CHARLES A. FRUEAUFF FOUNDATION.

[PROTESTERS] >> BONNIE: HELLO, I'M BONNIE ERBE.

WELCOME TO A DOCUMENTARY PRESENTATION BY TO THE CONTRARY.

OUR ISSUE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE INTERNET AGE.

FREE SPEECH, FREE EXPRESSION, PREDISCUSSION OF IDEAS IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE IS AN AMERICAN RIGHT PROCLAIMED IN THE FIRST PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

BUT THE PUBLIC SQUARE IS A WHOLE NEW CONCEPT WITH THE INTERNET BROADENING THE PUBLIC SQUARE TO INCLUDE EVERY LAPTOP OR CELL PHONE IN THE WORLD.

WHAT CAN BE SAID AND BY WHOM IS NOW A FOCUS OF FIERCE POLITICAL DEBATE.

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS A FOUNDATIONAL RIGHT.

WITHOUT IT, DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST AND OTHER FOUNDATIONAL RIGHTS ARE CONSEQUENTIALLY DENIED TO AN UNINFORMED UNKNOWING PUBLIC.

WHILE THIS FREEDOM IS UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE U.S., SO ARE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS.

WHICH LIMITS TO FREE EXPRESSION ARE REASONABLE AND WHO HAS THE RIGHT OR POWER TO IMPOSE THOSE LIMITATIONS ARE CONTENTIOUS, COMPLEX AND CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS.

IN 1927, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LOUIS BRANDEIS WROTE, QUOTE, IF THERE BE TIME TO EXPOSE THROUGH DISCUSSION, THE FALSEHOOD AND FALLACIES TO AVERT THE EVIL BY THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION, THE REMEDY TO BE APPLIED IS MORE SPEECH, NOT ENFORCE SILENCE.

ONLY IN EMERGENCY CAN JUSTIFY OPPRESSION SUCH MUST BE THE RULE.

IF AUTHORITY IS TO BE RECONCILED WITH FREEDOM.

SUCH IN MY OPINION IS THE COMMAND OF THE CONSTITUTION.

>> NADINE: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN FACT A VERY ROBUST FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS ESSENTIAL FOR A DEMOCRACY.

AS THE OPENING WORDS OF OUR CONSTITUTION PROCLAIM "WE THE PEOPLE" HAVE THE SOVEREIGN POWER IN THIS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

WE CANNOT POSSIBLY RESPONSIBLY EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THAT POWER UNLESS WE HAVE FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN THE MOST CANDID ROBUST VIGOROUS DEBATE AND DISSENT INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND POLITICIANS AND THEIR POLICIES.

>> BONNIE: THE QUESTIONS, WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE AND WHO DECIDES WHO HAS ACCESS ARE AS ANCIENT AS HUMAN POLITICAL HISTORY U WHEN GOVERNMENT AND CULTURE WERE CONTROLLED BY HIERARCHIES, CONQUERORS, THEOCRACYIES AND TRIBAL LEADER AND THEY STRONGED THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC SPEECH.

PEOPLE WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST THEM WERE QUICKLY SILENCED.

LET'S LOOK BACK TO THE 17TH CENTURY WHEN GALILEO'S DISCOVERY THE EARTH MOVED AROUND THE SUN AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND WAS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL.

THE ASTRONOMERS DISCOVERY SEEN AS OBVIOUS TODAY AND OPEN FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION WAS THEN CONSIDERED SO HERETICAL THAT A COURT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SENTENCED HIM IN 1633 TO LIFE IN PRISON.

IN AMERICAN HISTORY, WE HAVE ALSO SEEN OUR CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH TESTED MOST SEDULOUSLY IN TIMES OF WAR AND CULTURAL TUMULT.

DURING THE CIVIL WAR, PRESIDENT LINCOLN CENSORED NEWSPAPERS SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONFEDERACY USING EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

AN ORDER ISSUED IN 1861 MADE IT ILLEGAL AND PUNISHABLE BY DEATH TO CORRESPOND WITH SUPREME -- GIVE INTELLIGENCE WITH THE ENEMY EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

HIS ADMINISTRATION EVEN SHUT DOWN NEWSPAPERS WITH REBEL SYMPATHIES, SOMETHING UNTHINKABLE TODAY.

THE VIETNAM WAR SPAWNED SEVERAL IMPORTANT DECISIONS TO CENSOR SPEECH DURING WARTIME.

PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE OF THE ERA WAS NEW YORK TIMES VERSE THE US.

THE JUSTICES RULED THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BAR THE TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST FROM PUBLISHING THE PENTAGON PAPERS WHICH DETAILED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S KNOWLEDGE THE WAR WAS UNWINNABLE WHILE SENDING THOUSANDS OF YOUNG SOLDIERS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN VIETNAM.

IN HIS CONCURRENCE, JUSTICE HUGO BLACK WROTE: "THE PRESS WAS PROTECTED SO THAT IT COULD BARE THE SECRETS OF GOVERNMENT AND INFORM THE PEOPLE.

ONLY A FREE AND UNRESTRAINED PRESS CAN EFFECTIVELY EXPOSE DECEPTION IN GOVERNMENT."

>> IT IS NOW MY HONOR TO SIGN INTO LAW THE PATRIOT ACT OF 20001.

>> Bonnie: 45 DAYS AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TERRORIST ATTACKS THE U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT WAS PASSED.

THIS GAVE THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO INVADE PROTECTED SPEECH.

THE GOVERNMENT READ BUSINESS RECORDS, HEALTH CARE LOGS AND RECORDS OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ALL IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TOURISM.

>> THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS MOST OFTEN BEEN VIOLATED LEADING TO ENORMOUS SUPPRESSION ESPECIALLY OF ANYBODY WHO DARED TO QUESTION CONVENTIONAL WISDOM WHO DARED TO PROTEST EXISTING POWER STRUCTURES WHO SOUGHT LAW REFORM.

FORTUNATELY WE NOW HAVE VERY STRONG SPEECH PROTECTIVE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS THAT ALLOW THOSE WHOSE SPEECH IS UNFAIRLY STIFLED TO GO TO COURT AND TO HAVE THEIR RIGHTS VINDICATED.

[PROTESTERS] >> BONNIE: LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH, ALLOW SOME OTHERWISE PROTECTED SPEECH TO BE RESTRICTED.

GOVERNMENT CAN REQUIRE CITIZENS TO SECURE ADVANCE PERMITS FOR MEETINGS, RALLIES AND DEMONSTRATIONS.

PERMITS MAY NOT BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD, NOR DENIED BASED ON CONTENT OF THE SPEECH.

[PROTESTORS] ONLY WHEN PROTEST CROSSES THE LINE FROM SPEECH TO VIOLENCE, CAN THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN WORLD HISTORY, THE PLATFORMS FOR SPEECH HAVE BECOME MORE POWERFUL THAN THE GOVERNMENTS THAT SET LIMITATIONS ON THEM.

THE INTERNET AND ITS LARGEST PRIVATE COMPANIES HAVE BECOME BIGGER IN SOME WAYS THAN THE GOVERNMENTS FOR WHOSE CITIZENS THEY NOW ACT AS THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

>> Naomi: I THINK THE PROBLEM NOW IS THAT YOU HAVE TWO SETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS BOTH OF WHOM ARE CLAIMING FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

SO ON THE ONE HAND IF I WANT TO POST SOMETHING ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE I'M CLAIMING MY FREE SPEECH RIGHT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, FaceBook IS CLAIMING ITS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

IT SAYS WAIT A SECOND I OWN FACEBOOK.

I HAVE A FREE SPEECH RIGHT TO PREVENT YOU FROM POSTING THINGS I DON'T LIKE.

>> BONNIE: THIS IS CREATING COMPLEX QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WHO HAS THE RIGHT OR THE POWER TO IMPOSE THOSE LIMITATIONS.

THAT WAS THE QUESTION PUT TO TECH COMPANIES DURING CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> AMERICA'S TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES SERVING AS INSTRUMENTS OF FREEDOM OR INSTRUMENTS OF CONTROL?

ARE THEY FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF THE DIGITAL AGE?

ARE THEY ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT?

ARE THEY SERVING AS INSTRUMENTS OF MANIPULATION USED BY POWERFUL INTEREST AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO SAY ROB THE PEOPLE OF THEIR POWER, AGENCY AND DIGNITY.

I BELIEVE WE NEED TO GRAPPLE WITH THESE QUESTIONS TOGETHER AS A NATION.

BECAUSE A FREE WORLD DEPEND ON A FREE INTERNET.

