>>> I'M RICHARD HEFFNER, YOUR 
HOST ON "THE OPEN MIND."
THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO 
PROGRAMS WITH BURT NEUBORNE,
CIVIL LIBERTARIAN AND NEW 
YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 
PROFESSOR. 
OUR FIRST PROGRAM WAS ABOUT THE 
MOVIE THE "NEW YORK TIMES" 
DESCRIBED [ INAUDIBLE ] AND THE 
FIRST AMENDMENT, "THE PEOPLE VS.
LARRY FLYNT."
PROFESSOR NEUBORNE EVEN ACTED IN
THE FILM.
WE WILL TOUCH ON THE FILM AND 
THE ISSUES IT RAISED ONCE AGAIN 
BUT I ALSO WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT
ANOTHER OF HIS QUOTATIONS IN THE
"NEW YORK TIMES," IN THIS 
INSTANCE ABOUT THE OBFUSCATIONS 
RATHER THAN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
THAT SEEMED TO CHARACTERIZE THE 
TRIAL.
AS THE "NEW YORK TIMES" WROTE, 
THIS MAKE FOR A CONTEST BETWEEN 
PUBLIC RELATIONS MACHINES AND 
SOME STYLEIZED VERSION OF 
REALITY.
PROFESSOR NEUBORNE, IF ONE SIDE 
MAKES A MISTAKE, [ INAUDIBLE ] 
IT FEELS AS THOUGH THE OUTCOME 
IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE 
PROCESS WHEN DEFENDING THE 
ADVERSARY PROCESS IN THE LONG 
RUN.
>> YEAH.
I WILL ASK PROFESSOR NEUBORNE TO
ELABORATE ON THAT POINT.
I THINK WE LEFT SO MANY THINGS 
HANGING IN OUR EARLIER 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FILM.
A QUESTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT 
RIGHTS, WE WILL GET BACK TO 
THAT, AND WHAT SPRINGS FROM THAT
IN YOUR ESTIMATION.
>> ONE, WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO 
ABOUT SPEECH LIKE PORNOGRAPHY OR
RACIST SPEECH THAT REALLY HURTS 
PEOPLE.
ONE OF THE TROUBLING ASPECTS, I 
HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS DEBATE 
NOW FOR ALMOST A GENERATION.
OUR APPROACH TO THIS IS TOO 
SIMPLISTIC.
THE ARGUMENT IS LOOK, THIS 
SPEECH DOESN'T CAUSE ANY HARM 
AND SINCE IT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY 
HARM, OR IT CAN'T BE PROVED TO 
CAUSE HARM, IT'S THEREFORE 
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
AND WE WALK AWAY FROM THE 
PROBLEM.
I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A 
SLIGHTLY MORE SOPHISTICATED 
APPROACH AND SAY YOU CAN'T 
SUPPRESS THE SPEECH UNLESS YOU 
CAN PROVE HARM BUT WE ALL KNOW 
IT PROBABLY CAUSES SOME HARM.
SO WE HAVE KNOWLEDGE BUT THERE 
ARE VICTIMS OUT THERE WHO HAVE 
BEEN HURT BY THIS SPEECH.
IT IS THE JOB OF CIVIL 
LIBERTARIANS NOT SIMPLY TO 
PROTECT THE SPEECH BUT RALLY TO 
THE VICTIMS.
FOR EXAMPLE, HIS SPEECH ON 
CAMPUS, I HAVE BEEN ON FACULTY, 
FOR EXAMPLE, ON CAMPUS WHERE 
THERE WAS A HATE SPEECH CODE.
THE IDEA IS NOT TO SUPPRESS THE 
HATE SPEECH BECAUSE WE CAN'T 
QUANTIFY AND PROVE THE HARM 
SPECIFICALLY STRONGLY TO BE ABLE
TO CENSOR AND WE DO TOO MUCH 
DAMAGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
WE CAN'T TURN OUR BACK ON THE 
FACT THAT PEOPLE ON CAMPUS HAVE 
BEEN HURT BY THE SPEECH.
IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE FACULTY 
TO HELP THE VICTIMS AND TO 
BECOME PART OF THE 
COUNTER-SPEECH.
TOO MANY FACULTY MEMBERS HAVE 
TURNED THEIR BACK ON IT AND ARE 
NOT ACCEPTING PERSONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH THE 
VICTIMS.
>> IT'S INTERESTING TO ME.
YOU SAY TOO MANY STUDENTS HAVE 
BEEN SAVAGED, HAVE BEEN HURT.
>> WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE CAN 
PROVE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
[ SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY ]
>> I DIDN'T SET THAT UP.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT SETS IT UP, 
AND FOR VERY GOOD REASON.
VERY GOOD REASON.
EVERYBODY, YOU, ME, JERRY 
FALWELL, COMES IN AND SAYS THIS 
SPEECH CAUSES THIS.
I CAN'T PROVE IT TO YOU BUT I 
FEEL IT.
IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT IT 
HAPPENS.
I CAN CENSOR THAT SPEECH.
I CAN REGULATE THAT SPEECH.
I CAN STOP THE SPEECH.
I WON'T USE THE WORD CENSOR.
I CAN IN SOME SENSE PREVENT THE 
SPEECH.
LITERALLY ALL SPEECH THAT IS 
CONTROVERSIAL THAT MIGHT HAVE AN
EFFECT [ INAUDIBLE ] THAT SAID 
THE BOSSES WERE BEING UNFAIR AND
THEREFORE COULD CAUSE THE SYSTEM
TO COME COLLAPSING.
THAT'S WHAT PRECIPITATED CLEAR 
AND PRESENT DANGER.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE CLEAR AND 
PRESENT DANGER.
YOU CAN'T JUST ASSERT IT.
THE FACT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT 
DOESN'T MEAN PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
CAN'T BELIEVE THAT IT EXISTS.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT SEXIST SPEECH 
AND RACIST SPEECH.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE EFFECT ON 
GOOD PEOPLE.
I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO HELP 
THEM.
>> LET'S TURN TO THE FEAST OF 
VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA.
YOU THINK THERE'S ANY IMPACT?
>> SURE.
IF I DIDN'T THINK IT HAD ANY 
IMPACT, I WOULDN'T CARE WHETHER 
MY KIDS WATCHED IT BUT I DO CARE
WHETHER MY KIDS WATCH IT, AND MY
GRANDSON.
I THINK WE PUT OUR HEADS IN THE 
SAND IF WE SAY THE EFFECT ON 
SOCIETY OF WHAT IT SEES IN MASS 
MEDIA DOESN'T SOMEHOW AFFECT THE
NATURE OF THAT SOCIETY.
>> THERE ARE MANY, MANY EXAMPLES
OF VIOLENCE IN SPEECH.
>> SURE.
[ SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY ]
>> AS MUCH ACTS OF VIOLENCE AS 
IN A GREEK TRAGEDY.
THEY ARE ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND
THEREFORE SPEECH, WHETHER THEY 
ARE AESTHETICALLY VALUABLE IS A 
DIFFERENT STORY.
>> WOULD YOU FEEL THIS IS WHAT 
THE FOUNDERS MEANT?
>> YES.
I THINK THE -- SURE.
I THINK THE FOUNDERS MEANT THAT 
EXPRESSION, WHETHER IT'S 
ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, POLITICAL 
EXPRESSION, SOCIAL EXPRESSION, 
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION, EXPRESSION
IS SOMETHING THAT INDIVIDUALS 
ENGAGE IN AND THE GOVERNMENT 
KEEPS ITS HAND OUT OF.
NOW, THERE ARE WORRIES WHERE 
EXPRESSION IS OBVIOUSLY HARMFUL 
WHICH IS CLEAR AND PRESENT 
DANGER, WHERE YOU CAN PROVE THE 
ARM COMES DIRECTLY OUT OF THE 
EXPRESSION AND THERE'S NO OTHER 
WAY TO DEAL WITH IT BUT YOU CAN 
IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON THE 
SPEECH.
