On January 25th 2023, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel delivered a talk on free speech at Shabtai Yale and was interviewed by Yale Professor of Law John Witt.
John Witt Interviews PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel on Free Speech (Trailer)
John Witt Interviews PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel on Free Speech
-
John Witt: Hi everyone. I'm John, I'm the- I'm the Aaron judge caller, as you'll recall. I'm totally thrilled to be here, but I'm going to be recessive. My role is to be an interlocutor for the brilliant Suzanne Nossel, who's who's here, whose book is in the middle and can get passed around and, you know, on a subject where there's a huge amount of noise and smoke and controversy and foolishness, Suzanne Nossel is one of the great wise figures of our moment on this. I mean, she has good judgment, and it turns out that having good judgment goes a long way in this space. So I love this book. I commend it to you, and I'm really excited to to talk with you about it. Suzanne, um, can I just can I just yeah, just start off. So.
Suzanne Nossel: Thank you so much for that. That was a kind introduction.
John Witt: Could you just- I mean, tell us, tell us a little bit about tell us where you're from. I mean, just give us a little introduction. So we have some biography to work with.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah sure. So I was born in New York. I grew up in mostly in Westchester County, in Scarsdale. My parents were immigrants from South Africa. My father's family was Lithuanian. My mother's family, uh, were German Jews who left Berlin in the 1930s and came to South Africa, so that they were in South Africa for sort of a generation, a generation and a half. But we were, you know, kind of like many Jewish families, you know, sort of scattered and itinerant. And my parents came to New York. I grew up there. I used to visit South Africa as a child during apartheid. My grandparents were there and other relatives. And I think that was a pretty formative experience for me, seeing growing up in kind of liberal New York, uh, in a society where we were talking a lot about civil rights and the student protest movement and, uh, self-expression, and then visiting South Africa where there was this very rigid racial separation that was just taken as an absolute, and so for me, as a young kid, I think, trying to make sense of that and understand how that could go on and understand honestly the role of the Jews in that system. I had a grandfather who was sort of a notorious figure for being the first Jew who joined the South African Nationalist Party when it first took power in 1948. I never knew him. He died before I was born. Uh, but apparently his philosophy was sort of if these people were going to be in power, then the Jews should be part of it, because otherwise they would be vulnerable.
Suzanne Nossel: And he was loathed by a lot of other Jews and kind of an embarrassment within the family. I was just, uh, meeting with a 90 year old cousin of my father's who was talking about this with me just recently and telling me a little bit more about it. Uh, and then I, uh, growing up in Westchester, I got involved in the movement at the time to help Soviet Jews leave, uh, the, uh, USSR at a time when they weren't allowed to practice their religion. They were not allowed to emigrate. And there was a big international movement that grew up to support them, send them assistance, advocate on their behalf, and demand that they be allowed to leave if they wanted to. And as a child, I participated in marches and I mobilized a group at my high school. And, you know, for me, it was kind of inspiring to join together with other people. And we would march down to the UN, and there were just, uh, thousands of people who would gather together and be chanting and, uh, making our points, waving our signs. And I think for me, that sort of kindled some of my interest in the area of human rights. And you know, what it felt like to join together with other people to work on behalf of an important cause. So, you know, there's a couple of formative points of my, my upbringing.
John Witt: I see some free speech stuff in there. So I understand there are many people around the table who are about to graduate from college. Just did graduate from college. What what did you do when this big moment came? What did what did you do after college?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, well, it's interesting because it goes back to, uh, those experiences visiting South Africa as a child. I think I was kind of mystified. I mean, my parents were just sort of say, you know, they had the double decker buses. And as a little kid, I wanted to go on the upper deck and they said, no, you can't go there because that's for black people. And, you know, and that was just how it was. You couldn't go to this beach. You couldn't use this water fountain. I mean, it was a really strict and sweeping system. And I knew there was a movement to try to overthrow apartheid. I knew there was a guy named Nelson Mandela who was in jail, but I didn't really know much. Uh, but it kind of nagged at me, and. And I was actually at a play my senior year. A friend's mom got tickets to this play and it was called You Strike the Woman, You Strike the Rock. And it was a play by three South- black South African women. And it was just sort of about their lives and depicting they they acted out all of these different scenes, all the work that they had to do, uh, you know, really arduous domestic work. And at the end of the play, there were people in the audience who just started again chanting these slogans. And they were, they were. It was like Free Mandela and power to the people. And I kind of sat there and I suddenly I just remember on the on the train on the way back, uh, home, I thought, I'm going to go to South Africa.
Suzanne Nossel: Like, I have to figure this out. I have to understand what this is all about. I need to understand this, the role of this place in my own history. So I went there, I got a fellowship. I was very lucky. It was one of those traveling fellowships that's pretty open ended. And I started working with the human rights organization there. That was sort of the not the right thing for me, but I ended up getting involved in. At the time, Mandela had been released from prison and the country had entered into a transition to democracy. But it was very violent, and there were outbreaks of violence in townships all over Johannesburg where I was living, and there was a peace mediation effort where they at a national level, they brought together the trade unions, the political parties, the police, the army, businesses, church leaders, all in these committees to try to mediate the conflicts that were erupting into violence and disrupting the transition, because every time there'd be a big massacre, sort of outbreak of violence, the talks would break off and the kind of whole movement toward democracy got interrupted and threatened. And so it was extremely important to find a way to kind of tamp this down. And everybody had to be a party to it. The police were deeply distrusted. So it wasn't just a matter of kind of traditional law and order that was not going to work. And so I got involved in implementing that whole process. You know, I was I just sort of wandered in. I had this fellowship. I kind of chased after someone who was giving a talk and asked if I could kind of volunteer.
Suzanne Nossel: And then I ended up getting a job and staying there for two years and working in a lot of these different townships to try to resolve these conflicts and make plans for how to deal with situations that we knew would be flashpoints of violence, including political funerals and other big gatherings. And, you know, it was an amazing experience. I worked with people kind of from all walks of life, drastically different from me. I had a lot of autonomy. It was very fast paced and it was inspiring. It was inspiring to meet all of those leaders. It was inspiring to sort of see this country kind of work its way through. And then I ended up, I went back to law school, uh, and then their their first democratic election was in the spring of 1994. And I went back like as an election monitor. And I got to sort of witness that. And there were people, you know, being brought to the polls, like in a wheelbarrow, because they didn't even have a wheelchair, and they were going to vote for the first time. And, you know, I just remember they had, uh, little polling, mobile polling station they'd bring into a hospital, like just a really bare bones hospital. And then they would, uh, sort of take the sheet around the person's bed so that they could have a secret vote. And like people who, you know, were 80-90 years old and had never voted before. So, uh, you know, just getting to go full circle and see that was amazing.
John Witt: So you just threw yourself in. That's that's that's the lesson for about to graduate. Just throw yourself in. And since then you've thrown yourself into a whole lot of different things. So you've worked in the for profit sector, you've worked in nonprofits, you've worked in the government and a couple of different positions. And now you're at PEN America, which is this amazing organization. Will you tell us a little bit about PEN America, what you do there? Because really, it's it's a crucial organization.
Suzanne Nossel: Sure. It's great to have Will Leggett here, who is a gap year fellow at PEN America, uh, after he graduated high school. So he knows about it. So you can find out more from him. And we have great internships. Uh, so PEN America has a mission to both celebrate and defend freedom of expression worldwide. We're an organization of writers. We have about 7500 writers here in the United States who are members of PEN. And then we work in partnership with PEN organizations all over the world. And on the kind of celebration of literature side, we give out literary awards. We do a big festival where we bring writers from all over the world into dialogue with American writers. We have programs to elevate and amplify the voices of people who are less heard in our public discourse. So we have a big program for people who are incarcerated but want to write where we help them develop as writers. We have a book that assists them and gives them inspiration. We mentor them, we give awards. We have a kind of almost like a literary agency to help them get their work published and into the public domain. And we have a series of other programs for different groups of writers. And then we have a big advocacy arm of the organization where we tackle a wide range of different free expression issues, both here in the US and globally. So just to run through some of them, we have our Freedom to Write Center, where we work on behalf of people who are jailed, prosecuted, tortured, sometimes killed for what they write. In countries around the world, we have a program where we work to develop PEN organizations on the front lines of free expression battles.
Suzanne Nossel: So we've been working for years with PEN Ukraine to build up that organization in kind of- it was kind of in their, you know, nascent and halting democracy. And now during the war, they've become an incredibly important voice for spreading the word globally, getting the voices of writers into international discourse to help frame how the war is being understood. They're also- we're working together to catalog damage to culture in Ukraine. I was in Ukraine in the beginning of December as part of a writers delegation that we did in cooperation with PEN Ukraine, and then we take on kind of thematic free expression policy issues. So we've done a lot of work on censorship, Chinese censorship, and how that's affecting not just what happens inside China, but also around the world. For example, in Hollywood, we do a lot of work on disinformation as a free expression issue, and we can talk more about that on online harassment and trolling as a free expression issue. And then a lot of work on free speech and education, which kind of started out as campus free speech and cancel culture and speaker disinvitation, trigger warnings, microaggressions, all of those issues. And I talk a lot about those issues in my book. But then in the last couple of years, we've also had to take on book banning and what we call educational gag orders. So legislation that restricts what can be taught and learned in schools and higher ed across the country. So it's a kind of growing portfolio of free expression advocacy issues.
