spring 2017 fashion internships new york

spring 2017 fashion internships new york

   18.11       Fashion 2017

---

[ music ] >> provost gould: beforei begin my introduction of our special guestspeaker this afternoon, president alexander has asked meto extend his sincere apologies for not being here today. he was called to washington,as i mentioned this morning, where he is advocating onbehalf of csuob, the csu, and public higher education witha delegation of csu trustees, presidents, and governmentaffairs experts.

i know he is looking forward to watching dean chemerinsky'spresentation on beach tv. so beware - he will be watching. [laughs] it is my great pleasure to introduce our keynotespeaker this afternoon, who is one of ourcountry's most prominent constitutional scholars. irwin chemerinsky is thefounding dean of the university of california - irvineschool of law.

the first new law school at apublic university in california in nearly half a century. dean chemerinsky is anexpert in constitutional law, federal practice, civilrights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. he frequently arguesappellate cases including cases in the united statessupreme court and the u.s. courts of appeals. in 2005, he was namedby legal affairs as one

of the top 20 legalthinkers in america. he has frequently been namedby the daily journal as one of the 100 most influentiallawyers in california, and in 19, i'm sorry, in 2003, he received the president'saward from the criminal courts barassociation and the freedom of information awardfrom the society for professional journalists. dean chemerinsky is theauthor of six books and more

than 100 law reviewarticles in journals such as the "harvardlaw review". by the way, he got hislaw degree at harvard. "michigan law review","northwestern law review", "university of pennsylvania lawreview", "stanford law review", and "yale law review journal",just to mention a few. dean chemerinskywrites a regular column on the supreme courtfor "california lawyer", the "l.a. daily journal",and "trial magazine"

and is a frequentcontributor to newspapers and other magazinesaround the country. he also serves regularly asa commentator on legal issues for national and local media. dean chemerinsky has heldacademic positions most recently at duke university,u.s.c.'s gould school of law, no relationship to me,and dupaul college of law. please join me ina very warm welcome for dean irwin chemerinsky.

[ applause ] >> dean irwin chemerinsky:thank you. thank you so much forthe kind introduction. it's really an honorand a privilege to be here this afternoon as this wonderfulweek of activities. it's also great for me to beback in southern california. i taught at the university ofsouthern california for 21 years and moved back atthe end of last june

to be the founding dean of thenew law school at the university of california at irvine. i've discovered once again thethree best reasons for living in southern california -december, january, and february. [laughter] having been inphiladelphia last week, i will now add marchto that list as well. i always enjoy going backand reading predictions as to what life was going to belike in the early 21st century. some, like "1984" and "brave newworld", "a quiet apocalyptic".

some like reading orwatching buck rodgers or flash gordon arequite amusing. there's depictions of peoplebeing able to talk on telephones that weren't attached bycords, even telephones as wristwatches or shoes. there's also the idea that people would regularlybe using picture phones, speaking to eachother, and being able to watch one anotherat the same time.

there's depictions of peoplegetting around with backpacks that were rocket propelled so we no need any longerfor things like cars. maybe even not airplanes. but as you read allof those predictions of what life wasgoing to be like, curiously absent isanything like the internet. the web. e-mail. the reality is thate-mail, the web,

the internet were generallyare very recent developments. courts and legal commentatorshave tended to treat them as just another medium. that was, of course,the print medium, and then radio developed,then television followed. cable and satellitedeveloped from them, and then there camethe internet. and there's a [inaudible] touse the same legal principles, the same legal analyticalframework for the internet

and the web as used for all of these other mediathat preceded it. what i want to argue withyou this afternoon is that the internet is in kinda different medium from all of the others that preceded it. that it requires quite differentlegal and analytical framework. and so i'm going to dividemy remarks into three parts. first, and i thinkmost importantly, i want to persuade you that theinternet dramatically alters

understanding a basic firstamendment principles regarding free speech. second, i want to talk aboutsome challenges this poses with regard to the firstamendment and freedom of speech. and then third andfinally, and most briefly, i want to offer someconcluding thoughts about where we go from here. i'll be honest and tell youi have a much better sense of problems than i do ofsolutions in this area.

let me start by talking about why i believe theinternet isn't just a difference of degree, but adifference in kind. why it's not just the latest innew media, but really a media that requires a change, and somany assumptions with regard to the first amendmentand speech in our society. let me point to four waysin which i'd argue it is in kind differentfrom all other media. first, it decentralizesthe ability

to communicate toa large audience. through so much of americanhistory, if somebody wanted to reach a large audience, theyneeded the resources to be able to own a major newspaper. in the 20th century, they'dneed the resources to be able to have a broadcast license. relatively few in oursociety own major newspapers or have broadcast licenses. i started teaching a course inmedia law in the early 1980's.

in much of the literatureat that time, it expressed great concernabout the centralization of ownership of the media. how more and morenewspapers were held by fewer and fewer owners. how the same media companies that had newspapers also hadtelevision stations and radios. the federal communicationcommission was struggling with cross-ownership rules.

how many newspapers couldhave broadcast license he had. how many in the samemetropolitan area and the like. the internet so dramaticallychanges that. the reality is anyonewith access to a computer cancreate a website. anyone with access to acomputer can have a blog. the website the blogcan be read by millions. tens of millions. hundreds of millions of others.