>> BONNIE: FACEBOOK, ALTHOUGH US-FOUNDED AND OWNED, HAS 2.5 BILLION USERS GLOBALLY.

WHILE GOVERNMENTS CAN SET LIMITS ON SPEECH ENJOYED BY THEIR OWN CITIZENS, THEY CAN'T -- USING A DIGITAL PLATFORM, THEY CANNOT SET THEM FOR CITIZENS OF OTHER NATIONS.

SO WHO CAN?

PRIVATE CORPORATIONED CORPORATIONS?

WE SPOKE TO FaceBook REMOTELY AT THEIR HEADQUARTERS.

>> FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS CERTAINLY A CORE PRINCIPLE THAT WE TALK ABOUT AND THINGS ABOUT IN THE US.

BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD.

AND HERE AT FaceBook WE KNOW THAT OVER 87% OF THE PEOPLE ON FaceBook ARE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.

AND, SO, FUNDAMENTALLY, WE EMBED OUR POLICIES IN THREE CORE PRINCIPLES, OF SAFETY, VOICE AND EQUITY.

AND WE LOOK TO INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER SOURCES.

FOR INSTANCE, ARTICLE 19 OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS TO HELP INFORM AND FOR US TO UNDERSTAND BROADER PRINCIPLES AND THINKING.

BUT ULTIMATELY WE ARE STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN PROVIDING A SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO SHARE AND DISCUSS ISSUES AND TO PROMOTE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHILE ENSURING THAT FaceBook IS A SAFE AND RESPECTFUL PLACE.

>> BONNIE: SO FaceBook AS A US CORPORATION IS LOOKING FIRST AT THE SAFETY OF ITS USERS AS A PRIORITY, VOICE OR FREE SPEECH COMES SECOND, THEN EQUITY OR EQUAL ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

FOR USERS OF ALL VIEWS.

THIS CREATES A HUGE CONFLICT.

CORPORATIONS THAT CONTROL SPEECH ON THE INTERNET SUCH AS FaceBook, GOOGLE AND TWITTER, HAVE DIFFERENT CONCERNS THAN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

FaceBook CAN CHOOSE TO BAN SPEECH THAT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT CORPORATION BEING IN CHARGE OF MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT SPEECH?

IS IT A LOT FOR YOU TO TAKE ON FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE BOTTOM LINE?

>> MARY: WE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY AND WE HAVE ONE SET OF GLOBAL POLICIES ACROSS COUNTRIES AND BORDERS AND CULTURES AND THE WAY THAT PEOPLE USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE WAY THEY SPEAK ONLINE CHANGES CONSTANTLY.

AND SO WE ARE CONSTANTLY ITERATING AND UPDATING AND CHANGING OUR POLICIES TO ADAPT TO THAT SPACE.

AND WE REALLY LOOK FOR EXTERNAL INPUT IN THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

MY TEAM AS WE'RE LOOKING TO IMPROVE ON A POLICY IS CONSTANTLY TALKING WITH EXTERNAL EXPERTS AND ACADEMICS CIVIL SOCIETY LEADERS ACTIVISTS AROUND THE WORLD TO UNDERSTAND HOW A POLICY MAY CHANGE OR AFFECT SPEECH ON THE PLATFORM.

SO WE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY.

PAWN THERE HAS BEEN INCIDENTS WHERE FaceBook HAS ADMITTED GOING OVERBOARD JUST FOR EXAMPLE THE BANNING THE MENTION OF LGBTQ OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN.

WERE YOU TOO CAUTIOUS?

>> I THINK WE RECOGNIZED THAT SOMETIMES WE MAKE MISTAKES.

CERTAINLY AT THE CAME IN WHICH WE'RE WORKING, YOU KNOW.

WE HAVE OVER 2.5 BILLION PEOPLE ON FaceBook.

BILLION OFS OF CONTENT UPLOADED AND POSTED EVERY DAY.

THE SCALE IN WHICH WE'RE WORKING EVEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF MISTAKES RESULTS IN A VERY REAL NUMBER OF MISTAKES.

>> BONNIE: AFTER BEING CRITICIZED FOR ALLOWING A GUNMAN IN NEW ZEALAND TO LIVE STREAM HIS ATTACKS, FaceBook BANNED WHITE NATIONAL LISTS, WHITE WHITE SEPARATIST, AND WHITE SUPREMACIST CONTENT.

