days in october 1962, the u.s. faced the threat of nuclear war. and university of virginia's mark silverstone, exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full sede on your program guide or wch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view what's happening in washington live and on demand. keep up with events with live proceedings and hearings, white house events, campaigns, court, politics, all at your fingertips and stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find

scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio and compelling podcasts. c-span now, download it free today. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> good afternoon, welcome to-- afternoon denote here, i'm the editorial director of publishers weekly and with me is chris fiana, author of a new book, how free speech saved democracy, just out the last few weeks. i've known chris probably better than 30 years, currently he's executive director. ... overseeing american booksellers foundation for free expression. and so chris. i thought maybe we would begin there and talking about, you know, maybe some of you earlier

background how you got interested in this whole free speech moving and how that will they keep the country free. i've been doing this for over 40 years now. and i got involved in the early 80s i was looking for a job after i left graduate school. and i found an ads on ad in the new york times when they used to have classified ads and it was for and it was for a coordinator for a first amendment trade association. i had no idea what that was but it sounded like me. that sounded like a great opportunity. i was very interested in issue. at one time i thought i was going to be a reporter but i bui grew up in the '60s and free speech was a big, again a big topic of conversation as it was

being repressed in the south during the civil rights movement, as it was being repressed again in the north during the antiwar movement. so i applied for that job and i got it. just as there was a major conservative uprising not an similar to what we're going through right now. the election of ronald reagan had really stirred the conservative roots and suddenly there were challenges to books throughout the country. this was a time when judy blume was doing a first publishing and she became a major lightning rod for this because people were, had never experienced books addressed to kids about problems like sex in the schools, and they responded vociferously.

so there were hundreds, more than a thousand challenges in those years, which is how banned books week and got started a response to that. so then i went from that organization media coalition to the booksellers foundation for free expression. which was also engaged in supporting booksellers who had been under attack as part of this conservative wave. there was an effort to create felony penalties for the sale of obscene material. catherine mckinnon was pushing an idea that retailers, producers and retailers of material with sexual content should be held civilly liable for those publications and the court case that struck down the law.

so as those things tailed off, suddenly we were facing 9/11 and threats to privacy. so i've been around a long time. >> you've chased a lot of controversies. which is one thing i think a lot of people could benefit from knowing the history of how free speech and the first amendment has been, i think you can fairly say, under assault or being challenged. almost from the get-go you talk about the sedition act in the 1790s and then i think world war i, i think we we saw all outbreak of different measures really, but with no longer an object that is current free speech. >> so as i was doing this advocacy work and it occurred to me, i studied history in college and graduate school, that it really did know much about the

history of free speech myself. so after the patriot act fight was pretty much over, i wrote my first book about free speech, which was called to the patriot act which covered the time of 20th century which is the era in which free speech became protected really for the first time. throughout the 19th century there were no court decisions protecting free speech. theoretically we had free speech because the first amendment was in the constitution but as a practical matter the attitude toward radicals like the abolitionists and feminists and suffragists, anybody who is rocking the boat is you have free speech right up until it passes me off and then you're going to suffer the

consequences. the abolitionists are very good example of that because they were attacked hundreds of times for pushing the abolition of slavery and the great leader frederick douglass was almost killed in a ride in indiana when he attempted to speak. so it was our right on paper but not a right that was enforced. until world war i which kind about this whole attack on free speech to a culmination when we started throwing people in jail for being against the war, for speaking against the war, for saying anything those even critical of woodrow wilson, the president. like woodrow wilson is a block it got somebody arrested by the fed's and prosecuted. there were more than 2000 2000

prosecutions, more than a thousand convictions. a lot of people really suffered. the leader of the socialist party eugene debs was sentenced to ten years in jail. he was by that time already a three-time candidate for president but that didn't stop him from being put in the federal penitentiary. and it was really in reaction to that civil liberties meltdown that people primarily lawyers in the beginning began to speak out about the importance of protecting free speech, and aclu was founded in 1922 lead that fight. but even then it was a long fight through the following decades. >> and one of the major thesis, when we were talking last week you were kind of joking that this is the first book you've written that it's pertinent to current events.

