Skip to content
Lex Fridman PodcastLex Fridman Podcast

Harvey Silverglate: Freedom of Speech | Lex Fridman Podcast #377

Harvey Silverglate is a free speech advocate, co-founder of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and author of several books on freedom of speech and criminal justice. He is running for Harvard Board of Overseers on a platform of free speech. If you're a Harvard Alumni, please consider voting for him by Tue, May 16, 5pm ET: https://www.harvey4harvard.com/ballot Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Factor: https://factormeals.com/lex50 and use code lex50 to get 50% off first box - SimpliSafe: https://simplisafe.com/lex - Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/lex to get 1 month of fish oil EPISODE LINKS: Vote for Harvey: https://www.harvey4harvard.com/ballot Harvey's Website: https://www.harveysilverglate.com/ FIRE's Website: https://www.thefire.org/ PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41 OUTLINE: 0:00 - Introduction 2:15 - Freedom of speech 23:56 - Bureaucracy in Universities 40:10 - Clash of ideas 43:48 - Public education is broken 55:24 - Jeffrey Epstein 1:08:17 - Freedom of thought and liberal arts 1:19:22 - Interviewing controversial people 1:23:06 - Alan Dershowitz 1:26:19 - Donald Trump 1:33:18 - FBI 1:41:43 - Criminal justice system 1:44:12 - Advice SOCIAL: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman - Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

Harvey SilverglateguestLex Fridmanhost
May 16, 20231h 51mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 2:15

    Introduction

    1. HS

      It is the most important right that Americans have. It's not a coincidence or an accident that it's named in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Without it, no democratic society can be democratic for long. And I'm an absolutist. That is, um, I believe that, for example, people say to me, "But what about hate speech?" Well, hate speech is much more important than love speech, and the reason is, I'm much more interested in knowing wh- whom I should not turn my back on, than I am interested in f- figuring out who loves me.

    2. LF

      The following is a conversation with Harvey Silverglate, a legendary free speech advocate, co-founder of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the author of several books on the freedom of speech and criminal justice, including The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses. Harvey is running to be on the Harvard Board of Overseers this year with a write-in campaign, so you have to spell his name correctly, Silverglate, promising to advocate for free speech and to push for reducing the size of Harvard's administration bureaucracy. Election is over this Tuesday, May 16th, at 5:00 PM Eastern. To vote, you have to be Harvard alumni, so if you happen to be one, please vote online. It's a good way to support freedom of speech on Harvard campus. Instructions how to do so are in the description. As a side note, please allow me to say that since there are several controversial conversations coming up, I tried to make sure that this podcast is a platform for free discourse, where ideas are not censored but explored, and if necessary, challenged in a thoughtful, empathetic way. It's by having such difficult conversations, not by avoiding them, that we can begin to heal divides and to shed light on the dark parts of human history and human nature. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Harvey Silverglate.

  2. 2:15 – 23:56

    Freedom of speech

    1. LF

      You co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, also known as FIRE, a legendary organization that fights for the freedom of speech for all Americans, in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture. So let's start with the big question. What is freedom of speech?

    2. HS

      First of all, the or- organization, when I co-founded it in 1999, was called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

    3. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    4. HS

      It focused on free speech issues on college campuses in academia, and only earlier this year did we decide to expand our reach beyond the campuses, which is why the name, although the acronym FIRE remains, it's now the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    5. LF

      The E used to be education.

    6. HS

      The E used to be education. It's now expression. And we basically do a lot of the cases the ACLU used to do. The ACLU now more is, is the... they're a p- a progressive organization rather than a civil liberties organization. And, um, and we've taken the, um, the, the role of dealing with free speech in, in the society generally in... and now this is a particularly, um, uh, uh, an era prone to censorship. Um, e- everybody thinks they're right and that, uh, people who disagree with them should not be able to voice their views. It's a very difficult period right now, both on campus and off campus. Um, it's about as, as intolerant an era as I can remember in... I'm, I'm gonna be 81 May 10th. I was born on Mother's Day, 1942. And, uh, I can't remember it being this bad. I was born during the McCarthy era. Um-

    7. LF

      So that says a lot.

    8. HS

      ... and, um, it sort of reminds me of that.

    9. LF

      Well, le- let's start with that, almost a philosophical question, a legal question, a human question. What is this freedom that you care so much about, that you fought for so much, freedom of speech?

    10. HS

      It is the most important right that Americans have. It's not a coincidence or an accident that it's named in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Without it, no democratic society can be democratic for long. And I'm an absolutist. That is, um, I believe that, for example, people say to me, "But what about hate speech?" Well, hate speech is much more important than love speech, and the reason is, I'm much more interested in knowing wh- whom I should not turn my back on, than I am interested in f- figuring out who loves me, or who likes me. So, uh, hate speech is the most important, in my view, and yet it's, uh, it's banned in, for example, schools. It's unbelievable. Um, kids are, uh, not schooled into, uh, understanding the glory of the First Amendment when, when schools, uh, say to them they shouldn't say things that are gonna make somebody feel bad. Um, I mean, the purpose of speech is to express honest views that people have and, um... So, I believe hate speech is as important as love speech, and f- my view, it's more important.

    11. LF

      So it should be brought to the surface rather than operate in the shadows?

    12. HS

      Absolutely. Absolutely.

    13. LF

      What is the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of thought?

    14. HS

      Well, in a free society, th- thoughts start in the brain and then they come out the mouth.... so they're different ends of the same spectrum.

    15. LF

      So, to you, the censorship of speech eventually leads to a censorship of thought?

    16. HS

      Of course. Censorship of the mode by which other people know what you're thinking.

    17. LF

      So, there's some aspect of our society that is, uh, that thinking is done collectively, and without being able to speak to each other, we cannot do this kind of collective-

    18. HS

      Correct.

    19. LF

      ... thinking.

    20. HS

      And out of spee- the theory is that ultimately, out of speech comes truth. That isn't n- necessarily so, but I do think that when there's free speech, better decisions are made, because people put their views on the table in a frank, accurate way, and then those views mix together and clash, and out of that, usually, uh, comes the better, uh, the better, uh, decision. Um, not always, but usually, or more, more often than not. But if somebody is not allowed to be a, you know, uh, um, sit at the table of decision-making, then the decision-making process is poorer, um, less robust, less diverse, and ultimately, less successful.

