1. Peter Molnar: You have had extensive experience litigatingcivil rights cases. Let’s begin with some questions about the ways,if any, in which free-speech protections that cover even “hatespeech” might have affected your litigating efforts. Do you think theway “hate speech” is “free” in the United Statesmade it harder for you to litigate discrimination and segregation in anyway?

2. Theodore Shaw: In fact, nothing comes to mind. Thinkingover the many school desegregation cases I’ve litigated, the Voting Rightslitigation, a capital punishment case I did in Louisiana many years ago, thehousing discrimination cases that I’ve done – I’d have to struggle to thinkof an example of how constitutionally protected hate speech reallyinterfered with my ability to litigate cases. My answer would have to beright now, “No.”

That does not mean that I have not been exposed to hate speech in my work.For example, I’ve done many school desegregation cases, and I took itfor granted that some of the opponents to school desegregation would sayhateful things. And they did. I remember being at the Justice Departmentearly in my career, and we would have to respond to citizen mail. Some ofthe mail that came in criticizing the school desegregation cases we filedwas very racist and hateful. But I can't say that that really got in the wayof the actual litigation of the cases.