Getting Free Speech Right

John is joined by Christopher L. Eisgruber, President of Princeton University and author of Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. They discuss the state of free speech on university campuses. While public perception often emphasizes crisis and failure, many institutions are upholding speech rights more effectively than they are credited for. The broad constitutional principles of free expression, protecting even offensive or unsettling speech, are a good starting place for academic environments. However, these principles alone are insufficient. Universities must also foster a culture of mutual respect, encouraging civil discourse and meaningful dialogue even amid disagreement.

Some of the specific challenges universities face in the current polarized political climate include the impact of the Israel–Gaza conflict, protests, donor pressures, and calls for institutional statements. Institutions must balance their commitment to free expression with efforts to elevate discourse and promote inclusive learning environments. Chris believes that university leaders should not use censorship as a tool to enforce civility. Instead, they should model and promote norms of respectful engagement.

Online culture has intensified the scrutiny of campus speech. Events that once remained local can now gain global attention instantly, raising the stakes for how universities manage protests and controversy. Students today often self-censor due to fears of online backlash, which complicates efforts to foster open exchanges of ideas.

A tension exists between scholarly standards and political identity in faculty hiring. While Chris acknowledges there is an ideological imbalance in American universities, he believes that hiring decisions should prioritize scholarly excellence and viewpoint diversity within academic norms, rather than political quotas. John and Chris also discuss how and when university leaders should speak publicly on societal issues. While university presidents should not weigh in on every political controversy, there are moments, particularly when institutional values are at stake, when silence is not tenable. The goal is to preserve the university as a space for rigorous, inclusive, and respectful exploration of ideas.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Transcript

Note: This transcript is generated from a recorded conversation and may contain errors or omissions. It has been edited for clarity but may not fully capture the original intent or context. For accurate interpretation, please refer to the original audio. 

JOHN QUINN: This is John Quinn and this is Law, disrupted, and today we have the great pleasure of speaking with Christopher Eisgruber, who's President of the Princeton University. He wants to go by Chris. Chris, thanks so much for joining us. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: John, it's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you for talking with me. 

JOHN QUINN: And, it's okay to have him on a podcast called Law, disrupted because he's also got a legal background, has a law degree. Did you ever practice, by the way? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: No. I think I actually had one client back when I was an assistant professor at NYU. But, I went immediately into law teaching after a couple of years of clerking, but I'm a proud member of the legal profession.

JOHN QUINN: Okay, and Chris has written a book, called Terms of Respect, How Colleges Get Free Speech. Right. And he talks about issues relating to freedom of speech and speech-related issues on college campuses, which have been in the news a lot recently and I'm, I was, I'm interested in the subtitle of your book, How Colleges Get Free Speech, right?

I mean, is that your view at the end? Do you think colleges are getting free speech right? I mean, I asked that because there's been all this in the news recently of the protests relating to Gaza, you know, extreme comments, comments seemingly supportive of terrorism, how universities have responded to that, the criticisms they've gotten for their response to that, not protecting Jewish students.

We had that, I regard as a debacle when you had presidents of universities testifying in front of Congress and they couldn't, they couldn't answer straightly of question, like if people made these kinds of antisemitic remarks or threats, like to Jewish people, I can't remember exactly what it was, they all were programmed to say something like, it would depend on the context, I'd have to, would it be inconsistent with your policies? You recall those exchanges?

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Of course I recall those. You know, for any university president, those exchanges are seared into our, yeah, our consciousness I would say, John. And so look, I appreciate the question, but I do think college is in a really tough time for free speech.

They are doing much better than they're getting credit for. And I'm not claiming it’s right, the book is not called How College Presidents are Doing a Great Job in Congressional Testimony. It is both about what colleges should be doing with regard to free speech and why the picture is a whole lot better than people give colleges credit for.

I think just to talk about some of these issues that you described, a moment ago. We need to be really clear about the importance of having strong, free speech principles on our campus. And, since we're talking to a group of lawyers here, since we're on Law, disrupted, I think the United States Constitution's principles, which offer broad protection for free speech, are really good principles, and that means that you're gonna have a lot of contentious and sometimes offensive conversation going on on college campuses.