    21. LF

      Can you, uh, elaborate on the idea of free speech absolutism? So, hate speech can be quite painful to quite a large number of people.

    22. HS

      Well-

    23. LF

      Does this worry you?

    24. HS

      Yep. Uh, living in a free society requires that you expose yourself to some discomfort. You call it pain. It's maybe emotional pain. It's not physical pain. Um, but it's, uh, it's the price we pay for living in a free society. W- every so often, we're insulted. We're, uh, emotionally hurt. Think of the alternative. All the alternatives are worse. Nobody ever promised us a rose garden. We're lucky to be in a country that has the First Amendment. It's also the on- it's the most diverse country in the world, because of immigration. I mean, my, my grandparents, uh, my father's side, came over from Russia. Uh, my mother's side came over from Poland. I'm very happy that my grandparents came in from Russia. Uh, I would not want to be in Russia today. I'd probably be sharing a cell with a Wall Street Journal reporter. Um, so, um, I'm, I'm thankful that they came in, and, um, this is a great country. It's got troubles right now, but what country doesn't? And we've had... Before, we had a civil war. We had segregation. Uh, we had the, uh, decimation of the Indians. We're not perfect. But it's the best place in the world for somebody who values liberty.

    25. LF

      So, you don't think that hate speech can empower large groups that, um, eventually lead to physical action, to physical harm to others?

    26. HS

      No, I don't. I think that, that, um, we have developed a culture in which, um, it's understood that if you don't like what you hear, you, you talk back.

    27. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    28. HS

      Um, you write, you write something. Um, um, we don't punch each other. We insult each other. Um, is insulting great? Well, I don't know. It's okay. I used to... As a kid in Brooklyn, where I was born... I was born and raised in Bensonhurst. We used to say, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never harm me."

    29. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    30. HS

      And it's absolutely true. It... What was true when I was five is true when I'm... I'm almost 81. So I've lived a long time. I've seen it all, and I'm talking from experience as well as theory. It's what happens when you reach your 80s. (laughs)

  3. 23:56 – 40:10

    Bureaucracy in Universities

    1. HS

      And what happens is, um, universities, inc- from the best to the worst, from the most famous to the least well-known, have been taken over by administrators. Administrators do not really subsume academic values. They know nothing about the Constitution. They know nothing about free speech. They know nothing about academic freedom. They feel that their job is to keep order. And so they develop speech codes, kangaroo courts to enforce the speech codes.... and these are very dire developments. I wrote about them in The Shadow University in '98, um, and tried to deal with them in 1999 when I started FIRE, co-started FIRE. And, um, uh, I would fire, the reason why I'm running currently for the Harvard Board of Overseers is, what I'd like to do is convince the Harvard Corporation, so-called President and Fellows of Harvard College, the chief governing board of the university with the real power, um, the Board of Overseers is a secondary body, but quite influential, uh, to fire 95% of the administrators. It would have a salutary effect on the academics of the university. It would have a salutary effect on free speech and academic freedom. It would cut tuitions by about 40%, um, and it would create a whole different atmosphere on the campus. And the same could be said of MIT or any other place, um. I think administrators are a, uh, a, a, a very, um, uh, uh, bad, uh, influence on American higher education.

    2. LF

      Can you sort of elaborate, uh, the intuition of why this thing that you call, uh, administrative bloat is such a bad thing for a university? So wh-

    3. HS

      Well, first of all, j- just in terms of the, the, the cost of-

    4. LF

      Yeah.

    5. HS

      ... maintaining, there are more administrators in American higher education than there are faculty members.

    6. LF

      Yeah.

    7. HS

      The cost is enormous. Number two, they are, uh, inimical to the, uh, the, uh, the teaching enterprise and, and, um, they feel that their job is to control things, to make sure there are no problems, that nobody's feelings are hurt, um, uh... Being called, you know, be- before a dean because you said something, um, that insulted somebody is something that shouldn't happen in American higher education. Yet it happens because you have these administrators who think it's their job to protect people from being insulted. You, you, you insult a, a black student, you insult a woman, um, there's a disciplinary hearing. Well, there shouldn't be. Um, b- black people, uh, are accustomed to being insulted. Jews are customed, accustomed to being insulted. Women are accustomed to being insulted. And it's very good to know who doesn't like you. It's useful. It is very u- it's essential information to know who doesn't like you. If everybody is forced to say, "I love you," and nobody can say, "I hate you," you get a false view of what life is all about.

    8. LF

      Outside of the university?

    9. HS

      Outside of the university. I mean, you, you do graduate eventually.

    10. LF

      (sighs) And that's ultimately the mission of the university, is to prepare you, to make you into a great human being, into a great leader that can take on the problems of the world.

    11. HS

      Correct, correct. And you don't do it by, by treating you like a, like a little flower.

    12. LF

      Uh, but what role does the university have to protect students? To women, African Americans, anybody, Jews, anybody who gets, can get-

    13. HS

      Well, you, they-

    14. LF

      ... could be a victim of hate speech?

    15. HS

      They, they, they protect you from physical assault. If somebody physically assaults you, then they, um, th- they get punished. But they shouldn't insult, they shouldn't protect you against insult, because that is a violation of academic freedom, the freedom of the insulter to insult you. And also, as I've said, it's very useful to know who doesn't like you. It's useful for the so-called victim. I think it's essential. I wanna know who doesn't like me. It's as important to me as knowing who, who likes me.

    16. LF

      But do you also believe in this open, uh, space of discourse, that the insulter will eventually lose?

    17. HS

      I think that's true. I think that the insulter eventually will wear out his or her welcome. Um, I do. But I, I like to know who the insulters are.

    18. LF

      'Cause it gives you a deeper understanding of human nature?

    19. HS

      Yeah. And, and, and usually, by the way, my experience has been that the insulters have generally not been as smart as the people they've insulted.

    20. LF

      Yeah.

    21. HS

      And that's probably one of the reasons they insult them, because they're, they feel inferior.

    22. LF

      Yeah.

    23. HS

      I mean, I'm not trying to be a, a, a, a psychoanalyst here, but a lot of the people who are the haters are pretty low down on the, uh, intellectual scale.

