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 r