But part of why I wrote the book was I think we also have a responsibility to create campuses where people deal with one another on respectful terms. That's our obligation on college campuses. It's our obligation in the country, right? We've got a lot of freedom to say things that are insulting to one another in the United States.

Our obligation as citizens and leaders is to take that freedom and convert it into real and meaningful conversations. 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, how do we, I've always thought, being a university president, it's gotta be one of the toughest jobs on earth, you've got such different constituencies that you have to try to keep happy and, you know, in some of these controversies relating to the events and in Gaza and the like, you have students who were making statements seemingly supportive of terrorists, universities being criticized for not responding to that, including powerful donors who are making comments suggesting they're not gonna continue to support the university. I mean, there's a lot at stake here to get this right. I mean, isn't that true? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Absolutely. Look, let's take the Gaza Israel issue because it's about the hardest case as I think we could talk about.

And you're right, it's very much in the news. And talk a bit about what our obligations are there. So, first of all, one obligation and one place where I think universities are distinctive is you wanna have real arguments around that. You can go into some environments and you find everybody is pro-Israel, or you find everybody is pro-Palestine.

One of the things we have on university campuses is a real disagreement about those issues, and we should want that disagreement. Point number two, we need to have space for protest on college campuses. That is an important part of what it means to have a strong, free speech environment. And whether you look at the 1960s and seventies or other periods of kind of tumult and conflict in American history, when you have protest, it's not all gonna be civil seminar like discussion.

It's important that we protect that kind of speech, even if it makes people uncomfortable. But third point about this, that's not our principal aim on college campuses. So what we've gotta do at the same time is elevate those conversations. We want to have faculty members, and they may be disagreeing with one another out in the public realm, and they may be expressing slogans in the public realm, but we want faculty members who are teaching in responsible ways to students who are teaching across difference.

One of the events that I was really proud of here on the Princeton campus, and it also involved Columbia, which was getting a lot of attention for other reasons, was that the dean of our School of Public and International Affairs got together with the Columbia Dean of their School of Public Affairs, and they did a joint session at Princeton and one at Columbia.

Our dean is one of the most prominent Palestinian American political scientists in the United States. I think she's probably the most prominent Palestinian American political scientist. The dean of the public policy school at Columbia is an Israeli American who was in the Israeli military, and if I recall correctly, in Israeli intelligence. They disagree with one another about a number of subjects about Israel and Palestine, but they came together both on our campus and on Columbia's campus to have conversations about how it is you talk about that subject in a respectful way.

And John, when I say again, how colleges are getting free speech, right? The point I'm making is, look, it matters. It's gonna be discomforting, but it matters that you have heated engaged conversation, and it matters even more that you have conversations like the one that took place between our two deans, and the positive side of that doesn't get covered.

JOHN QUINN: Right? I mean, one of the things I took away from your book was you talk a lot about civility. And you know, yeah, I mean, people are going to disagree. We have to tolerate speech, which is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. Yeah. But there need to be guardrails. We've gotta have some kind of common understanding about how these issues are gonna be raised and how speakers are going to be treated.

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Yeah, correct. Right. I am a strong believer in a broad conception of free speech, which means powerful anti-censorship principles like those that the Supreme Court applies, and I think it's a bad thing for governments or universities to try to impose civility by censoring uncomfortable or angry or offensive speech.

I don't believe in that. But I believe that the way we get to have real constructive discussions is by having a powerful anti-censorship principle and then recognizing that we've got a responsibility as citizens, as students, as faculty members to to create what I call the terms of respect to create the, the kinds of norms of politeness and civility and respect that enable us to have conversations.

So when our first year students come to Princeton, every year now, the first lecture that they hear is a lecture from me as university president, talking to them about why it is we have broad norms of free speech on the Princeton campus, but why free speech isn't enough. We also have to work together to create civil conversations.

Otherwise, we're never gonna learn from one another. 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, do you think that there's more of a crisis about speech at universities in the very recent past, or is this something that, it's sort of always true, this is an issue. Speech on universities is something that's always controversial. It's always in the news.