no longer do you need tohave the printing press. no longer do you needthe broadcast license to reach a large audience. i would suggest there is noother medium in the history of human civilization that'smade it so easy for individuals to reach a large audience and to reach a largeaudience so quickly. used to be the supremecourt said, "the ability of even poor peopleto distribute leaflets

in public places was", and iquote the supreme court here, "the poor man's ability toreach the large audience". but of course, now you don'tneed to stand in a public park and hand out leaflets to a fewpeople to reach a large number of people, and to reachthem very quickly. you don't even needthe resources to own a computer to do this. so long as you can goto a public library or an internet caf , youcan set up your website.

you can set up your blog, and you can reachso many so quickly. second way in which theinternet is in kind different from all other media that preceded it isthe decentralization of access to information. think about how peopleused to get information. well, you can subscribeto a newspaper. ever since i was anadult, i always have.

you can buy books. you can go to thelibrary if you want access to more newspapers, more books. you certainly couldget information by watching television, but thenumber of stations was limited. in a major metropolitanarea like this, you'd get four networks, afew independent stations, but that was it in terms of theinformation that was available. think now, though, abouthow easy it is for people

to access vast amountsof information. the web has access tolibraries throughout the world. the web has access to artmuseums throughout the world. almost anything youmight want to learn, there's at leastsome information on the internet about it. there's more ability toaccess more information than there's ever been at anypoint in human civilization. now, there are problems thatgo with this beyond ones

that i'll talk aboutin a moment. as somebody who's been teachingboth college and law students for a long time, i realize thatmy students increasingly believe that the only researchthey ever need to do is that which they canfind on the internet. there seems to be afailure to recognize that there's still a lot ofthings in books that hasn't yet been digitized and aren'tdeveloped along the internet. not a summer goes by ora semester when i have

to remind my research assistantsthat there's some things that they can't doon the internet. also, i think there's beena failure to recognize that not all sources are equal. just because it's onwikipedia doesn't mean that it's accurate or right. just because somebody says it on the internet doesn'tmean that it's credible. so in that sense, i thinkthere's some disadvantage

to the tremendous access of information unless we alsomake evaluative judgments about the qualityof the information. yet another way in which theinternet is in kind different from all other mediais it doesn't respect international boundaries. it used to be that a countrycould exercise a fairly high degree of control over thespeech in that country. if a nation wanted to prohibitsexually explicit material,

it could do so. if a government wanted tocontrol criticism, well, it could do so by punishingthose, even censoring those who it wanted to control. the internet defiesnational boundaries. when congress adoptedthe first law to try to regulate sexualmaterial over the internet, it quickly discovered this. the law was adopted in1996 and was called the

"communication decency act". it made it a federal crime to knowingly transmit indecentmaterial over the internet in a manner accessible to aminor, but it was then learned that 40 percent of all of thesexually explicit material on the internet comes fromoutside the united states. there's not an easy way to beable to control that material. congress can't exerciseany control. there can't be federalprosecutions over the material.

well, likewise, this is truein totalitarian countries. a government that wantsto exercise strict control over what its people seeisn't going to be able to do that because those within thenation are going to be able to have access tonewspapers, to blogs, to websites throughoutthe world. a fourth way in which theinternet is in kind different from all other media isit has become the portal through which peoplereceive all other media.

over the last several decades, the supreme court has developeda medium-by-medium approach when it comes to firstamendment and speech. what i mean by this is thesupreme court has announced different rules when it comesto the first amendment for each of the different media. to explain, it startedwith the broadcast media. the supreme court said,"because the broadcast media is inherently scarce,there are only

so many broadcast frequencies, the government will havemore latitude to regulate". and the supreme court saidthere can be what's called the fairness doctrine overthe broadcast media. there can be a requirementimposed on those with broadcast licenses togive fair presentation of views on all sides of an issue. the supreme court said it'sok for the government to say that a person attacked over thebroadcast media would have a

right to reply. now, for other media, such requirementswould clearly run afoul of the first amendment. the government was tellingbroadcast licensees what they had to communicate. they had to communicateopposing viewpoints. they had to make availabletime for right to reply. when the state of florida tried

to impose the exact sameobligations on newspapers, this was declaredunconstitutional. the supreme court said isviolated the first amendment to have newspapersrequire to give a right to reply to those attacked. it was interesting is thesetwo cases i mentioned were just several years apart, andthey were both unanimous. the supreme courtunanimously saying it's ok to impose a fairnessdoctrine and right to reply

on the broadcast media, butit's not ok to impose it when it comes to newspapers, andthe supreme court went further. the supreme court saidit's ok for the government to prohibit profane andindecent speech over, over their television and radio. there was a case, nowover 30 years ago, that involved a radiostation in new york that broadcast ageorge carlin monologue on the seven dirty words.

i always love teachingthis case to my students. i always play forthem the monologue. i always remind themthey don't need to memorize the sevendirty words for my exam. i also caution them when theysee my exam question it'll be some of the first wordsthat come to mind anyway. [laughter] and thesupreme court said that this radio stationcould be punished for broadcasting thegeorge carlin monologue.

the supreme court said, "the broadcast media isuniquely intrusive into the home and accessible to children." well, then the governmenttried to impose the same kind of restrictions overtelephone communications. trying to regulate dial-a-porn,and the supreme court said, "well, telephones are differentthan television and radio because people can monitorwhat their children do with telephones.