John Witt: And this, just a week ago, you weighed in on still another set of issues in the Wall Street Journal, in a really interesting piece where you eschewed the extremes in the debates about social media. Tell us about that.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, sure. So I'm also a member of the Meta Oversight Board, which is this body of experts that was convened to, uh, help adjudicate and review decisions about what content stays and goes on Facebook and Instagram. And so that's gotten me, you know, our organization, through our work on disinformation and trolling, has gotten deeply into these thorny questions of what the boundaries of free speech should be online. And in my piece in the Wall Street Journal, uh, you know, they kind of approached me to write something about social media because of all of the, uh, debate over, I think, Musk and Twitter. And now, you know, today's decision by Meta to restore Trump to the- Trump's access to the platform. And, you know, what I wrote was a piece about how essentially the title they gave it was there's no quick fix for social media. And my argument was that, you know, all of the slogans, whether it's, you know, abolish section 230 or, you know, stop hate for profit or get rid of the algorithms, like none of these things actually offers a silver bullet. And what is really difficult is to separate what is harmful about social media, uh, the hatred that can spread, the vitriol, uh, you know, this self harm that people, uh, go down rabbit holes and wind up exploring and being introduced to and sometimes sort of induced to take action on whether that's, uh, suicide or eating disorders, other mental health issues, uh, the disinformation, Covid related disinformation is a topic that right now is in front of the board.
Suzanne Nossel: And so, you know, we all know there are all these harms, but there's also, let's face it, and I feel this way personally, there's an upside to social media, you know, and I'm sure, you know, you I don't have to tell you that, you know, it's incredibly compelling. It's a way to stay connected with people, to find things out. You can have a lot, you know, talking about the person. You can't, uh, find eight minutes to talk to, you know, for me, like, there's kind of a few hundred people who I'm sort of nominally in touch with, uh, just a little bit, and it's only possible through social media. But you know, from time to time I see them in real life and when they give me a great piece of advice or I make a connection between them and someone else. And it's a great aspect of life. And so the challenge becomes, how do we sort of surgically separate what is bad and negative about social media from what is good and enriching, and also for human rights activists, for journalists, social media is incredibly powerful. You know, we gave an award a couple of years ago at PEN to Darnella Frazier, the young woman who documented the killing of George Floyd.
Suzanne Nossel: I mean, she it was a cell phone video that she shared on social media that sparked this whole national movement. If social media didn't exist. You know, I just don't think it could have unfolded that way. And so the potency of that, it's the same with Iran, the protest movement in Iran. It's because of that video, uh, of Marzelline being, you know, collapsing in that sort of police holding area. And the fact that that traveled all over the world and we all saw it, uh, and we're horrified by it. So that power, that potency is, uh, you know, can't be extinguished. I don't think the value of it can be dismissed. And so the question is, you know, whether we can separate and address what is troubling and undermining and denigrating about social media platforms without getting rid of this boon for free expression and connection that they provide? And I think the only answer, and that's what I argue in the piece, is honestly as boring and unsatisfying as it sounds, is sort of trial and error, and that we have laboratories right now. We have them in the United States states. We have them in different jurisdictions around the world. Europe is very far ahead when it comes to regulation. We have things like the Oversight Board, uh, we have courts that are taking on these issues.
Suzanne Nossel: And, you know, the key is to, I think, avoid hubris, avoid the sense that anybody has all the answers or that any single solution is going to be, uh, to a magical fix and rather to sort of structure this as almost an experimental process where we put in some regulations, we try them out. We have the ability to modify to course correct. Extremely important is forcing these platforms to become more transparent and to give more access to data for researchers and academics, so that people can actually understand what the consequences of these actions are. That's a challenge for us at the Oversight Board, is even understanding to what degree our decisions are being implemented, or how widespread a problem is, just getting the data to be able to answer those key questions. So, uh, you know, for me, uh, we're at a very early stage of trying to, you know, figure out how to how to get a grip on this. And it's, you know, it's also changing, as we all know. I mean, just the ChatGPT kind of craze over the last, you know, six, eight weeks is a perfect illustration. This, you know, this is protean. And I think there's a real risk I also talk about in a piece of sort of fighting the last war. That we're sort of dealing with yesterday's problem and not the ones that are on the horizon.
John Witt: Well, you have in the piece also an unassuming, quiet, but I think really bold and striking, if you think about it, proposal for how to do this incremental experimental strategy, which is an agency- one or more agencies to, to to be the regulator to gather the information. But then that's I mean, so is that, is that that how we should go so that it's not I mean, I don't know, it's not the Congress which if you watch these days is not such an impressive body, but rather you triumph in the idea of experts.
Suzanne Nossel: I think we have to, John. I mean, I just think there's no you know, this stuff is so complicated. I mean, I can tell you, being on the Oversight board, I mean, just to get your head around some of these complex systems is, you know, it's it is, uh, it's intense. And, uh, you need to get your questions answered. You need to understand how these systems work. You need to know what to ask. And so, you know, to me, what seems clear is that we need to build in our governmental systems the sort of expertise and the muscle memory of how to do that. And, you know, it's not going to be- even if Congress was well, functioning, you know, they're dealing with a whole gamut of issues. You know, their oversight role could be important and influential. But I think we need people who are really under the hood who are, you know, understanding how the companies are changing, what new technologies are coming down the pipeline, you know, what issues they may raise, who have a mandate to protect freedom of expression, to also curtail online harms. I do think, ultimately, you know, there's no choice but to sort of capacitate. We've done it, you know, we have it for drugs, we have it for the financial system. You know, this is not something- we have it for transportation. Uh, you know, this is here to stay. Yeah.
John Witt: No, you persuaded me. I mean, I wasn't objecting, uh, I mean, interestingly, the First Amendment would be a problem for such an agency. In some respects, other agencies the FDA, for example, not constrained by the First Amendment in its management of Pfizer's production of the next Covid vaccine.
Suzanne Nossel: But say like, I mean, it's a very dysfunctional agency, but the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, you know, they have serious First Amendment issues, you know, so I don't think that's entirely novel.
John Witt: Yeah. So we can come back to this. I mean, there may be lots of interest in the social media piece. And so and I think there'll be a chance for questions. So just moving across the ways in which you've engaged in some of the really excruciating free speech issues of our day. The Salman Rushdie is such a tragic story right now. And you've been you've been you've worked pretty closely with him as my understanding over time. Tell us about that experience.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. So Salman Rushdie, as I think people may know, you know, 19, he's an author, sort of a British author of Indian descent and Muslim by background, upbringing. And he wrote a book in 1989 called The Satanic Verses that led to the Ayatollah of Iran issuing a fatwa, basically calling for his death. And he went into hiding, uh, for, you know, I think about three years where he was living underground and this was very sort of widely known. It rocked the literary community. PEN was very involved at the time, uh, booksellers were being threatened. There were some booksellers who were killed, uh, around the world. Booksellers wanted to take his books off the shelf. And there were other writers, like Stephen King who mobilized and said, you know, if you take off down Salman Rushdie, you can take down Stephen King. And so it was a big sort of stand by PEN, uh, in solidarity with Salman and against this attack on a single writer. But, you know, in a sense, attack on all writers. And Salman over time came to live more freely, and the threat seemed to recede. And he became- he moved to New York and he became the president of PEN America. Basically, our board chair led the organization. He started that festival that I mentioned, which is called the PEN World Voices Festival, and he works very closely with us.
Suzanne Nossel: You know, from the time I first joined PEN, I got to know him. Uh, he remains very involved in our activities, uh, on multiple fronts. Comes- came to all of our events, was always there. And in fact, it was this summer. It was a Friday morning. We were on vacation in Cape Cod, and, uh, I got an email from Salman, and he was about to do an event with someone, uh, uh, a guy who runs a kind of asylum center for writers and artists in Pittsburgh. And he said he asked if we had any Ukrainian writers who needed a place to go, who might be able to take advantage of a residency there because they had some funding. And I said, oh, yeah, you know, we do like, you know, I can get in touch with this, um, fellow from Pittsburgh. And he was like, okay, you work together directly. And so, uh, I went out for a bike ride. I came back and I found out that Salman had been stabbed on stage during the event with this, uh, with this interlocutor from Pittsburgh. And, uh, you know, he almost died. He came very close to being murdered.
Suzanne Nossel: And it was really the fulfillment of this, uh, you know, then 23 year old fatwa something, uh, or 30, uh, 33 years old. Yeah. 33 year old. Uh, you know, something that we just never fathom could happen. All the events where he lived and moved around so openly. And so for us to see an attack like this on American soil was a shocker. On the other hand, we had been in touch with a few Iranian sort of writers living in the United States who had been menaced by the Iranian government and threatened, uh, with kidnapping and surveilled. And so we knew that Iran was operating inside this country. And that's become kind of a new tactic of choice of authoritarian governments. And the Chinese government is doing it, uh, in different ways. I don't think they're they're murdering people, but they are also surveilling Chinese citizens who go, uh, and live overseas. It used to be sort of you went into exile if you were a controversial dissident and you were being threatened by your government. Yeah you just kind of had to get to safety. And the idea was like, how do you get out? And, you know, when you get out, you know, you're free and you go on with your life and you know, that threat, uh, is somewhere overseas.