    24. LF

      Anyway, 95% of administration, you would fire. You're calling to fire 95% of the administration.

    25. HS

      Correct.

    26. LF

      Uh, people should know, I think people that don't really think about the structure, the way the universities work, are not familiar, I think, with the fact that administration, there's a huge bloat of administration. You know, when you think about what makes a great university, it's about the students, it's about the faculty, it's about the people that do research, if it's a research university. They don't think about the bureaucracy of meetings and committees and rules and paperwork and all that, and all the people that are involved with pushing that kind of paper. And there's a huge cost to that. But it also slows down and suppresses the, the beautiful variety that makes a university great, which is the teaching, the student life, the protests, the, the, um, the clubs. All the fun that you can have in a university. All the very, kind of, exploration, which you can't really do once you graduate.

    27. HS

      Correct.

    28. LF

      It's the place, the university is a place to really explore.

    29. HS

      Mm-hmm.

    30. LF

      I- in every single way. So, let me just talk about this important thing, because, uh, I'm very fortunate to have contacted you, almost by accident, in a very important moment in your life. You're running for the Harvard Board of Overseers. Uh, what is this board? How much power does it have?... uh, and what would you do if elected?

  4. 40:10 – 43:48

    Clash of ideas

    1. LF

      Let me also ask about, uh, diversity, inclusion, and equity programs. You've been- you've had a few harsh words to say about those. You know, the idea of diversity, I think, is a beautiful ideal. Uh, you've said that Harvard's idea of diversity is for everyone to look different and think alike.

    2. HS

      Correct.

    3. LF

      Can you elaborate?

    4. HS

      And- and be comfortable.

    5. LF

      And be comfortable.

    6. HS

      Yeah. First of all, it is impossible, if liberal arts education is taken seriously, it's impossible for students to feel comfortable. Why? Because one of the roles of college is to challenge all the beliefs that they grew up with, which mostly are the beliefs inculcated by parents and by elementary school teachers. And, um, the idea is to be able to challenge those thoughts, those ideas. And if you don't have free speech and academic freedom, those views get reified. They do not get challenged. So, it's- it is- it- it- it violates the fundamental role of higher educational institutions to have any restrictions at all. Th- that's number one. Number two, as I think I said earlier, if people- students are not allowed to be frank with one another, they don't really learn about one another. Uh, and, um, uh, you know, I- I've given a lot of lectures in which I have said, and- and- and I think pe- students now understand it, I'm much more interested in hearing from the people who hate me than the people who love me. I'm much more interested in knowing who disagrees with me than people who agree with me. That's how I learn, and that's how they learn, the clash of ideas, which is the theory behind the First Amendment. That truth will somehow emerge, or if not truth, at least a better truth, a truer truth, a more useful truth, if ideas are allowed to clash.

    7. LF

      Especially in the structure of a university where, uh, at least I would say there's some set of rules, some set of civility. I think I would rather read Mein Kampf to understand people that hate. There is also quality, uh, to disagreement that we should strive for, and I think a university is a place where when a disagreement and even hate is allowed, it's done in a high-effort way.

    8. HS

      You know, somebody asked me once about what books I would-... what I have as required reading in, in literature courses. And I listed Mein Kampf, and they were horrified. And I said, "Well, it's one of the most important books of the 20th century."

    9. LF

      Yeah.

    10. HS

      I mean, 6 million Jews died, an enormous number of other people died because one guy wrote a book called Mein Kampf and took it seriously. It's one of the most important books ever written. How can, how can an educated person not have at least breezed through Mein Kampf? And, um-

    11. LF

      It's not a great read, though.

    12. HS

      It's not a great read.

    13. LF

      (laughs)

    14. HS

      He was not a great writer. But you, you do get a sense for the, the sociopath that was Adolf Hitler.

    15. LF

      Yes. Because he really acted on the words that he wrote.

    16. HS

      Yeah.

    17. LF

      And it was there, and if people took that work seriously-

    18. HS

      Correct.

    19. LF

      ... they, they would have understood the, uh-

    20. HS

      It's one of the most important books of the 20th century. And it's politically incorrect to read it. It's crazy.

  5. 43:48 – 55:24

    Public education is broken

    1. HS

    2. LF

      But can you, uh, speak to the, um, the efforts to increase diversity, uh, in universities, which I think is embodied in this, uh, DIE effort of diversity, inclusion, and equity programs? Where do they go right? Where did, do they go wrong?

    3. HS

      Okay, let me tell you first of all, th- this may surprise a lot of people. I am opposed to affirmative action. Um, and I think that, um, what it does is it labels people by their race, by their religion, and by their national origin, precisely what we don't want people to do, is be pigeonholed in those categories. The reason that affirmative action has become the way that universities decide on who gets admitted is because historically, people in what's called marginalized groups, Blacks, gays, Hispanics, have been discriminated against in the admissions process. Now, what I have suggested is that instead of affirmative action... And by the way, uh, here's a prediction. The Supreme Court is going to abolish affirmative action. There's a case pending, this Harvard case. Um, it's, there's a, there are two cases joined together, one of a public university and one of a private university. The private university is Harvard. Uh, I be- I predict that the Supreme Court will vote six to three to abolish affirmative action. Uh, it is, on its face, it is a violation of equal protection of the law. Some groups, uh, are favored because of race or ethnicity. It is a classic violation of the Equal Protection clause. When, uh, affirmative action was approved, the deciding vote was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She wrote a very famous opinion in which she said, um, "I am hesitate to vote to up, to keep up the, to affirm the notion of affirmative action, 'cause it's such an obvious violation of equal protection. But we have an urgent problem in this society. We are not educating our, um, uh, members of racial, uh, ethnic minorities, and we have to try to get them into our colleges. Um, so I'm, uh," "I think it should be approved for 25 years, um, and um, it will, uh, it should be, it, it should, uh, in 25 years, it should have performed its role." Well, it hasn't. And, um, the 25 years is coming up. I think it's three or four years left. The Supreme Court is going to abolish it. You can take my word for that, 'cause it is such an obvious violation of equal protection. Why do, why did affirmative action come into play? Because the secondary and elementary schools are so bad. Public secondary and elementary schools are so bad. Why are they so bad? Partly because of the control that the teachers union has. Randi Weingarten runs the public school system in the United States. And what I have suggested is that the effort should be to, uh, uh, this is an emergency, a national emergency, to im- improve the quality of elementary and secondary education. And one way to do it is to hire teachers who are fabulous teachers, rather than necessarily members of the union.