dial-a-porn requirescredit cards. parents can exercise control." you can decide whetheror not you believe that telephones aredifferent than television and radio in this way. then came cable television, andthe supreme court said, "well, cable is different thanfree, over-the-air television because people choose tobring cable into their home, and parents can decidewhat to subscribe to."

again, you can decide whether ornot this distinction makes sense between over-the-air cable, over-the-air televisionand cable television. it certainly explains why youcan see different things on hbo or showtime than youcan on cbs or nbc. and then came the internet, andin the case that i mentioned, the supreme court declaredunconstitutional the attempt to regulate indecentmaterial over the internet. in fact, congress even triedto adopt a law that said

that anyone who's sendingsexually explicit material over the internet has todo age verification first. just like states canrequire age verification for buying adult magazinesor renting adult videotapes. the supreme court declaredthis unconstitutional. the supreme court said, "well,parents can access control of what their childrenview over the internet because parents can putfiltering devices on computers." there are programs like netnannyand the like that can filter

out explicit material. my point is that overthe last 30 years, the supreme court has deviseda medium-by-medium approach to analyzing speech. different rules for televisionand radio, from newspapers, from cable, from the internet. the internet makes all ofthat non-sensical [phonetic] because now we can receive anddo receive all of those media through a single portal.

as i mentioned inmy introduction, i moved to southerncalifornia last june. when i got in touch withthe local media provider, i now receive cable,internet, and telephone through the same serviceprovider, and of course, you can now also readnewspapers online. so you're getting all ofyour media in that way. in fact, today 85 percentof people receive all of their televisionthrough cable and satellite.

does it make senseany longer then to draw distinctionsamong media? of course not. so in all of these ways,i hope i persuaded you that the internet reallydoes change things. it changed thingsdramatically with regard to the first amendment. well, then let me move to thesecond part of my remarks, and i want to talk aboutsome of the problems

that the internet poses. because while the internethas tremendous benefits, especially in decentralizationof communication, of access to information,of limiting the ability of totalitarian governmentsto regulate speech, there are also someserious problems emerging with regard to the internet. let me talk about these. one problem is its effecton traditional newspapers

and traditional media outlets. and i don't thinkthe relationship between the internet and theseproblems is nearly enough recognized nor are theconsequences nearly enough discussed. we are witnessing the end ofmany newspapers in this country, and nothing else, thegutting of others. just last week, the"rocky mountain news", a hundred-year-old newspaperin denver, colorado closed.

just last week, seriousspeculation that the "san francisco chronicle"will close and with it the "san francisco examiner". that would mean to oneof the major cities in the united states,san francisco, would no longer havea major newspaper. just last week, therewas speculation that the seattle paperswill likewise close. we have seen here in los angelesthe number of editorial staff

at the "la times" go fromabout 1,200 to about 600. well, what's the relationshipof this to the internet? as people can getinformation for free online, there's ever less reasonto read newspapers. as people can getnewspapers free online, there's ever less needto subscribe to them. circulation for majornewspapers is decreasing and decreasing precipitously. even worse, from newspapers'perspective, the average age

of readers is increasing. the youthful audiencethat any media depends on is no longer therefor newspapers. i certainly see that withregard to my own children. my 25-year-old son is athird-year law student, reads several newspapers aday, but entirely online, and he usually doesthough through services that summarize thecontents of newspapers. the newspapers get nofinancial benefit from that.

advertisers are verycognizant of it. they know what'shappening to circulation, and they know it'shappening with regard to the demographicsof circulation. so the initial responsemay be, well, newspapers may be a dinosaur, but they're beingreplaced by other sources. but there are things that majornewspapers do that other sources of information don't do.

yahoo.com or google.com withtheir news services are great at presenting headlines, butthey don't have foreign bureaus to cover wars or foreign events. they don't have journalists to do long-term investigativereporting. it takes a good dealof financial support. i know this sounds abstract, so let me give youa concrete example. one of my colleagues, oneof the founding faculty

at the university ofcalifornia - irvine school of law is henry weinstein,who spent 30 years as a legal affairs reporterat the "los angeles times". when i heard thathe was thinking of taking early retirementbuyout, i immediately went to him and said,"have you ever thought of being a law professor? who better to teach students howto write or investigate facts?" he spent a long period of timedoing an investigative story.

it was the "la times",but a man here in long beach namedtommy lee goldstein. turns out that tommy leegoldstein was accused of a couple of murders thatoccurred in long beach. he was ultimatelyconvicted of those murders. he spent 24 years ofprison for those murders. henry weinstein was convinced that goldstein wascompletely innocent. now, there were no eyewitnesses

to goldstein committingthe murders. there was no tangibleevidence like dna. there was no confession. what was there? well, there were twowitnesses who said that they'd heard goldstein say that he had committedthe murders. one, as a result of questioningespecially by henry weinstein, totally recanted and said henever heard goldstein say it.

the other was a localnotorious individual. a person who was inthe same jail cell with goldstein herein long beach. it was a man by thename of edward fink. what an amazing namefor somebody who was a police informant? [laughter] and fink went andtold the jail authorities that he had heardgoldstein commit murders. well, goldstein's lawyerrepeatedly asked the assistant

district attorney whether ornot fink had made any deals. whether fink had gottenany reduction in charges or reduction in sentencein exchange for it, and goldstein's lawyer hadbeen told no repeatedly. turns out that was false. fink received substantialbenefits than he had before for incriminating goldstein. it was all made up. ultimately, as a result ofthis investigative reporting,

goldstein was completelyexonerated and released from prison. this is what an investigativejournalist with the support of a major newspaper can do. who's going to bearwitness like this when the newspapers collapse? we are nearing a time whenthere will be a few major national newspapers. "usa today", "new yorktimes", "wall street journal".