THE VAST BULK OF CONTROVERSIAL 
SPEECH IS JUST A QUESTION OF HOW
MUCH HARM IT CAUSES.
[ INAUDIBLE ] STOPS THERE, YOU 
SAY THE SPEECH IS PROTECTED, WE 
DON'T HAVE ANY MORE 
RESPONSIBILITY.
I WOULD GO A STEP FURTHER.
I WOULD SAY THE SPEECH IS 
PROTECTED BUT SOMEONE IS PAYING 
THE PRICE FOR IT.
SOMEBODY IS PAYING THE PRICE FOR
THE FACT WE ALL THINK WE'RE 
BETTER OFF IN A SOCIETY THAT'S 
FREE AND KEEPS THE GOVERNMENT 
OUT OF THIS, AND THE COST OF 
THAT IS BEING BORNE BY THE 
TARGETS OF THIS SPEECH.
IT'S A COST WE CAN'T TRULY 
QUANTIFY AND THEREFORE THERE'S 
NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT 
LEGALLY BUT THERE'S SOMETHING WE
OUGHT TO DO ABOUT IT SOCIALLY 
AND MORALLY.
THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL 
OBLIGATION TO COME TO THE 
ASSISTANCE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE 
BEEN THE TARGET OF THIS SPEECH.
IT'S REALLY THE REASON WHY FOR 
MOST OF MY CAREER, I HAVE BEEN 
BOTH A VERY RIGOROUS FREE SPEECH
ADVOCATE AND VERY VERY VIGOROUS 
[ INAUDIBLE ] BECAUSE I HAVE A 
DUTY IF I WAS GOING TO PROTECT 
SPEECH I KNEW DEEP IN MY HEART 
WAS HURTING WOMEN, BECAUSE I 
THINK WE'RE BETTER OFF THAT THAT
SPEECH BE FREE, THEN I HAVE A 
SPECIAL DUTY TO ATTEMPT TO DO 
ALL I COULD TO RALLY TO ASSIST 
THE VICTIMS OF THE SPEECH.
IT'S TWO GREAT CONCERNS OF MY 
LIFE, FREE SPEECH AND FEMINISM.
>> WOULD YOU INSIST UPON FREE 
SPEECH AND OTHER VIOLENT ACTS IN
MEDIA BY RATING SYSTEM USE OR 
[ INAUDIBLE ]?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IF LESS PEOPLE BELIEVE SOMETHING
IS DANGEROUS AND WON'T REACT TO 
IT, THAT'S CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT.
THERE HAS BEEN A DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY INTO
THE SAME THING.
THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT.
INDIVIDUALS CAN GET TOGETHER AND
SAY LOOK, I ALONE AT NOT STRONG 
ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU DO SOMETHING 
BUT IF WE DO THIS TOGETHER, WE 
ARE STRONG ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU DO
SOMETHING.
THAT'S WHAT FREEDOM OF 
ASSOCIATION IS ALL ABOUT.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A 
BREAKUP OF THE CONCENTRATION OF 
POWER IN MEDIA?
>> YES.
I THINK ULTIMATELY IT'S 
DANGEROUS TO PUT TOO MUCH OF 
THAT POWER IN ONE PERSON'S 
HANDS.
THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CALLED A 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL DOESN'T MEAN
YOU'RE NOT DANGEROUS IF YOU HAVE
TOO MUCH POWER.
THE REASON WE CARE ABOUT THE 
GOVERNMENT, IT'S BECAUSE THE 
GOVERNMENT IS THE BIGGEST BULLY 
IN TOWN.
IT HAS THE MOST POWER.
WHEN WE HAVE PRIVATE ENTITIES 
GATHERING AS MUCH POWER AS THE 
GOVERNMENT AND THEN USING IT, I 
GET AS NERVOUS ABOUT THEM AS I 
DO ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.
I WANT IN SOME WAY TO TRY TO 
CHECK THEIR UNCONTROLLED POWER 
OVER SPEECH.
