Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Will Jesse Jackson Find Peace in Middle East?; Do Prisoners Have Right to View R-Rated Movies?
Aired July 30, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(APPLAUSE)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: All righty. Hello, everyone.
Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Good to see all of you. Welcome to the show.
And here's what we're talking about today. We want to know if Jesse Jackson can find peace in the Mideast? Jackson is there along with a group of religious leaders, trying to do what decades of fighting, diplomacy and negotiation have failed to do: convince them to all just get along.
So who does Jackson speak for, and is there a chance he could make it all work? We'll talk about that, and then later: Do prisoners have a constitutional right to see R-rated movies? Stay tuned, we'll debate the difference between inmate perks and their civil rights.
But let's begin now with the Reverend Jackson. He has already met with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He was in Bethlehem today calling on President Bush to help build a Palestinian state. And Jackson plans to meet with the founder of the Muslim militant group Hamas, in Gaza.
While Jackson talked up peace, another Palestinian suicide bomber hit a snack bar in central Jerusalem today, wounding at least seven people. I definitely want to hear what you think about this, what you think about Reverend Jackson's trip to the Mideast will do. Give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
Now, right now I'd like to meet our guests. From Jerusalem, Rabbi Steven Jacobs. He is travelling with Jesse Jackson's religious delegation in the Mideast. Also with us is Eric Dezenhall. He is a Washington writer and damage control consultant. Eric is the author of several books, including "Nail 'Em!: Confronting High Profile Attacks on Celebrities and Businesses."
Welcome to both of you.
ERIC DEZENHALL, MEDIA CONSULTANT: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Rabbi Jacobs, I'll begin with you. How are you and Reverend Jackson being received over there, first of all? RABBI STEVEN JACOBS, TRAVELING WITH JACKSON: That's a wonderful question. I wasn't when we came over the delegation of ten interreligious leaders -- Muslim, two rabbis, Catholics, Protestants -- I could not believe from the moment in the streets and the government officials in the Palestinian, everybody has reached out to us.
Reverend Jackson, thank you for being with us. Give us hope, give us hope. Everywhere that we've gone -- every -- from Peres to Arafat, there is such despair and such fear, and people say thank you for being here. Just your presence can make a difference, and I think it is.
NEVILLE: Rabbi Jackson -- I mean, Jacobs -- why do you think they believe that? Why do they feel that Reverend Jackson can do something that say, Colin Powell can't do or President Bush, for that matter?
JACOBS: I'm not saying that -- Colin Powell was a man of peace, so President Bush, who has extended this 3-year preparation for a Palestinian state can't do it. We're not in opposition to them, but I will tell you that we met with the families of the children who were killed by the suicide bombers, and they were so appreciative, and then we met with families this evening whose children were kidnapped by Hezbollah, and of course we have a track order -- Reverend Jackson has a track record of bringing out captured soldiers.
I was with him in Yugoslavia, so there's something to be said about talking to power, and changes that can be made, and people, this is a interreligious delegation, it's not a political delegation, and it's having a tremendous effect upon the people, and we are buoyed by each other, and I have seen Reverend Jackson for many years. He is really at his best in communicating and looking and articulating this nonviolent approach.
NEVILLE: Rabbi, let me jump in there for a moment, because what I'm understanding you say that you and Reverend Jackson over there are able to see glimmers of hope in the eyes of these people -- that this hope hasn't been there for a long time, and I would like you to help us understand, what is it that you say and do in order to accomplish that? And how successful do you think you can be? How far will this go? Will it just be talk or can it -- will there be results?
JACOBS: You know, they're both good questions. First of all, religious people don't talk politics. We're able to talk in a way that's deeply spiritual. It's very calming when you're able to touch someone, when you're able to pray with someone, when you are able to articulate what their fears and despair is about, then people respond to that, because we know they're there not for what we are in terms of our own concerns, but it's about them.