IT WILL ALSO DIRECT USERS SEARCHING FOR OFFENDING TERMS TO A CHARITY WHICH COMBATS FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISM.

THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

THEY HAVE REPLACED THE SOAP BOX, THE PRESSES AND BROADCASTING AS THE NEW MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.

THEY ARE IMMEDIATE, INTERACTIVE AND GLOBAL, THREE THINGS THAT NEVER EXISTED PRIOR.

NOT ONLY HAS THE LEAST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE LEAST POWERFUL COUNTRY NOW BEEN GIVEN A GLOBAL PLATFORM TO EXPRESS IDEAS, SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE ENGENDERED THE LARGEST-EVER COUNTER-SPEECH BOOM.

>> NADINE: THE INTERNET LIKE ANY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION CAN BE USED FOR GREAT GOOD AND IT CAN ALSO BE USED FOR GREAT HARM.

IT IS SIMPLY A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND IT DEPENDS ON THOSE WHO ARE USING IT OR ABUSING IT TO MAKE IT A FORCE FOR GOOD OR A FORCE FOR EVIL.

SO ALL MESSAGES INCLUDING CERTAINLY HATEFUL MESSAGES SUCH AS RACIST AND MISOGYNISTIC MESSAGES CAN CERTAINLY BE DISSEMINATED VERY QUICKLY AROUND THE INTERNET AND WE KNOW OF TRAGIC EXAMPLES WHERE THIS HAS LED EVEN TO GENOCIDE IN THE CASE OF MYANMAR.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE INTERNET CAN BE USED TO COUNTER HATEFUL SPEECH TO SEEK TO REFUTE IT TO RECRUIT PEOPLE AWAY FROM HATE MONGERING ORGANIZATIONS AND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GOOD HAS BEEN DONE ONLINE BY ANTI-HATE PROHUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION BUT ALL OF US WHO CARE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY VIGILANT TO BE SURE THAT WE RAISE OUR OWN VOICES TO EDUCATE, TO REFUTE, TO SPREAD LOVE AND EQUALITY RATHER THAN HATE.

>> BONNIE: ONE ISSUE WHERE FREE SPEECH HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN SUPPRESSED OR CENSORED OR DISTORTED BY POLITICAL ADVOCACY GROUPS IS ON IMMIGRATION POLICY.

THOSE ON THE POLITICAL LEFT SEE OPPOSITION TO HIGH IMMIGRATION LEVELS AS A MINORITY VIEW, EVEN THOUGH SOME POLLS HAVE SHOWN IT IS NOT.

NUMBERS USA - AN ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES FOR IMMIGRATION NUMBERS IT SAYS ARE BEST FOR NATIVE-BORN U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN U.S. BORN CITIZENS SAYS HATE SPEECH HURTS DIALOGUE.

>> ROY: ROY: NUMBERS USA HAS NOT BEEN TARGETED AS A HATE GROUP HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED BY SOME OF THESE GROUPS THAT DESIGNATE HATE GROUPS.

HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME THE WAY THEY PUT THINGS OUT THERE PUT LISTS OUT.

IT'S LIKE WELL THE NAMES IN THIS LIST THAT HAVE ASTERisks BY THEM ARE HATE GROUPS AND OTHERS ARE ONES THAT WE JUST WERE WATCHING OVER.

SO THERE IS A SORT OF A SENSE THAT ONCE YOU GET IN THE LIST EVERYBODY GETS LOOKED AT THE SAME.

YOU STILL GET STUCK WITH THIS.

THIS IS HOW BAD LABELING AS GONE.

FOR JOURNALISTS IN PARTICULAR TO USE THESE LABELS INSTEAD OF JUST DESCRIBING WHAT YOU DO.

REALLY SHUTS DOWN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

>> BONNIE: THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES A THINK TANK THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR TIGHTER ENFORCE MEN AND LOWER LEVELS OF IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN LISTED AS A HATE GROUP BY PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS.

AND WHAT IMPACT OF CIS -- WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAVE BEEN BLACKLISTED IN ANY WAY?

>> IT HASN'T BEEN THAT SUCCESSFUL THANKFULLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A LONG TRACK RECORD.

WE HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS MORE THAN 100 TIMES BUT YOU CAN NEVER KNOW WHICH DONORS DIDN'T GIVE TO YOU BECAUSE THEY SAW SOMETHING ON THE SITE WHICH REPORTERS DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT THE HASSLE AND DIDN'T CALL YOU.