>> YOU THINK WITH THAT POWER 
DIMINISHED THEY WOULD 
[ INAUDIBLE ] CITIZENS WHO FEEL 
STRONGLY?
>> TWO THINGS WOULD HAPPEN.
IF YOU BROKE IT UP INTO SMALLER 
UNITS, MY SENSE IS YOU WOULD 
HAVE A LARGER SET OF CHOICE.
I HOPE THIS IS SO.
PEOPLE ARGUE HISTORICALLY IT 
HASN'T HAPPENED, BUT MY HOPE IS 
IF YOU CAN BREAK THE UNITS UP 
AND PROVIDE MORE AND MORE 
OPTIONS TO PEOPLE THAT THE 
HEALTH OF THE COMMUNICATIONS 
SYSTEM WOULD INCREASE THE MORE 
OPTIONS PEOPLE HAVE TO DIAL IN.
SECONDLY, THAT SMALLER SPEAKERS 
SIMPLY LACK THE POWER TO IMPOSE 
THEIR VALUES ON EVERYBODY ELSE.
IT'S EASIER TO FIGHT BACK 
AGAINST THEM.
IT'S EASIER TO FIGHT BACK 
AGAINST AN IRRESPONSIBLE SMALL 
SPEAKER THAN IT IS TO FIGHT BACK
AGAINST AN IRRESPONSIBLE 
ENORMOUS SPEAKER.
>> I FOUND THIS CONTINUING 
ENTHUSIASM FOR A BELIEF IN 
INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR POWER TO 
RESIST -- POWER TO RESIST THE 
IMPOSITION UPON THEM OF 
MANIPULATION, FALSEHOOD, ET 
CETERA, I WILL USE THE WORD 
FAITH, FAITH IN PEOPLE.
>> MOST OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT 
WORK, ALMOST ALL OF MY QUALITY 
WORK IS BASED UPON THE 
ASSUMPTION, THE ASSUMPTION THAT 
THE NOTION THE INDIVIDUAL 
CAPABLE OF MAKING RATIONAL 
CHOICES, CAPABLE OF RISING ABOVE
THE TRASH THAT SURROUNDS US IN 
SO MUCH OF OUR LIVES, BEING ABLE
TO THINK THROUGH AND MAKE THOSE 
INDIVIDUAL CHOICES, I THINK IT'S
THE BUILDING BLOCK OF THIS 
COUNTRY, BOTH POLITICALLY AS A 
DEMOCRACY BUT ALSO INDIVIDUALS.
>> OF COURSE, [ INAUDIBLE ].
>> YES.
A FAIR AND OPEN ENCOUNTER.
YOU HAVE BEEN DESCRIBING THE 
FACT THAT IN OUR TIMES 
[ INAUDIBLE ]?
>> I THINK -- I'M TRYING TO PUT 
MY FINGER ON THE SINGLE WORST 
THING THAT'S HAPPENED TO US AS A
PEOPLE.
IT'S THE INABILITY TO ENGAGE IN 
THE KINDS OF EXCHANGES AND CIVIC
DISCOURSE THAT IS NECESSARY FOR 
A DEMOCRACY AND DECENT SOCIETY 
FUNCTION.
PART OF IT IS BECAUSE THE 
SPEAKERS HAVE GOTTEN TOO BIG AND
TOO OUT OF CONTROL.
PART OF IT IS BECAUSE 
[ INAUDIBLE ] DOMINATES SO MUCH 
OF OUR SPEECH.
WE ARE ALL SO BUSY TRYING TO 
MAKE A LIVING WE DON'T HAVE 
ENOUGH TIME.
THE KEY TO REFORM I THINK LIES 
NOT IN TOP-DOWN GOVERNMENT 
REGULATION IN AN EFFORT TO TRY 
TO FIX THESE THINGS.
THE KEY TO REFORM IS TO 
RECOGNIZE THE THINGS WE CARE 
ABOUT, THAT HAS TO BE NURTURED 
FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
WHAT WE HAVE TO BE DOING IS 
EMPOWERING INDIVIDUALS.
