Transcripts For CSPAN Press Freedom And Radicalism 20150301

CSPAN Press Freedom And Radicalism March 1, 2015

Moved forward since that event. This is 40 minutes. I am going to have two introduce a little bit to make sure that everyone understands the order of the day. Im going to ask, who as you probably already know, is the editorial director and columnist and contributing writer to the New York Times and then im going to ask to follow on all of us i hope everyone in journalism knows, if you have a problem with the First Amendment, you call and there really is no number two. You just call floyd abrams. And then to sort of talk about the elephant in the room and really bring us to the point of understanding what the problem is, what the underlying problem is and where things are going and im hoping theres a lot of cross dialogue. Im going to ask each person to speak for about five minutes to set the stage. Syl, yeah, will tell us what is going on and what the problems are, from her perspective. Ill let floyd outline the differences and similarities between our idea and america of Free Expression and perhaps a french notion which may be different in some respects. And then finally, bret. With no further ado, sylvie, can you let us know what you think . Sylvie thank you very much and thank you for having me here. Its always a great to come back to new york where i have spent five of probably the most enjoyable years of my life. I will go straight to the point. We have a very serious situation in france at the moment. I would like to remind you of a basic fact to start with, which is that france has the biggest Jewish Community in europe and the biggest Muslim Community in europe. So i used to say we have our own little middle east in france. Weve had tensions at various times. You may remember in 2003, 2004, during the iraqi invasion in the war, you know, there were a lot of tensions in the middle east and they immediately reflected in france there was, at that time, a rise in antisemitic incidents. So there have been that kind of periods where also during the gaza, in the Israeli Offensive in gaza last year. Also, we had a lot of tensions in france. But the january attacks have really brought us to a new level and i think since these attacks we have reached a crucial point. I have written that these attacks were a direct assault on our identity because they targeted several pillars of this french identity, as i see it free speech diversity, the targets were very obvious, the cartoonists who had drawn those drawings of muhammad. Jews targeted as jews and killed as such. And Security Force members. Also, most of the victims of those attacks over the past couple of years, most of the Security Forces who have been targeted in various attacks have been men and women who had diverse ethnic background or religious or muslim background and this is not a coincidence, of course. So we are now forced to confront the danger and the threat that has been there and we knew it was there but the intensity and voracity of the attacks in january just have made us look squarely at the problem. Now, how do we confront this threat . Again, i will go straight to the point, there is no simple answer, and we are struggling with it. We are struggling as a nation and struggling as a society. The government is struggling. The Security Forces are struggling, you may have read the report in todays New York Times about how the intelligence work was a challenge by this and also a big investigation published two days ago in le monde addressing these issues. Schools are struggling. Teachers find themselves with new burden. Churches are struggling. The media is also struggling. So this is the situation right now. There are positive elements. The rally of january 11th was something extraordinary by all standards and also the solidarity expressed on that day. I was there. I was myself personally and totally surprised by the size of the crowd and its behavior. And people demonstrated a fresh responsibility and maturity. The spirit of the crowd, it was an act of perserverance, and it is definitely something we have to build on even though we dont know yet exactly how to build on it concretely. We have this famous slogan, je suis charlie, which very quickly was followed by all of this debate about and we very quickly found out that a lot of people in france did feel that they were so this is another respect of the debate and ill come back to this later. Another positive element in this terrible rise of antisemitism that we have witnessed lately is that french jewish organizations have broken thats the step that they have taken. They have traditionally stuck to israeli policy and they have broken with this line by saying no to Prime Minister netanyahus call to Mass Immigration for jews from france. People have been shocked by this and french jews, most of them, i mean, those who have expressed themselves, have been shocked by this call, and have very openly said that they feel that there that they are in their place in france and they dont want to that they shouldnt leave. Another positive element was the much smaller but its a sign was spontaneous demonstration yesterday by high School Students. This place, this town where a Jewish Cemetery was vandalized by five teenagers, 15yearolds, 16yearolds. We dont know the extent of their motivations but apparently they have been charged with this morning, they were charged with im not sure in english what the charge is but their motivation was antisimetic. So several hundred School Students took the streets to show solidarity, i think that is something worth pointing at, yet we have huge challenges and to name just a few, one is to stop antisemitism without giving way to standards within the Muslim Community. This is something which is a huge issue in france. Debate. One question you hear everywhere in schools, in workplaces, is how come Charlie Hebdo is a