and there will be very localnewspapers for communities, but the major city newspapers,the "rocky mountain news", the "seattle chronicle"will no longer be there. the internet doesn'treplace what they did, and it's a problem oursociety has yet to deal with. another problem that theinternet poses is the ability of individuals to greatharm almost instantaneously. now, as i said, theinternet allows more people to reach a largeaudience than ever before.

this allows themto do great good, but any means can alsobe used for great harm. the internet has become a tool through which hate groups canrecruit increasing numbers of individuals. if you want to beshocked, go on the web, and go find some ofthese hate groups. i often worry if the governmentis monitoring my internet use. the conclusions they come

to because i do thinkit is important to see what these hategroups are doing and saying. they have websites wherethey have hate music to attract youth, hate gamesto attract youth, and the like, and they can do so in aninsidious and effective way. there's also the ability interms of doing harm quickly with regard to damagea reputation. there's nothing moreprecious that each of us possesses thanour reputation.

we spend our careersbuilding our reputation. but it's so easyover the internet to quickly slime somebody, tosay false and defamatory things. denials are never aseffective as accusations. there's never assurance that denials will reach the sameaudience as accusations reach. also, it's often hard to evenidentify who's sending the false inspirious [phonetic]information. and as i mentioned, itseems that consumers,

the internet often fail todistinguish based on the quality of the informationthey're receiving. and so the ability of theinternet to quickly do harm to reputation isreally significant. another problem that theinternet poses that we have to face concerns privacy. i have often said to audiencesyou should assume that anything that you do over theinternet, anything you say over the internetis not private.

now, there's manyreasons why this is so. one little known provisionof the patriot act says that the government may haveaccess to the e-mail addresses that you write from or receivefrom or monitor the websites that you access just byshowing that it's relevant to a criminal investigation. to search your house, yourpurse, or your pockets, the government's gotto have probable cause and a substantialreason to believe

that a crime was committed. you have evidence, ok. to monitor what youdo on the internet, the government just has toshow that it's "relevant to a criminal investigation". likewise, when you engagein commercial transactions, you should assume that thosecompanies are planting so-called cookies in your computerwhere they have the ability to monitor what you're doing onthe internet, what you're buying

on the internet, thewebsites that you're visiting. now, this doesn't even getto the ability of individuals to hack into computers. to gain information illegally. about 15 years ago, itwas in 1994, i got a call from a producer of thethen tv show "nightline". you might remember,hosted by ted koppel. and the producer said,"we're doing a show about what's accessible aboutpeople over the internet.

would you be willingto be on the show, and come discuss privacyrelative to the internet?" i said, "of course, i would." and then we, we madeall the arrangements of when i was supposed to beat the studio and the like, and at the very end, she said, "can i have yoursocial security number?" [laughter] and i started togive my social security number, and then i pausedand i said, "well,

why do you want mysocial security number?" i had been on before,and i know they don't, they don't pay forguest appearance. they weren't usingthis for an honorarium. she said, "well, we want to hirean information broker and want to see how much he can findabout you in 24 hours." i paused, and i said,"i really should check with my wife about this." and i couldn't think ofanything embarrassing

that i have to learn. i'm really boring,but i still thought, better be safe about this. and finally i called back, andi said, "yes, you're welcome to do this, but can youtell me before we go on air the specificinformation you learned, and if there's any particularfact that i want disposed, can you just not revealthat specific fact, and only say you got thatcategory of information."

and they agreed. well, they didn't learn anythingi minded being disclosed, but i was amazed at what theywere able to find out about me. they were able to find out allthe details about my house, the size of the house, the sizeof the lot, the swimming pool, and this is even before googleearth let them get a picture of it on the internet. they were able to findout my voter registration. they were able to find outthat i was previously divorced,

the terms of the divorcesettlement, and the like, and they just rattledall of the kinds of information, and i go, oh. and then the informationbroker said, "this is just from legally availablesources of information." he said, "if i wantedto, without much trouble, i could have gotten accessto your medical records, your tax information." he said it wouldn'thave been legal,

but it wouldn't havebeen an obstacle. the internet has somany benefits in terms of information, but ithink we easily forget all of the adverse consequencesin terms of privacy. there's a fourth final adverseconsequence to the internet that i want to talk about, and that's is vulnerabilityto attack. the internet by virtue of inherent centralization makesus more vulnerable to attack

than we've ever been beforewith regard to information. i mean, it used to be totake television off the air, it required going anddestroying a number of different transmittersfrom various broadcasters. to keep newspapers frombeing able to publish, you'd have to go, if you werea terrorist, and blow up a lot of different papers and plants. but the internet is so muchmore vulnerable than that. think of viruses thatare quickly transmitted

from one computer to anotherthat at times have brought down the internet, andat times have come close to even larger catastrophes. think of what a terroristcould do if a terrorist could disable theinternet in the united states for even a short time. the banking systemwould collapse. the credit systemwould collapse. sales would collapse.