    4. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    5. HS

      I have come to oppose public workers' unions. I am a very strong supporter of unions in the private sector. Why do I think there's such a difference between unions in the public sector and the private sector? In the private sector, management is arguing, bargaining with its own money and with the money of shareholders. In the public sector, there's only one side. There is the teachers' union, and then there's a school committee that is dealing with the taxpayers' money, not their own. And so it's a very skewed power balance. So, as supportive as I am of private sector unions, I am in opposition of public sector unions. They're very destructive, and I think without the teachers' union, teachers who are really skilled will be able to get jobs. They would not have to worry about the seniority of teachers who long since have given up really creative teaching.... uh, and we have to improve the public educational system. Um, I had, um, in, in, um... My late wife and I, um, uh, had a, a classmate of... We have a son who is now 44 who went to the public schools in Cambridge. Um, he has a friend, first name Eugene, who was a Black kid from Roxbury, whose mother understood that the schools in Roxbury were terrible, and the schools in Cambridge were pretty good. He lived in our house Monday through Friday, and he went to school with Isaac in the Cambridge Public Schools.

    6. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    7. HS

      Elsa and I would show up to school committee meetings when there was bargaining between the teachers' union and the school committee. Um, the teachers' union objected to our being there. We argued, "We're taxpayers. We have a s- a, a kid in the school and we have... His, his best friend lives with us, and goes to school with him. Uh, we have a real interest." And, um, the school committee walked out of the bargaining session. The City Council then reconsidered its vote, and they voted that we... That citizens, taxpayers, parents of kids in the school could not show up to these negotiation sessions. I thought that was absolutely outrageous. But I understood why. Because these contracts are crazy. No sane municipality should enter into some of these contracts, um, and, um, so I am a, um, uh... I have become an opponent of the National Teachers Association, the Cambridge Teaching all- uh, Cambridge Teachers Association. I don't think there should be unions for public employees, 'cause there's no real bargaining going on, and, um, I really think that the public school system will never be improved as long as the, the teachers are unionized.

    8. LF

      So that, to you, is at the core of the problem that results in, uh, the kind of inequality of opportunity that, uh, affirmative action is designed to solve.

    9. HS

      Correct. If the-

    10. LF

      So if you-

    11. HS

      ... if the educational system in the elementary and high school levels is improved, we wouldn't need affirmative action. These kids would get good educations.

    12. LF

      So from all backgrounds, poor kids in the United States will get good education...

    13. HS

      Correct.

    14. LF

      ... if, uh, uh, public unions are abolished?

    15. HS

      Correct.

    16. LF

      Yeah, but do you more-

    17. HS

      And incidentally, the postal service would probably work better, too. (laughs)

    18. LF

      (laughs) That's a whole 'nother conversation.

    19. HS

      Yes.

    20. LF

      But to you, at the core of the problem of the inequality in, in universities, that, uh, diversity inclusion and equity programs are trying to solve, is the public education system-

    21. HS

      Correct.

    22. LF

      ... of secondary education?

    23. HS

      Yes, correct. Elementary and secondary.

    24. LF

      Elementary and secondary education. Well then, is there use? What is the benefit? What is the drawback of, uh, DIE, diversity inclusion and equity programs at universities like Harvard?

    25. HS

      It's an affirmative action, basically.

    26. LF

      Yeah.

    27. HS

      And what it does is it allows the system of, uh, elementary and secondary education to be bad, because they could say, "Oh, we got our kids into Harvard." Yes, but you haven't educated them. And it, it covers up the wound, and I think w- we will never improve as long as we're able to cover up the wound. And as I said, affirmative action is gonna be abolished by the Supreme Court. It's a clear violation of equal protection, which is what Santris de O'Connor understood, but ignored intentionally, but as an experiment, uh, and, um, I believe it's gonna be abolished, and that's gonna have... That's gonna force the elementary and high schools to get serious.

    28. LF

      Do you see the same issues that you discuss now at Harvard, uh, at MIT? We're here in Boston, so I have to talk about the, the great universities here in Boston. You've written about MIT. I'm, uh... It's a university I love. I'm a research scientist there. Um, do you see the same kind of issues there?

    29. HS

      Yes, I do.

    30. LF

      Do you remember... Can you explain the case of Dorian Abbot lecture that was canceled at MIT?

  6. 55:24 – 1:08:17

    Jeffrey Epstein

    1. HS

    2. LF

      Uh, you've written about MIT's connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

    3. HS

      Yes.

    4. LF

      He was well-connected at MIT and at Harvard. Um, what are you, what lessons do you draw about human nature, about universities, about all of this from, from this saga?

    5. HS

      Let me say this. I believe that universities, if somebody was to, for example, donate to a university and donates on the r- requirement that the building be named after them-

    6. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    7. HS

      ... if the university is taking do- donations and the person is funding a building, you know, and wants the building named after 'em, the building should be named after him, her, or them.

    8. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    9. HS

      Harvard is facing this now with the Sackler Building.

    10. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    11. HS

      Because Sackler, the Sacklers had become now a persona non grata because of their role in producing the opioids that caused the huge o- scandalous opioid addiction. There are people who want to remove the name Sackler from the Sackler Art Museum at Harvard. Larry Bacow, the president of Harvard, to his credit, has refused to, to do that. Um, and, um, if it reminds people that the money was earned through selling opioids, that's good. That's good that people understand that that's where the Sacklers got their money. They should be r- reminded. In the mic- in, in, in, in my, um, uh, undergraduate alma mater, Princeton, there's a movement to remove the name Woodrow Wilson, because Wi- Wilson was president of Princeton before he became governor of New Jersey, before he became president of the United States. How he got to be governor of New Jersey was he was so insufferable that the trustees of Princeton got him the (laughs) nomination to run for governor of New Jersey. They had said, "We gotta get this guy outta here." Um, and, um, not 'cause he was anti-black and anti-Semitic, 'cause the trustees were as well, but because he just was insufferable. He drove the faculty crazy, and, uh, they got him out. Um, and, um, so, uh, Pr- Princeton was thinking of changing the name. I wrote a letter to President Eisgruber at Princeton saying, you know, "The, the... This is part of the university's history. You don't wanna re- you wanna rewrite history falsely? Uh, Woodrow Wilson was the president of this institution. He was one of your predecessors." He never answered me either. Um, I think these people, you know, they, they know they have no answer. The reason I didn't get a response from President Eisgruber is the same as the reason I didn't get a response from the headmaster of Milton Academy. They understand that what they're doing is violative of the fundamental precepts of academic institutions.