allowed to publish critical material and articles on the prophet . Of course, they published about many other religions but this is what is being addressed and, at the same time, a standup comedian who criticizes who attacks the jews in his shows is being charged, being detained and charged with glorification . Why is there a doublestandard with this . One thing the government is planning to do is to launch a National Plan against racism and antisemitism declaring it a national cause. It should be done they are working on it right now. It was something which was planned but they are taking it forward to launch it in february. This will involve education educational programs, security repression programs, also. And also, regulation of the internet. I dont know exactly we dont know what does that mean concretely. I think well go back to this issue because i think its a very important one but this is one of the things which are one of the issues which have been raised. Another thing we have to do, in my view, is to open a debate about one of the most difficult things we have to do. We i hope we succeed. But at the moment its proving extremely difficult because its one of the main pillars of french culture and identity but its drawing from a 1905 law when we didnt have a Muslim Community, of course, so a lot of people feel that there has a change has to be brought or maybe some opening. But at the same time, we dont want to be giving way just because there have been terrorist attacks. So this is another very complex issue. It is new. We are pretty much in unchartered territory here and you can feel that theres this feeling that something has to be done to open this debate, but its a very difficult one to open. Last thing, freedom of speech. Since the january attacks, we have heard a lot about these where i will not go in depth into this because there are more distinguished panelists on this issue here. But just to name a few issues which have been raised in the context of freedom of speech, the cartoons, of course religion, how do we address, how do we treat all of these issues without betraying our faith in the freedom of speech, there is a strong tradition in france of criticism to of religion which goes back to the 18th century, to the enlightment, and, yes, there are issues of sensitivity to other religions to, different religions but yet we cannot be seen as bowing to the threat of terror. This is an issue that the french feel very strongly about and the polls have shown it. Between censorship and selfcensorship, i think there will be selfcensorship, at least i prefer it. That brings us to the dimension of free speech which i think is important if we compare the situation in this country and in europe, particularly in france, there are cultural limitations to free speech and there are legal limitations to freedom of speech. In europe, we do have a lot of legal limitations. But thats i think that stems from our history. And last thing, i mentioned it already, the internet. The french government has been saying since the attacks that there is an issue with the internet, with this material circulating on the internet. It is if you start to look at it it is just terrifying and sickening what is going on on social networks and anywhere. But we havent had many details on what the government is planning to do. You also have here i see this debate about how to involve the hightech companies in trying to regulate this. I think were just seeing the beginning of this debate but its in my view, its one of the most important debates. Thank you. Bret thank you very much. [ applause ] floyd thanks. Its a real honor to be here. And its a special fit, i think to be at an organization that deals with french and American Relations and the like. We wouldnt have the First Amendment if an American Ambassador to france, a man called thomas jefferson, had not written to James Madison at the time the constitution was being drafted, and saying to him basically that he would not support the constitution if there was no bill of rights attached to it. And jefferson wrote that it was necessary to have a bill of rights which clearly and without the aid of sophisms protect freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the like. And really but for jeffersons strong view to that effect, we very well might have might not have the constitution that we have, let alone any bill of rights. The argument to the contrary is it was not necessary and therefore it ought not to have been added. I thought i had mentioned three areas of american First Amendment law which bear on what sylvie was just referring to, three sort of core First Amendment principles. The first of which is that, as one Great American scholar put it, the first principle of First Amendment law is that there is no heresey, no blasphemy in america. People may feel, think, conclude that others have such views but the law does not recognize the the notion of blasphemy or certainly the heresy which is not to say that at the time of the founding of the country that there were not some state laws to that effect. Indeed, there were a few left but they were not enforced and they are, as we say, unconstitutional. The second is that we dont have any ban which is constitutional on what is called hate speech. Some of the sorts of speech that were just referred to in the previous presentation. When jimmy carter was president , an International Covenant was drafted on political and civil rights, which was basically signed by leaders of every democratic country. And one of the provisions was that countries were obliged to take steps, to take action, to prevent hateful speech based on race, religion, or the like. President carter signed it and attached what is called a reservation to it, a very important reservation which said that, as far as the United States was concerned, this was of course subject to the bill of rights, which is another