DIDN'T CALL YOU OR WHICH INVITATIONS TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE IN A FORUM OR SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T GET.

SO IT'S HAD SOME EFFECT IT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT THAT I OR OTHERS HAVE BEEN INVITED TO AND WE ACCEPTED AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE BASICALLY EXERCISEED THE HECKLERS VETO AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE YOUR LIFE HELL TO THE ORGANIZERS UNTIL YOU DISINVITE THESE PEOPLE.

IT HAS HAD SOME AFFECT.

NOT AS BIG OF AN AFFECT AS THEY WOULD LIKE BUT IT IS STILL HOLLERFUL -- I THINK IT IS HOLLERFUL FOR DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

>> BONNIE: HOW DO YOU FIGHT BACK AGAINST BEING LISTED AS A HATE GROUP?

>> ONE THING YOU DO IS BY MAKING CLEAR IT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

HATE GROUP DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING IN LAW.

IT IS A MADE UP TERM.

PEOPLE KIND OF GET WHAT IT MEANS.

YOU JUST HAVE TO KEEP PUSHING BACK.

>> BONNIE: IT IS NOT JUST THE BIG PLAYERS BANNING ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

IN 2017, MATTHEW PRINCE, CEO OF CLOUD FLARE, A VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN COMPANY, BANNED A NEO-NAZI WEBSITE FROM ITS PLATFORM FOR HATE SPEECH.

BUT AFTERWARDS, HE QUESTIONED HIS DECISION FEARING HE ABUSED HIS OR ANY COMPANY'S CONTROL OVER SPEECH.

HATE SPEECH HAS YET TO BE DEFINED BY THE COURTS AND IS STILL PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

MANY ARGUE THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT HATE SPEECH IS WITH MORE SPEECH OR COUNTER SPEECH.

ON THE RIGHT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN A BIG ADVOCATE FOR SUPPRESSING SPEECH OF ANY TYPE THAT HE DOES NOT SEE AS FLATTERING >> ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL YOU SAW YOURSELF AS NATIONAL LIST AND PEOPLE ARE ALSO SAYING -- >> I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SAID THAT.

SUCH A RACIST QUESTION.

>> BONNIE: HE CALLS FACTUALLY CORRECT REPORTS WHICH HE DISAGREES FAKE NEWS AND TRIED TO SHUT DOWN THE VOICES OF SOME WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCE WHOSE REPORTING HE SEES AS HARMFUL TO HIS IMAGE.

>> ON THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT YOU MAY HAVE -- >> I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING YOU MAY HAVE -- >> INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IT IS A HOAX.

THAT IS ENOUGH.

PUT DOWN THE MIC.

WHEN YOU REPORT FAKE NEWS.

NO.

WHEN YOU REPORT FAKE NEWS WHAT CNN DOES A LOT YOU'RE THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.

GO AHEAD.

>> BONNIE: LAST YEAR HE REEVOKED THE PRESS CREDENTIALS AND TRIED TO QUIET WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF FOR AMERICAN RADIO NETWORKS APRIL RYAN.

>> I'M NOT RESPONDING.

I'M RESPONDING TO -- WOULD YOU PLEASE SIT DOWNSOME EXCUSE ME.

EXCUSE ME.

WOULD YOU PLEASE SIT DOWN.

>> BONNIE: DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> APRIL: I DO HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

ARE THOSE RECEIPTS PROTECTED UNDER THE PRESIDENT UNDER THIS PRESIDENT?

THEY'RE CHALLENGED.

NOW YOU'RE UNPATRIOTIC TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE WERE PLACED INTO -- IT IS NOT A COINSURANCE DEN THAT WE ARE PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT NOT FIRST OR SECOND BUT FIRST.

IT'S A PART OF THAT ACCOUNTABILITY PIECE.

IT'S A PART OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES YOU KNOW IN WASHINGTON TO ASK THE PRESIDENT A QUESTION WHEN I ASK HIM.

I'M NOT TELLING HIM SOMETHING I'M ASKING HIM TO BRING IT INTO CONTEXT OF WHAT THE ISSUE IS TO FIND OUT WHERE ITS HEART IS.

AND NOW I'M WRONG.

I'M CONSIDERED AN ENEMY AND THAT IS HATEFUL TO SAY THAT I'M AN ENEMY.

>> BONNIE: HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOUR REPORTING?