Suzanne Nossel: And, you know, we now know that's no longer the case. And it's not just for Iranians. And so it was devastating. We did a big event on the one week anniversary of the assassination attempt. We mobilized on the steps of the New York Public Library in this event, stand, stand with Salman, where we had writers reading from his work and, uh, kind of a rally to insist that he would not be silenced and that that work would be read. And we did read from The Satanic Verses. And he actually- Salman has a book coming out just in about ten days called Victory City that he completed before the attack. But he, you know, has continued to sort of put some finishing touches on it. I think that, too, is kind of a valiant statement that his voice remains out there and alive, but he, uh, is still in a very arduous recovery. And I think he's also had to come to grips with the fact that he continues to be threatened in a way that, you know, he he his thought for the last few decades, you know, that he had essentially escaped. And so it's it was a, um, you know, sort of a terrifying and eye opening experience for me.
John Witt: Right. It was one of the really electric, terrifying moments of this past year, um, was that terrible attack. You, at the outset, um, describing your work with PEN America mentioned something I'm sure is on people's minds, which is free speech and campus culture. And I know that PEN America does a lot. You have you have some views about that, some of which are in this are in this book. We'll talk more about the book in a minute. But what's your what's your take? What's your take on, um, uh, on cancel culture, wokeness, climate of free speech in American universities, you know, all the stuff that is that everybody's talking about.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, sure. I mean, look, the reason I wrote the book was because as we started to, you know, and actually, it was the incident at Yale, the Halloween costume incident, which I'm sure you guys have all heard about, was kind of one of the inspirations for us to look into this issue, because we were sort of like, you know, what is going on? You know, we had not seen anything like this. And, you know, we really started to wonder, like, what are these debates about? So we analyzed them in a lot of depth. And we tried to do is really look at each of these issues, sort of from both sides, like people who are arguing for speaker disinvitations. You know, what was the case they were making? People who are arguing, you know, for microaggressions to be prohibited or punished. What was the case they were making? And, you know, what we came to and I would say this is an important premise for the book, is the idea that there is a quest on campus and in our wider society for us to become, you know, essentially a more pluralistic and encompassing polity and people, and that there's a lot of work that needs to be done for the campus to make that transformation. We were talking a few minutes ago about how, you know, the campus population has changed. There's a lot more first generation students. There are a lot more students from different backgrounds that didn't used to be- that weren't on campus.
Suzanne Nossel: For example, when John and I, uh, were coming up. And that to make the campus or the society a truly welcoming place where everybody can have their voice, you know, talking about those people that we work with who don't easily have a voice, uh, you know, that happens on campus, too, where people may sit in a classroom and not feel empowered to raise their hand to jump into the discussion. They may feel like they're an outsider. They don't come from the same background as everybody else. It may not be as easy for them. They may not have the educational, uh, grounding that makes them feel self-confident in their- within their peer group. And so the effort to take account of that, recognize that, accommodate that, address that I think is a very positive and important thing. I think it has the potential to be a real boon for free speech, because if people are left out of the conversation and don't feel like they can speak up, you know, our marketplace of ideas is circumscribed. There are people that are not being heard, their perspectives that are, uh, excluded. And so I view that as a real positive for free speech. But what has happened, unfortunately, is in that quest for a more equal, inclusive and diverse campus, there has come to be a belief that we can only have that if we dispense with free speech, that free speech is at odds with that ideal, and that it is only by curbing speech and and sort of dictating what is what can and can't be said, uh, by punishing speech that detracts or undercuts, uh, that imperative that we can bring about a more, uh, encompassing and inclusive sense of belonging for everybody on campus.
Suzanne Nossel: And that's what I, I'd say in our work at PEN and in my book, I really try to refute. My argument is that, yes, the campus needs to become more equal and inclusive, but that it can and must be done without compromising robust protections for free speech and academic freedom. And that, in fact, you know, if you're on the forefront of the movement, whether it's for racial justice or gender, gender justice or immigrants rights, that free speech is a tool that protects your ability to wage those battles, to build those movements, and that it needs to be seen as sort of part and parcel of the rights that you're trying to advance and protect. And then what we go through in our work at PEN America and in the book is, all right, well, what does that mean in practice? You know, how do you deal with all of these thorny controversies that can erupt? And how do you, you know, what does it mean, in a real sense, to defend all all of these principles and values, whether it's the drive for greater equality or the uncompromising protection of free speech?
John Witt: There's so many things to say in response to that, so many different directions we can go. I'm tempted to take it in the following direction and ask a question about about free speech and what it means. You said academic freedom and free speech. Those are the principles. And I wonder whether those might be two different things. Uh, and so, so, so academic freedom would be the freedom appropriate to university settings. Right? That's just imagine that's what academic freedom is in some in some way. And free speech. I think I'm less sure what free speech is. I think part of the reason is there's all sorts of speech that isn't allowed. That's just like, I mean, for which you I mean, if Suzanne and I engaged in fraud or conspiracy, we could we could engage in some sort of antitrust violation by talking to one another. We could engage in commercial fraud. We- there are things that people are required to say, uh, nutrition information, calorie information. The Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, has to tell people about its products in particular words. They are required to speak certain words. They may not vary from the words because the FDA, the agency that's going to fix, that's going to fix social media, um, requires certain words. So so there are things we're not allowed to say. There are things we're required to say. Um, of course, speaking has costs of all sorts of kinds. I mean, it always has. I right now some of you are thinking, wow, this guy is talking too much. I don't like him as much as I did before, and that's a cost. So my speech wasn't free, right? Um, so, so so what is this? So for free speech, you say free speech. I think I understood what you said academic freedom. But you said free speech and I was worried I didn't know what it meant.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. I mean, look, that is something that we have come upon is that people really don't understand what it means. I think as a society, we're not very clear on what it means. Most Americans, if you mention free speech, they sort of although I'm not sure this is that true of your generation? I was sort of very true of our generation. People think First Amendment like, you know, it's like free speech, First Amendment. And it's kind of like the two go hand in hand. And, you know, the First Amendment, of course, is the enshrinement in the Bill of rights, uh, you know, of freedom to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom, uh, freedom of religion, freedom to of assembly and freedom to petition the government, so to speak, out against the government or raise your grievances and wants. And, you know, that's incredibly important. But there's also a lot that we grapple with. I mean, what we're just discussing in terms of social media, you know, that for the most part is not about I mean, we we may want the government to regulate, although that's thorny because of the First Amendment. But it's really about the decisions that these private companies are making about what stays and goes on the platform. Should Donald Trump be able to have his account restored? You know, that's not a decision being made by the government.
Suzanne Nossel: It's being made by a private company. And so I think and I argue in the book that we need to take a more encompassing view of free speech. It cannot just be about a prohibition on most government intrusions on speech. And, you know, as you point out and I talk about in the book, the First Amendment is not and has never been absolute. You know, there are all kinds of categories of speech that can be regulated, whether it's, uh, you know, food and drug information, nutrition information. Uh, you know, her- sexual harassment, verbal harassment is disallowed. So there are many categories I talk about. Some of them, uh, in the book of exceptions to existing exceptions to the First Amendment that are well enshrined in law, and some of them are older and some of them are newer. Um, so the First Amendment has never been absolute. But then there are just so many questions that go beyond the scope of, of, of the First Amendment and that really has to do with other kinds of impingements on kind of how we experience free speech and free expression in our daily lives. And you know what I try to look at to, to unpack this is, well, you know, why is free speech a thing? Why is it a value or a principle that, you know, we talk about? It's not just because, uh, you know, it sounds good.
Suzanne Nossel: It's not. And it's not even because we want an unfettered ability to just sort of scream at the top of our lungs about whatever we say about whatever we choose. Uh, you know, in fact, we protect free speech, you know, and this goes back to ancient Greece. Some of you who want to talk to the philosophers might get some insight about this because it's been recognized, you know, going back thousands of years as a benefit to society in a variety of different respects, as an underpinning of democracy and deliberation, as a catalyst that can effectuate, help us identify better policies and directions as a society that helps separate fact from falsehood. If you have a robust, uh, public discourse where you can test out ideas, you can challenge people, you can ask questions, you can figure out what's true, what is misleading, that it can be a catalyst for innovation. So scientific innovation, creative innovation, uh, you know, it can be an enabler for, uh, great literature, great filmmaking, great art. Uh, so there are all these reasons that we protect free speech. And when you think about what those goods and values are, that free speech delivers to us. And, you know, and part of it's not just as a society. It could be as an individual, you know, the right to express our identity is very fundamental to personhood.
Suzanne Nossel: And there are sort of psychologists and sociologists who've written about that. But when you think about it that way? You realize it's it's not just the, you know, if the right that you have is just to scream at the top of your lungs in the middle of the forest, like, that doesn't bring about any of those social goods. And that, in fact, you know, to bring about those social goods, you need the discussion. You need the interchange. I need the ability to persuade you. I need the ability to go in front of an audience. I need the ability to have a give and take to be tested, to have someone like John ask me tough questions or you guys, uh, you know, so that we can explore these ideas and spool them out and come away with some new ways of thinking, some, uh, different insights. So, you know, to me, that is the value of free speech. But when you recognize it that way, they're all sorts of implications that I think our law and our traditional understanding of free speech doesn't really take account of. And I'll just give one example, which is disinformation. So, uh, you know, if the real value of free speech is this kind of rich exchange and the ability to hear out other people and discover different ideas and sort fact from falsehood, if we have a marketplace that is so flooded with disinformation that you don't know what to believe, all of that value is undermined.