EMPOWERING THEM TO FIGHT BACK 
AGAINST LARGE CONCENTRATIONS OF 
SPEECH THEY DON'T LIKE.
EMPOWERING THEM TO FIGHT BACK 
AGAINST HATE SPEECH, FIGHT BACK 
AGAINST SEXIST SPEECH, 
EMPOWERING THEM TO BE ABLE TO 
TAKE THEIR POLITICAL DEMOCRACY 
BACK.
YOU SAY SIR, IT CAN BE DONE, 
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS TO BE 
DEMONSTRATED, THAT IS LESS THAN 
IS BEING DEMONSTRATED TODAY.
THERE'S SO MUCH CONCERN WITH THE
POWER OF THOSE LARGER GROUPS.
IT CAN BE DONE.
IDEALLY YOU WANT TO TURN THE 
CLOCK BACK AND EMBRACE ALL THOSE
WONDERFUL IDEALS, FREE SPEECH 
AND NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
WE HAVE SAID IT HERE TODAY THAT 
I BELIEVE IN THE INDIVIDUAL.
WHEN I LOOK AROUND AND I SEE THE
INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN SQUASHED BY 
THESE POWERS, EITHER ONE WAY OR 
THE OTHER.
EITHER INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION, 
INDIVIDUAL CONCERN, IT'S A 
CHOICE WHEN THERE IS A JUDGE WHO
SAYS DO NOT SAY THIS, DO NOT SAY
THAT, YOU MAY ASK THIS QUESTION,
YOU MAY NOT ASK THAT QUESTION.
THE JUDGE IS THE REFEREE AND 
THERE IS A FREE AND OPEN 
ENCOUNTER, THEN THE PEOPLE MAKE 
THE RIGHT JUDGMENT.
YOU DESCRIBE A SITUATION WHERE 
PEOPLE AREN'T PERMITTED TO MAKE 
THAT RIGHT JUDGMENT.
>> I DESCRIBE A SITUATION IN 
WHICH THERE ARE SERIOUS 
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE STRUCTURAL 
PROBLEMS CAUSED BY EXCESSES OF 
POWER.
THERE ARE TWO WAYS, YOU COULD 
SAY I WILL GIVE UP ON THE MODEL,
I GIVE UP ON THE NOTION THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL IS THE BUILDING BLOCK
IN SOCIETY, BECAUSE THE POWERFUL
FORCES THAT HAVE GROWN TO SQUASH
THE INDIVIDUAL ARE SUCH THAT 
ONLY SURRENDERING THE INDIVIDUAL
TO SOME MASS, TO SOME GROUP TO 
BE PART OF A MASS, MAYBE PART OF
THE COMMUNITY OR THE GOVERNMENT,
WHATEVER RHETORICAL MOVE YOU 
WANT TO MAKE, BUT SURRENDERING 
THE INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE IT CAN'T 
BE FIXED.
THAT'S JUST GIVING GOVERNMENT 
THE POWER TO TRY TO FIX IT 
TOP-DOWN.
OR CAN I DIAGNOSE WHAT IT IS 
THAT'S SQUASHING THE INDIVIDUAL 
AND CAN I FIGURE OUT STRUCTURAL 
CHANGES TO TRY TO LET THE 
INDIVIDUAL GET OUT FROM UNDER 
WHATEVER IT IS THAT'S SQUASHING 
HIM.
I BELIEVE PASSIONATELY THAT IT'S
THE SECOND ONE THAT IS THE RIGHT
WAY TO GO.
WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS 
DIAGNOSING THOSE FORCES THAT ARE
SQUASHING THE INDIVIDUAL AND 
UNLEASH THE INDIVIDUAL FROM 
THAT, RATHER THAN SAY THE DAY OF
THE INDIVIDUAL IS OVER, THE 
INDIVIDUAL IS A DINOSAUR.
THEY ARE INTERESTING HISTORICAL 
FOOTNOTES BUT HAVE NO MEANING 
FOR OUR TIME.