    12. LF

      Yeah.

    13. HS

      They're ashamed. They, they, they feel they have no choice because they feel that they would be criticized for racism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    14. LF

      Criticized by how many people?

    15. HS

      Well, they feel that they would be criticized by students and parents and donors. I disagree with that. I actually think there are more people out there that agree with me than agree with them.

    16. LF

      Yeah, by a large margin.

    17. HS

      By a large margin, in what I call the real world, which is the world outside the campus. But academics are afraid they'd be criticized. Uh, they, they're incredibly thin ski- when I say academics, I mean academic administrators. They're very thin-skinned, politically correct, holier than thou. Um, as I said, I would fire 90, 95% of 'em and I would be more, um, careful in who I elected to, to lead these institutions. So, I said Pauline Gay is probably gonna be a disaster at Harvard.

    18. LF

      So, it takes guts, it takes courage to be in the administration when the task of protecting the freedom of speech is there.

    19. HS

      Yeah.

    20. LF

      Also, um, which in part requires you to admit and to uphold the mistakes you have done in the past.

    21. HS

      Correct.

    22. LF

      Not to hide them.

    23. HS

      Correct.

    24. LF

      And that, to, to you, I mean, Jeffrey Epstein, for Harvard and for MIT, is a very recent mistake.

    25. HS

      Well, there's a debate whether it's a mistake. They took money from him.

    26. LF

      Yes.

    27. HS

      Okay? Is it a mistake to take money from bad people? Do you have to do a morals test of a potential donor? I don't think so. Um-

    28. LF

      It's complicated because-

    29. HS

      ... if there are no conditions attached to it, I think it's emotionally complicated. I don't think that it is rationally complicated. Um, it's emotionally complicated. It's p- particularly complicated if they want naming rights.

    30. LF

      Yes.

  7. 1:08:17 – 1:19:22

    Freedom of thought and liberal arts

    1. LF

      All right, just to linger on liberal arts. In, uh, 2014, and probably still today, you wrote that "Liberals are killing the liberal arts."

    2. HS

      Yes.

    3. LF

      So can you explain?

    4. HS

      Yes, the problem with... I'm a political liberal.

    5. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    6. HS

      The problem with the l- the, the political left is that it has divided between what's called progressives and liberals. Liberals are people of the left who believe in the First Amendment, an absolute First Amendment, and in due process of law. And, um, the, the problem with, with progressives now, in the pursuit of equality, what they view as equality, they're willing to bend those rules. And this movement actually started in Brandeis. Um, the, um, the critical... It's the critical race theory. Uh, i- it started, Herbert Marcuse was a professor at Brandeis, and he came up with this theory. The theory was this. Now, this is right out of Orwell. In order to create true equality in a society where you have some downtrodden and some who are the Übermensch, in order to create real, um, equality, you have to reduce the rights of the upper classes and artificially increase the rights of the lower classes. And, um, that will produce a qua- out of, out of unequal treatment, r- true equality will be, will, will be attained. This is nonsense. The idea of discrimination producing true equality is nonsense. My view is, as I've said earlier in our discussion, that the way to, um, increase the opportunities for the lower classes is to give them real educations. And until we do that, it's not gonna happen. And in order to do that, we have to overcome, um, the problem of the teachers' unions at the elementary and secondary school levels. Until we're willing to do that honestly, and increa- im- im- improve those schools, we're gonna have a problem of large number of uneducated people who need a boost because we haven't given them proper educations.

    7. LF

      What do you think about some of the more controversial faculty in the world? So, an example, somebody I've spoken with many times, uh, on mic and offline is Jordan Peterson. I'm not sure if you're familiar with his work.

    8. HS

      Yes.

    9. LF

      But he is an outspoken critic of, uh, or proponent of free speech on campus, and he's been attacked quite a bit. He's a controversial figure. Um, what's the role of the university to protect the Jordan Petersons of the world?

    10. HS

      I think the university has an absolute, absolute, no, not relative, not watered down, absolute role, obligation to protect the academic freedom of even the most controversial faculty members. Um, and, um, you can imagine, on a university campus, you have more people who are outliers than you do in the general population. Um, and, um-

    11. LF

      That's the hope, at least.

    12. HS

      Hopefully, yeah. And, and, um, and those outliers have to be protected. Um, they can't be pressured. They can't be fired. They can't be disabled from spewing their, their views, whether they're considered racist, whether they're considered to be, uh, you know, uh, uh, promote an idea of, of human society that's considered obnoxious. Um, it, it doesn't matter. If you can't, if, if you can't have freedom of thought on the college campuses, where can you? You know, then we're lost as a society. We're lost. And as an educational institution, um, educational institutions no longer will educate. They will indoctrinate. That, we have to avoid at all costs.

    13. LF

      And we should also remember that the outlier might also be the only bearer of truth. So, in Nazi Germany, speaking against the fascism, fascist regime. In, uh, Communist Soviet Union, speaking against communism. They might hold the key to the solving the, uh, the ailments of that society.

    14. HS

      Oh, absolutely. And some of the most important discoveries in science, for example-

    15. LF

      Yes.

    16. HS

      ... were, um, were, uh, mocked at the beginning. I mean, think of poor Charlie Darwin.

    17. LF

      Charlie. (laughs) I see he is on nickname, uh, (laughs) levels with you. Uh, well, 'cause we're talking about these big topics of sexism, racism, and hate, we should not forget about the smaller topics which might even have the much bigger impact, which is what you're speaking to, which is, um...... outlier, uh, ideas in science, so basically welping- welcoming controversial ideas in science. And by controversial, I mean just stuff that, that, uh, most of the community doesn't agree on, and doesn't actually harm anyone at all. But even then, there's always pressure. Uh, one of the things I'm really concerned about is how little power young faculty have, that there's a kind of hierarchy, seniority, that's, uh, that universities have, empowered by the administration, where young faculty that come in, they're kind of, um-

    18. HS

      Pre- pre-tenured.