Suzanne Nossel: You know, you can't, uh, ferret out the facts. You can't have a, um, you know, a dialogue with somebody online if you find out they're actually a bot that's trying to sell you something, and you thought you were having a great philosophical discussion, you know, so, you know, that has implications for what we do about the problem of disinformation, because, you know, it's actually overwhelmingly protected by the First Amendment. You know, it's not illegal to whether you're peddling a false cure for Covid or, uh, you know, some political conspiracy, uh, or arguing, you know, the wrong person, you know, was certified as the winner of the election. That's not illegal. Uh, our government can't, for the most part, uh, you know, come in and shut you down. And yet, if it pervades and it overruns our public conversation, you know, we have really lost something. And so at PEN America, that's kind of why we take on these non-traditional issues. We see ourselves as stewards of free speech, but also as kind of guardians of a thriving, open discourse, which entails a lot more than just defending the First Amendment.
John Witt: Thrive- so thriving open discourse is the new free speech, I like that, let's just do that. There's a couple times you invoke the marketplace of ideas. You know, one of the one of the central metaphors of free speech, um, uh, you know, sometimes said to be associated with Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Um, but, you know, for at least for 100 years and more, the marketplace and ideas is one of the- that's how we're going to figure out the truth. Ideas will be tested in the marketplace of, um, of other ideas. But I find that my students are less- are more skeptical today than they were 20 years ago of markets. Free markets. The marketplace of ideas was super popular in like late 90s. Like late 90s. Like, markets are great. Look at all this good stuff. Ideas too. And maybe the crash, I mean, a whole bunch of different things. It produced skepticism about markets and also skepticism about this metaphor. So and your book talks about inequality in the marketplace of ideas pretty powerfully. So tell us, how should we think about it?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, I mean, one of the things about the book just to say is it's organized, it's got 20 chapters that are sort of organized around 20 principles that are sort of my notion of what we need to do to preserve free speech in our diverse, digitized and divided society. And there's 20 principles really are kind of interlocking and interlacing. Uh, and some of them in a sense, counterbalance, uh, one another. So, you know, I, I do, as you mentioned, I talk about, you know, I think one of the reasons people are sort of skeptical of markets is power, power differentials and the fact that, you know, these markets, whether it's, uh, you know, an economic market or a market for speech, you know, they're not really free because some people are equipped and resourced in a way that they can dominate, and then other voices get snuffed out. And, you know, that's part of why, you know, in the work of PEN America, we see it as a free expression organization. We view it as part of our mission to elevate these lesser heard voices, because, uh, we do recognize those power disparities and how they can distort our discourse. And so, I think, you know, part of the work of a free speech advocate has to be to try to lessen, uh, you know, those, those differentials and make sure that the people who might not otherwise be heard, uh, get to have their voice. But I don't think there's a better solution than trying to keep the discussion open. Uh, and, you know, the idea of trying to privilege certain voices over others in order to kind of correct the imbalance.
Suzanne Nossel: I mean, this is something I talk about briefly in the book, and it's something that came up, uh, on the college campus. I think it's called- it has a very strange name, but maybe you've heard of it like a progressive stacking. And it's basically the idea, you know what that is, like that in a classroom. Like you're just going to call on certain people first. And it's like basically based on like race and gender and that you're going to have like a rigid system where like there are going to be certain people where it's sort of like, sorry, if you have your hand up, you know, you're just not, you know, it's like a last resort to call on you. And like, I, you know, I, I find that, uh, you know, kind of approach, um, like that doctrinaire approach that sort of says we can't have an open, free flow and we have to, you know, kind of create a new set of rules that are going to upend the power dynamic. Um, yeah. To me, uh, that is it's, you know, that's the wrong approach and that there are other, you know, there are other things I talk about in the book I think you can do to try to make sure the conversation isn't dominated by certain people, that people who may not have as easy a time coming into the conversation have an opportunity to do so, uh, and can have their say. So I think that's really important, but that even though the marketplace is not perfect, I'm not sure there's a preferable system out there.
John Witt: Um, great. So we're kind of getting- I'd love to bring in people, but I think we, we have more time a little bit, so. But, but so there's a new, relatively new development I want to say. It feels old fashioned back. It's not a cutting edge. It's not a cutting edge sort of thing. But but all of a sudden on our news agenda, which is just old fashioned book bans and prohibitions on teaching certain things. I mean, it's as if we're banning evolution in Tennessee, banning the teaching of evolution in Tennessee in the 1920s. What do you think is behind this trend? Like how do we explain it? What are you working to do something about it?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. Um, so yeah, when I first got to PEN, I found out we still dealt with the occasional book ban, and, like, it just seemed so old fashioned. It was like, so 1950s. But, yeah, we would have- someone would report a book ban and we would, like, send a letter to a librarian or a school principal, and they'd usually put the book back on the shelf, and we sort of did it with one pinky and that was it. And, you know, I never- I honestly never thought about it. And then, uh, just a little less than two years ago, uh, this became kind of a tactic of choice. And we've now documented in our last report about 2600, uh, book bans, uh, in different communities across the United States. Uh, more than 50 pieces of legislation prohibiting certain concepts from being taught and studied in college classrooms, about 17 of which have been enacted into law in 15 states. And so it is serious. It comes down to, you know, I think this pitched battle that we're immersed in as a society about the very issues we're talking about a moment ago. You know, how do we become more pluralistic, more equal, more inclusive, what has to change? And, you know, part of what's being looked at is how we teach American history, what literature we introduced to children, how we talk about concepts like gender identity in the classroom. And those things are controversial. They're sensitive. I think there are some people who feel like, you know, it's gone too fast. It's gone too far. You know, this is ridiculous. My children are being introduced to things that I don't believe in or that I'm not comfortable with.
Suzanne Nossel: And so there has grown up a sort of movement, uh, to resist that. And you know what I- my view is that these are questions we need to be able to debate. We need to have a discussion that includes parents and educators about, you know, what is the right way to talk about, uh, you know, non-binary identity with very young children. You know, should it, you know, should we be talking about boys and girls? Should we be, you know, talking about a spectrum like, you know, that. And then I also think there has to be space for communities to weigh in on that. And it's going to be different in different parts of the country. You know, religion may play into it, personal beliefs may play into it. And it's it's it's tricky. It's not easy. But what I know very clearly is the answer cannot be legislative bans, like to ban ideas and books and stories and narratives to me just runs counter. These are government bans. I mean, this is exactly to my mind what the First Amendment was intended to protect us against, which is viewpoint based government bans on speech. And what we're seeing in communities where these bans are in place is, you know, the effort is not just to remove a single, you know, or a set of books. It's actually to intimidate teachers and educators and sort of stoke fear about how these concepts are dealt with in the classroom. And it creates- it's leading teachers to leave the profession. It's creating a very hostile environment where now they're having to send sort of armed guards to school board meetings because it's gotten so heated. I think part of it is fueled by the frustrations over what happened during the pandemic and the disruptions to education.
Suzanne Nossel: People got, uh, you know, became incensed at what their school administrators were doing or at the position taken by the teachers union. And they're sort of fueling taking that anxiety and frustration and fueling it into this movement. It's an organized movement. This is not just a matter of parents kind of coming home and opening the backpack and finding, oh, there's a book that, you know, seems to be, you know, for an older kid, not my seven year old. That's not what this is. It's long lists of books that are being passed around and in many instances, banned wholesale. You know, it's like 100 books that are being pulled from the shelves. No one's even read them, uh, or made an argument within that community about why they should or shouldn't be there. So to me, it's a very distressing resort to censorship. And, you know, that's what troubles me the most. It's not easy to have these conversations. There's not an easy answer. I think, uh, you know, there's no avoiding some, you know, probably tense meetings and discussions and not everybody's going to agree, but to legislate certain ideas as off limits. To me, what's most problematic is giving our government that power. You know, the Constitution, I think, is set up to deny the government the power to make those decisions. Because even if you agree with what they're banning today, you have to think about who's going to be in power, you know, in 5 or 10 years and what might they be banning, because it might be something that you really value.
John Witt: Uh, yeah. So that's a really dire situation. So. And which which leads me to maybe the most dire question of all is, um, uh, maybe this will be the last question for me, and we can open it up because I'm sure people have things to say, which is, you know, of all the things going on right now. And we've had a whole list of, um, you know, worries and horrors. Um, what's the what is what's the threat to free speech in the United States that most worries you now? What is the thing that we should- amidst this whole this whole mix, violent attacks, book bans, social media, disinformation campaigns? What what's the thing we should be?