There's always things being said and you know, questions about who can speak and who can say what. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: A little bit of both, John, I mean, if you go back and just look historically, these controversies that at times feel new are not so new. I mean, today people complain about woke speech, but you know, you go back 20 years ago, the word woke isn't used.

But there's all, there's a lot of concern about whether or not there's indoctrination on college campuses. The issues recurring in colleges are places of extraordinary freedom. And that means people have the freedom to say things that may get other people upset. So, that gets in the news.

People care a lot about what goes on in colleges, so it gets covered. But on the one hand, it's true that these issues are always with us. On the other hand, I do think we are in a period right now when these free speech issues have gotten harder. I don't remember having to talk at all about free speech when I was the second in command here as provost of the University for nine years.

Under my predecessor, Shirley Tilghman, I came in as president in 2013. For the last 10 years, I've been talking a lot about free speech to my campus and to other audiences. And I, from my standpoint, that's not because of something that's happening uniquely on college campuses. I think we've got a civic crisis in America.

We're having a harder time talking to one another about issues about which we disagree. That shows up on college campuses, and it's really important to what we do because discussion is important to what we do. 

JOHN QUINN: And, one of the things that you talk about is how the internet and the online culture has affected how we think about speech and how we've gotta react to speech that, you know, a sit-in at a certain point, you know, in the past to sit in, didn't get any news, you know, didn't get any traction.

You know, people would get bored and the students would leave, but now suddenly it's online. Everybody's watching it. Literally, the whole world could be watching what we used to say back in the seventies, sixties and seventies. You know, that's really kind of changed the calculus, hasn't it? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Yeah, it really has.

I, you know, in the book I quote some criminally advice given to me, but one by one of my predecessors, Harold Shapiro, who said to me, Chris, you know, when things feel really tough, just remind yourself, two blocks away nobody knows what's happening. And I think in a lot of ways it was good advice because you know, you can get too focused on what's happening to you and you need to get some perspective.

On the other hand, John, it's what you just said a moment ago. It used to be you could have some crazy thing happening in the president's office and nobody knew exactly what went on. Nowadays it's getting videoed by the students. As the protest occurs, it's getting uploaded and if it's provocative enough, people are watching it around the world and over and over again.

I think it's affecting all of us too. You know, we, there are some great things and a podcast like Law, disrupted is an example of that. There's a lot of, I think intelligent media that is out there if people want to consume that. There's also a lot of provocation on the internet.

The things that get the most attention tend to be the most provocative, and that can be the most outrageous, and people have an incentive to get more outrageous. There's also a risk if people in, in kind of more personal conversations, worry that somebody is gonna repeat what they say or report on them, and all of a sudden it's gonna go viral and they're gonna become the target of all sorts of scamming and doxing and hate mailing.

So the change in the way that we communicate has profoundly affected the quality of our civil discourse and overall in ways that I think are a matter of concern. 

JOHN QUINN: Do you think, does it affect, the fact that everything could go online? Does it affect how we respond to speech, how we try to restrict speech or I mean, or university policies regarding speech?

Does that get entered into the equation at all? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Well, no doubt about it, right? I mean, I still think, as I've said a couple of times already, that the basic United States constitutional rules about free speech are a pretty good starting place for a campus. In other words, don't allow censorship, leave a lot of ambit for free speech and have really clear time, place, and manner rules.

I think that's the basic starting point for getting it right, but when you ask whether it affects the way we respond to speech or what we have to do, absolutely it does. Right. When I talk to my students and ask them what they worry about. One of the things they worry about is that if they have the kind of late night dorm conversations that I suspect you had, I know I had.

Right. Sometimes you would say silly things. 

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Your roommates would kind of, you know, tell you that that was a silly thing to say and you didn't have to worry about it following you around for the rest of your life. Now students do and they tell me they self-censor as a result of that.

JOHN QUINN: Yeah.

That's what you talk about in your book, a North Carolina study that was done and that's kind of troubling, wasn't it? That that surveys seem to indicate that students feel like they can't speak up and it's really, it's not the university, it's peer pressure that they have to self-monitor, that they have to self-censor about what they, you know, what they think.

