Its merely an Administrative Task they lost track of. That doesnt sound like a very credible explanation either, does it . I fear theyre trying to come wake up some way to remand it and give an opening for the pto or give time for the government to renarrow the law and rejustify the results. That would be all i would have to say about the redskins case. It is literally impossible to distinguish from the tam case other than the quality of Workplace Environment and quality accommodation. Theres much to be encouraged about the tam case applying to things like redskins and campus speech and a good marker for hate speech. Just because youre offended doesnt mean you cant ban it. I worry about the hostile environment competing line of cases and where that would go. I guess ill stop there and let you guys have a chance for questions. Theres a lot more i can say about government speech but if anyone cares we will talk about it in the questions. Questions . Two questions although i dont want to put you in a bad position with the second one so you dont have to answer if you dont want to. My first question is the members of the michigan licensing board who made that obviously idiotic decision, are they still in their jobs . Are they still there . The second is my understanding besides the Trademark Office and licensing boards, there is a third problem, a story came out not too long ago about a single bureaucrat inside the u. S. Department of treasury who has to approve has the power to approve every single beer label in the United States. People are saying he makes arbitrary ca patriciatious decisions but everybody in the Beer Industry is afraid to criticize him because he has such absolute power. Do you know his name . I do know his name. Having just recently retired. I have to say, this is the first time after trevors recitation of his bad names feel like my names are sort of boring. You should see what i left out. So i dont know if they are still in that position. I think they are not. From our standpoint, we build our marketing into our label. Theres nothing misleading or unlawful or deceptive about it. These are just liquor commissioners. This has been a problem for decades since prohibition and the states took over the religions of the sa regulation and importation of alcohol. But it is expensive and difficult to sue a state and those are all the challengers. In case youre not aware the ttb, used to be the atf is the prior organization, the tobacco, alcohol tobacco tariff and trade bureau. There is a Single Person that looks at the labels and determines if they meet the legal requirements, statements about health and so forth, and to make sure theyre not obscene. But obscenity is pretty loosely defined these days. When our labels first started coming through there were a lot of questions. After about six years he would see these labels come through his comment to his staff was its that flying dog, stedman stuff, just let it go. But, yeah, its a rather arbitrary capricious process. For decades liquor commissioners across the country have taken it upon themselves to reject labels they dont like. It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It should be like the rule of bob. Bob smith is the law here, whatever his name is. Back in the day, kraft beer was new, it wasnt that exciting from a label standpoint. We viewed beer as liquid art and wanted original art on the label. We had the good fortune to be connected to Ralph Steadman for hunter s. Thompson and been doing it for United States the last 25 years. Its a real infringement on my ability to communicate to my customers if theyre saying you cant call the beer whatever you want to call it. Raging bitch has been our number 1 beer since we released it in 2009. Thats the free market at work. And they are part of the basket of deplorables. We are. Thank you. Lady justice is blind. Our judges are supposed to rule blindly, not judging who is on either side and not putting their personal opinions into the courtroom. Do you feel that now that were not allowed to bring phones into the courtroom, were not allowed to bring computers into the courtroom, there are no cameras into the courtroom, our judges are hiding behind their benches and chambers making a lot of orders, that these two cases ended up the way they did because the judges inflicted their own personal feelings into them . You know more about Court Process than i do. Sure. No is the short answer. The longer version of that is theres audio and transcript of every argument in front of the court. They have to write a Public Opinion justifying their behavior. They get criticized from every direction on the planet. If i had to guess, im not sure the result in the tam case is necessarily the way many of them would have come out as a matter of personal offense. Im guessing a number of them might have been disturbed by the name. Im certain they would have been disturbed by the gazillion other examples given both by the pro football in an amicus brief and trevor and his brief and all of those. Im pretty sure none of the justices were fond of those names. I dont view this as them hiding behind i wasnt asking about the justices, asking about the judges and the Fourth Circuit judges. Fourth circuit, once again, all that audio is up for grabs. Many Circuit Courts actually do have video you can watch the video of that. Once again, theyre subject to massive criticism. I thought you were meaning the lack of courtrooms in the courtroom in the Supreme Court. I was talking more of the first court you went to, the federal court where the case began. Did the judge you feel like he overstepped his boundaries because you had to take to it the