think of every time you go intoa store and use a credit card or an atm card, and howquickly they're able to verify the transactionto go forward. what would happenif the internet, if communicationswere destroyed? think of every time you go toget money from an atm money if you couldn't becausethe system that it dependedon was disabled. i was surprised in preparingfor this talk looking

at the law review literature on the internet how verylittle discussion there is to the vulnerabilityto communications. to the economy that comesfrom centralization. well, i said having talked abouthow the internet is different and having talked aboutthe problems this poses, i want to conclude with a coupleof thoughts towards solutions. one is the most obvious. the need for new formsof legal regulation

to deal with the new media. we can't simply assumethat existing forms of law will be adequate. that's what congress,regulators, courts have done. take traditional principles and simply apply themto the new media. it doesn't work. we have to go back and rethinkso many legal principles. i mean, just in terms ofwhat i've talked about.

we need to rethink theprinciples of scarcity. the regulation ofbroadcast it's based upon. we need to rethinkhow we control and regulate sexualmaterials especially over the internet given thatover 40 percent of it comes from outside the united states. we need to think about do wehold people liable when speech over the internet canso easily be anonymous and impossible to trace.

we need to think abouthow to have a mechanism for even quick injunctionsof speech. traditionally, theworst form of regulation of speech was an injunction. traditionally, injunctionsweren't allowed is that defamatory speech, butthat's starting to change, and probably willneed to be changed. the reality is becausethe internet can do such harm so quickly to people.

there's got to be a way to getfalse speech off the internet and off the internetrelatively quickly. we do need to think of waysin which we're either going to salvage newspapers or findalternatives to newspapers for the essential servicesthat newspapers provided. the other part of what i wantedto say about solutions is likely to be much more controversial. i think we need to talk muchmore about responsibility when it comes to speech than weever have before in our society.

we as a society are usedto talking about rights. the constitutionis about rights. understandably, theconstitution is not about individualresponsibilities. why is this? well, the constitution waswritten to create a government and limit government power. it wasn't focusing on individuals andwhat they can do.

any government-enforcedresponsibilities are inherently a limit on freedom. it's the reason why reluctantto put in the constitution. even to put into lawresponsibilities. now, i am not suggestinghere about responsibilities that there should beresponsibilities enforced by statute, ordinance,or supports. i am saying, though, thati think that the internet because of its power to do harmrequires that each of us think

about the responsibilitiesof speech. let me give you easyexamples of this. facebook. i don't know how manyof you here have facebook pages. i'm not going to ask for a showof hands, but i will tell you, and i know this withcertainty, that if you apply to law schools, probably to other professional graduateschools, they will go in and read your facebook page. only put on your facebook pagewhat you want law schools,

graduate schools, professionalschools to know about you. employers will readyour facebook page. there seems to be somethingabout the culture of facebook that it's ok to putanything there. that it's just part of speech,but the need to be responsible, the need to think aboutthe audience becomes so much greater. there is the ability, as isaid, to do real harm to people. so let's put it on the internet.

we saw the incidence of amother who caused a teenager to commit suicideby what she wrote under a pseudonymabout the teenager. we constantly hear storiesof children, young adults, saying screwalous [phonetic]false things about others and doing enormous harm to them. but where is the talk amidstall the discussion of rights about responsibilitieswith regard to speech. to put this another way, asthe internet has given each

of us the ability to reachan unprecedented audience, don't we have to start talkingabout the responsibilities that come with thatpower as well? now, i am very deeplydistrustful of those who want to regulate the internetthrough law. i think the benefitsof the internet as a medium far outweighits costs. i don't think it's coincidentalthat every supreme court case about the internet hasdeclared government regulation

about it unconstitutional. and i conclude, thinkabout the internet, to ask you to remember the words of the late justice lewisbrandus [assumed spelling]. he said that the greatest threatto liberty will come from people who claim to act forbeneficial purposes. he said, "peopleborn to freedom know to resist the tyrannyof despots." he said, "the insidiousthreat to liberty will come

from well-meaning people ofzeal with little understanding of what the constitutionis about." the constitution, the firstamendment, about enlightenment, about education, about autonomy, in no medium hasever done better at advancing thosevalues than the internet. thank you. >> i'm sure many of you havequestions for dean chemerinsky. we're going to have some, therewere some cards that were left

in along the aisleshere, and hopefully, if you heard my announcementat the beginning, some of you might havealready written questions down. if you'd still like todo that, people are going to be handing more cards around. [ pause ] >> does anyone have aquestion for me to read? yeah. if you feel like that one. [inaudible]

>> dean irwin chemerinsky:there's some cards over here. >> let's start withprovost gould. >> provost gould: while you'regathering your questions, i have a, a questionreflection for you. our daughter is nyugrad in journalism and has become a bloggerby part-time profession. and i'm very interestedin your comment about the increasing number ofnewspapers around the country that are going under or beingstreamlined, and i wanted you

to think about the possibilityof a positive outcome. i'm not trying to be toooptimistic, but the possibility of a positive outcomeof bloggers becoming in ways serious investigatorsby the nature of their taking this newmedium so very seriously because i certainly see thatwith my daughter's generation. do you think that's possible? >> dean irwin chemerinsky:i wish it were possible. i think what blogs are verygood for is expressing opinion.