There's some things that, you know, they'll be criticized, they'll be ostracized if they express certain views. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Yeah. I think that North Carolina survey is really good because it teases out different questions that sometimes get lumped together. And John, again, I don't think students are so different from the rest of us in that regard.

You know, I think people ask themselves do they self-censor sometimes, we all self-censor some of the time. We all know people who never self-censor, right? And they're, that's kind of a problem. 

JOHN QUINN: We wish they did. Sometimes.

CHRIS EISGRUBER: We wish they did, right? But we all self-censor and I think most of the evidence is we self-censor more now than we would've done 10 years ago.

But this is a problem on a college campus, right? Because we want, this is a time for learning, it's a time for exploration. We want students to be able to speak up. So I think one of the things that's good about that North Carolina survey is it talks about the way peer pressure affects students and then what kinds of things you can do to kind of counter that and that that includes both educating students around the importance of being able to have respectful conversations with one another and putting together kinds of low pressure circumstances where people feel more comfortable speaking up. 

I thought one of the most interesting results outta that survey was, sometimes people think, well, it'd be great to have debates, right? If students aren't encountering contrary views, organizing debate, then these authors say, you know, there's a place for debates. But actually what debates tend to do is to polarize people into two competing factions. It can be a lot better to get people together.

Kind, low stress circumstances where they're having meals together and getting to know one another. 

JOHN QUINN: Right. I think it's important. Also, don't you think to have different points of views represented in the faculty, I mean faculty members, you know, and you see a lot of criticisms of universities. We've heard it about Harvard. You may or may not know we represent Harvard.

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Yeah, I do know. 

JOHN QUINN: In the litigation for doing that litigation against the Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. You know, the criticisms made, well, Harvard, there are a bunch of, this is a whole large fangs of ultra liberals, they don't, you know, the faculty doesn't really represent different points of view, you know, there's not enough diversity in the faculty of opinions to kind of live, give credence to different points of view. I mean, do you think there's anything, to these criticisms of the, I'll just say Ivy League schools generally.

Yeah. In your experience, do they think the faculty tends to be kind of on the liberal side? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: The faculty is certainly on the liberal side, right? And so the question is how to understand that and where and when it is a problem and where and when it's not. Right. So one of the things that's true in our polarized society is that liberal conservative has become a kind of identity, dividing line that, you know, we have to be aware of.

So just to be a little more clear about that, when political scientists asked people, and they were polling not academics, but business people about, well, would it matter to you in 2020 whether somebody was supporting Joe Biden or Donald Trump for president when you're making a hiring decision, they found that political identity mattered to people and affected decisions and could bias them even more in this particular survey than race or gender did. There are findings that. You know, people will say that they don't want their kids marrying somebody from the opposite political party. When you start seeing evidence of bias like that, then we gotta care about bias in hiring procedures.

And it's particularly important on a college campus to make sure that conservatives as well as liberals and people of different political backgrounds feel able to speak up, feel welcome, are not disadvantaged in any way, in any hiring process. It's also really important to make sure that we have vigorous arguments about the questions that matter.

Now, I think that ultimately judging whether you got vigorous arguments or not, has to be on the basis of scholarly criteria, not on the basis of political ones. Right? So again, we've got a law podcast here, so I can use my own examples right? About teaching constitutional law and constitutional interpretation.

I don't personally think that originalism is the right way to interpret the Constitution, but if I'm teaching a class on constitutional law, I had better be able to present originalist perspectives along with non-originalist perspectives on the Constitution. I better be able to do it in a way that's credible and to make sure that my students are able to make originalist arguments if they're appearing in front of a court that's interested in what originalism has to say about the Constitution.

So it's important to have faculties where those arguments get fully engaged in a way that's consistent with the norms of the scholarly. But I think doing headcounts right, saying that we're gonna judge the quality of argument on a college campus by counting how many Republicans or Democrats are present, I think that's the wrong way to make well.

JOHN QUINN: I mean, going on, does it ever concern you, whether you, you know, on the political spectrum, whether you have adequate, you know, diversity of views on the faculty. Is that something that ever enters your mind? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: It does enter my mind and it enters my mind because I wanna make sure right, that biases, on the basis of political identity are not affecting hiring in an inappropriate way.