Suzanne Nossel: I mean, I honestly think it's kind of indifference and free speech sort of getting lost in the shuffle of all these other ideas and debates. And, you know, I'd be interested in what this group has to say. But when we do free speech institutes for young people, uh, they tend to tell us, you know, I asked the question, like, have you studied the First Amendment? Have you studied free speech? They haven't. Like, they've maybe done one, uh, you know, little lesson if they go to an American studies high school, but they, they know very little about it. And, you know, it's it's not something that we are instilling as a powerful value or talking about. What we find when we do do free speech institutes for youth is that once it's explained to them and we, you know, we introduce them to people, you know, been a writer in prison or, uh, to people who have, uh, you know, been persecuted for expressing themselves. It's very inspiring. And they actually they do get it. And they do understand why it's important and enabler of the causes and the issues that they do care about. But I think we have really lost, missed a beat as a society in not ensuring that this, you know, with all the STEM and all the, uh, imperatives that we've sort of, you know, prioritized within public education, I think we've lost the thread on this.
Suzanne Nossel: And you know what? Most people don't understand what free speech is all about. And I think, uh, you know, when that's the situation among young people, it's imperiled. And, you know, it's another, you know, subsidiary concern is that to the extent it is talked about, it's sort of seen as a right leaning cause it's seen as a conservative cause, something that's pitted against the drive, uh, you know, for racial justice or gender justice. And so it's sort of like, you know, those people care about free speech, but, you know, the majority of, uh, you know, your generation are left leaning. And so something we really try to do is communicate with those students because we feel like, you know, when when we just defend free speech across the spectrum, and we have all kinds of kids who participate in our programs, but we sort of feel like you can't just leave out the left and speak just to those who are kind of gravitating toward this cause, because, you know, that's not ultimately going to be enough.
John Witt: Great. I mean, I have lots more questions. We could keep talking for a long time, as we have sometimes. Um, but I think I'm inclined to open it up. People must really want to jump in.
Suzanne Nossel: So you want to call on people?
John Witt: Uh oh. We want.
Suzanne Nossel: The mic. So pass. Okay.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Let's maybe keep the question on that half of the table first.
Suzanne Nossel: Okay.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Thank you. And please speak up.
Question: Thank, thank you for such a brilliant talk. Um, I'm Alexandra, I was wondering if you think that trigger warnings are helpful, harmful or ineffective?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. I mean, my feeling is that they should not be mandated. You know, it shouldn't be sort of an edict. You have to put a trigger warning on your syllabus. Um, I think where the the problem with trigger warnings is sort of the implication, you know, there are a number of things. I mean, one is the implication that, uh, you know, people can't sort of tolerate being exposed to something that, uh, might be traumatic or that they might evoke an experience that they've had. And I sort of feel like, you know, as you go through life, you are exposed to those things. You can't really be shielded from those things. And that probably the better approach is to try to cultivate resiliency, and certainly not to imply that if, you know, this might be triggering, that's a reason to miss the lesson or not show up to class that day. Uh, you know, that said, I mean, I sort of think of this story at Harvard. I went to Harvard and they, uh, during freshman week, uh, you go and see Love Story, the movie. And I remember just reading this girl from my class, I like her, I don't know, her mother had died recently, and she she was like, you know, I needed a trigger warning for Love Story because it was very upsetting to see that movie of someone dying in a similar way. And like, I thought, you know, that's where, like, you know, going back to how we approached the work, like trying to understand, like the Colonel, like I can empathize with that, you know, like it was upsetting to her. Um, I don't think she really needed a trigger warning, but, uh, you know, I think a generalized sensitivity, um, to your students and their backgrounds, not hiding the ball, you know, not trying to do things just for shock value.
Question: Hi, my name is Matt Beck. Um, I was curious to know how you reconcile your concern with government censorship, with the endorsement of the idea of a regulatory agency that would regulate speech on social media, um, especially in the context of disinformation. Um, there are some things like, you know, the idea of chugging bleach to help alleviate your Covid symptoms so we can all mostly agree is disinformation. But then there are other things like the origins of the coronavirus, for instance, that are one day labeled disinformation and then the next shown to actually have likely been a like the reality of the situation.
Suzanne Nossel: I mean, here's having a government regulatory agency that deals with social media, I think should not be set up as or construed as an agency that's empowered to regulate speech. I think there's a lot that needs to be done. You know what I put on the top of the list, and I talk about this in the article, is to force greater transparency on behalf of the platforms. I mean, they are they really, you know, they see very little incentive to disclose data. It's an issue that we confront at the Meta Oversight Board. Uh, it's incredibly difficult for researchers to get access to do analysis of what's happening on the platforms. Certain tools that have been available are now being withdrawn from availability. So, like, that's an easy thing that, uh, you know, government could mandate without wading into the fraught territory of trying to adjudicate freedom of speech. And I think that's where we need to start. And Europe. Uh, you know, there are less speech protective, for sure, uh, than we are. But I think some of the things that they're looking at, you know, just better systems for user appeals, for customer service on the platforms, like those things don't infringe on free speech, but they can help to ensure a better experience and to surface problems. So that's that's really my point of emphasis when it comes to regulation.
Question: Hello. I'm going to come out from my little corner there. Um, I was just wondering, this is a very straightforward question, but in the context of Meta's decision to bring back Trump. Um, you spoke a little bit about kind of how it's a trial and error, but when it's a decision like that that has such high stakes, sort of. How did you think about that specifically?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, I mean, it's you know, it's a good question because, you know, some of these decisions have to be made in real time and they can be, you know, that's that's one example. But there are also situations, you know, for example, that we deal with, uh, on the Oversight board where, you know, there's speech in the conflict context of a raging conflict. And if they take down those posts, you know, people may not be warned of violence that could affect them. If they leave up those posts, those same people could be incited to commit violence, uh, you know, preemptively because they think somebody is coming after them. And so, uh, you know, it's not possible to sort of, uh, you know, we don't really have a pure laboratory situation where, uh, you know, we it's a sterile environment and there are no real world consequences. And, you know, it's tricky. Uh, you know, I think the process, you know, I'll say this. I haven't even had a chance because it just came down this afternoon to read, uh, what Meta put out, uh, on on the Trump decision. But I think what is good about the way they've approached it is, uh, you know, they issued some reasoning when they first made the decision to remove him from the platform. Then they kicked it to the oversight board, which did a lot more analysis and called on Meta to come up with, you know, a longer term decision.
Suzanne Nossel: Said they couldn't just impose a lifelong ban without any sort of reasoning or justification, you know, and now they've come back with an articulated decision. And I think this is, you know, it's it's sort of modeled on our legal system where we have precedents and we have written opinions, and there's a a kind of jurisprudence that is evolving about how to deal with these questions. And I think, you know, that has the potential to be important and useful. If you understand, you know, why decisions are being made, what the lines are, why someone like Trump can or can't be on the platform, I think that makes the decisions a lot easier to accept. I mean, one thing we saw when Trump was kicked off is we've seen, you know, this very powerful sort of backlash. We've seen laws passed in Florida and Texas that purport to deal with bias on the platforms. There's a very real sense that the platforms are biased. And so, uh, you know, those consequences have to be taken into account. So, you know. It does have real world implications. I think the best you can do is sort of make these decisions, like the idea that the Trump decision wasn't permanent, that it had to be looked at again, you know, in a sense is a kind of trial and error approach.
Audience: Thank you.
Question: Um. Thank you. Um, a year ago or so. Speak up. Yeah. A year ago or so I remember, there was a series of articles run by the Wall Street Journal on various activities of Facebook or, I guess, Meta, um, including the fact that while we invest, I think or I think it invest 95% of its resources in content moderation in the United States and Europe, I think mainly the United States. Um, but in the rest of the world, where many people use Facebook, loads of sort of nefarious activities, lots of illegal activities, and, you know, uh, are are actually conducted on Facebook, uh, frequently to a high degree of success. And, and it's sort of, I guess the article as I remember it was sort of saying, well, there's not really much that anyone could do to make Meta change its policies in that regard, and sort of a tricky situation, because the countries in which a lot of these places or these illegal activities are taking place, you know, have no interest themselves in sort of raising, uh, problems with Meta. But do you think that would ever change? I mean, the sorts of, you know, hundreds of thousands of people seem to be affected.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah no, it's something the board has talked about in a lot of our decisions, that there not enough resources for content moderation in all of the different languages. And, you know, there are also all sorts of complex cultural nuances, you know, when you're dealing with, you know, a war in Ethiopia to understand, you know, how terms are being used. Uh, so it's a huge problem. You know, the fact is, we did a study as part of the Oversight Board on, you know, their system of basically when it is that certain content decisions get escalated to higher levels of more senior and repeated review. And a lot of it has to do with sort of business risk and who's going to call them out if they take down, uh, a post? Who's going to reach out to senior management and complain? And, you know, that's Americans. You know, it's not people in Myanmar or Ethiopia who have the connections to do that. And so, you know, what we found in this study is that, you know, it was we were really struck by how much is governed by that. And so, you know, the question becomes, how do you change the incentives? And, you know, part of it is the, uh, you know, and I give Meta credit for allowing the Oversight Board to sort of snoop into their business and empowering this independent group of experts to criticize them, to make these demands to monitor, you know, are they doing better? We have a implementation sort of task force that's looking at, you know, uh, questions like, are they actually better resourcing content moderation in some of these geographies? But I don't think it's ever going to honestly catch up.