>> APRIL: AS SOMEONE WHO ASKS QUESTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT I WILL TIN TO ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS I HAVE BEEN ASKING AND ASKED FOR THE LAST TWO DECADES PLUS.

WHEN IT COMES TO ME GOING PLACES NOW THAT'S HOW IT'S CHANGED.

I CAN'T GO TO A TRUMP RALLY, THAT DOES AFFECT MY REPORTING.

I USED TO TRAVEL WITH PRESIDENTS PERIODICALLY NOW THAT I AM A TARGET OR PERCEIVED AS A TARGET OR PERCEIVED AS ONE OF THE ENEMIES OF THIS PRESIDENT WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I CANNOT GO.

>> A FEW DAYS AGO I CALLED THE FOX NEWS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.

THEY ARE.

THEY ARE THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.

>> NADINE: PRESIDENT TRUMP DEFINITELY HAS HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON FREE SPEECH TO THE EXTENT THAT HE HAS CHAMPIONED CERTAIN POLICIES AND EVEN IMPLEMENTED CERTAIN POLICIES THAT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

AND FORTUNATELY THE COURTS HAVE STRUCK DOWN SOME OF THOSE DIRECT ACTIONS INCLUDING DISCRIMINATING AGAINST REPORTERS WHO HE SEES AS BEING TOO CRITICAL OF HIM.

SO IT'S COMPLICATED IN THE SENSE THAT AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL HE DOES NOT GIVE UP HIS OWN FREE SPEECH RIGHTS SO HE CAN ADVOCATE FOR CHANGING THE LAW.

HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR DOING THAT.

BUT ALL OF US SHOULD RAISE OUR VOICES.

AND WHEN HE ACTUALLY DOES CROSS THE LINE THROUGH A GOVERNMENT ACTION, THEN WE SHOULD GO TO COURT.

>> MARK: OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW HE CONTRIBUTES TO A COARSENING OF THE DEBATE.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT HE'S NOT THE REASON FOR IT.

HE'S A REACTION TO THE COARSENING OF THE DEBATE.

HE'S A REACTION TO THE ATTEMPTS TO SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION.

IF OUR POLITICAL CLASS HAD BEEN MORE RESPONSIVE TO PEOPLE'S CONCERNS.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ELECTED A BULL TO RUN THROUGH THE CHINA SHOP AND SMASH EVERYTHING >> BONNIE: PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID "IF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS TAKEN AWAY THEN DUMB AND SILENT WE MAY BE LED, LIKE SHEEP TO THE SLAUGHTER."

SO FAR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC REMAINS FAIRLY WELL-INFORMED AND HAS A WIDE VARIETY OF MEDIA OUTLETS FROM WHICH VOTERS CAN GLEAN INFORMATION.

BUT WITH CORPORATIONS HAVING MORE OF A SAY IN WHAT NEWS WE RECEIVE AND HOW, WILL THAT CHANGE?

>> NADINE: WE TRULY DO HAVE A FREE SPEECH CRISIS.

THERE ARE SO MANY CHALLENGES COMING FROM EVERY DIRECTION INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO HAS USED HIS BULLY PULPIT TO BULLY ANYBODY WHO DARES TO DISAGREE WITH HIM.

BUT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TOO MANY STUDENTS ON TOO MANY COLLEGE CAMPUSES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WHO SEEK TO SILENCE ANYBODY WHOSE IDEAS MAKE THEM FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.

NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE NO MATTER WHAT YOUR OWN IDEAS ARE YOU DEEPLY DEPEND ON A ROBUST FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

>> BONNIE: WHAT EXACTLY IS LOST WHEN SPEECH IS SUPPRESSED?

WIDELY HELD OPINIONS DON'T JUST FINESSE AND WHEN THEY'RE MUSCLED PEOPLE WHO HOLD THEM GET ANGRIER EVEN ENRAGED WHEN THEY'RE FINALLY EXPRESSED PUBLICLY THEY DO SO FURIOUSLY INSTEAD OF PARTAKING IN REASONABLE CIVIL DEBATE.

>> WE DON'T WANT TO STOP FREE SPEECH.

IF YOU START TO BAN ALL KINDS OF FREE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET FOR EXAMPLE THAT IS GOING TO CREATE RESENTMENT AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PEOPLE.

I KNOW -- I KNOW THAT FREE SPEECH IS -- CAN GET KIND OF