I WOULD FIGHT AGAINST THAT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE THE ONLY
HOPE FOR OUR TIME.
IF WE GO FORWARD AND GIVE UP ON 
THE INDIVIDUAL AND SAY THE 
GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO FIX IT, 
SOME SORT OF GOVERNMENT SOLUTION
IS GOING TO FIX IT, THAT'S NOT 
GOING TO LIBERATE THE 
INDIVIDUAL.
>> TRUST IN THE INDIVIDUAL AND 
IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY TO MAKE 
JUDGMENTS IN THE ECONOMIC AREA.
[ INAUDIBLE ] 
THEY MOVED THERE A HALF CENTURY 
AGO BECAUSE WE KNOW IN THE 
DYNAMICS OF OUR SOCIETY, THE 
INDIVIDUAL IS NOT WELL ENOUGH 
INFORMED.
[ INAUDIBLE ] FOR THE SAKE OF 
BOLSTERING THOSE INDIVIDUAL 
GROUPS -- 
>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 
DISMANTLING SAFETY REGULATIONS 
OR GENERAL REGULATIONS OF THE 
MARKETPLACE.
BUT AS YOU YOURSELF POINT OUT, 
LET THE BUYER BEWARE AND THE 
SELLER BEWARE.
THE CONSUMER HAS THE FACTS, THE 
CONSUMER KNOWS BETTER THAN ANY 
GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE IT.
>> THE FACT YOU SAY YOU DON'T 
HAVE IT DOESN'T MEAN 
[ INAUDIBLE ].
THE QUESTION IS ONE TO WHICH I 
SAY NO.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU.
IT SHOULD BE REALISTIC ENOUGH TO
KNOW WHICH WAY IT'S TAKING US.
>> YOU PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE 
ACHIEVE THE IDEAL.
THAT SHOULD BE WHAT WE ARE ALL 
FOCUSING ON.
HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE IDEAL WITH
EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THIS SOCIETY 
CAN ACT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF
THEIR POWERS AND MAKE A LIFE 
THAT THEY'RE PROUD WE CAN ALL 
LIVE TOGETHER AND THE WAY TO DO 
IT I THINK IS TO REINFORCE THE 
COMMITMENT TO THE FACT THAT THE 
CORE EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS, AND 
ONE ASPECT IS YOU DON'T TELL 
THEM WHAT THEY CAN READ, WHAT 
THEY CAN SAY.
OF COURSE, TO DO THAT CHEAPENS 
THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU RELY ON 
THAT PERSON AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
I HAVE TREMENDOUS ARGUMENTS WITH
FRIENDS OF MINE ABOUT THE VALUE 
OF CERTAIN TELEVISION PROGRAMS.
I THINK THEY WASTE THEIR TIME.
BUT THEY DISAGREE.
WE JUST DISAGREE ABOUT THAT.
I THINK SOME OF THAT STUFF IS 
DANGEROUS BUT I'M NOT GOING TO 
ATTEMPT TO PUT AN END TO IT JUST
BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT.
>> COMING BACK TO THE AREA, YOU 
TALK ABOUT LET THE BUYER BEWARE.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LETTING 
THE BUYER BEWARE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SELLER.
IF YOU ARE A PORNOGRAPHER OF 
VIOLENCE, BEWARE.
I THINK IT'S AT OUR OWN RISK 
THAT WE DON'T TAKE THAT 
POSITION.
WHEN I READ THE PIECE IN THE 
SUNDAY "TIMES" IN WHICH YOU WERE
QUOTED, I WAS SO TAKEN BY YOUR 
DESIRE TO HAVE AN EXCHANGE.
THE GLORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
IS THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND 
IT'S A GOOD CIVICS LESSON AND 
I'M PROUD OF HAVING PLAYED A 
ROLE IN IT BUT I WOULD HAVE FELT
EVEN BETTER ABOUT IT IF I COULD 
THINK THE MOVIE WAS A REAL HARD 
LOOK AT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND 
THAT WHATEVER CAME OUT OF THAT 
THEATER THINKING I HAVE BEEN 
THROUGH A REAL INTELLECTUAL TRIP
AS WELL AS AN ENJOYABLE MOVIE.
