Stonewalled, and a former cbn news correspondent. Kirsten so great to be speaking with you. Welcome. Thanks, great to be talking to you too. Start with a couple of definitions right off the top here. What would you say is a liberal and what would you say is a conservative . Well, just to be clear, my book isnt a liberal versus conservative book but i would just say liberal, when i use those terms i mean liberal is somebody who is left of center and conserve it is somebody who is right of center. I think you can, there is not, every conservative doesnt believe the same things every liberal doesnt the believe the same things. But they will share some basic ideas about, i think the role of government in the world. I think liberals tend to see the role of government being more positive force for booed. I think conservatives see it being more of the problem. And so your book talks about what you called the illiberal left. I will just read part of one paragraph. You said with no sense of irony or shame, the illiberal left will enguide racist, misogynist of homophobic attacks of their own to delegitimatize people who dissent from already decided world view. That seems to be basic theme behind the book. Can you elaborate on that a little bit . The. Right, i called them the illiberal left to distinguish them from liberals, i consider myself a liberal. I think there are most liberals are very principled and do still value the idea of free speech and dissent and debate and arent seeking to silence people and illiberal left on other hand while they may, i probably share a lot of, if not most of their policy goals and, policy positions, when it comes to tactics and tolerance for differing ideas that is where we part ways. And what they do is very illiberal in the sense they try to shut down debate and they try to silence people. And is the point of the book, that they use differing tactics to silence people. One of them is what you just talked about they will while at the same time be complaining about misogyny, they and calling people who they disagree with misogynists, prolife people for example are misogynists. Not that they care for the unborn but at the same time they will turn around and launch a misogynist attack against a conservative woman because they want to delegitimatize her. They dont want her to be seen as somebody should be listened to in the public square. When this sort of realization as you describe yourself pretty much, a lifelong liberal when did this realization what you view as separation between sort of the truer traditional left and illiberal left come about in your mind . Or was it sort of a gradual thing . I think it was gradual. Then all of a sudden. It was one of those things that was happening and then something happened in the last couple of years i think a lot of people started to notice there is this level of intolerance that is pretty unprecedented and i started to notice it. I moan the first time i noticed it actually, i wouldnt have been able to put it in the paradigm i have it in now, this silencing now this socalled war on fox news. I have a whole chap other in the book about that where the Obama Administration came out pretty quickly after the president obama was elected, announced fox news was not a legitimate News Organization and went on, you had white house chief of staff and anita dunne, Communications Person in the white house, all the various Senior White House Administration firms going on news shows and telling reporters and anchors fox news was not legitimate. They were not going to treat it as legitimate and neither should other media. That really struck me as a very unusual thing to be happening for a white house to be doing for the government to be doing, to be deciding what is legitimate news out let and not a legitimate news outlet. It was obvious if george bush had done this it would be a authoritarian. And when obama did it there were people in the media who pushed back against it, but for the most part, you know, they got away with it. It is interesting to hear you describe silencing what you sort of have seen in the last couple years, as journalist i work for cbs used same language describing to colleagues and family what we talked about it, a trend wanting both side or many sides of a story to be discussed which is understandable to this increasing idea certain stories should be censored entirely or silenced entirely. And you talk about it in the beginning of the book start with a anecdote, talk about smith college. Sin no size that what it plains in big picture. It is telling story. Wendy kamner, making a case at smith alumni event. Having a panel to talk about, i think it was called idealogical echo chamber. To combat that in academia. She was tackling the idea of trying to ban certain books from colleges that use words are offensive. Mark twain using the nword. Trying to make the point in this context of great literature this is something we should be able to tolerate. Not the same thing as using a racial epithet against another person. Doing so she said to the audience, we say the nword, what do you think of when you hear the nword, they said the full word. See, she said the full word and were all okay. You know, is that something i would have done . I dont think so. But i understand what she was doing. She was trying to make a point there that was about ability to hear things upsetting and it was good for education to do that. That was reported by the newspaper as racialized violence. People were shocked this smith alumni used racist comments just completely cast what she had said, im not going to say they misinterpreted it. They took what she said, they know what she said and turned it into an act of violence. And, created this firestorm and really sneered somebody who is, probably aligned with them on most issues and compared her to you know basically having committed a hate crime. And these are the kinds of stories that are throughout my book. That easy to roll your eyes crazy students of the we cant do that. We have to take things seriously because it is absolutely stifling to free speech. It is absolutely silencing to people. If they are not going to be able to make a very clear argument without having their reputation completely destroyed. You introduced me to something new in your book, talking about the smith incident, when the campus paper ran the story transcript of