    19. LF

      Pre- yeah. The- there's a, there's a process in chasing tenure, where you're kinda supposed to behave, and there's an, uh, incentive to kinda fit in, and to not be an outcast, and that, that's a really huge problem, because oftentimes, the youth is when the craziest and biggest ideas, the revolutionary ideas come, and if you're forced to behave and fit in, and not speak out, then even in the realm of science, the, uh, the innovation is stifled.

    20. HS

      Well, now you, now you trigger my, uh-

    21. LF

      Uh-oh.

    22. HS

      ... having to tell you this story.

    23. LF

      You're triggered. This is good.

    24. HS

      In the mid-1980s, I decided to take a four-month sabbatical from my law practice.

    25. LF

      Yes.

    26. HS

      Professor James Vorenberg, who was at the time dean of the Harvard Law School, heard about it. Heard about it from his wife, Elizabeth Betty Vorenberg, whom I was very friendly with, because we were both on the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts board at the time. And, um, so Betty told Jim that Harvey was taking a sabbatical. Jim called Harvey and asked Harvey if he would like to teach a course at the Harvard Law School, because there was nobody who had, t- teaching criminal law from the perspective of somebody who actually was in court, litigating. It was all theoretical. I said, "Sure, I'll do it." So, I taught a semester at Harvard Law School. The student evaluations were fabulous. Why? Because it was really interesting. They were hearing a lawyer who's talking about real cases. I actually brought in a few of my clients to some of the classes. And, um, so Jim called me in and said, "Harvey, the students love this course. I'd like to offer you a tenure track position at the law school. You'd have to give up your law practice." I turned him down. He said, "Did you just say no?" I said, "Yes, I said no." He said, "How come?" He says, "Nobody ever, has ever, in my administration, has ever turned down a tenure track offer at Harvard Law School." I said, "Because I can see that I'm not a good fit, that the administrators are... overrun the place, that faculty members, especially untenured, who are afraid to say things that might not get... help them in their tenure quest, um, it's, uh, I'm, I'm... it's not a good fit for me." Um-

    27. LF

      You saw this in the mid-nineteen eighties already?

    28. HS

      Yes, uh, 1985. And, um, I went back to my law practice. I, I did not wanna get into this meat grinder that I saw. After all, I had, I started to see it before the turn of the century, because I co-authored The Shadow University in '98, and then co-founded FIRE in '99. I, I'm a early student of this phenomenon.

    29. LF

      What are some other aspects of this, uh, the book, The Shadow University, that we may have not covered?

    30. HS

      Well, l- let me, let me tell you a story. I believe I tell it in The Shadow University, 'cause it was-

  8. 1:19:22 – 1:23:06

    Interviewing controversial people

    1. HS

    2. LF

      Uh, let me ask you from the interviewer seat. So, I get to do this podcast, and I often have to think about giving a large platform and having a conversation with very controversial figures, and the, the level of controversy has been slowly increasing. Uh, what's the role...... of this medium to, to you. Uh, this medium of speech between two people, and me speaking with a controversial figure, me or some other interviewer. What's the role of, uh, giving platform to controversial figures, say members, uh, of the KKK or dictators, um, people who are seen as evil?

    3. HS

      Well, we wanna face the world with reality, and the reality is that there are some unpleasantness- unpleasantnesses in the world. You know, running from genocide, right through to ordinary discrimination, um, to offensiveness. It's the real world as we, we know it exists. Are we afraid to say it? Do we wanna make people think that we live in a world where those words are not used, where those animosities don't exist? Um, the answer is no.

    4. LF

      But you can whitewash, you can normalize the use of those words, and you can whitewash the, uh, acceptability of certain leaders. So, for example, interviewing Hitler in 1938, 1935, 1936, 1937, '38, those are all different dynamics there. But you can normalize this person, and in so doing, create enormous harm.

    5. HS

      Well, see, I don't see it as normalizing. I see it as exposing. If more people had taken Mein Kampf seriously, um, Franklin Roosevelt would've w- acted much sooner. Uh, he only got us into the war, uh, asked Congress to get us into the war when the Japanese made the mistake of attacking Pearl Harbor. Um, but there were some people in the State Department, there were some people in the administration who were trying t- trying to get Roosevelt to see what Hitler was really like, and he was blind to it. And this was one of the greatest presidents the United States ever had. He was blind to it until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So, I think that words, unpleasant ideas, as expressed by words, are essential for communicating fact and truth and reality. And that's why I think that we should not whitewash language. We should not whitewash the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was pretty close to MIT-

    6. LF

      And Harvard.

    7. HS

      ... and Harvard. Um, and, um, you know, reality- reality actually means something.

    8. LF

      Yeah, but from the role of the interviewer, that's something I have to think a lot about, whether interviewing Hitler, you said exposing. I think it's hard to know what Hitler's like in a room, but, uh, it's also hard to know... I've never met Jeffrey Epstein, so it's hard to know what Jeffrey Epstein's like in a room. But I imagine, to some degree, they're charismatic figures, so exposing them in the interview setting is not an easy task.

    9. HS

      Well, interviewing is not a- an easy-

    10. LF

      All right.

    11. HS

      ... job.

    12. LF

      Yeah. (laughs)

    13. HS

      Um, it's- it's not a good idea to have an interviewer be an idiot.

    14. LF

      (laughs) I know exactly what you're saying, and I know why you're looking at me directly as you say it. I appreciate that, Harvey. All right. (laughs)

  9. 1:23:06 – 1:26:19

    Alan Dershowitz

    1. LF

      Let me ask about your- your friend, your colleague, uh, Alan Dershowitz, and I'll also ask about your review of his most recent book. But before then, it'd be interesting, um, to ask what you think of him as a human being, as- as a lawyer. He's a quite an interesting case. He's represented some of the most controversial figures in history.

    2. HS

      Including Jeffrey Epstein.