so can you talk a little bit about how that has evolved and how people who are marginalized or have been oppressed, they are the biggest beneficiaries of free speech so that's why it was particularly important for them to stay on guard. >> the people who suffered in the 19 century and on, you know, to this day, the people who suffer are the people who are pushing a new idea, who are trying to assert themselves politically, who don't have, you know, who are the powerless. and frederick douglass said speech is precious, particularly for the oppressed. that is that something that's well understood by many today because we were really so successful in protecting free speech in the '50s and the '60s primarily as a result of

the struggles of the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement. most of the abuses that occurred during that time aren't happening today. today, after trump was elected the women's march happened without incident. half 1 million women showed up in d.c., more women around the country. there were no laws to restrict them or to prevent them from speaking, even though not that long ago the suffragists were thrown in prison from making the same kinds of claims. we've seen students, we've seen students walked out of classes to protest gun violence. and then of course we saw the george floyd protests which were the largest in american history. and the reason that those came

off more, for the most part peacefully, is that it is now widely recognized that this is speech that is protected and that must be allowed to be heard. so we are very fortunate. we are the beneficiaries of a great revolution, but it's easy to kind of forget those gains. you know, when you're fighting for other goals which sometimes seem to be in conflict. >> right, which is where i think that brings us up to today. i mean obviously book publishing and bookselling have been prominent and a lot of these fights. up to the present day where, you know, i think it's fair to say their traditional, the paint

over free speech was left versus right and while that's still going on, i think there's a lot more debate especially on the left side as you and i talked a little bit about before a generation gap between what some of the younger people think and what some of us believe. >> there has been a shift, kind of, that's not been helpful to an understanding of free speech. in the past it was primarily liberals and radicals who are pushing the message, the centers of one kind or another. so when you hear conservatives complaining i can conservative member of congress like marjorie taylor green, you know, wearing a mask that says censored, you really the world seems upside down and it doesn't help free speech much to be advocated by people like marjorie taylor

green. but you know, but the fact remains that, well, so it's been hard for a few years to really to make a convincing argument to many progressives and younger people about the importance of free speech. there's also citizens united which was settled under a first amendment rationale, which seems to empower the rich even more than they already are empowered. so it's been hard to get a hearing for free speech among those constituencies. but i think that what's going on now among this current crisis over education should, you know, should help us show, demonstrate, you know, once

again that censorship is a real problem for progressive values as it always has been. what's of being attacked, the that are being attacked, the curriculums that are being attacked are being attacked because of a few that they are indoctrinating kids with radical ideas about race and sexuality and sexual identity, and the people who are attacking them are people who are quite powerful. i mean, we've seen 15 states pass so-called crt laws which are focused on arguments about the persistence, about the nature of slavery and the persistence of racial inequality. most of the books that are being

attacked our lgbt books that are in schools for the first time, first-time kids, lgbt kids are seeing books that address them and address their issues and make them feel included and promote their self-esteem. these are critically important works that are, you know, they're a very concerted effort to snuff out. my hope is as a free-speech activist this would give ge attention of many of those who argued that the first amendment is somehow a problem. >> right. in terms of uniting presses, -- special after january 6, you know, even within publishing how

can you publish a book by so-and-so who was advocating overthrowing the government? you know, again in the industry we are familiar with employees walking out when -- [inaudible] nothing to do with the government but its accusations of being sexual misconduct. i mean, how, what kind of argument can you make for these people? i mean, i think your book is a great instructor about look, this is been going on for a long time, we are really lucky to be worthy are because in many cases never had such free-speech protections but it's really in danger and there has to be room for all kinds of opinions. >> we have, ncac has, it's a non-partisan organization as a said we found ourselves