In terms of what we can accomplish, whether there is going to be any miracle, it's going to happen some time down the road. We're not going to leave here and think that the tremendous changes have been made. But this whole theory, this whole applicability of non-violence is very, very significant, because each leader in Israel, the top leaders have said to us -- Palestinian leaders have said to us that there is not going to be a military solution to this. Help us, help us.
NEVILLE: Eric Dezenhall, I want to bring you in here now, getting back to what the rabbi just said, that Reverend Jackson's group is comprised of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and they're reaching out on a religious level, not a political front. Do you think that will be effective?
DEZENHALL: Probably not. I don't think that any sane person could dispute the spiritual goals of a diverse coalition getting together to try to bring about peace. The problem is, how is it done? And I think you have to look at how the propaganda war tends to go fought over there.
I view what's happening now as a brilliant move for Yasser Arafat. Arafat's genius traditionally has been the capacity to win the visuals of victimhood, to look as if he supports peace, to bring together a diverse coalition, because in America we very much respond to the civil rights underpinning of bringing people together for peace.
The problem is the rhetoric of peace is rather easy. What's a lot harder is implementing it, and while I would certainly not dispute the spiritual goals, I think that given the nature of a coalition like this, it plays into Arafat's advantage, and I think Jesse Jackson has had a long history of being intensely supportive of Yasser Arafat, which does not exactly make him a credible middleman here.
NEVILLE: Rabbi Jacobs, does Reverend Jackson...
JACOBS: I -- yes...
NEVILLE: Let me ask you this pointed questions. Does Reverend Jackson's presence there perpetuate Arafat's propaganda?
JACOBS: There are those -- just as has been articulated -- who would say that he is so pro-Palestinian that it doesn't make him advantageous to Israel. He is both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel.
Every single leader, political leader, has embraced his and our presence. We're not dumb in terms of the political process, neither is Reverend Jackson, but the fact is that you cannot discount him the way it's just been articulated, that just because we're there, it plays into Arafat's hands.
The fact is we are confronting Arafat with very hard challenges. We're meeting again tomorrow with the Palestinian Authority. So I -- you can't discount Jesse Jackson, you can't discount people of deep religious faith who are involved in the articulation of nonviolence, and being helped. It is a third force that comes into this nation, and it's appreciated. You can't discount it.
NEVILLE: Rabbi, I understand you are going to be meeting with the head of the Hamas. Now, many people would say you can't negotiate with Hamas. What do you say to that, Rabbi? JACOBS: Many people are correct. There is a whole series of statements that have been made by Hamas that indicate that we cannot negotiate with them. That was also said about Milosevic, it was said about every nation that we have gone into to free people -- you can't negotiate with them.
That remains to be seen. And I think that we're going to have some very, very serious, challenging talks with Hamas. You can't avoid even your enemy, and certainly from a religious point of view, I am driven by the religious values that you meet your enemy, and you begin to talk, and there is some human aspect of human being, friend or enemy.
NEVILLE: Eric, the rabbi makes some interesting points there.
DEZENHALL: Well, you know, I think that whether it's Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan or Jane Fonda in Hanoi or Jimmy Carter in Cuba, there is a long tradition of the American cultural Left going around to sing Kumbaya with dictators, and the fact is is while nobody supports the rhetorical goals of peace, I think it is very disturbing once you peal back all of the politically correct veneer, the fact is is you can have Jackson make a deal with Hamas of some kind, but is that a desirable deal?
There is no question that one of the reasons why you invite Jesse Jackson to the country, is because doing so will tick off the American leadership. And not only that, to make matters worse, by giving him a concession it makes our leadership look idiotic. So no question, he can talk to Hamas, he might even get a concession, but it's not a real concession as much as it is a media opportunity.