Supreme Court and it was overturned. I didnt litigate either of these cases, at least as to the tam case the district level judge, while i wish might have been a little more aggressive in defending the First Amendment, at least, said, look, there is the statute and im going to District Court judges let their generic views of the world and law influence things. Do i think its a bias in any worsens, no, obviously you bring your background to any decision you make. I would have wished a person with a more libertarian background would have made the decision in the first instance. I dont attribute that to the lack of public scrutiny or sunlight. That judge got hammered for these decisions. The Circuit Court, i think, came around and did the right thing in the tam case. In the redskins case, the Circuit Court didnt rule yet, do i think the bureaucrats at the tea tab might be subject to this, yes. Do i think nameless bureaucrats in the executive branch or independent branches think they can get away with stuff because theres less scrutiny on them, definitively yes. As to judges, because i spend most of my time jumping up and down arguing why some trial or circuit judge got it wrong, i think theres sunshine that gets poured onto their bad decisions. First of all, its great panel and thank you all for being here. Eric, im trying to understand the conflict youre seeing in terms of possible hostile Work Environments. The tam case talks about the government being the sensor. And choosing sides when it does not involve government speech. That seems clear. It seems to me, even involving the government, if you take it inside to a workplace setting, even in a government setting they can say reasonable time, restrictions and manner getting done. Theres a lot of stuff a government couldnt sensor that have to go into a Public Library that very clearly would create a hostile Work Environment if you took photos out of a magazine or excerpts out of a book. Im not quite sure im seeing why the governments inability to sensor this stuff when its out there in the public at large. The government censoring it poses a problem to people in the Work Environment. I think in the context of the government saying to a private employer, you will be punished for allowing your employee to display things hostile to a particular race or nationality. Theyre not acting in a regulatory fashion. It wouldnt be employers imposing it on their own, employers imposing their own civility. If you have an employer said its fine to put up redskins posters and i have redskins posters all over and an employee says, thats a hostile Work Environment, the government comes in and says if you dont take that down youre liable to be sued for discrimination to the natives for being hostile to them. The reason im worried alito imed to be hedging his bets about this. You get to page 4 of his opinion, it seems like hes holding it off to the side because he doesnt want to say anything that might threaten hostile environments based on offensive speech. Pick your group, arabs, jews, catholics, blacks, hispanics, whatever it is, you could have a poster in a workplace the boss doesnt force to be removed and the government steps in and we will continue to enforce through the eoc and alitos version of this at least recognizes the tension and does his best to try to preserve it. Thats where i think you could treat the redskins not as a speaker but employer or manager of public accommodation or stadium. At that point, could you have a public accommodation that says down with native americans, native americans are terrible scalping kind of folk . I dont think you could. It would be a hostile environment and you get sued. How does that play out with the redskins and could you go after their trademarks claiming the use of their trademarks is hostile to their environment and customers. Other things coming to johns question, i dont think its what the Fourth Circuit is doing, there is another provision of the map still out there, immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, except for the deceptive part, part of trademark law, but moral is as bad as disparaging and tetering up to fall, too. Question here. Thank you very much, for a great panel. Mr. Caruso, i wanted to ask you as a Business Owner you mentioned you were threatened with criminal prosecution by a government actor. How does that affect your Business Practices and regulations in violation of the First Amendment affect you as a Business Owner and affect society as a whole . I sleep like a baby and wake up every hour crying. Whats interesting, i did make a mistake. Keep in mind the expense to all of this administration. What we received from michigan was a letter without a Registration Number for ther beer. It just slipped through. We didnt know it wasnt approved. In fact the laws on the books are if you ship a beer to michigan and its not registered by the state it is a felony. With 50 or 60 liquor licenses, as you correctly point out individuals, regulators, appointed bureaucrats making these decisions, theres a lot of risk out there in the liquor industry. And a lot of cartels. Sure. You want to ask a question . Please wait for the microphone. I think it should be a big concern to everybody what youre stating everybody could around their workplace create a situation for an owner of a business. Do you think theres a way in order to say that each person who has an office within their space has the freedom to do what they want even if it you know i think thats a real issue i could see people bringing to the eeo in different places and trying to create bigger issues because of the climate were in today. I think theres its not really there