way of saying, we wouldnt do it. We would not have legislation because it would be unconstitutional if we were banning a speech because it was hateful against some religion, against some race, or the like. And the third principle is that we dont allow what has come to be known as a hecklers veto which is speech that is involved and otherwise protected speech. The fact that some in our society are not only troubled by it, but angered by it, and maybe even lead to a response illegally, violently to it is not a basis for banning it, that we will not give heckler, so to speak, ultimate control over what is said. And what is not. Now, very recent articles prompted by the murderous events in paris, you know, have sort of asked hypothetical questions how much do we really mean that . Suppose someone were to say, im going to kill hostages unless you stop saying x. I think the odds are that our Supreme Court would still say that were not going to let criminals decide what can be said and what not. That said, i dont mean to address this as if its an easy issue. At a time a few years ago when a preacher in florida said he was going to burn the koran, you may remember that the secretary of defense personally called him on the phone and asked himm not to. That there were riots in pakistan, that people were killed, and Justice Bryer commenting off the record said that might constitute the clear and present danger which could justify even under american law a limitation on the person doing it. I dont think hes right. I dont think the court would say that that would be the law but these are not easy issues. For an american lawyer, its very interesting to compare it to our law, to french law. French law is more complicated. I use the word deliberately. Looking at my wife here, i recall a trip that she and i made to istanbul once from paris, and we were talking to a french diplomat, it was the time of gary hart running for president and getting in all kinds of trouble because of personal activities of his and we were chatting about it and he said to me, you know, we dont understand in france why youre making such a big deal about who gary hart had sex with. Our Prime Minister has a very complicated personal life, he said. Well compared to american First Amendment law, france has a more complicated law with respect to this area. As the last presentation makes clear, france is a country that believes and treasures the freedom of speech. At the same time, it has far greater limitations on freedom of speech than we do. And sometimes those limitations make for very difficult decision making. After world war ii, france passed legislation basically abolishing all the vichy legislation and reinstating in 1939 a law which prohibited racist and antisemitic speech. It did that for obvious reasons. France is one of many European Countries that makes it illegal to engage in the denial of the holocaust. French law basically distinguishes and im reading here because it is so difficult and complicated to draw lines in this area but basically distinguishes between insulting a religion as a whole and saying things which, quote, provokes discrimination, hatred or violence, unquote. The problem is, the first can cause the second or at least be involved in the second. So its very difficult to make the distinction and us that one and that is one of the reasons that i think the question of dual standards comes up repeatedly in france, why are you prosecuting the antisemitic comedian and you allow or indeed celebrated at least after the murders what the mocking publications said about muhammad. And that is a consequence of a choice that Different Countries makes of these very difficult issues, which come about because of our very different histories, the different turmoils, the different way weve seen our countries behave in one way or another. Im not here to predict how we would react here if the next what ill call paris or come pen or copenhagenlike event is here. Usually the first place to go is to limit speech, in those circumstances. Its almost easier to do that than to take the circumstances which you hope will prevent events like this from happening in the future. In any event, there are real differences and real similarities and both countries do have and act as a matter of law on the basis that they care a lot about broad freedom of expression. Whatever the potential consequences of it. Because there are always potential consequences. A final thought, it always seemed to me, its sort of interesting that here where we have more Legal Protection for speech, we dont have a lot of the publications that countries have more severely limiting free speech have. We dont have a publication like Charlie Hebdo and people would say, you know, its in bad taste, its offensive, its, you know, simply often, you know trying to stick a finger in the eye. Our law protects journalists far more than is the in england say, but our journalists dont engage in hacking. Our journalists routinely behave according to the law at least better than the tabloid journalists. And in england, notwithstanding or perhaps a harder question because of the more stringent laws that exist in that country. Its stuff thats worth talking about on a panel. Thank you. [applause] thank you, floyd. So brett stevens, can you take the podium and just while youre going up acknowledge that you won the Pulitzer Prize and the a prize as a foreign columnist. Just to set the stage. Tell us what you really think. Bret i singlehandedly took down osama bin laden. [laughter] well, thank you. Its a great honor to be here before this audience with this foundation and, above all, to share the stage or the table at least with such distinct panelists. Im going to be brief. I agree with sylvie entirely. I think of the events in paris as a watershed moment not just for the french but really ought to be for all of us, especially here in the U

© 2025 Vimarsana