and so i think blogs caneasily replace the oped pages of newspapers. i think blogs are notwell suited to the kind of factual investigation that requires a reporterbeing supported for months to look in facts. i wonder if going backto the 1970's if woodward and bernstein had justhad a blog whether or not they would have had theresources to be able to pursue

and uncover the watergatecoverup. i know that just bloggersdon't have the resources to uncover some ofthe fraud that went on in the tobacco industry inthe marketing of cigarettes that journalists won awards for. or a "los angeles times"reporter just won a major award for investigating theservice employees' union and the corruptionwithin the sciu. i don't think that bloggersgenerally have the resources

to be able to do that. if you think of newspapersbeing able to keep a reporter on payroll withoutwriting a story for months to do a single investigation, who's going to supportthe blogger to do that? the advertising revenuedoesn't do that if the blogger is notproducing on a daily basis, and relatively fewbloggers are able to at this point make it basedon the advertising revenue.

there is some notableexceptions to that. i mean, the huffington [assumedspelling] blog would be an exception to that, butgenerally, even there, what's on the huffington blog? it's opeds. it's opinion. blogs are so wellsuited to that, but they're not well suitedto intense fact investigation. bloggers don't go andrun foreign bureaus.

bloggers aren't there to seewhat goes on at abu ghraib. so those are the things, and ireally put them in the phrase that i intensionshows bearing witness. i think reporters can be there. reporters can beat the front lines like edward r. morrow wasduring the [inaudible]. bloggers aren't goingto be there. and it doesn't have to putdown blogging, and i, i, i have really mixedfeelings about blogging.

i think the main problemwith blogging as a form of communicationis it's unedited. there's no selection process. anybody can put anythingon a blog, and there are so many blogs to choose among. what can be there can be good, or it can be triteand silly, or worse. newspapers, at least there'ssome editorial process. it's easier to holdsomebody accountable.

on the other hand, blogshave the benefit, as i said, of the tremendousdecentralization of the ability to reach a mass audienceunlike anything else that's ever existed. >> so dean chemerinsky, giventhe limitations on the internet for the purposesyou have described, should the federal governmentprovide regulatory protection to support the printmedia, and if so, what form would thatprotection take?

>> dean irwin chemerinsky:i wish i could articulate and identify ways ofsafeguarding major newspapers. i can't think ofwhat they would be. in theory, i guess, therecould be a bailout for the "los angeles times" orthe "rocky mountain news" or the "san franciscochronicle". bailouts seem to bein vogue right now. i keep trying to think of how our new law schoolcould get a bailout.

[laughter] so i, i, i don't see, and i don't see howregulation is going to be able to help major newspapers. i think this is aresult of market forces. newspapers have tried to makeup for the loss of circulation by creating their ownonline availability. now, one problemwith newspapers, of course, is they are late. i mean, by the timetomorrow's "la times" comes out,

people have already read whathappened today on the internet. and so they've tried to createtheir own "la times" online or "new york times" online,but the advertising revenue for it doesn't begin tomake up for what was lost so that it can increasecirculation. so i think the answer to thequestion is i can't think of a way of doing thisthrough subsidy or regulation. i think it's a consequencewe're going to have to bear, but i also think weshould be very cognizant

of the substantialcosts of that, as i was saying toprovost gould. >> has there beenany significant cases of individuals winning or losingliable or slander lawsuits due to something disseminatedvia the internet? >> dean irwin chemerinsky: yes. there are an increasingnumber of lawsuits directed at defamatory speech,liable over the internet. liable is simply writtenthings that are defamatory.

slander are oral commentsthat are defamatory. so when we're dealing withthe internet, we're talking about liable as theform of defamation, and there have been a largenumber of cases brought. there are real difficulties,though, with regard to litigating. sometimes you can'tfind who said it. sometimes it's difficultto track the source. sometimes it's hard tobring them into the state

where the harm is done. there are rules that limitwhen you can bring somebody from one state into anotherfor purpose of suing them, and that becomesparticularly hard with a national-internationalmedia like the internet. but the answer is, yes thoughthere are no supreme court cases yet. there are many lower court cases where people havebeen held liable

for defamatory speechover the internet. >> i've got two questionsthat take the conversation in an international direction. so i think i'll justread them both together. they're, they're connected. one says the chinese governmenthas prosecuted dissidents based on their use of computerslocated on united states soil. is that a violation of theunited states constitution? and then the other is, althoughyou don't support internet

regulation, yet since theinternet has no geographic boundaries, what would you thinkabout international treaties to provide protections? >> dean irwin chemerinsky: asto the former, it all depends on where the people are. china has the authority toprosecute people who are in china doing thingsthat violate chinese law. china can't prosecute peoplewho are in the united states for violating chinese law.

so what we mean byunited states soil, there becomes somewhatambiguous. in terms of the latter, ido think that there is going to need to be treaties that dealwith aspects of the internet. security aspectsthat i alluded to. perhaps compatibility aspectsin the long term among systems. so, yes, i think that therewill need to be treaties that develop, that handlethis brand-new media. >> you think the power

of traditional media isbeing especially deluded by the rise of social media? facebook, etc. >> dean irwin chemerinsky: i don't know is theanswer to that question. there's no doubt that theability to e-mail, text message, twitter, and i confess, idon't even know what twitter is [laughter] certainly replacetelephones as a media. i get many fewer phone callsper day than i used to.

i don't think that's becausepeople want to talk to me less. maybe it's that. i think it's and said,the quantity of e-mails that i get everyday hasgone up tremendously. so there i do see a replacement. but i don't think thate-mail, text messaging, and twittering is, or facebook, are replacing readingthe "new york times". i think other things arereplacing reading the

"new york times". i think being able to go online to newspapers.com,whatever they may be. these services thatcollate stories and then are available isreplacing the "new york times". the ability to go to yahooheadlines replaces the so i don't think the socialnetworking sites is threatening the news sites, but i thinkthere are other things that are doing that.