Question: Hi. Um, I would like to ask you a question related to compasses, um, freedom of speech. But you were touching earlier. Um, it seems to me, based on experience, mostly, um, that a lot of people, when they're in contact with a certain opinion or idea, they likely to react or feel a certain emotion that is mostly chain with other people's ideas, some politics, some things. So it's actually not them as a human being generating the emotion. But it's kind of in a trap. And I have a question of like, how would you solve that? And if the fact that you were talking about freedom of speech constantly is not even backfiring because you actually, by talking about it too much, you maybe, maybe interrogating too many negatives opinion about that. And on top of that, I will ask you about blockchain technology. And if you think that might be a silver bullet to certain problems.
Suzanne Nossel: If blockchain is a silver bullet, I don't know how it's a silver bullet, so I can't uh, I almost can't answer that on free. I don't know, on free speech. Um, I mean, it seems like a great idea for securing certain transactions. Um, but, you know, I do agree with you that I think there are a lot of settings where people feel like there's a certain expected response and they feel sort of compelled to, uh, react in that way, you know, when in fact, I mean, uh, you know, what they're thinking is very different. And I'm sure you guys see that in some of your classrooms where, you know, something is said and it feels like everybody has to nod or go along with it, you know, but meanwhile, you're sort of clicking and having a very different conversation with yourself. Or maybe you're catching someone's eye across the room to say, uh, you know, I don't really look at it that way. And, you know, I think the question is, how can we make space, uh, and create a zone where people can articulate those differences because it becomes a very flattened conversation. You know, my daughter, who's in high school, was talking about, uh, you know, sort of the discovery of America. And, um, you know, is that the right terminology or a way to think about it? And, you know, there's sort of a doctrinaire view that, you know, it was only all bad for all, you know, these explorers to come.
Suzanne Nossel: And it was devastating for the Native American communities. And she sort of felt like everybody was thinking, you know, actually, it's more complicated than that, but you couldn't say it. And, you know, I've heard the same from, uh, other students that we work with. And so I think there are some teachers and professors who are effective in, you know, trying to tease out those differences, trying to avoid a kind of groupthink. And I think those techniques in the classroom are extremely important. I talk, you know, in the book also about as individuals like how you how you can voice a more controversial opinion without offending someone, how you can stand up for somebody who's doing that, even if you don't agree with the opinion that they're expressing, that it's still, uh, creates value for the discourse to defend and actually not just defend, but kind of just support their right to do it. Uh, you know, by chiming in, by your body language, you know, there's all there's a lot that all of us, I think, can do to sort of open up these conversations.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Before we continue the questions. I just want to go through an exercise on this question and your answer, and we're doing tonight. So real short: raise your hand if you were to ask a question here tonight, if the if we shut the cameras down, that you wouldn't ask because the cameras on. So if you have a question that you'd like to ask but are hesitant to ask the question because there's a camera rolling, if we shut the cameras off, would you ask that question? That's where you are here at the table. Raise your hand.
Question: Should we take the poll with the camera off?
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: I'm sorry.
Suzanne Nossel: That's right. Take the poll with the camera off.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: That's very good.
Suzanne Nossel: Or turn it away.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Okay. So that's the first question. So everybody in this room, nobody raised their hand.
Suzanne Nossel: Well, maybe they don't want to raise their hand on camera.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Yeah. So let's stop the camera. Let's stop the camera for one moment. Is it off? It's the it's the one on one that would make the difference, not the camera. Yeah.
Question: Hi. Um, okay. I'm really curious. You're on the Meta advisory board. I don't understand, like, what you do, how it works. Like, can you just walk me through, like you're in a room with a bunch of other people? What kind of people are they? What kind of questions are you trying to answer? And how much power do you have to answer those questions?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, sure. So right now it's 23 people. It's it's a totally global group, which is amazing. I mean, there are people, uh, from every part of the world, uh, backgrounds are- there a number of academics, legal academics, uh, former journalists and current journalists, activists, um, there's like a Nobel laureate from Yemen, uh, Peace Prize winner. There's a former prime minister of Denmark, uh, is part of it. And so it's a really interesting group. They're all, you know, I think like very genuine, like independent minded people who are curious about this, who sort of want to do good, who believe, uh, you know, it's kind of for me, the decision to join it was almost kind of process of elimination. I felt like I was dubious about it, skeptical. But I also felt like I didn't want Silicon Valley companies to be making all of these decisions without anybody else's input. I know, you know, they lack diversity. They're insular. You know, they're profit motive. You know, why should they have so much unfettered control over our public conversation? And I was also skeptical about governments. I didn't want to empower governments to wade in on content. And so it's like kind of, well, you know, if you don't like either of those solutions, maybe we should try this. And so that was very much my premise in joining. It was really it is an experiment, uh, and maybe better to be part of it and learn something and see how it can work. And we for the most part, we take on individual cases. So people, users of Instagram and Facebook will challenge a decision that the platform has made when their content has been taken down for the most part, or sometimes if it's if something's been left up that they've complained about and we're asked to take a look at it and we examine it, we reference Meta's own sort of internal corporate principles like voice and dignity and other things they've said they're going to uphold.
Suzanne Nossel: We look at international human rights law, and then we draft an opinion. Uh, we work in panels of five. It's mostly on zoom. We've had one big in-person meeting. We have another one, uh, that's coming up. Uh, you know, where we sort of talk about the workings of the board and how we can be more effective, and then we have some policy advisory opinions where we go into depth on an issue like this issue of how Meta treats sort of its high priority users. Uh, there's now one that's underway about Covid related disinformation. And, you know, basically the idea like during the height of Covid, it was kind of, uh, I think taken as a given by most people that allowing disinformation on the platform is really dangerous. It could impair the public health response. It was sort of emergency conditions. And so they were, you know, quite interventionist in removing false cures and bleach and Clorox and all of that. And then their question to us, which I think is a very fair question, it's like, well, what about now? You know, kind of the immediate crisis is somewhat abated. Like, should we still be intervening at this level, uh, you know, and sort of taking down all this stuff, or is it a freedom of speech issue? And, you know, it's a tough question.
Question: And when you make a vote on that panel, is it- how does it- is it a majority? How does it.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. Um, so you have the five person panel, uh, and then it can go to the full board and then the full board votes. And that's a majority. Uh, the panel, uh, tries to achieve consensus, and if it doesn't, there's like another panel like and that's actually not happened. The panels have achieved consensus. There are some tough votes. Uh, we've tried to get the full board on board, and sometimes we negotiate a draft to try to get everybody on board. There's a lot of ideological diversity within the board. So, you know, it can get heated. I mean, I sort of think almost more important than any decision we render is just the fact that we're rendering these decisions. So even if you don't agree with every last thing that's in them, the fact that there's a written opinion that people can look at and understand and, uh, you know, base further decisions upon, uh, you know, is the utility of it so that you've got to be kind of somewhat flexible to get to that result.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Well, we'll go this way. Take your popcorn.
Question: Um, thanks so much for this, uh, wonderful talk. Um, during the, um, course of your conversation, John mentioned that, um, you've gotten to work for the nonprofit sector, for profit sector in government. Um, just a variety of great, uh, experiences. And I'm curious where you felt you've been the most effective or been able to have the most impact. Um, and if you were going to work somewhere else in the future, um, what position you'd like to have where you feel like you could perhaps be even more impactful?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. So it's a great question. I mean, you know, for me, I've really enjoyed my two stints in government, uh, both at the State Department once, the first time at the US mission to the UN, uh, and then at the State Department in Washington. I do feel like being in government, you know, if you have the right opportunity, there's a lot that you can move and make happen. Uh, you know, that said, I've been a political appointee, and it's kind of you have to be sort of flexible when you're in that realm. There are a lot of variables that may dictate what the opportunities are. And I think it's really important to have a career that you love on the outside. Uh, you know, it's different if you're a career kind of foreign service person or civil servant. Uh, I think those people can have extraordinary sort of trajectories and a lot of interesting work. Um, but I, you know, I've enjoyed everything. I mean, my time in the private sector, I think was really valuable for someone who wanted to go into sort of nonprofit and public service just to kind of get the working methods and the rhythms and, you know, understanding something about how to solve problems, how to run an organization.
Suzanne Nossel: Uh, you know, I think that has given me a somewhat unique experience, and it affects kind of the whole tempo of how we work in the organizations that I've been a part of. So, you know, I think everything sort of has its role. And you have there really like running PEN during the Trump years was really fascinating. It felt like free. You know, it still does, uh, that free speech issues have become so much more salient over my time within the organization. So there's a great sense of purpose. And I was actually very happy, uh, you know, when, when Trump took office, that also we worked on both international issues and US issues and, you know, that we could sort of prioritize based on what we saw as our, our biggest opportunities for impact. And so there's a lot of flexibility in the nonprofit sector. And, you know, a lot of autonomy, uh, you know, to run an organization, build an organization, take on issues and projects that really interest you. And so, uh, you know, there's sort of pluses and minuses to each realm. And I have to say, I have enjoyed the ability to kind of move across somewhat.
Question: Great so, I want to press you on Matt's original question about the regulatory agency.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah.