And I wanna make sure that when we have arguments, we've got the full range of scholarly argument taking place. But I think it's a mistake when people start talking about viewpoint diversity in some way that says, okay, the way that we're going to decide on hiring decisions is about whether or not there's some kind of appropriate Republican Democrat balance on the faculty. At that point, you've substituted a political criteria for a scholarly criteria. That's not the right way to run a university. It's, by the way, it's equally bad. I wanna just be clear about this. There are times when people say, all right, let's, you know, we should, we should hire faculty on the basis of, you know, some kind of commitment to social justice, or some kind of commitment to activism there.

There are places where faculty members may say, all right, you know, my activism should count for my qualifications as a scholar. I believe that's the use of a political criterion in a way that's also wrong, and that creates a problem on the the campus. But what we've gotta be doing is doubling down on those scholarly criteria as a way of judging faculty members.

And for me, the question is, all right, if you start seeing some kind of imbalance along lines of political identity or other kinds of identity, does it mean that you've got something that's going wrong where you've got inappropriate biases or where you don't have the full range of arguments represented?

But that's the question we should ask. 

JOHN QUINN: Right. In your book, you talk about the difficulty about when the leadership of a university can just simply be neutral, when you can take positions, and when you can't. And that was a very interesting discussion in your book. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Yeah. This is something I live all the time, of course.

Right? Because I gotta figure out when to speak up. 

JOHN QUINN: Because there's always people who want you to speak, right? 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Take position. There's people who want me to speak and are demanding a statement about one thing or another. So look, I think there are two beginning points to this and then there are a lot of fine points.

One of the beginning points is that the first obligation of a university president is to create an atmosphere where other people can have arguments about the things that matter. It's not my job to settle the arguments. It's, it's my job to make sure that faculty members have the room to do their scholarship, to disagree with one another.

It's my job to make sure the students have the space to learn. And to disagree with one another. And so when the students arrive and I give them that opening lecture about free speech and civility, another thing I say to them is, Hey, at some point you're gonna get really upset about something that gets said on this campus, and you are going to come to me and you're gonna ask me for a statement, condemning it or endorsing it.

And I will refuse because it is my job to allow those conversations to take place and to allow the remedy for bad speech, if that's what it is, to be more speech from within the community. The University of Chicago's famous Kalven Report put this point by saying the university is the sponsor of critics.

It is not itself the critic. So that's one piece of this, and that's one critical point. The other point is we're not value neutral as a university, right? We do have value. So some people say, well, the university should be a neutral institution. We're we're not neutral. We believe in the advancement of knowledge.

That's a value. It's not neutral. We believe in free speech. That's a value. We believe in diversity and inclusion, and the idea that we should take people from all backgrounds and allow them to flourish on this campus. Yeah, that's a value too. And so my predecessor, I keep quoting my various predecessors.

To me, you're gonna know the entire succession by the end of this podcast, John. But Bill Bowen, who is another great predecessor that I had, said at one point, you know, universities are not neutral institutions. They are value-laden. And I agree with that. So I said, look, my job isn't to be neutral, it's to be restrained and I gotta speak up for the university's values.

So one reason why I'm willing to do a podcast with you or, you know, do an interview with the New York Times about something or write a book, is I believe I've got an obligation to speak up for the values like academic freedom free speech, equality, diversity, that advancing knowledge that make our universities hum.

JOHN QUINN: I'm sure you've faced some very difficult decisions about situations. Where should I take a public position on this should, how should I respond to this particular free speech issue or this speech issue on campus? I mean, could you share with us maybe what you would regard as the toughest decision along those lines that you've ever had to make?

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Oh gosh. You know, I, well, I'll tell you, I think the hardest one, but there have been a lot of hard ones and you sort of worked through the kind of common law jurisprudence. But for me, the hardest passage came in the wake of the killing of George Floyd during the really difficult pandemic summer of 2020.

You know, there were so many people on my campus, who wanted the university to speak about that. And, you know, we did put out one statement as, partly because we were doing an online commencement ceremony and we were speaking in other ways at that point, and either we were gonna speak in ways that ignored the events that were roiling the country.