I HAVE BEEN WRITING AN ORAL 
HISTORY, CONSTRUCTING AN ORAL 
HISTORY OF MY YEARS IN 
HOLLYWOOD, 20 OF THEM, AND I 
STARTED OFF AS A MEMBER OF YOUR 
NATIONAL BOARD.
I WOULD SAY IT'S VERY DIFFICULT 
TO BE DEEPER IMMERSED.
[ INAUDIBLE ] 
ORTHODOX FIRST AMENDMENT 
POSITION.
NOT MY FIRST AMENDMENT POSITION 
BUT MY ORTHODOXY.
I KIND OF HAD THE FEELING THAT 
YOU REALLY FOUND YOURSELF -- 
>> THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUE 
PUTS ME AT ODDS WITH ORTHODOX 
FREE SPEECH.
ORTHODOX FREE SPEECH ARGUMENTS 
THESE DAYS ARE THAT SPEECH 
EQUALS MONEY, SPENDING POLITICAL
MONEY IS AS PROTECTED BY THE 
FIRST AMENDMENT AS THE MAKING OF
A POLITICAL SPEECH.
I JUST THINK THAT CONFUSES TWO 
VERY, VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS.
THE FIRST $100 YOU SPEND ISN'T 
THE SAME AS THE SECOND $100 YOU 
SPEND AND CERTAINLY ISN'T THE 
SAME AS THE $24 MILLION YOU 
SPEND.
TO SAY THAT IT'S ALL SPEECH 
SEEMS TO ME THEY JUST MADE A 
TERRIBLE MISTAKE, ONE DECISION 
OF THE SUPREME COURT.
YOU HAVE TO RETREAT, GO BACK TO 
THAT POINT AND START AGAIN.
>> YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO 
RETREAT?
>> YES.
I'M GUILTY OF ROMANTICISM.
I DO BELIEVE WE CAN CORRECT 
MISTAKES.
I DO BELIEVE, THE LAST ELECTION,
$1 BILLION SPENT ON THE 
ELECTION.
IT HAD TO BE ONE OF THE MOST 
DISAPPOINTING EXCHANGES OF 
POLITICAL VIEWS IN MY LIFETIME, 
I THINK I'VE SAID.
JUST HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY AND 
THE PROOF IN THE PUDDING IS THE 
FIRST TIME SINCE 1924 THE 
ELECTORATE VOTED.
THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST TIME 
SINCE 1824 LESS THAN HALF OF THE
PEOPLE VOTED.
THAT USED TO BE WHAT TRIGGERED 
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN THIS 
COUNTRY THAT SAYS IN CERTAIN 
PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
WHERE PARTICIPATION FALLS BELOW 
50% THERE'S A PRESUMPTION PEOPLE
ARE BEING DENIED THE BALLOT.
[ INAUDIBLE ] 
>> THAT'S THAT WHOLE 
MARKETPLACE.
THE CONCEPT OF THE MARKETPLACE 
OF IDEAS.
>> WHICH IS NOT THE BEST 
ARGUMENT FOR FREE SPEECH.
>> IT'S THE END OF THE PROGRAM.
WE NEVER ELABORATED UPON THAT OR
THE DUE PROCESS.
YOU HAVE TO COME BACK.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THIS IS A WONDERFUL SHOW.
>> BURT NEUBORNE, THANK YOU FOR 
JOINING US TODAY.
THANKS AGAIN.
THANKS TO YOU, THE AUDIENCE.
I HOPE YOU JOIN US AGAIN NEXT 
TIME.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A TRANSCRIPT 
OF TODAY'S PROGRAM, PLEASE SEND 
$4 IN CHECK OR MONEY ORDER TO 
THE OPEN MIND, P.O. BOX 7977, 
FDR STATION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK,
10150.
AS AN OLD FRIEND USED TO SAY, 
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.
♪♪