NEVILLE: OK, let me -- here, Eric, I am certainly not on the side of Reverend Jackson or anybody, but let me give you some facts here: 1984, Jackson secured the release of captured Navy lieutenant Robert Goodman from Syria, and the release of 48 Cuban and Cuban- American prisoners in Cuba, was the first American to bring hostages out of Kuwait in Iraq in 1990; 1999 Reverend Jackson negotiated the release of the U.S. soldiers held hostage in Kosovo. What do you say to that, sir?
DEZENHALL: I say no doubt about it, he can achieve tactical victories, but are they strategic victories? I mean, if you -- if you appease crocodiles continuously, you still can ultimately get eaten, and there's no question that Jackson does have the ability to achieve these things, but as far as I'm concerned, the most dangerous place in the world to be right now is between Jesse Jackson and the camera.
And whether or not that's good for the American public remains to be seen, and I do not believe it is good.
JACOBS: Well thanks Eric, but Jesse Jackson is not on this camera, I'm on this camera. And I just think that there's a certain amount of bashing that you'd like to do.
I would love to have you with us on this trip. I believe you're obviously very bright, and you can articulate your position clearly. But I would venture to say that if you were with us, you just might have a life-changing experience, even with Reverend Jackson.
NEVILLE: OK, listen...
DEZENHALL: I think on an emotional level, that might be true. But whether or not it achieves a tangible result is what I'm more worried about.
NEVILLE: Hang on for me gentlemen...
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: ... what you're doing...
NEVILLE: Rabbi, hang on for me. I've got to take a break here.
I've got an audience member who wants to speak out; I've got two people on hold on the telephone. I will get to you after the break. And a lot of you haven't had a chance to get a word in, so I'm going to do that.
So you know the phone number: 1-800-310-4CNN. Give me a call or e-mail me.
We're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: All right, we were talking during the break, as we always do right here on TALKBACK LIVE -- listen, welcome back to you watching from wherever you are -- at home, the airport, wherever.
We're talking about Jesse Jackson's search for peace in the Mideast. And right now, as promised, I'm going to go to the telephones now.
And I'm speaking to Jamie (ph) from Pennsylvania.
CALLER: Hi, Arthel.
Help or hindrance, I think Jesse Jackson is just going to be a significant -- over the last years he's lost credibility because he chases issues, seemingly, for publicity.
But the real crux of it is, is that neither Ariel Sharon nor Yasser Arafat want peace. They've been fighting each other since childhood. These guys are both field soldiers, and they're just going to keep on fighting for as long as they can.
NEVILLE: So you feel it's personal, and regardless of what happens to the people, they'll keep fighting?
CALLER: I think they'll keep fighting.
If Colin Powell can't do anything and the rest of the world, the rest of the Middle East has been trying as well. I mean, it's not just America, everyone has been trying to get them to have some kind of peace, and they're just not going to do it. These two men have a personal vendetta against one another.
NEVILLE: Rabbi?
JACOBS: I believe that.
But please, please don't give up hope that this is going to go on and on and on. There are people who want the changes on both sides; they're desperate for changes.
Don't make the issue -- make it entertainment, as Eric did, about Jesse Jackson. This is about lives. This is the most serious business in the world.
And we're not here for entertainment purposes and to debate the relative merits. If you were here and you would see what goes on, there are small changes. We're not going to change the world, but we're going to change a perception in terms of what nonviolence can do.
That's not defeat, that's an active way of being able to subdue the violence and make sense to people. This is not...
NEVILLE: So Rabbi -- excuse me Rabbi, help us understand the message you're bringing over there.
JACOBS: The message is talking to people, talking to the various individuals who are making decisions, talking to the families on both sides who are suffering.
This isn't a matter of being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, it's a matter that people are suffering. We are the seed of Abraham, and eventually we're going to get along because everybody says that we're destined to live in two states, side-by-side. This is a land that's meant to divided. And eventually people in the next few years -- please God, please Allah, please whatever it is, even if you don't believe that -- people are going to live side-by-side.
And this is another step on the journey. And this third force is very significant. And I believe so because it's a group of inter- faith leaders who are passionate about peace and passionate of making sense to people on both sides.