    3. LF

      Including Jeffrey Epstein, Mike Tyson, Julian Assange, Jim Baker, and, uh, Jeffrey Epstein, and even Donald Trump. So, he's an interesting figure. What do you think about that cl-

    4. HS

      Klaus von Bulow.

    5. LF

      What do you think? What do you think about, uh, him as a human being, as a lawyer, what he represents in terms of values and ideals?

    6. HS

      Well, he's a criminal defense lawyer, and the- the job of a criminal defense lawyer is to represent accused criminals. Uh, he, I mean, he- he's a lifelong Democrat. He didn't represent Trump because he agrees with him politically.

    7. LF

      Voted for Hillary, I believe you wrote.

    8. HS

      He voted for Hillary. Yes. That's what he says, and I absolutely believe it. He's a, he's a liberal democrat. Um, but he's a criminal defense lawyer, as well as a professor. And, um, I've represented some very nasty people, uh, in- in my career. Um, I wouldn't go out for coffee with them, but they have constitutional rights to representation.

    9. LF

      And you take that very seriously?

    10. HS

      Yes.

    11. LF

      Because-

    12. HS

      You notice, something that people don't understand about Dershowitz, he was asked sh- by Trump to represent him in the second impeachment as well.

    13. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    14. HS

      He turned him down. Why do you think he turned down?

    15. LF

      So, people should know he represented Trump in the first impeachment trial, not in the second.

    16. HS

      He represented only in the first, and he was successful. And when Trump was impeached the second time, he asked Alan to represent him. Alan has had a lifelong policy of only representing somebody once, never twice. Why? Because he never wanted to be house counsel to the mafia. And so, he early on had this position. He'll only represent somebody once. The mafia wants a lawyer who's an in-house counsel, who represents them in- in all their cases. So, that's the reason. And Alan never publicly explained it. I know it's a fact 'cause I've known him from the day that we met at Harvard Law School, 1964. He was a first-year professor. I was a first-year student. We both had Brooklyn accents, and we hit it off. We- we've been close friends ever since.

    17. LF

      So, there's some kind of unethical line that's crossed when you continuously represent a- a client?

    18. HS

      Yeah. He thought it, it was not so much an ethical element. You have a right to represent mafia people. But he didn't wanna be house counsel. He didn't wanna be, you know, have them ask him for advice in advance of what they were doing.

    19. LF

      Yeah.

    20. HS

      He, he, he was willing to represent somebody once, no matter how awful. I mean, Claus von Bulow was accused of killing his wife. These are pretty nasty people. Um, but he didn't wanna be house counsel to any of them.

  10. 1:26:19 – 1:33:18

    Donald Trump

    1. HS

    2. LF

      So, you wrote a review of Alan Dershowitz's new book-

    3. HS

      Yes.

    4. LF

      ... on Donald Trump. The title of that book is Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process and our Constitutional Rule of Law. Can you summarize this book and your review of it?

    5. HS

      Yes. By the way, I co-authored it with my research assistant, who's sitting right here.

    6. LF

      Emily.

    7. HS

      Yes. Um, and, um, well, I thought that the book was another example of the fact that everybody's entitled to a defense, and that, um, Alan's, um, being involved with Trump was purely professional. It was not political, it was not philosophical. And I thought that the fact that he was being, um, uh, criticized, he was being shunned, uh, because of his connection to Trump, I found very interesting that this is a guy who represented such, um, I'll call them distasteful figures as Claus von Bulow, uh, as, um, um, Mike Tyson, uh, as, uh, OJ Simpson, as Sheldon Segal. Uh, and when he was considered to be, um, a skillful lawyer, made his reputation, and then he represents D- Donald Trump, who to my knowledge never killed anybody, um, and he's suddenly shunned. I thought the hypocrisy of it, the political preening-

    8. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    9. HS

      ... it was, um, very distasteful to me. Um, and it was not only 'cause he was my friend. If he wasn't my friend, I think I'd have the same view. Um, the holier than thou nonsense, uh, the hypocrisy of it. Um, you know, they wouldn't talk to him at Martha's Vineyard now. Alan and I are different. I'm not so sensitive. I'm... If someone doesn't wanna talk to me, no problem. No problem at all. Um, but Alan is, c- considering how controversial his life has been...

    10. LF

      He's somewhat sensitive.

    11. HS

      He's somewhat sensitive, and I've (laughs) ... I'm telling Alan, you know, "Alan, don't let it get to you," you know? He's-

    12. LF

      Hey, I can relate. I can, I can definitely relate. Taking on some controversial conversations, still wear my heart on my sleeve. It hurts. All of it hurts.

    13. HS

      Yep.

    14. LF

      But maybe the pain makes you a better, uh, student of human nature.

    15. HS

      Yep.

    16. LF

      Maybe that's the case for him. Nevertheless, the book has a... makes a, a complicated and I think an interesting point. He opens the par- he opens the book with, "Now that Donald Trump has announced his candidacy for re- reelection as president, the unremitting efforts by his political opponents to," quote, "'get him,' to stop him from running at any cost will only increase. These efforts may pose the most significant threat to civil liberties since McCarthyism." So, is he right?

    17. HS

      He's absolutely right. Because these attempted pros- the, for example, the prosecution, the, the one prosecution that has been brought now with Alvin Bragg in, in the Manhattan, I have looked at that, and I don't believe that Trump has committed a crime. And yet Bragg was pressured to bring that. People in his office were threatening to quit if he didn't indict. Wholly improper, wholly unethical, um, and he's gonna lose the case. Has Trump committed crimes? Yes. Mostly they're tax crimes. Um, i- his, uh... He has cheated on taxes his whole career, as far as I can tell. He could easily be indicted for state and federal taxes. But those nu- they're not as sexy. And, um, I think that, um, he's become a target, um, by ambitious politicians, ambitious prosecutors. He has gotten some sympathy, which he doesn't deserve, and, um, a lot of it is, is... You'll pardon the phrase, political correctness. The better people are not supposed to be Trumpers.

    18. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    19. HS

      Um, uh, I, I had an interesting experience about Trump. I had two interesting experiences. The more recent one was I was in the house of, um, Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard, who was driven out by political correctness, by the way.