the event, headline backlash follows use of racial slur. Then at top it said, trigger content warnings. Racism racial slurs, antisemitic language, islamophobic language, misogynist slurs references to race based violence and references to antisemitic violence contained in the transcript. Talk about trigger content warnings on campus are all about. This is a move to basically warn students, if they are going to encounter something that could possibly quote, unquote trigger them and triggering is a word that is associated with people who have ptsd. So somebody who might perhaps, they were at war, in iraq and hear a loud noise and triggers their ptsd they are literally comparing and encountering a reference to something in literature or conversation to that. That they actually being so triggered by it and they have been demanding that they are put on syllabus so students can opt out of going to certain classes. They should be able to, they shouldnt, professor shouldnt hold it against things. Shouldnt read anything in reference to colonialism sexism suicide. They believe they shouldnt have to encounter that. One of the, one of the worst examples of this i talk a professor at yale who teaches criminal law and she is about how, she, when she teaches rape law, in that section of the course that the womens groups have told these students that they basically have a right to come up and demand trigger warnings before and not have to attend the class. And, it has gotten so bad, that she says, she has heard from criminal law professors all across the country who actually decided to stop teaching rape law because it is becoming so controversial. Who does that harm . That harms women who are raped. What happens to the little darlings when they graduate from college and life doesnt come with trigger warnings . Well im a little i think were going to find out you know . I think they have gotten to the point where they believe that they shouldnt have to hear things or confront things that upset them. And this is a oneway street. This does not by the way apply to conservative students. Doesnt apply to prolife student who would be perhaps triggered by seeing prolife demonstration. Nor should it. Not saying it should. Oneway street. Professor at university of santa barbara, california is triggered by a prolife demonstration, therefore has to attack a student. But, id like to see how that would work out if it was prolife professor who was triggered about i a prochoice demonstration and attack ad prochoice student. I think it would play out very differently. We might discuss that further in just a moment but im wondering if you sense i didnt get through the whole book before this was scheduled maybe you will address it, but do you sense this is organized effort, for example the trigger warnings on campus because spreading from campus to campus, a grassroots organized effort by student who really feel this way or is there a money effort or National Advocacy force behind this, going campus to campus or to the professors and making this happen . Do you know . I havent seen anything like that behind it. I dont think it is orchestrated in some sort of a broad there is somebody up above orchestrating it. But there is a sort of a systemic way it is done in every situation. So, the systemic way the silencing is done that they, they delegitimatize the people who are expressing ideas, that they dont like, and they delegitimatize certain ideas not being worthy of debate. We all heard the debate is over on certain things. The way they do that, they demonize people and dehuman eyes them and that is consistent across the board in every instance. That is how it goes down. That it is it is never about the idea. It is never a debate about an idea. It is never treated if there could potentially be two sides that come together to debate it. It is treated that this is illegitimate and we will silence anybody who tries to talk about it. So some people listening right now are probably at point, im sure youve been asked this theyre saying what makes you not a conservative . You still describe yourself as libral but way youre speaking about criticism against some liberal practices what you see as illiberal practices makes you sound like a conservative but you still identify with liberal ism . Yeah. People do ask me that. I dont really understand the question, to me a liberal is more about my idealogical or political views. If you go down the line ask me where i fall on immigration or raising taxes on the rich or opposing the iraq war and those issues, i supported obamacare, those, im not going to change my position on those things because there are people like this, the illiberal left behaving this way. It is not idealogical what theyre doing. It is tactical. It is not they believe something radically different than i do about the policies that the government should be adopting. It is that i support samesex marriage. Im on their side on that. So it is not about that. It is about the fact that i dont believe that i have a right to silence people and delegitimatize them for having different views. I think that we, we live in a culture or at least we used to live in a culture we were able to disagree with people and have relationships with them and debate things and have dissent and allow for this very rich diversity in our country and it frightens me frankly i feel were headed towards a place where we are no longer debating things. Maybe the idea is born of the things of which you speak in the book. The idea that if youre going to criticize anything about certain liberals that you cant yourself being a liberal. That is what you talk about in the book. Yeah. Absolutely. What has been the response that you have gotten so far . I know it is very early . Are you surprised . I dont know what the response has been tell us the response of the book has been and were you prepared for it . I obviously when youre writing a book like this and you see whats happening you know i expected to have blowback. I expected character assassinations. Seen them do it to other people. Seen them do it to you, in fact. You do expect it. I still think when it happens to you for some reason it is still surprising especially because one of the attacks ive gotten im actually a homophobe and i dont support samesex marriage or gay rights because im defending people like i talk in the book about brendan who was