in the anonymity it provides to their share Polite Society from farflung communities to a god the violent and disturbed to see jews as their primary enemy in that white supremacist worldview africanamericans to demean and the professor of sociology at university of dayton says anti semitism that the worldview from its creation the murderous attacks in america the last nine months were rooted in this sector from the left again seen as the community and to be clear it often comes massive criticism with the state of israel it does not deserve any protection from criticism of policy decisions and with the Israeli Press as they go through the election time for the second time in six months so when they have their loyalty as americans questions and impossible standards are applied but cartoons that do not look out of place with that sinister power in the New York Times and something more nefarious taking place we see this in many aspects which i know we will discuss later today i recognize some supporters believe themselves to be advocates for the palestinian cause. That is the notion there should be no jewish state. And then the most hateful way. And then to ignore the rights of the speakers to speak up for bigotry for the country. And then to exercise on those College Campuses and that is echoing of europe and then for their own personal safety that one cannot have an honest conversation to be propagated in the name of islam. With that extremist interpretation since sixth out mom every account was by the islamic extremist. To have friends and family and i have no doubt they want nothing to live in peace and harmony to want nothing but to live in peace and harmony with their fellow citizens and then to be clear eyed about the radical islamist ideology. The sources outline briefly those three principal should play a role to define that to protect free speech. First though community has benefited more than the values and freedoms provided by the First Amendment by the Jewish Community. It is the First Amendment that has allowed the jewish people and other parties to flourish in the american experiment you are no longer tolerated by benevolent rulers that the in shrine rights to avoid having religion established upon us. Every assertion of free speech protection and these topics can and should be debated but it should not be framed to choose between pick and choose of the First Amendment. Ironically to feed into the anti semitic notion to control speech far more important to protect the First Amendment is the protection of memory rights. Next the best answer is good speech and what we say matters more than how we legislate and in order to combat antisemitism those that take out their political opponents for heating views must be criticizing their own set of allies to conclusively demonstrate that is it within their own ranks is unacceptable that is why groups like the Bipartisan Congressional Task force colon antisemitism are so important that is why the newly formed black jewish caucus addresses issues between these two communities. We can and should discuss the laws and educational standards the working definition of anti semitism. But in the end the battle for ideas in the reassertion in a very real way. Finally other nations have different conceptions of the global struggle. A french diplomat was a visiting fellow for the center of International Studies the must each acknowledge freedom of expression differs on democracies every country in the world admits free speech may be necessary to protect other freedoms and Human Dignity from those cultural reasons democracies look at balance a bit differently than the United States public promotion of nazi ism or antisemitism is considered legal illegal in all European Countries is no longer sufficient to say america is different from europe and the global struggle we need to spend more time talking with other nations finding Common Ground to our approach the conversations will not be easy but the mark of democracy owes no less dont travel on the First Amendment to go up against many european ideas but a global struggle requires a global strategy and misconceptions cannot be ignored thank you for this invitation look forward to participating in my sincere thanks to the Justice Department for convening this program. [applause] to thank you to the attorney general and the Justice Department for putting together this daylong conference on antisemitism now to speak to the most successful policy initiatives or Legal Initiatives with anti semitism those that we just saw that our calls it is more difficult to deal with with the mantle of human rights discussion. Over the last four years 27 american states have adopted laws and what they say and what they state they do not prohibit anybody from boycotting israel but they do say it is a form of bigotry and discrimination 27 states have classified as actions call them discriminatory bigoted and they will not lose certain kinds of business if they Boycott Companies or people simply because of their affiliation with israel and then have a connection with the state of israel. This has been an extraordinary wave of legislation that shows deep american policy between bigotry and anti summative is one antisemitism and individuals based not on what they have done but their affiliations and connections in israel and starting with South Carolina and illinois this has swept the nation in extraordinary ways. So add a moment were so many things including matters related to this and Everything Else are seen as polarizing, divisive by republicans and democrats and everything here in the city the anti boycott laws are extraordinarily bipartisan and in all 27 states overwhelmingly bipartisan and the overwhelming majority. So republicans and democrats across the country say refusing to do business with someon someone, discriminatory refusal to deal because of their connections to israel , that is something discriminatory enough we dont want our state taxpayer money to subsidize that activity. Even the laws some states will not do business or do contracts if they are engaged in saying that the state will not invest their pensions if they do not divest. But the understanding one of the most important things a message that they send. Too often those who wish to discriminate on israeli origin or nationality try to take for themselves the language of human rights to say we are not discriminating but we are boycotting we