Sustaining us is made possible by Fireheart Entertainment and viewers like you.

Thank you.

Hello.

Thanks for joining us, for sustaining us here on Cox Public Media.

I'm David Nazar On July 13th, 2024, an assassin tried to kill President Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and nearly succeeded.

And you know, that's a little bit old.

That chart that charts a couple of months old.

And if you want to really see something that said, take a look at what happened over.

There.

Let me say our home.

When you're ready.

Are you ready?

Whoop whoop whoop.

Hi, guys.

You're on the.

Are you ready?

Oh, no.

We're good.

So she was down.

Are we got to move more?

We're.

We're here.

Okay.

Come on.

Let me get my shoe.

Let me get my shoes.

I got you.

Let me get my shoes.

Hold on your head, buddy.

So we got a commuter bus.

Let me get my.

Shoes.

Let's go.

Wait wait, wait.

Oh!

Okay.

So this failed assassination attempt was shockingly just millimeters from certain death as the bullet hit President Trump's ear.

As we all witnessed in the now iconic video.

In the aftermat of this assassination attempt, this political violence.

Much has been said in both the liberal and conservative media about why this happened, as political partie offer their own talking points, as both liberal and conservatives give their own opinion.

Now, wherever you are on the political map, wherever your political ideology, a the very least we can all agree.

Words have consequences.

Words like kill Trump.

Trump is Hitler.

Trump is racist.

Seems anything goes these days where speech is concerned.

So what exactly is free speech and what is hate speech?

Certainly there is no shortage of vitriolic words being said these days about both President Trump and President Biden.

For Biden, things like Biden is senile, Biden is incompetent, Biden is corrupt.

And certainly the debate ove free speech versus hate speech takes on new life these days as polarizing events continue to divide us, continue to pour gasoline on an out-of-control fire.

And this is not just about Trump or Biden.

There are other polarizing divides, for example, 2024 Supreme Court decision with threats and hate messages for some of the Supreme Court justices over their rulings.

There is a divide over th Israel-hamas War as anti-Israel, pro-Palestine protesters campe out at universities and cities shouting and carryin their signs of hate toward Jews.

Muslims and immigrants say they've been targeted.

Yes, we have our constitutional rights.

However, where do we draw the line over free speech versus hate speech?

Joining me now to discuss this issue is an American icon in the field of law.

And there is no better person to talk about this subject.

Dean Chemerinsky, we're going to get to Trump and hate speech in just a moment.

First, though, let me take just a second to kind of set the stage for this interview.

Dean Chemerinsky I was introduced to your constitutional law, your federal law expertise.

Many years ago.

You were on just about every TV news station in Southern California.

In the mid 90s, you were providing expert commentary about the O.J.

Simpson trial.

Fast forward to today.

Obviously, so much has happened since then that has continued to divide us, continue to divide the races, the political ideology, divide religions.

Now, in the early part of 2020 for your university dean, Berkeley University was on of the many campuses nationwide, just a firestor for those massive anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian protesters, the encampments, the arrests, all that.

This got even more personal for you, Dean, when during that spring, you and your wife hosted a dinner for your Berkele law students at your own home.

And here's what happened.

Hi.

Assalamualaikum.

Warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

Peace and blessings upon you all.

Tonight we are gathered here in the name of commemorating our final few weeks as students.

This is my house and I'm also the last night of the holy month of Ramadan, where millions of Muslims around the world are not only from so not.

It's not only from.

Us.

We have attorneys.

We.

Okay You don't have to categorize me.

I, I have you requested our house.

This is our First Amendment right?

No, no, this is the Lawyers Guild has informed.

This is our First Amendment right.

And they are aware of this.

They are not wrong.

This is my house.

This is my house.

You no longer welcome here.

You are not welcome.

Okay.

You can call the police.

No, I don't, our police.

I'm getting a police.

Stop answering her.

Just please leave.

If you don't want to be here, leave my house.

I'm here.