Question: Um, and why we're not going for more than just transparency. Uh, it seems like, you know, the virtue of transparency will be, um, maybe influencing the private policies of content moderation in a way that would be beneficial. But, um, that's a step away from accountability via the voting booth. And so why would it be better to only have, uh, transparency and not government regulation of speech? If you could, for instance, have everyone who's currently on the Meta oversight board be all deputy secretaries of the imagined agency? Um, and then you would do all the same work. It would be equally transparent, but you would be directly accountable to voters in a way that the Meta, uh, accountability Board, while surely doing good stuff, is not actually accountable to voters. So why just transparency and why not, um, a really good agency?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. I mean, it's a great question. I think I don't see transparency as the end of the line. I think it's a good place to start. Um, but I would say, you know, my hesitancy is that, you know, it's it's funny, uh, you know, the analogy you put the Meta Oversight Board people, you know, into this agency. And I always think when people sort of want government to regulate hate speech online, like they're kind of imagining some mythical combination of, you know, an Oliver Wendell Holmes and Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg who'd be making these sage decisions about, like, you know, this is, you know, sort of white supremacist bigotry. And, you know, this is genuine political speech. Like, that's not who would be making the decision. And that's the problem, is that, you know, when you have an agency, it's inherently political. And, you know, the Trump administration was a really good illustration of that, you know, because he did go after journalists and media outlets for what they published. He threatened them. He engaged in acts of retaliation. I think if he hadn't been constrained by the First Amendment, he might well have jailed journalists. Like he really doesn't like his critics. And so when he was in a position of power, there were, you know, a number of things constraining him, you know, including our norms that made it more difficult for him to punish people for, uh, you know, attacking him, uh, or criticizing him.
Suzanne Nossel: But I think overall, you know, when people in power have the, the authority to and the discretion to, to punish and police speech, that they will use that power in self-serving ways that preserve their own prerogatives. And that's sort of why I think it's a very good thing that our Constitution really constrains that, because unbalance, that power, you know, will, uh, will be used in problematic ways. That's not to say always like there might be some, you know, very good and legitimate decisions that get made, but there is that risk there. And so I think it's just something we need to be very mindful and careful of, you know, as we sort of venture into, you know, what may end up being a more, you know, in some ways a different government role in regulating speech that is more extensive than what, you know, we've had a very kind of hands off approach over the last 70 years. And I think, you know, we may need to shift that in some ways.
Question: Uh, just on that eight minute call, if you do want to talk to God, you should go to Burning Man, because there is a phone booth there where you can pick up the phone and talk to God.
Suzanne Nossel: Okay.
Question: I'm just putting that out there. Uh, the other piece was your organization is called PEN America. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about what makes American free speech particularly important.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, I mean, it's a great question. You know, we have the most protective regime for free speech, legal regime of any jurisdiction in the world. Even if you compare the United States to other democracies like Canada and Europe, they have more leeway to restrict speech. You know, for example, it comes up, um, in relation to incitement and Holocaust denial as the example that often is cited, where Holocaust is denial is illegal in most of Europe, and it's permitted here. Here you could say, look, the Holocaust never happened and you can't be punished or silenced by the government. You know, Meta can take it off their platform and they do. And, you know, and, you know, so going back to sort of the point about how much speech is being now adjudicated outside of the hands of government. And I you know, I am a believer in our approach. I had an experience, I talk about this in the book that made a big impression on me when I was working at the State Department at the time. Uh, you I'm sure you don't remember this, but maybe you heard about it. There were these, um, Danish cartoons that had been published. Uh, there were cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. And this became a big issue just recently at Hamlin College, which I'm sure a lot of you do know about, about the art history professor who showed the image of the Prophet Muhammad.
Suzanne Nossel: So, uh, you know, back in the early I think it was like 2003, uh, a Danish newspaper published these cartoons, including depictions of Muhammad, and it sparked riots in parts of the Muslim world. It was kind of stoked up into a really controversial issue. And there was a lot of criticism of this newspaper, and people were outraged and incensed and saying this was like a great offense to Islam and the Islamic countries. I was working on US engagement in the UN. The Islamic countries came together and they wanted to get, uh, they did a resolution condemning the what they called the defamation of religion. And they wanted to get an international treaty that would have banned the defamation of religion. And as the US delegation, we were arguing against that on free speech grounds and saying, you know, you can't ban the defamation of religion like this, you know, is protected free expression. And it was a really intensive debate. And one of the points that would get made, you know, that they made, I think, very genuinely was like, well, you ban Holocaust denial. So why, you know, that's offensive to Jews.
Suzanne Nossel: Why can't you ban these depictions that are offensive to us and like, you're giving Jews protection, you're not giving to us. And it was a time of a lot of Islamophobia, sort of post 9/11. And it was always a very strong point for us to be able to say, well, we don't ban Holocaust denial. You know, in our country, uh, it's free. And it gave us a lot of credibility to say, look, we don't allow the banning of any of this. And ultimately, uh, you know, one of my kind of proudest achievements during that, uh, you know, when I held that position was, you know, and it's sort of the inspiration of a lot of the work that I've done since was coming together with the Pakistani delegation to, uh, on a resolution to address, essentially sort of respect for religious differences in how to foster inter-religious tolerance without prohibitions on speech. And we ended up essentially doing a new resolution that subsumed and put to rest these efforts to ban the defamation of religion and kind of got people together behind a more constructive, forward looking approach. And so, uh, you know, it kind of kindled my faith that it actually is possible to resolve some of these really thorny issues. Thank you.
Question: Thank you so much for this very interesting talk. I have a question. During your discussion, you mentioned several positive outcomes from freedom of speech, the exchange of ideas. There are so many things that are good about freedom of speech. But I wonder, do we value freedom of speech because of these positive outcomes? And can we value freedom of speech as an end in itself? Can it exist as an end in itself? And can it, moreover, still be valued when perhaps it does something opposite to serving these positive outcomes?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, and that's a really good, uh, an interesting question. Um, you know, as an end in itself. I mean, I don't know, I guess to me, it kind of goes back to that idea of self-expression and that, you know, the the part of being human that is, uh, the ability to express ourselves. Um, and so, you know, I guess I see that as sort of less it's not about it being instrumental to a healthy society, but, um, you know, but I guess it's instrumental, in a sense, to it, a healthy, uh, psyche. So maybe that's, you know, not not, uh, as absolute as you mean. Um, you know, I think that, you know, so can we defend it even when it leads to problematic consequences? I mean, I think that's sort of the debate over social media, you know, and sort of, you know, the discussion that I'm having in a sense is like, yeah, there are a lot of problems. But, you know, there also are positives. And we also have to think about, you know, uh, the solutions to the problems may be, uh, you know, when the, the cure may be worse than the disease in some instances.
Suzanne Nossel: Uh, you know, if we're asking these platforms to much more aggressively police speech or we're empowering a federal regulatory agency to define the boundaries of what we can say online, you know, we may be trying to go after, uh, speech that's hateful or denigrating, but we may be putting the, you know, power into the hands of government in a way, uh, you know, that undercuts our freedoms or impedes our progress. And so I think, uh, you know, those are sort of the debates and, you know, the point that you raise, you know, is there an inherent value to free speech, even when it has problematic consequences? You know, I think there's some recognition that, yes, and that's part of the work of the board. And, you know, we take decisions a lot that like something that seems really sort of harsh or negative on the platform just should be kept up there because we don't want Meta to exert the power to suppress it, even though, you know, that particular expression is pretty, uh, odious.
Question: Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. Um, I just had a question. I was curious as to, like, where in this framework of sort of like private advisory boards instead of, like, publicly run advisory boards or regulatory boards, um, like side, uh, platforms like where people, you know, move off of Meta and into these, like, less recognizable, sort of like echo chambers for like conspiracy and hate and Holocaust denial, etc.. Um, like whether there is a solution to like the proliferation of hate and disinformation etc. on there within this framework, or if maybe that's something that, you know, has to fall by the wayside because we're sort of relying on private advisory boards.
Suzanne Nossel: You mean like what- what about these sort of dark web sort of places, like when it gets pushed, like, if they don't. Right. I mean, you know, that's an argument that comes up a lot that if you, you know, restrict speech too much, that's just going to drive people away and they're going to go on to these, these shadowy platforms where it's harder for law enforcement or journalists to see what they're cooking up. And there's less transparency. And, you know, I think it's it's a real challenge because that it's also, you know, that's also freedom of association, the ability, you know, for people to gather as they want to on online platforms, you know, for whatever purpose. We don't, you know, we're not a surveil. You know, we haven't been a surveillance society where we would want government, uh, snooping into that. And so, you know, it's really tricky. I mean, I would say, uh, you know, the Meta Oversight Board has not really, you know, there is no, you know, because it's a voluntary platform that the company created. I mean, they had to decide to create it. They had to spend money on it. They had to be willing to engage with us, answer our questions. And, you know, these other platforms are never going to do that. You know, that's not their purpose. They don't. You know, Meta is kind of big enough that it feels some and a public company. So it feels some measure of public accountability. But, uh, you know, I think that that's, you know, when that's, you know, one of the thornier problems, I think, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.
Question: For like the quickest of follow ups. Um, is there any effort by like, PEN America or like other free speech associations that you're affiliated with to measure, like whether with an increase in these advisory boards, there is also an increase in hate being pushed off of mainstream platforms and into these echo chambers.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, I don't think there's a way to measure that. Uh, and, you know, and part of it's sort of this, you know, but even if you had transparency from Meta, you know, you wouldn't have it from Truth Social and these other, you know, and platforms we've never heard, you know, the sort of dark web world. So, uh, you know, I don't think we really know. I mean, I think on the conservative side, over the last few years, my sense is there has been a strong migration away from kind of some of these very mainstream platforms.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: How many more people have questions? What do we have left? Two? All right.