>> you feel the firstamendment is too vague in a time when there may be, well, thereare certainly, many more media of communication thatweren't anticipated back in the 18th century. i guess the corollary to thatquestion would be is there any necessity for any constitutionalrevision based on that fact? >> dean irwin chemerinsky:no, and let me explain why. i think the genius ofthe constitution is that a document writtenin the late 18th century

for an agrarian slave societycould still govern us today and be revered. i think the reason is thatit was written in very broad, open-textured language. congress shall make nolaw abridging freedom of speech or of the press. but speech, its press maybedifferent today in terms of media than it was in the late18th century, but the concepts of free speech and freepress are the same.

the late, great justicejohn marshall, early in the 19th centurysaid, "we must never forget that it's a constitutionthat we're expounding. constitution meant to be adaptand endure for ages to come." and i think it's great thatthe constitution is written in that kind of, to useyour word ambiguous, language that can be adapted. i don't like the idea of aconstitutional convention because i don't think if we hada constitutional convention we'd

do a better job than thelanguage of the first amendment with regard to speech. i think if we had aconstitution convention, i think it wouldimmediately devolve into each interestgroup fighting over how they can capture thelanguage of the constitution to serve their own interests. there's nothing wrong with thatinherently other than i think that it's unnecessary,

and i don't believewe'd do any better. >> in defense ofthe first amendment. obviously popular to somebody. the recent election of presidentobama has produced many internet hate messages. some seem close to treason. some threatening his life. is there a way toprosecute these sorts of threats to people?

>> dean irwin chemerinsky:the supreme court has held that so-called truethreats are not protected by the first amendment. the key question is,what's a true threat? the supreme court hasnot done much to clarify. the lower courts have said, if it would cause a reasonableperson to fear for his or her safety, it's a truethreat and not protected and the key case hereon the west coast

from the federal court ofappeals is a great one to talk about with regardto the internet. an extremist anti-abortiongroup ran a website, and on the website, theypublished the names of doctors and health professionals whothey believed were involved in performing abortions. they also listedthe names of women who were seen goingto these facilities. now, in reality,some of these doctors

and health professionals wereproviding women's health care, reproductive health services, and weren't performingabortions. some of the women weregoing to the facilities to receive reproductivehealth care but not abortions, but nonetheless, theirnames were listed. and they were presented in sucha way that clearly praised those who had killed some of thedoctors and health professionals for performing abortions.

the question was: could those who were running this website becivilly sued for money damages? to be more specific,the question is: should this be regardedas a true threat? and the united states courtof appeals, the ninth circuit, which the federal courtof appeals for this area, in a six-to-five decision saidthat it was a true threat, and they could be held liable. shows how close the questionis as to what's a true threat.

so the answer to yourquestion is, if what's said about president obamais perceived by the reasonableperson as a threat to president obama'ssafety, it's a true threat, then it can be punished. >> you've expressed some doubtabout the ability of sites like yahoo.com, wikipedia, etc. to replace theresearch abilities of traditional newspapers.

however, in the beginning of,of newspapers in this country, they weren't alwaysnoted for their accuracy or for their persistence in uncovering deeplyinvestigative journalism. so the question iswhether in the early days, where we're still unsure what,where this direction might go if there might still appearas there did in the maturation of print newspapers ifthere might be an equivalent maturation on theinternet and new types

of investigative journalismto replace the old? newspapers to thisday have inaccuracies. in fact, next time you go thegrocery store, look at some of the newspapers atthe checkout counter and the headlines, and see howmany you think are accurate among them. so the fact that it'son paper doesn't mean that it's inherently morelikely to be accurate than it's digitized andonline, but the thing

about the internet is it's letsanyone put anything out there. i cannot tell you the number of times i've had student paperscite the things on the internet that just were wrong, but thefact that somebody had said it, well, that seemedto be good enough. as i mentioned, i've beentroubled that my students seem to treat anybody with a blogthe same as the greatest expert in the field justbecause they all say it. wikipedia's wonderful.

i confess, i look upthings on wikipedia. i had a really weird experience. i went to argue a habeascorpus, a petition on behalf of a person who's in prisonto try to get his release. i really believehe was innocent, and i went to a federaldistrict court in michigan in october to do this. and before the oralargument, the judge asked me and the attorney forthe state of michigan

to come into his chambers. [inaudible] and the judge wanted to show me he found awikipedia page about me. i didn't know i wason wikipedia, and as he was showing it to me, the first thing i noticedwas it said something that was just false about me. not defamatory, just inaccurate. of course, whoever [inaudible]

about the wikipedia pagedidn't check with me. could have been terriblydefamatory, and i wouldn't know. so, yes, the internetcan be accurate, and yes, traditional mediacan be inaccurate, but i think that one consequence of having the tremendousdissemination of who has the ability tocommunicate information is as much more likely tobe more inaccuracies, and there aren't editors formost of these blogs or websites.

so you don't have any controlover content much more often than that's the casewith traditional media. anytime you're out in public,anyone can take your picture. they don't need yourconsent to do so. now, if they want tocommercially benefit from it, then they need your permission. but when you're out inpublic, what you do in public, [inaudible] there aretv cameras all over. on traffic lights,downtowns and big cities,

it doesn't violate your privacy. they have the right to do it. they can take your picture as you're walkingthrough the airport. the law is clear that what youdo in public can be monitored by the government or others. likewise, a public universitycan monitor the internet, the, the public use ofthe internet or web by its students and its faculty.