but i followed it a bit. From the eeos perspective, the answer is even in your private Little Office space, if other employees come into it you dont have complete freedom. You cant necessarily put up a playboy centerfold or whatever it is you would care to put up. You cant put up your blood soil poster if you wanted to, necessarily, or worse, signs. They would view that as a hostile Work Environment and they would go after you. Does that have free speech implications . Yes. Absolutely. Have we run past those in the last 50 years . Yes. We have. Will we revisit them in the future . Maybe. But i have my suspicions. I think thats ultimately what alitos little last piece is about, by the way were not going to suddenly open up that can of worms again. Once you open that can of worms j thats a big can of worms not just for free speech but freedom of association. We have a lot of big statutes that have some constitutional difficulties if you let that view resurge, not that i think its the wrong view, i say we may not be willing to undo the work of the 60s basically. Thank you. Do you have another question . Yes. I think its great you set up this First Amendment series, your program afterwards, after your experience. Obviously, there appears to be a bit of a disconnect in terms of i realize this is opening a totally new area, free speech on campus and im wondering whether the group that youre now heading up, or this program that talks about the importance of the First Amendment, whether you ever engage with students and kind of what their views are. I do on a regular basis. Earlier this week i gave the keynote speech to hood college. It was on the First Amendment. I participate in free speech events with students for liberty, Young Americans for freedom, ihs, fire on college campuses. It is a really big issue. I think where it gets really confusing is students not understanding the principles of the First Amendment. Why am i optimistic . Its not as if they truly understand the principles and what the five freedoms, what those are, they dont understand it. The second is, this blurring among students of the right to free speech versus the value of civility, courtesy and respect and trying to balance that out. You see that is very very blurry in the mind of students. Whats encouraging, even on campuses that are liberal oriented, is they are open to a better understanding, rights versus values, that you cant equate the two by balancing them out. Yes, i spend as much time as possible. I basically never turn down an opportunity to speak on a college campus. Its inspiring, in spite of the fact it makes me feel like im 100 years old, its an inspiring activity. Please join me in thanking our panelists. We will have a reception outside and you can try some flying dog beer. Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meet tuesday to take a look at laws and regulations pertaining to political advertisements on social media and other platforms. Well have live coverage of that hearing, 2 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Hi. This is lois kim, executive director with the texas folk festival. Er with super excited to have the book festival november 4 and 5 in and around the state capital in downtown austin. Well be welcoming over 300 authors, over 150 panels and expecting a huge turnout of 50,000 on saturday and sunday. Join book tv for the texas book festival live from austin, saturday and sunday, november 4th and 5th. Booktv. Org. Now, the Senate ForeignRelations Committee takes a look at the u. S. Agency for International Development, food for Peace Program and other ways to district food aid more effectively around the world. The witnesses including the acting director of the food for peace office and an official from the Government Accountability office. This hearing is 90 minutes. Our Relations Committee will come to order. We are currently facing an historic humanitarian crisis with over 800 Million People worldwide who are in need of food aid. The United States continues to be the world leader in providing over a third of all emergency food aid, over 2 billion annually. Despite our shortfall there are other donor organizations not meeting the challenge. In next years farm bill operations we want to do more without spending more money. Over half of our food aid is provided through the farm bill with the u. S. Cargo and preference requirements. The farm bill requires aid to be sourced almost entirely from u. S. Farmers, half of which must be shipped on u. S. Flag vessels according to cargo rules. These restrictions result spending as little as 45 to 40 cents a dollar on food. Let me say this one more time. Because of these ridiculous utterly ridiculous requirements, only 35 to 40 cents of each dollar is actually used to provide food to people who are starving. If we relax the commodity preference, the a vital role in the program. And we would free up over 300 million in taxes. To be used to feed up to 9 and a half million more starving people. Each year. One of the major obstacles to modernizing food for peace are those who continue to support and profit from cargo preference rules. Representatives of the shipping industry claim food aid has a Significant Impact on u. S. Jobs and military sea lift capacity to move Defense Materials over seas. Id ask witnesses we have two panels today to provide the committee with facts, analysis and sound research to determine whether this is true. For example the industry argues that 40 ships and 2,000 mariners needed for military sea lift are at stake should we reduce the amount of food aid we ship from the u. S. A simple review of usaid da ta shows in 2016 over 5 u. S. Flag ships ou