forced out of his job as ceo because he had given money to an antisamesex marriage initiative. And the fact that defend his right to have that view and to make that private donation to something i dont support. I do not support proposition eight. The fact that i do that that makes me a homophobe. So beyond the pale that i guess i am still surprised by it. Even though i said i wrote a book bit. Another thing i think is really important to point out is that this is not a book about conservatives being victimized. It is about all kinds of people being victimized. You dont have to be a a conserve to be silenced. What you have to be is somebody who is questioning one of the liberal sacred cow issues or criticizing somebody that they dont want you to criticize. And they dont care if youre a liberal. Dont care if youre moderate democrat. They dont care if you have any political views. That doesnt make a difference. What makes a difference you are saying something you they dont want said and dont want to have a debate about the. I heard it said in that context people feel the sides have switched. That sort of suppression of thought was associated with conservatives and republicans. Now many people associate that instead with liberals i dont think that is partisan thing. I think positions in minds of many people have switched inexplicably. You talk about mccarthyism. In essence i think mccarthyite impulse has come full circle. What do you mean by that. Yeah. And i do talk a lot about in the book very rich history of liberalism and free speech in this country. One people say to me, you mean classical liberalism . No. I mean it is class al liberalism but it is american liberalism and our understanding of free speech in this country comes be indisputably directly from very hard work of liberals and leftists at the university of california, at berkeley. The free speech movement. The Supreme Court justices who were liberal Supreme Court justices being cited by conservative Supreme Court justices really helped shape our conception of untrampled free speech, a very, i think a pretty purview. The aclu did very important work that was opposed by conservatives. They were attacked by conservatives when they were defending nazis being able to walk through a neighborhood with holocaust survivors. Then of course, i do talk about joe mccarthy, which frankly a lot of the attacks im getting right now remind me of joe mccarthy. Guilt by association. The fact that im speaking to conservative outlets. The fact that i excerpts that were run in conservative outlets is somehow proof of something. Theyre not engaging me on the issue. It is more trying to say, you are actually, ive been accused of being paid by the heritage foundation. I have never taken a dime from the heritage foundation. Even if i had im not sure what it has to do with anything. The these tactics, that they use, just to absolutely try to silence any kind of debate that they dont want to hear. What is your affiliation with fox news . Are you contributor . Yeah. Im a contributor. Ive been a contributor at fox for 10 years. Do you feel though mayed you an outlyer in some respects i think you were providing at the time liberal viewpoints or counter points to things . Were you seen in some respects as traitor by illiberal left for even going to fox . Oh, sure. The book is not about me. I dont have that much in there but there are couple places i recount things that have happened. Misogynist attacks by Keith Olberman when he was at height of his power at msnbc, for me working at fox news. And it is just, this, it is, i think for people who watch fox news it seems very strange because it is quite clear my views are liberal and isnt the idea im not supposed to be there i have a different view is kind of nonsensical. But it fits very much in this silencing idea which is, we dont need to engage with people. We need to delegitimatize them. And so we need to shun them. This is word that they use. We need to shun them an make them not, you know not acceptable to the rest of the society. I just disagree with that i think that we should be debating topics and we should be talking to people that disagree with us. You mentioned a moment ago the attack by a professor at university of california upon, i think a 16yearold carrying a prolife sign. Yeah. That the professor found offensive. Can you recount that incident and again what that tells us about the trends today . Yeah. So, this was a demonstration of, at the university of california santa barbara. It was the students didnt go to the school. They went to nearby school. The 16yearold was sister of one of the College Students that were there. They had a big sign of a fetus of a bloodied fetus. It was quite graphic. And they said that they have that sign as a way to, try to start conversations, they want to start having conversations with people and the professor came over and started berating them. I interviewed the girl that was attacked and another one of the demonstrators. It was all in the book. It is very alarming, the story that they tell of being bullied by this professor who ultimately stole the sign from them and when, when the six teen year old went after they are to get the sign back she attacked her and they ended up calling the police. Professor was arrested. In the Police Report she portrays herself as victim. Police officer is, keeps say to you, i dont understand what is it that you think they did that would justify you attacking them . And she just, they, i was harmed by them. Setting it up she is unsafe because there is something there that she doesnt want to see, she was triggered. By seeing this. And she was, she even says she was setting good examples for students who are with her. Never been publicly censored. She has been defended. I quote a lot of different professors who came to her defense. And, and she still works, she still works there. I thought it was to hear your description that people stood up for her and said she was actually a wonderful professor and very kind person though some of her actions have been captured on video that seemed to say otherwise in this particular incident. You said you didnt doubt she functioned very well as long as she was surrounded by likeminded people but not presented with ideas that disagreed with her world view . Right, yeah. I think people will look at this, if you looked at story, if you didn