    20. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    21. HS

      He insulted women biologists. Um, I was in h- his house when he was-

    22. LF

      He was-

    23. HS

      ... still president of Harvard, uh, when, uh, the Trump-Hillary Clinton contest took place, and I was with Elsa. Um, we were invited to Summers' house in Brookline, and, um, it looked like Hillary was gonna win, and the Harvard faculty members there were all celebrating. They were all figuring out what their cabinet positions were gonna be, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then, about 11:30 at night, all of a sudden, it was announced that, in terms of, uh, electoral votes, Trump had just eked out a victory, that Hillary beat him in the popular vote, but he had won the electoral college, and, um, there was immediate depression. And, um...... that was-

    24. LF

      Me- meaning, like, quiet over the room.

    25. HS

      The room became absolutely stone silent. And they, they were all, uh, you know, disappointed. Well, that was a memorable moment, and it, it told me that they were a little bit too overconfident, and they, they were, um, savoring, uh, being part of a presidential administration. Uh, ambition had been thwarted. Uh, I'm not a great fan of, uh, preening ambition. I think it blinds people to realities.

    26. LF

      And the resulting arrogance from such ambition.

    27. HS

      And the arrogance, yes. It's one of the reasons I didn't accept Jim Vorenberg's offer to be part of the academic community. I mean, I represent professors, I have friends who are professors, I represent students, I have friends who are students. Um, and, uh, I have great regard for universities and higher education, um, but I was not about to become part of the culture. I thought that it was not good for me, and not good for the institution, either.

    28. LF

      That can, uh... A culture that can breed arrogance.

    29. HS

      Yes.

    30. LF

      Uh, self-importance.

  11. 1:33:18 – 1:41:43

    FBI

    1. HS

      Um...

    2. LF

      To jump topics a little bit, uh, what, what do you think, about something you've written about, uh, what do you think about the mass surveillance programs by the NSA, and also probably by other organizations, CIA, FBI, and others? Um, and broadly, what do you think about the importance of privacy for the American citizen?

    3. HS

      Okay. I believe that the FBI should be abolished, 'cause I believe that its culture was so corrupted by its first director, John Edgar Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover, that it is impossible to reform the FBI to make its, uh, agents honest, uh, to force them to obey the Constitution, the, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, especially. Um, and it's a culture that cannot be changed. Uh, Hoover established the culture, and no FBI director since has been able to change it. If you go online, I did on YouTube a video for the ACLU of Massachusetts. It was when I was on the board. It was probably when I was president of the board. I was president of the board for two years. I was on the board for 20 years, and I did a, uh, a video about advising people to never, ever, ever talk to an FBI agent when they come knocking on your door.

    4. LF

      Can you, uh, um, briefly explain the intuition-

    5. HS

      Yes, they have-

    6. LF

      ... why not to talk to an FBI agent?

    7. HS

      They have a system. When they come in and interview you, two agents show up, never one. One asks the question, the other one takes notes. The with the, the note-taking agent takes notes-

    8. LF

      Yes.

    9. HS

      ... and then goes back to the office and types up a report called a Form 302, which is the official record of what was asked and answered. So when I have a client interviewed by the FBI, I show up, and I always agree, a- almost always agree to the interview.

    10. LF

      (laughs)

    11. HS

      But I bring a tape recorder. And I say, "All right, I'm gonna tape this." And they say, "Well, we're... By regulation, we're not allowed to do the interview if it's taped. The f- the record is the 302." The agent is taking notes. I say, "Well, I have a policy, too. My policy is to never allow a client to be interviewed unless it's recorded. So, that's unfortunate, but we're gonna have to end this meeting," and the agents get up and leave. And the r- I've never seen a Form 302 that I consider to be accurate. The agents req- write down what they wish you had said-

    12. LF

      Yeah.

    13. HS

      ... rather than what you said. It is a wholly corrupt organization that has not gotten any better since Hoover died.

    14. LF

      And fundamentally, the, the corruption is in the culture that is, uh, resisting the, the, the Constitution-

    15. HS

      Truth.

    16. LF

      ... of the United States-

    17. HS

      Correct.

    18. LF

      ... the First and Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

    19. HS

      Correct. It's not, it's not, um, financial corruption. It is, um, it is m- corruption of the mission, and, um, I think it should be abolished. And if we need a federal investigative agency, uh, should be a new name, a new culture, wholly new members, a new director, and, um, the... It's, it's impossible to, uh, to reform the FBI.

    20. LF

      Can you elaborate on what exactly is broken about the FBI? Is it the, the, uh, the famous saying, um, from, uh, Stalin's KJ, uh, KGB head, uh, Beria, "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime"?

    21. HS

      Right.

    22. LF

      Is it that kind of process of-

    23. HS

      It's, it's that kind of process. They decide who's guilty, and then they go about concocting a case against the person who's, who, who, who, um, they wanna get.

    24. LF

      So the goal is not to find the truth or, uh-

    25. HS

      It's to solve the, solve the case and close it, and enhance their reputations.

    26. LF

      But to show that an innocent man is guilty is also solving the case, from their perspective. So to falsely convict or, uh, falsely imprison a- an innocent man is also solving the case.

    27. HS

      ... well, it closes the case if they falsely imprison an innocent man. They're interested in closing cases.

    28. LF

      So that's the FBI. But, uh, broadly speaking about the surveillance aspect of this, what are your views, uh, on the, uh, the, the right that an American citizen has to privacy?

    29. HS

      Well, um, wiretapping and, um, electronic surveillance are very, very intrusive. And, um, I think that the circumstance that these tools are used should be narrowed. Um, for example, they're used in a lot of drug cases. Since I don't think drugs should be illegal in any event, I certainly think that it's a terrible violation of privacy to- to- to use wiretapping in a drug case. I could see it in cases of murder, um, possibly in cases of serious extortion. But on other kinds, kinds of crimes, why would they wiretap? Especially drug cases. I believe drugs should all be legalized anyway. Um, I think it's, um, the- the- the- the price we pay as a society is not worth it.

    30. LF

      There's a... On the Wikipedia page for Nothing to Hide, you're cited. In fact, your book that you gave me today, Three Felonies A Day, is cited. So Nothing to Hide argument, that's an argument that, uh, if you're a well-behaved citizen, you have nothing to hide and therefore your privacy can be violated.

Episode duration: 1:51:11

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode DgTjSrrf6GQ

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome