You're watching...
Civil Liberties Attorney Harvey Silverglate discusses the origins of free speech and how it has evolved in modern society.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Hardly silver lake is devoted his career that question into defending speech when it censored or people who are punished for something they -- And now you say there are new threats to state.
Like what well the old threats we managed to beat mostly in court in that -- also in the quarter public opinion.
And so the -- -- simply come up with new firms for speech they don't like they court harassment.
What -- they call it bullying.
Now before bullying of the attack on speech came from feminists who said.
He can't just say anything in the workplace because certain things harassed swim.
But -- that was -- harassment phase they try to restrict free speech on the theory that harassment made it impossible for somebody.
In -- historically disadvantaged group.
To get their work done to studying get an education and it -- if the have a point your guy is -- cracks constantly about women.
Flights abusing blacks verbally we -- speech can be very unpleasant.
And it is legal implicit speech that most needs protection but what about the rights of the blacks -- the women who are in a workplace where this horrible speak well.
You've got a right to respond.
With horrible speech if you are attacked with horrible speech is longest that's a two way street the First Amendment whose work.
Now this week because in New York City down the street here -- rare finally -- the Occupy Wall Street protesters out of their encampment.
And I understand that they don't get to occupy.
A park but I would think they should have a right to speak.
Well the problem wasn't the speech it was that disruption.
Of ordinary commerce and in activity.
And that was the grounds for a kicking them out.
It would have been unconstitutional.
Merely -- constitution to kick them out because the mayor didn't like the message cigarette packaging.
I would think the government has the right to put those ugly warnings they're demanding on cigarette -- -- demand that they.
Put on -- government has a right to insist that in a commercial transaction.
Like a cigarette sale.
In that's kind of transaction that vendor has to give.
-- you -- information about the health consequences of smoking.
And that's it that there who doesn't have to put on the path which is the latest government and horrible pictures and horror stories and essentially editorial.
Pictures.
It would do about the horrors of their own -- they don't have to carry why what's the difference -- have to put alright.
This can kill you but they don't have to put a picture where where is that a lot that's correct because the courts.
-- I think correctly said that.
You don't have did.
Carried the government's Warner in trying to -- hi Laura that your product.
You have fulfilled no legal obligation by simply indicating.
What the scientific evidence is you don't have to draw but we pictures and I think that's a reasonable line because otherwise.
You've got the government saying that you could pick people who were required.
Required.
To you -- to engage in pro government propaganda.
Another case you -- you were hired by the faculty at the University of Wisconsin yes the University of Wisconsin.
Had a speech code the ground for that -- -- was we needed it.
To protect historically disadvantaged minorities women gays and -- -- I didn't actually win that battle you know who wanted a gay student got up and gave his -- -- if you are looking to have a speech go to protect me.
Don't do it because I actually like knowing who hates me it's useful.
And the faculty was quite energized by that -- speech by getting the words out you know where people stand yes and -- -- he put it.
I don't have to know I'd I'd like to know.
What can turn my back -- who liked -- the only way I know that is they're allowed to call me names.
So because.