defending the right to publish conservative books and for conservative speakers to be heard at campuses, to be invited to speak. and we are concerned about efforts to disrupt that freedom because it boomerangs. it justifies those on the other side who want to impose their own restrictions, and they just turn around and point a finger at jim, you sent me a clipping today of a former employee for mcneary publishing saying that liberals are being hypocrites in talking about a band books crisis. we have to defend the right of free speech for all. i say that in full knowledge that that means that there is a lot of garbage, a lot of

misinformation, a lot of hate that gets surfaced on publishing come on social media. that's a big difference between now and the '80s. we didn't have social media and that certainly has undermined the idea of public debate and marketplace of ideas. but our argument as civil libertarians always is that nobody says you have to like it. in fact, on the contrary. the best response to hate speech is counter speech, and it is protest and it is militancy is fine as long as it doesn't involve actually trying to shut down the speaker as this happened too many times. >> so how do you answer, there is a famous charge now of cancel culture. i mean, to me to some degree of

truth in it. i don't know what you think. >> you mean that there is a cancel culture? >> as you talked about in your book you mentioned david redneck was going to give the speech and to the new yorker and i think -- [inaudible] liberals just blistered the whole idea so canceled the interview. i mean, is it wrong to say there is cancel culture? >> i i guess i resent the term because i'm not sure that it actually exist as a culture. certainly there have been many efforts at cancellation and some of been successful. and that is a shame because it's not, it's not a good response to somebody else's ideas to just try to silence them. you have to silence them with your own ideas. you have to be able to out argue

them and to take advantage of the confrontation as an opportunity to put your point of view across. so yeah, there are many, many examples and i just mentioned a few in my book. we need liberals who know better, certainly in our generation, and what was kind of disappointed about the new yorker incident was that, you know, a lot of older liberals supported the idea of canceling really was going to be a debate between remnick and ban it. remnick was going to put van into the test and as a result of the cancellation of the event he didn't have a chance. remnick would probably have torn him apart. so it's just, it's a reflection of the deep polarization of our time which has affected many

people. >> are their lives though that should be crossed? -- leinbach. i mean, you can't yell fire at a movie theater. you know, any reference -- with all the misinformation out there, what do you do about it? >> the supreme court has drawn a number of lines it free speeh isn't completely free in this country. you can't insight directly inside to riot. it's a narrow standard that people can be held accountable and i think that's what partly what, you know, with the january 6th committee is trying to figure out where exactly the line was crossed. you can't libel people. you can't, you know, there are limits, but, and you know, as far as misinformation goes on social media, there is those

platforms have first amendment rights to exert content moderation, that limits them,, and they have done that. the nature of the beast of this social media is that it's very hard, it's very hard to regulate and there's always a danger they will go too far and remove too much material, that algorithms are making all these decisions and that some legitimate conservative voices probably have been silenced. >> and how does this all figure into, you know, charges again from the more conservative side, the growth and political correctness and wokeness and people just are afraid to say things because they are shouted

down not only on social media. >> i think that's true. i think that it's a reflection more than anything of the polarization of our politics and people are finding it hard to converse. there are finding it hard to find a common ground to have any kind of a discussion. and as a result, they are afraid. if you look at what's been happening in the schools, the kinds of attacks that have been made on teachers and administrators, you certainly can't blame people for being afraid to speak up, and that is an exigent threat. you know, to freedom of speech, freedom of speech in this country. >> right. from the left and the right, that's a tough spot to be. >> but that's the only spot we can be in a democracy. you know, in the famous dissent

that oliver wendell holmes wrote in 1919, you know, he said look, and a democracy there are no arbiters of the truth. nobody has the final say on what's true and what's not true. and while that's the case, in other words, while we're a democracy all we can do is argue about it and try to convince people to our side. because nobody's going to solve these problems for us. we don't have kings. we don't have, you know, we don't have guidance from on high about where truth lies. truth has to be discovered through the process of debate. >> you talk about debate. again a special i think we're talking last week about the generation gap, especially on the liberal side of that again, some of the younger folks have different view of what things to