Suzanne Nossel: Last two?
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: Raise your hand if you still have a question.
Suzanne Nossel: Two, three.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: All right, so.
Suzanne Nossel: Doing those last three. Sure. Okay.
Question: Um. Hi, Suzanne. Thank you for your talk. Um, I was wondering, you mentioned briefly when you were talking about ChatGPT at the beginning, um, how you felt that we're kind of fighting the last war still. Um, and, you know, seeing the transition from kind of the isolated book bans to this, this wide sweeping legislation. Um, what do you think the kind of emerging threat is to free speech? And what is, um, what does PEN America do or what can PEN America do to kind of, uh, anticipate or other organizations do to anticipate and begin kind of identifying what is vulnerable in our kind of, um, environment around free speech that is going to be exploited. And how do you do that without, you know, seeming paranoid if these threats haven't come up yet or if you're going to go the kind of like agency route without seeming like you're restricting speech before it even happens.
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah. Uh, I mean, we're now looking at sort of these content generating AI platforms and the free speech implications of them. I think that's one really important set of questions. Like it raises different it's a different kind of disinformation, as far as I can tell. It's not willful dissemination of disinformation so much as, um, you know, almost an ignorant, uh, integration of truth and falsehood, uh, you know, through sort of the limitations of these platforms. I'm sure it can also be manipulated. You know, once people better understand how these platforms, uh, you know, like ChatGPT work, I'm sure, uh, you know, a whole cottage industry of manipulators and bots that try to insert, you know, their own perspective or advance their motives through those platforms. I'm sure that's going to arise and is already in the works. So those are a couple of areas on my mind. You know, I'm also just worried about sort of the normalization of this new wave of censorship that, you know, some of the laws that are being passed in certain states. You know, people view certain politicians view as a blueprint for what ought to be done nationally. And it's, you know, to me, it's like a real embrace of censorship. And it's it's being normalized. And people are even though overwhelmingly Americans, like 70 or 80% say they're against book bans. You know, in some of these communities, I think people have the notion that, well, I don't like book bans, but like, what's going on is so outrageous that, you know, I'm not really too upset about it. Or maybe, you know, a book ban is our only choice. And, you know, that worries me that these tactics that I think for a long time, you know, most of my life and career were considered kind of out of bounds, are now being legitimized. And, you know, if that continues, I think it really will reshape our landscape for free speech and the role of government in regulating speech and policing speech.
Question: Um, thank you again for coming to speak with us tonight. I have a question about free speech on campus, and one thing that I've been curious about since the summer I had the opportunity to intern in the free speech space was about university commitments to freedom of speech. Yale, for example, has a Woodward report. And it's this gold standard for what free speech on campus should look like. But in the last couple of years, Yale hasn't always been great about upholding the Woodward report. Most of my friends have no idea what the Woodward report is. Um, and so I'm curious about where do you think this lack of commitment to these principles has come from? Is it something that the university is responding to in terms of students? Is it just a negligence? And then also, where do you think a recommitment to those free speech principles comes from? Does it come from the university realizing the issues that have come as a result of this lack of commitment, or does it come from the students understanding how free speech is valuable to their education?
Suzanne Nossel: Yeah, I mean, in terms of like why it's waned, I think it's, you know, a number of things that we touched on them, uh, you know, that it hasn't been emphasized in, uh, education, secondary education. So a lot of kids come into school, uh, university not knowing much about the free speech. I think this sense that, uh, you know, the university has to change its ways and has to address these other populations and that, you know, that kind of comes first like that's job one. And, you know, some people see free speech as inimical to that or pitted against that. And so, you know, we have to prioritize this for now, uh, you know, to make up for, uh, you know, legacy issues of power imbalance. So free speech sort of pushed a little bit to the wayside, you know, this, uh, sense in some arenas that free speech is a more conservative cause, uh, and that it's, you know, kind of catering to a certain segment of the population and, you know, in terms of how it gets reversed. I mean, it's kind of interesting. I think there's an opportunity with the book bans and the legislative gag orders to activate a left leaning constituency on behalf of free speech, like we're seeing a lot of we're now working with a group of, uh, you know, a lot of college presidents who are sort of upset about that, uh, and the ways that it's encroaching on them, you know, and it's kind of, you know, if you're upset about that, I think, uh, you know, you also have to recognize, you know, that there are forces, censorious forces from the right and the left, and that you need to stand up to both and reinforce things like the, uh, you know, the Woodward report here at Yale.
Suzanne Nossel: So, uh, you know, I think there's kind of an opportunity in this moment because the issues are so prominent. I actually think that the reaction to the Hamlin thing and, and and to Ken Roth, uh, at Harvard's Kennedy School, you know, are sort of heartening. I mean, you know, people realize, like, you know, it sort of doesn't matter what you think of the substance. Like, this is not a good approach. And I thought, you know, there was a Harvard student who was a very pro-Israel student, but she and she just had a quote in the Times article saying, you know, I realized, like, as a matter of free speech, you know, he needs to be allowed to have this fellowship, but we have enough. You know, the truth is, we have enough anti-Israel voices on campus. Like, I thought it was actually a pretty good statement. Like she doesn't agree with him, but she she she does understand that free speech counts for something and she respects that. And so, uh, you know, I sort of feel like if that's what a lot more people thought, you know, we'd be in better shape on these issues. And, you know, maybe they, you know, there there's there is some awareness, there is some hope. There was a lot of outcry about that Hamlin University thing, um, you know, so, so some potential.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: You're the final one.
Question: Um. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I have a question. Um, very specific question about, um, uh, bureaucratic, uh, micromanagement when it comes to issues of free speech, especially because I, as a graduate instructor, I'm caught right in the middle of this, and I'm talking of, um, we all know what those measures are. Um, um, dei training, anti-bias training, so on and so forth. And I've been to numerous of these meetings, and I saw with my very own eyes, virtually 100% of graduate instructors at Yale absolutely loathe the sort of training like from like with, like, every fiber of their being. Everyone was playing on their phones. No one was listening. Everyone thought it was like, totally a waste of time. And the instructor would often end early because no one was listening. And yet every year, um, there are multiple periods during the academic year where it's it's almost like endless mental torture for a couple of weeks, you had to go to like, God. Like last year I went to 16 meetings. I went to 16 meetings for all the stuff. So like, like I just I just kind of want to get your take because you've been following what's going on in the United States is if we're talking about free speech, what are the free speech implications for this sort of mandatory institutional anti-bias training, which has essentially become an industry in many institutions in the United States?
Suzanne Nossel: Well, it's been I mean, it's a timely question because they're trying to ban those trainings and departments. Uh, now there's like a piece of model legislation that just came out to sort of ban like DEI departments and like, you know, your story is, you know, kind of part of the reason why I think that, you know, not a lot of these trainings may not be that great, that instructive. Maybe they're repetitive. There was, you know, a piece by Jesse Singal in The New York Times just about a week ago about these trainings. I don't know if you saw it, but you know, about how they can be kind of tendentious. Uh, and, and, uh, you know, doctrinaire in some instances. I think his point was the right one, which is sort of mend it, don't end it. You know, that there there are ways- you know, we're even trying to figure this out at PEN. Uh, you know, we we did some DEI workshops and then, uh, you know, we worked on goals. I was like, well, what are we going to do next? And what we're trying to put together is kind of an in-depth look at different forms of bigotry so that we can all learn something about, you know, whether it's Islamophobia or anti-Semitism or anti-Black racism, like, you know, the history, the tropes, um, you know, what the modern manifestations are and like, you know, disability, uh, discrimination against people with disabilities, like, I actually am interested in that.
Suzanne Nossel: And, you know, I feel like that that could be sort of edifying. And, you know, what we realized is you can't really it seems like we're realizing that doesn't lend itself to a sort of a workshop. And like, we should more just get an expert. So, you know, we're really trying to be thoughtful about how do we continue to discuss these issues, educate ourselves, kind of elevate these issues, but without it being, you know, a horrible forced march where everybody dreads it, uh, you know, and resents it because that's counterproductive. I mean, you know, the other point that, uh, Jesse Singal makes in his piece is, you know, that actually has has a negative effect because people come to, um, you know, are they're alienated from this agenda. They feel like it's being rammed down their throats and they don't want to play along. And so I do think there needs to be, you know, something of a kind of reckoning on how we go about this more effectively. I don't think the answer is banning it. You know, again, that is not a resort that I think we should be making.
Question: Yeah.
Member: Thank you everyone, so much for for coming this dinner for such insightful conversation. And thank you, most importantly for this incredible, um, insightful discussion. It was so amazing to host you both. Um, and for now, everyone can sort of trickle on out or stay. I'm sure there's there's dessert. And we have Suzanne for a few more minutes while she's here. Um, so. Yeah.
Suzanne Nossel: And thank you, John. Thank you so much. We talked for 45 minutes. It's just going to be amazing.
Rabbi Shmully Hecht: There are places.
Audience: I told you she was wise.