if an administration wants toread the blogs of the faculty, the facebook pagesof the students, it doesn't violateanybody's rights. now, that doesn't mean that theycan monitor private internet e-mail communication. that's a, a different question. i'm just saying what'sdone for the public to see can be monitored byuniversities, employers, the government, andthere's, in the law,

the current law noprivacy problems. now, again, i'm separating here. if you think you're havinga private e-mail exchange with somebody else, that doesn'tgive the university the right to monitor that. that's a differentquestion, and sometimes they, and sometimes they can't. >> a student in a fashioninternship class had quoted an article in which a, a majoramerican corporation was accused

of bribing bloggers andeven rewriting blogs to show themselves ina more positive light. so the question isthis merely, is, is this a valid marketingtool, or is this a danger for the relationship betweenretailers and consumers, and does it have anylegal implications? >> dean irwin chemerinsky:this is a grey area where traditionalfirst amendment law, traditional regulatorylaw doesn't work,

where we need todevelop new rules. now, i would say if i have awebsite with certain statements, for you to come inand rewrite the copy on my website isviolating my rights. maybe it's my property rights. maybe it's certainspeech interests i have. so, if there's a blog thatcriticizes a line of dresses, for that dress manufacturer tocome in and rewrite the contents of the blog, i would argueshould be actionable.

it should be impermissible. you have a right torewrite what you've said, but you don't have theright to change the text on somebody else's, but thelaw hasn't caught up here. >> you mention the vulnerabilityof our financial systems from internet intervention. they seem to be doing quitepoorly without that help anyway, but nevertheless, if governmentofficials were to take any steps to protect financial systemsfrom such intervention,

what might those be, and whatwould the legal implications of those steps be? >> dean irwin chemerinsky:i don't know. and i'm certainly not an expertenough in security to be able to have an answer to that. i know that somethings have been done. we are very vulnerable stillto quickly transmitted viruses over the internet, and virusesoften are quicker to develop than security systems areto protect us from them.

and i don't know what kind of security systems thegovernment might put into place is to this, thoughas i said in my remarks, i was struck as i lookedin law reviews this morning to see what's beenwritten about security over the internet,how little there is. >> we have an aspiringjournalist in the audience, and they would like toknow what would you say to, to aspiring journalistswho aspire to work

for print newspapers, and,of course, this is asking you to project into the future, but how do you think a greatjournalist will be measured 50 years from now? as to the former, iwish you good luck. [laughter] i thinkyou should stick, and there will stillbe newspapers. there will be fewer newspapers. something i said in passingis i think what we're going

to see is a few major nationalnewspapers and a proliferation of local community newspapers. so there'll still be the"long beach press telegram" or there'll still be the"southeast economist" on the south side of chicago, but i think it's themajor city newspapers that are going tobe jeopardized. so there will stillbe positions there. there will be many morepositions for you working

for internet-based media. whether it's in theentertainment industry, tmz, or slade [phonetic] or the like. so when i say good luck, there really aregoing to be positions. there's just going to bevery different positions than somebody graduating, from say journalism school25 years ago would have seen. i think in terms of your latterquestion, and i feel strongly

about this, what's goodjournalism today is the same as it was 50 years ago, and it'll be the sameas it is in 50 years. i think that the best journalismis informing people of things that they couldn'totherwise learn. it's got the facts right, and it serves an enormouspublic benefit through education and information, and idon't think that changes, and i don't think it's goingto be different in 50 years.

i just think the media willbe very different in 50 years. >> and here's a final question. it doesn't specificallydeal with the internet, but it's certainly an enduringquestion on college campuses. how do you talk with students about respecting free speechwhile also dealing with issues of discriminatory and racistspeech on a university campus? >> dean irwin chemerinsky:if you followed anything of what's gone on at theuniversity of california -

irvine in the last few years, you know this is a verysalient issue there. the reality is students havethe right to express views on any subject including viewsthat i find violent and hateful. that doesn't mean that theyhave the right to express it in every time and everyplace, but there is the right of the nazi party or theklan to come on this campus and express that message. however much we mayall detest it.

the government, and thisis a public university, this is the universityof california - irvine, cannot stop speech basedon dislike of the messages. no matter how much, manypeople dislike the messages. but college campuses canregulate the time, place, and manner of the speech. the college campuseshave to make sure that no one feelsthreatened by the speech. the first amendment gives theright to express the message,

but it doesn't ever give a right to make people fearfor their safety. likewise, they can regulate thetime and place where it occurs. there's no right to go into themiddle of a classroom right now and say anything other thanwhat the professor wants to be said in that classroom. so the nazi party may havea right to speak on campus, but it doesn't havethe right to go into the chemistry classright now and express that.

and so college campuses candirect where it happens. college campuses also canfacilitate counterspeech. if unpleasant thingsare expressed, they can provide the forum for expressing otherviews in the other side. and i think that's anenormously important power that college campuses have. so yes, i believe hate speechhas to be protected on campus as much as i may dislike it,

but college campuses dohave things they can do to protect all of theirstudents, and make sure that the campuses reallyare a marketplace of ideas. >> thank you so much,dean chemerinsky.