be, but we are saying well, you are not necessarily wrong. we just respect your opinion. there's definitely another side that hopefully will listen to. >> i have a great deal of sympathy for kids today and they're dealing with issues that we never had to deal with. and i just remember back to what i was like in the '60s and it didn't trust adult either, you know? i really, i thought they were full of shit and just as many kids today think that we are full of it when we advocate for our position. but ultimately i think they will discover, and hope they see the current crisis as a reason to rethink the importance of allowing others to speak so that

we have the freedom to speak. >> at a think it was you who mentioned free speech with something like an apple, once you take a bite out of it, the more bites you take out of it, before you know it the whole free-speech apple is gone. is that something that people are taking more bites out of right now? >> i also think we need to look abroad. i think, a number of commentators have pointed out we value democracy a whole lot more now that we see what's happening to the ukraine, and now that we see, you know, russia, and now that we see china, you know, attempting to really silence their people and to keep them down to what's going on. you know, that's an extreme that it don't think we will ever

approach, but it shows the ultimate danger of moving in this path of greater restrictions. >> i'm glad to hear you say you don't think we can approach that, but this might be an unfair question, but on a scale of one to ten, pending ultimate censorship what you think we are? >> a lot of what's going on now is very new. really, the big crush, the big surge in book banning is just like months old, and it could be a harbinger of worse to come. but i think that what's happened in the past is that when we've been faced by this kind of censorship threat as we were in the '80s there is been a response. people saw what was threatened and they took measures to protect free speech. one of those really critical

measures was a creation of policies for reviewing book challenges. that's severely cut back on the number of books that were being pulled, but it ultimately, its people, right? its librarians and teachers standing up, and students and parents and members of the community standing up for free speech that ultimately turned back at these kind of challenges and the period like this. so numerically, i would say, well, i think we are a pretty safe seven on the scale of free expression around the world. we have to continue to fight and that's the other thing that i really hope young people get, understand the whole history of free speech in this country is that you have to fight for free speech. and once you take it for

granted, then there will be people who will use that against you. >> because i think it was fascinating since this is a bookselling and book publishing venue, we talked about 1923 or so paba, switched some challenges over. what to sell, what not to sell, was reading, there's some committees in boston, how the term banned in boston came up. it was like librarians are outside the committee would say these are the books you can sell or just play, right? do i have that story right? >> you are remembering it right. it was actually a boston booksellers committee which participator in censorship, and made decisions for their customers. and books, you know, they didn't approve just disappeared.

but there were those, few brave librarians and booksellers who spoke out. the guy who spoke out at the booksellers convention actually had his remarks stricken from the record. but a couple years later after seeing what is happening in boston and the aba took the stance that has held about the importance of allowing customers to make these decisions for themselves. and librarians became obvious leaders in the free-speech fight, too. so there are lots of good people on our side who are going to continue to fight, and it's a privilege to stand with him. >> i think we will leave it there. i really can't recommend the book enough, especially for people in this industry "how free speech saved democracy" because as chris mentioned

several times its chock full of events and periods of time when free-speech was under threat. some of us will look back i think, how can he do such a thing? its so ridiculous. ten years from now who knows what people think about this period? again, , and i actually urge people to read this. it's not long, chris, so kudos for that. >> 157 pages. >> it's a quick read, a great read. once again, jim elliott here, i'm thinking chris finan for joining us today, and his book as a safe is available at all bookstores and maybe some were even on the internet. so we will leave it at that. >> thanks, jim. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through her latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan, entity purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> begins on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's of stories, and on sundays tv brings you the latest in nonftion books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including cox. >> homework can be hard, but squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that's why we're providing low income students access to affordable internet, so homework can just beom