We're gonna say something, but the summer continued and people wanted statements about what the university would do about the broader issues. And,  so eventually I had to write a letter. I was trying to figure out how I talked to, again, the broad range of constituencies that you described earlier.

People on our campus, many of whom just couldn't believe after all that America had done to try to address racism that we were seeing the murder that we saw in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Other people who worried about, the woke culture on college campuses and thought that statements about systemic racism, for example, were being overblown.

And I tried to thread that particular needle John in a letter that I sent out at that point. As I mentioned in the book, as I look back on that letter, I would have to write it differently now, would want to write it differently. I don't think I managed to bridge those two audiences in the way that I wanted to do.

It was a really hard thing, but here's the other piece of it. I don't think I could have avoided that problem by recurring to some formula like institutional neutrality, because what people were saying was, Chris, we gotta hear from you about what the university is going to do, given its responsibilities to the country in a time of crisis. So what I was talking about in that letter wasn't just kind of my views about what had happened in Minneapolis. That was not the subject of the letter at all. It was what are Princeton University's responsibilities at a time when the nation is reckoning with its history of racism?

And that is a question about the university. It's not a question about which I could be silent. So it was really tough. 

JOHN QUINN: Yeah. So, you are comfortable taking a position on that because of the significance of the historical question, race discrimination in this country. If I asked you about more recent events in Minneapolis, what some people regard as the murder of two people there by ICE, but what's going on there? The city on the verge of seemingly up in arms and close to, clearly it's a crisis there. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: Yeah. John, just to clarify, I was profoundly uncomfortable taking a position, but I felt I had no choice because it was a position not just about the history of racism. It was first and foremost a question about what are Princeton University's responsibilities in this time? And that is a, that's a question about the university and what it's doing. I have not spoken to what's going on in Minneapolis right now, and don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so.

There are, I would say, why not? 

JOHN QUINN: Why not? Yeah.

CHRIS EISGRUBER: There are two reasons around that, John one is the relevant question again, wouldn't be, what do I think about what's happening in Minneapolis? That's not something now or in 2020 that I thought I should be speaking to. That's not my job as the university president.

This is my job to speak about the university's responsibilities. And as I said a few moments ago, I think that there's a kind of a prudential obligation on my part to find ways to keep us out of the partisan line of fire and to make it possible for the university, for its faculty and its students to be speaking up about these issues.

So what I've said to our campuses, hey, I've tried to be restrained about the set of circumstances where I've made statements in the past. I'm gonna be even more restrained in the future. And, my reason for believing that that's the right thing to do is that, we live in such a polarized time that as I as I found in 2020, it's very hard to make these statements in ways that manage to thread that needle between the different constituencies who look at the universities in different ways. 

So the risks are even even greater. But John, I, you know, as I said, I find these decisions profoundly difficult when you lead a community.

I think the kind of view that says, well, I'm just not gonna talk at all. You gotta talk to lead a community. You gotta be willing to show people you care when they are feeling the pain of what's happening around the country. You've gotta be able to talk about the responsibilities that are there.

So these are prudential and difficult choices. 

JOHN QUINN: Very, very difficult, interesting issues. As I said, I think you've got one of the toughest jobs being a president of a university that's in the limelight, one of the toughest jobs in America. I very much enjoyed your book, Terms of respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech.

Right. Thank you so much for joining us. We've been speaking with Christopher Eisgruber, the President of Princeton University. Thank you for being with us. 

CHRIS EISGRUBER: John. Thank you. And I just wanna say as I close, first of all, it's just such a pleasure to talk about these important topics with you and second, these jobs are hard, but I love my job. I gotta add that because I love these institutions, I love Princeton, what it, what the difference it's made in my life and so many other people's lives, and what it means to our country. So, I appreciate the chance to talk to you about that and share these thoughts with your listeners.

JOHN QUINN: This is John Quinn. This has been Law, disrupted.

Thank you for listening to Law, disrupted with me, John Quinn. If you enjoyed the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on your chosen podcast app to stay up to date with the latest episodes. You can sign up for email alerts at our website law-disrupted fm or follow me on X at JB Q Law or at Quinn Emanuel.

Thank you for tuning in.