Please leave my house.

If you don't want to be here, this is your night.

Yes.

You are not invited for this purpose.

We are talking about Ramada and the holy month of Ramadan.

As Muslim students, we refuse to break our fast o the blood of Palestinian people.

You see, has committed sending $2 billio back to weapons manufacturers.

I know, and we're just giving a speech about Ramazan and the volume on my he grab me then my stock.

I will leave.

Good.

Okay.

Will you please give me the microphone?

My please.

Will you give me my back?

Let me take it.

Let me turn it off.

Please turn it off and turn.

You're not again.

You're just in my head.

I know that 40,000 people are tired.

40,000 Palestinian people are dying.

And you don't wish to be here.

Please leave my house.

School is getting to $1 million.

Please leave our house, I encourag it is incredibly rude of you to.

Abuse.

Our hospitality in this way.

I started walking.

Oh, there's a genocide going on.

Then don't come together.

You haven't done anything about divestment easily.

Leave my house.

Anything about divesting?

I don't invest in anything.

I'm not going to argue with you.

This is a party to public relations.

I will be hearing how you pulled a muslim woman scarf during Ramadan.

Putting your hands on my hijab is unacceptable.

By grabbing my arm, you will hear from Kara.

You will hear from how we speak and the fact that your wife is able to assault a muslim Palestinian who?

She dropped her out of our house.

We are.

Please leave our house now.

So you see Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky back live now.

Two part question for you.

Discuss this incident specifically and then talk about certainly the broader issue of what exactly happened at all the college and university campuses earlier in 2024 related to the anti-Israel, the pro-Palestine protest from your vantage point, because obviously, Dean, you were ther at Ground Zero, the protesters, they're all claiming they have free speech rights.

However, obviously many Jews, many others claim the protesters are using hate speech.

Dean Chemerinsky I'll start with the incident at my home that occurred on Tuesday, April 9th.

Got to put it in context.

My wife and I hosted dinners for the incoming students every fall.

The student that were graduating in May 2024 hadn't had such dinners because of Covid.

There were restrictions in the fall of 2021, so the president's a third year class.

Asked if we would host dinners for this year's JD graduating class, we agreed to do that on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, April 19th at 11.

The week before this occurred, posters went up on every bulletin board in the law school and online, and it had a caricature of me holding a bloody knife and fork in what appeared to be blood around my lips saying boycott Zionist sham.

The posters didn't object to anything that I had said or done.

I haven't taken public positions with regard to Israel and Gaza.

Instead, what it was asking is that the University of California divest from Israel.

That of course, is not in my control or in the law school's control.

On April 9th the students arrived at my home.

My wife and I greeted them in front.

We all went around to the back for dinner.

We sat around for about a half hour.

Students got the food buffet and was seated, eating.

And then the leade of the Westons just Palestine.

We put the posters up on the bulletin boards.

Took out a microphon from a backpack, went on a step and began to discuss the plight of the Palestinians.

I immediately got up and said, no, this isn't okay.

Please leave.

I will tell you.

In the 16 years of being a dean hosting these dinners, never had anyone given a speech of any kind.

This isn't what it's about.

The student continued.

My wife went to grab the microphone.

It went viral, which, important to note, i that even if this had happened in a law school event in the law school building, the student had no right to disrupt it.

There's no right to disrupt school events or any public seating.

But in our backyard, the Firs Amendment doesn't apply at all.

That once we asked he to leave under California law, she was a trespasser.

Now, the larger question so much went on on campus across the country, it's hard to generalize.

Some was clearly protected by free speech.

There was a free speec right after the end of Israel, or free speech right, to defend Israel.

There's a free speech, right, to criticize what Israel's doing in Gaza.

We're free speech, right, to attack what Israel's doing in Gaza.

But some of what occurred was clearly not protected by the First Amendment.

There's no first human right to commit acts of vandalism, to take over buildings.

The encampments on campuse were violating the school rules, and that's true of almost every campus.

And then there was the political question for administrators, but whether to allow the encampments to remain or whether them removed, there was much more political question, not a constitutional question, because there was no right to have these encampments that violated school time, place and manner restrictions.

So with all that, said Dean Chemerinsky, what exactly i the definition of free speech?

What exactly is hate speech?

Kind of sort all this out for us?

What words are acceptable?

What's not acceptable?

Obviously free speech these days, it seems, for lack of a better term just like an equal opportunity hater, doesn't it?

Whether these words are targeting President Trump, which we have witnessed a lot of, and some argue that hate speech, that hate possibly led to the assassination attempt on him.

Then there's obviously the hat words towards President Biden.

There's hate speech about Jews before deat to Jews, death to Israel, etc.

the hate words targeting Muslims, things being said about immigrants, hate towards conservatives, hate towards liberals.

What have you focusing o the content of the speech now, as opposed to talking about rules about time, place and manner for encampments?

One of the most frequent questions that I get asked is what's the line between free speech and hate speech?

And that's a false distinction.

The United States Supreme Court has made clear that hateful speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.

And case after case, the Supreme Court has said that just because it's hateful, just because offensive doesn't make it outsid of First Amendment protections.

Now, free speech isn't absolute.

If the speech rises to the level of an incitement of illegal activity, if it's a threat.

And when you talk about the definition of incitement, then it's not protected.

But somebody has the right to yell on campus, death to the Jews, but death to any group that by itself isn't an incitement that by itself isn't a threat.

And so the content of the speech is protected.

Now, schools, I think, hav an obligation to respond to it under the law.

They can't be deliberately indifferent.

But the bottom line the answer to your question is schools can't punish speech, but stop it just because it's hateful.

However, with that said Dean, when you are saying death to Jews or death to Israel, there was somewhat of an incitement of violence simply because we saw violence on these university campuses.

So where do you draw the line there?

The United States Supreme Court has drawn the line.

The Supreme Court says, in order for speech to be incitement not protected by the Constitution, there has to be a likelihood of imminent illegal activity, and the speech has to be directed at causing imminent illegal activity.

If that test is met, then the speech can be punished or stopped.

But it's a difficult test to meet.

So let me give you a few examples, because early in the broadcast, I began this program explainin that we've seen the signs, we've heard the speeches, we've seen the rallies.

We hear Kill Trump, Trump is Hitler, death to Trump, these horrific things about Biden.

Biden is an idiot.

Biden is a criminal.

Is that considered free speech or really does anything go?

Can anyone say anything?

It's not that anyone can say anything, but it's that generally the government can't stop speech to punish speech because of content unless it fits into a category of exception, like meeting the test for incitement for me and the test for true threats.

Let's go through the example that you give somebody saying, kill Trump.

It is a federal crime to threaten the president of the United States.

But the Supreme Court has made clear there's a difference for you.

Now, I probably am going to kill that person and something that would be regarded as a true threat.

The Supreme Court has said he regarded as a true threat.

It has to be that the person was acting with reckless disregard, that the speech regarded as an immediate threat of violence.

So if somebody says kill Trump and somebody has got a gun there, that's a true threat.

But general rhetoric in society, children, it's protected by the First Amendment.

Trump is an idiot.

Biden is an idiot.

Trump is no longer mentally competent.

Biden is no longer really competent.

That's clearly speech was protected by the First Amendment.

So give more of an example.

Can we drill down just a bit more and then we'll further the discussion.

So we talked about inciting violence or the true meaning of these words.

When i when are words not acceptable?

I mean, in other words, there have been so many hateful things being said.

Watch Fox News, watch MSNBC, watch, Newsmax, watch CNN.

Obviously there's a left perspective and a right perspective, but it seems like everybody's just spewing things out there and as an average viewer of the news, you've got to say, and that's wrong.

How can people see these things?

And there's no repercussion.

People can express whatever opinions they want.

People are allowed to express hate us.

Where are the lines drawn?

Well, as I said, the United States Supreme Court that said, if the speech has a likelihood of causing imminent illegal activity and if it's directed at causing any illegal activity, it's not protected by the First Amendment.

Imagine there's an angry crowd on campus.

The speaker exhorts them to g commit acts of vandalism, arson on campus.

That speech could be punished because it meets the test of true threats.

The speech on Fox News unlikely it can be regarded as true threat.

Or I'll give you another example.

There's no right to defame somebody, to say false things that would injure reputation.

Now, it's very difficult for a public official to prove defamation in the Supreme Court.

It's that it's so important that there be open and robust debate.

But those who hold and run for office.

But the expression of opinion about a person, she's a crook, he's stupid.

That's always going to be protec And there's another related issu censorship, the cancel culture.

There have been various lawsuits, as you know, over the last few years against the government, the Biden administration on social media, what have you, legal filings related to claims of silencing or censoring?

Certainly people are posting on social media, for example, questioning the, let's say, validity of the 2020 election, questioning the Covid vaccine, etc.. And as you know, social media outlets like YouTube, like Twitter, like Facebook then Twitter, now X obviously.

In fact, a couple years ago we interviewed here Robert F Kennedy Jr.

He was discussing his opposition to the Covid vaccine and Doctor Fauci, his take on that as well known.

We had invited other guests on this program to counter what RFK Jr was saying.

All the guests declined to be on the same program with him.

So I ultimately had a one on one interview with RFK Jr. We decided not to silence him just because he had a different point of view, and just because opponents refused to be part of the broadcast.

So, Dean, here is what happened when we posted the interview on YouTube.

And we have this exchange on the screen now.

YouTube sent the following email, which says in part, our team reviewed your content.

Unfortunately, it violates ou medical misinformation policy.

YouTube deleted the content saying YouTube is a safe place for all your content breaks our rules and Google policy.

YouTube said the interview was medical misinformation on how to prevent, treat and diagnose Covid and how the virus is transmitted.

Sincerely, the YouTube team.

So I ask you, Dean, UC Berkeley Law School Dean, is there a freedom of speech issue to all of this?

Can social media cancel you because they disagree with your free speech?

Freedom of speech means that the governmen can't punish or censor speech.

Freedom of speech.

Does it limit what private entities do?

So Google, Facebook, YouTube are private entities.

They get to decid what to include or not include.

Just as a newspaper gets to choose what to print or not print.

Just as you get to decide what guests to have or not have on your program so do the social media platforms have the ability to decide the don't want to curate something?

Freedom of speech.

First amendment limits what the government can do.

It doesn't limit private entities, including social media platforms can do so.

At what point, though, can there be some pushback on social media?

Because it seems this has all been politicized.

And here on this program this is a very centrist program.

Yes.

Typically the media and let's be honest, is certainly more liberal.

I try to bring everything, from a centrist viewpoint.

We have liberals, conservatives on this program.

We have Democrats, we hav Republicans far left, far right.

It does not matter.

With that said, it seem this is all getting politicized because if you agree with something, okay, well, we can let that pass.

But if you disagree all of sudden, then it's hate speech.

And it seems that a lot of this silencing and censorship and again, let's be honest, was from the left.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can we kind of put this in a perspective because this begins to no get into a political discussion.

There have bee studies done, and they indicate that social media is no more likely to silence those on the right than those on the left.

But we want social media engage in content moderation.

Facebook takes down 5000 hateful messages in our social media platforms, are regularly taking down child sexual exploitation material material urging terrorism, even if it's protected by the First Amendment.

So it's important that you keep in mind and viewers keep in mind, the governance that is limited and what it can do in terms of restricting speech or censorship.

But when it comes to private social media, they can make whatever choices they want.

And if we don't like them, we can pressure them.

We can urge the creation of new social media.

But the social media companies aren't limited by the First Amendment, and the choices they make.

So taking this even a step further, Dean Chemerinsky, if in fact a person is greatly offended by something someone says, let's say again, going back to the beginning of our conversation, if you are Jewish and you are greatly offended when someone says, Death to Zionists, death to Jews, do you as an individual have no rights, no repercussions?

You cannot put the kibosh, so to speak, on the people saying this stuff.

I guess the government can't punish somebody for saying that.

And you as an individua can't stop someone saying that the presumption of the First Amendment is if you don't like what they're saying, exercise your own right to stage.

Bring in speakers of your own.

But we don't silence those who we find defensively dislike.

So a few examples if there are any.

In past.

In the past, have there have been cases Dean Chemerinsky, where, people potentially could be brought up on charges or simply, possibl a legal filing against them if, say, for example, they do say something that is egregious or that is a danger to, let's say, a person or, a government or a society.

Have there been any issues like that in the past?

Is somebody threatens somebody else in a way that causes the person threatened to care for his or her immediate safety?

The threat isn't protected by the First Amendment or my example.

The speaker exhorts an angry crowd to go commit acts of violence that's not protected by the First Amendment, but generall under the First Amendment speech can't be stopped or punished, just gets offensive, even if it's very deeply offensive.

Thank you for that explanation.

Yeah.

As I mentioned earlier in the broadcast, so many respected groups in our society say they've been the victims of hate speech.

Jews are greatly offended with what they term Jew hatred and all the vile things, the protester said.

Other groups, Muslims, for example, over the years, they say they've been the victims of hate speech.

Many immigrant rights groups I've interviewed insists immigrants have been targeted with hate speech.

Again, as I said earlier, there's no shortage of hate these days.

Now, as this relates to let's kind of personalize this.

Getting back to the incident we began the broadcast with, it happened at your home with the Palestinian-American student, Dean, how have you how have your wife dealt with that?

Obviously, that was a highl emotional event for both of you.

I've interviewed you over the years, back to when you were the law dean at UC Irvine in Orange County, California.

I've never known you to state your politics publicl or religious beliefs publicly.

You have really been so fair to the public, to all of your students.

They reall respect you and your fair them, no matter what their backgrounds or ideologies.

You've kind of built a law career treating everyone equally, never allowing your personal belief to get in the way of anything.

I say that because this incident at your home must have been extremely difficult for you.

Obviously you, like anyone, has certain personal beliefs.

It was enormously difficult.

It was difficult to have a dinner at our home for graduating students disrupted.

It was difficult for then to go viral.

My wife and I received many death threats and thousands of hateful messages, and it's one thing for me to get them, I assume a certain risk.

I was Dean at Irvine and Dean here.

All my wife did was agree that we would host dinners for graduating students in our backyard.

So it's very difficult to see that, but ultimately what we have to do is stand up for what we believe in.

I let the posters remain on the bulletin board, because I think there was a First Amendment right to put them up.

Even though they're hateful and anti-Semitic.

And ultimately, I believe that my backyard wasn't the place for a political speech during a dinner.

And I stood up for that as well.

Well, you are greatly respected in your field.

I know your students and your peers and all your colleagues greatly respect you.

I respect yo for answering these questions.

Thank you.

UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky for a great interview.

I so appreciate you being here any time.

Thank you so much for your kind words.

Thank you and now for more information on our program, just click on KLCS and click contact us to send us your questions, your comments, or your story ideas.

We can hear from you or you know you can contact me directly at DavidNazarNews on text or just go to DavidNazarNews on YouTube.

Contact me there.

Be sure to catch our program here on PBS or catch us on the PBS app.

Thank you so much for joining us.

I'm David Nazar.

Hi.

I'm David as our host of Sustaining Us.

Thank you so much for watching.

If you enjoy our program, a well as all the other programs here on KLCS, please consider supporting this station.

Your support helps keep all your favorite programs available.

You can support KLCS by calling 8998 KLCS or simply visit KLCS.org.

Again, thank you so much for watching KLCS PBS.