NEVILLE: OK Eric, hang on for me. I know you're still there, I definitely want to hear interest you.
But I've got Reginald (ph) here in the audience. You're shaking your head; why?
REGINALD: Well, I tend to agree with what he's saying, it's all about peace and saving lives. And I think that people should, in general, stop throwing mud at each other because if you look at it, we're all humans, and none of us are perfect. So I don't think it's right for them to judge Reverend Jackson based upon, you know, mistakes that he's made in his life as a human. The important thing is, if he can go and make a difference in the world, if he can go and save lives in the world...
NEVILLE: Then more power to him, is what you're saying.
Thank you Reginald (ph), very much, for speaking out.
I'm going to go to Robert (ph) now, who is standing by on the telephone, calling in from Wisconsin.
CALLER: OK, I would like to say I agree with the young man who just spoke. I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with Reverend Jesse Jackson and the rabbi over there will bring a different aspect of it because we've had politics in there so long and that's not working now.
So I believe with the religion thing over there, I think they'll respect that more and sit down and want to compromise, because they're not going over there for no politics or (UNINTELLIGIBLE) see who -- which one of them is going to be on which one of them's side, but be able to just cause peace.
So I think it's a good thing for Reverend Jackson and the rabbi over there, and I hope they succeed in what they're trying to do.
NEVILLE: Robert (ph), thank you very much for calling in.
And Adam (ph) from New York, you say what?
ADAM: Well, I agree with the rabbi. I'm desperate for peace. And the reason why I'm desperate is because I have my daughter here, she's 16 years old, we just went out on a trip to Africa and Europe and back.
And at this point, the way I see it, what have we got to lose? I mean whoever will go there to bring peace, for the younger generation, for our children and our grandchildren, I'm all for that.
NEVILLE: OK, Eric, you heard Adam (ph) say it, we're desperate for peace, whoever can bring it, more power to them.
DEZENHALL: We all are. We all are.
But I think what's important to differentiate between is whether or not a trip like this will have strategic value or therapeutic value. I believe that it will have therapeutic value, but I am skeptical, given Arafat's history, of learning how to embrace the symbols and the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement to get the West to be sympathetic with him, whether or not a trip like this will have strategic value.
But it can certainly make a lot of people feel good, and maybe that's important.
NEVILLE: Hey Eric, you know this trip is not sanctioned by the White House. Do you think this undermines the Bush administration's plans at all regarding the Middle East?
DEZENHALL: Well, conventionally one way to tick off an administration and stick a finger in their eye is to have Jesse Jackson go to a different part of the world and negotiate something that the administration has no control over.
I don't think that it's a grand undermining, but I do believe it's a way to stick a thumb in the eye of the Bush administration, yes.
NEVILLE: Kim (ph) in the audience, you're from Georgia. You say what, Kim (ph)?
KIM: I think we're always looking at the political arena to make a statement for the U.S., and the U.S. is always seen as the devils or idiots or a place where there's no civility, or uncaring.
And I think if Jesse Jackson can go over there as a person and show the Middle East that we do care, and that we are a group of people that really care about human lives and not just people who are all about greed and hunger and money.
And I think he's doing that as an everyday person and not just as a political person to go to the Middle East and do that. And I think that shows a lot to other people in the country, or in the world, that we are people that care. And I think that's a big statement in and of itself.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
Let me get another call in.
JACOBS: May I respond to that?
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
JACOBS: Yes, I want to responds to that, OK?
NEVILLE: Go he ahead sir, Rabbi?
JACOBS: Oh, I'd like to respond to that.
I'm appreciative of that. And it's not just feel-good. And there is malnourishment. There's a report that's coming out that at least 30 percent of Palestinian children are malnourished.
We brought these problems to the Israeli officials. They are most responsive about deliverance of food. So we are not just feeling good, we are talking very serious matters. And the Israeli government officials are most responsive to us in terms of what we have heard about making certain adjustments and still being most concerned about the security of Israel.
But they are listening to us. And as far as the United States administration is concerned, Reverend Jackson was in touch with Colin Powell. We do not need as Americans, we should understand this, people should understand this, that we represent America. We are not speaking out against our government. We are not over here as radicals. We are over here to assist in terms of what our government is about. And I think that Mr. Powell understands and accepts that.
NEVILLE: Rabbi, excuse me. I am going to let Kerri (ph) from California speak out. She's calling in. You got 15 seconds, Kerri -- Harry, hi. Go ahead, Harry.
HARRY: Well, Jesse Jackson has only been able to do this on a small scale when these groups of people that he has been with, that he has been taking small groups like hostage situations. But now he is dealing with two nations. And I don't think he is going to be able to handle it on such a large scale.
NEVILLE: Well, only time will tell. Thank you very much for calling in, and thank you to Rabbi Steven Jacobs and Eric Dezenhall for joining us here today. The Reverend Jesse Jackson will be on "INSIDE POLITICS," by the way, coming up right after TALKBACK LIVE with me, Arthel Neville, at 4:00 Eastern. Check Reverend Jackson out with Judy Woodruff.
And up next, here's a question for you. Do prisoners get what they deserve? You're going to love this one. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(voice-over): Are R-rated movies a prison perk or are inmates entitled to enjoy the action? A lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania says banning R, X and NC-17 movies violates a prisoner's First Amendment rights. Talk back to the attorney who filed that one right after the break.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, now, isn't that a point, Anthony? That is definitely a point you make, huh? OK, welcome back everybody, TALKBACK LIVE, I'm Arthel Neville.
Do prisoners have some kind of right to watch R-rated movies? A bunch of federal inmates have filed a class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania demanding access to R-rated films. They say restricting their viewing prevents them from exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. We have with us today the attorney who filed the class-action suit on behalf of the prisoners. Meet Jere Krakoff. Hello, sir.
JERE KRAKOFF, ATTORNEY FOR PRISONER R-RATED MOVIE RIGHTS: Morning.
NEVILLE: Hi, afternoon. Also with us is attorney and former Congressman Dick Zimmer. While in Congress, he introduced the bill which prohibits R-rated movies in prison. Welcome to both of you.
DICK ZIMMER, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Pleasure to be here.
KRAKOFF: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK. Mr. Zimmer, you're up first. Give us, if you will, a synopsis of the bill you introduced and tell us why you introduced it?
ZIMMER: This legislation was attached to a spending bill. And it established the principle that we wouldn't use taxpayer dollars to pay for amenities that in many cases are not available to these individuals when they are out of prison. It included martial arts instruction and electric instruments, and also included premium cable TV, and X and R and NC-17 movies.
NEVILLE: And why did you introduce this bill?
ZIMMER: Well, prisons are supposed to be places of punishment. Taxpayers should not be paying for luxuries and amenities that are inappropriate for a prison setting. This was adopted in 1995. It's an amendment to the spending bill. And although I left the Congress shortly thereafter, it has been amended every year, the spending bills have been amended the same way every year since. It seems to be an area of consensus in Congress that we should not spend taxpayer money on these sorts of luxuries and these sorts of amenities for people who are in prison to be punished in the first place.
NEVILLE: OK. Let me let Mr. Krakoff jump in there. Sir, obviously you have a problem with this, and you are suing. Tell us why.
KRAKOFF: Well, this lawsuit is to enjoin the across the board ban or censorship of R-rated movies. It is protected by the First Amendment, information, educational, political what they refer to as the ideas of the marketplace.
NEVILLE: OK. Sir, do me a favor here. I know you are really expert in this field, but we are not. So, break it down to us in layman's terms so we can understand exactly what you are talking about here, OK.
KRAKOFF: OK. Essentially, if the bureau of corrections determines that they did not want to show any movies at all, in my mind, that wouldn't be subject to a constitutional challenge. There is no constitutional right per se to see movies in a prison setting.
What this lawsuit is about is the exclusion of an entire category of movies, R-rated movies, movies like "Amistad," movies like "Glory," any number of -- "The English Patient," any number of movies that have educational values. "Schindler's List" is another example. And the issue is that just as magazines and books, according to the Supreme Court, should be excluded on an item by item basis, so should movies. We grant that some R-rated movies wouldn't be appropriate for a prison setting, but not all of them.
NEVILLE: Hang on for me sir, because the beauty of this show is we let the people speak. And I have an e-mail coming in right now I want to share with everybody. It's from Jeff in Washington. He says: "Inmates have a right to food, housing and medical care. Anything beyond that is merely a gift."
(APPLAUSE)
KRAKOFF: The Supreme Court said that inmates -- the Supreme Court says that the First Amendment, freedom of speech, survives imprisonment. Still human beings, still have a right to receive information and ideas, to communicate with families by letters, to read books, to read newspapers, to read magazines. Those things survive incarceration. So, I wouldn't agree with that e-mail.
NEVILLE: OK. Sir...
KRAKOFF: The First Amendment protects prisoners.
NOVAK: OK. You know what, sir, I definitely want to hear what you have to say. And I have a feeling we're going to get more e-mails because when we come back, I want to hear from you, what you think about movies in prison. You can go ahead and give me a call at 1-800- 310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me at TALKBACK.com (sic).
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, so what was the e-mail address I gave out before the break? OK, what it really is TALKBACK@CNN.com.
Welcome back, everybody, to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about whether prisoners have a legal right to watch R-rated movies. Jere Krakoff represents inmates who say a blackout on R-rated films violates their First Amendment rights. And former Congressman Dick Zimmer passed a law prohibiting the films.
And right now, I want to go to Oklahoma, where Kareen (ph) is standing by on the phone.
And what do you have to say, Kareen?
CALLER: Aren't we worried about what kind of movies they are going to be watching? I mean, we've got rapists watching rape scenes. Wouldn't that be horrible?
NEVILLE: OK. Let's move on now to Nesta (ph) here in the audience.
NESTA: Yes.
You were talking about excluding R-rated movies because prisoners have rights, too. People under 18, they rights and they're humans, too. But there is also an exclusion for them to see R-rated films. And prison is a controlled environment where you are punished. So why should prisoners see movies, R-rated films?
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
Stand, ma'am. And you say what?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just don't want my tax dollars to go toward entertaining prisoners. And if they have to go there, I think it should be "Cinderella" all day long.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: By the way, Mr. Krakoff and Zimmer, you can jump in at any time you would like, because I am going to go around the audience. They have a lot to say about this.
(CROSSTALK)
ZIMMER: Well, Disney all day long might be cruel and unusual punishment. I wouldn't insist on that.
KRAKOFF: Yes, if I may. This is Jere Krakoff.
NEVILLE: Yes, sir.
KRAKOFF: May I respond to one of the...
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
KRAKOFF: Yes.
This lawsuit is not about showing movies about rapes. There are movies that shouldn't be shown in the context of a prison environment that the prison administration has the right to prohibit. There are many other movies that would not have any impact on rehabilitation, on deterrence of crime, on any security matters, on internal order. And the courts have said that the federal government doesn't have the power willy-nilly, arbitrarily, to infringe on the First Amendment rights of all people, including prisoners.
NEVILLE: OK, let me get Eric in here from Alabama.
Go ahead, Eric.
ERIC: Yes.
They may be criminals, but sometimes films change people and make them have a greater perception of life. So, if you show them "Beauty and the Beast" all day, they probably are going to be even worse when they come out. They may be all sensitive and not -- a productive person towards society.
NEVILLE: What is wrong with being sensitive?
ERIC: I mean, it makes them weak, possibly?
NEVILLE: Oh, wait. Hold up, Eric. Wait. Are you a sensitive man, yes or no? You're not, are you?
ERIC: Sort of.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Sort of. So, do you cry sometimes and let your girlfriend or mother or another female, relative or friend, see you cry?
ERIC: No.
NEVILLE: Why not?
ERIC: Well, I keep my pride.
NEVILLE: OK, see, now, that would be called foolish pride. It is OK to be sensitive, Eric. But I don't have time to talk about that right now. But you can come to my office after the show. And we'll discuss that. How about that?
ERIC: That sounds fine.
NEVILLE: All right.
Listen, bottom line, the audience here, some of the people in the audience are saying that "Look, it's prison. It should not be Club Med."
Mr. Zimmer, what do you say to that?
ZIMMER: It should not be Club Fed. And that is what some federal prisons are called.
That was why we sponsored this legislation. There is more sweeping legislation currently pending in Congress. It's sponsored by Congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut. And I would suggest that people who feel this way call Rob Simmons, call their member of Congress, and see that we can make sure that prisons are places where people are punished and taxpayer dollars are not wasted on luxuries.
NEVILLE: Now, you know, some people would say there is a fine line between necessary punishment and human rights and necessary rehabilitation. What do you say to that, Mr. Zimmer?
ZIMMER: Rehabilitation is important. And you can have rehabilitation in prison. I don't think prisons are a very good place to do it. They have not had a very good record, regardless of how many luxuries they have had.
I think the first function of prison is punishment and deterrence. And that is what we were focused on when we passed this legislation.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, sir. Hang on one second. Hold that thought, if you can.
I'm going to get Tracy in and then I promise to let you respond.
TRACY: Yes.
If they can't see R-rated movies, what kind of magazines? Are they censored, too? Can they get "Playboy" or even the "Maxim" that is almost like "Playboy"? Can they get that?
ZIMMER: Well, there is a separate law that prohibits them from getting explicit magazines. And, as I understand it, the federal court upheld the right to ban those magazines.
NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Krakoff, I promised. Go ahead.
KRAKOFF: Thank you very much.
There are two points I think that should be brought out. First of all, the money for the movies in prison that is involved in the lawsuit, federal correctional institution in McCain (ph), are exclusively inmate moneys. An inmate fund is generated by the sale of various products in the prison. So, it was not costing the prison administration any money to have these movies.
Secondly, these movies were shown once a week. It wasn't an everyday thing. It was once a week. There is such an insignificant relationship between disallowing R-rated movies and punishment that is meted out on a daily and an hourly basis in most federal prisons. Referring to them as Club Med or Club Fed really refers to a very insignificant number of minimum-security prisons. These are prisons in every sense of the word, where punishment is meted out.
NEVILLE: Let me ask you this, sir, Mr. Krakoff.
If in fact you win this lawsuit and you are able to have your guys see these R-rated movies, isn't it up to the prison wardens to determine which movies are shown anyway? So, he or she would have the discretion to allow it or not.
KRAKOFF: No, absolutely.
The court would not be in the position to rule on each movie. It would be a decision that would be made by the prison administration, which will be fairly easy to determine. And so the warden would have the discretion to exclude a movie that deals with very violent, criminal type of activities.
It wouldn't exclude a movie about a concentration camp during World War II whose -- that allegedly crosses the R-rated line because there are naked people who are being marched to the death chambers.
NEVILLE: OK, sir. Hold on for me.
I have got Travis here.
What do you have to say?
TRAVIS: I'm saying we're generalizing here. We're talking about R-rated movies and NC-17-rated movies and X.
NEVILLE: R-rated movies.
KRAKOFF: Only R.
TRAVIS: Only R?
KRAKOFF: Only R.
TRAVIS: Because I was going to say that R-rated films, some of them have been, they have artistic value, like, say, "The Green Mile." But, say, when are you talking about films like NC-17 and X-rated films, those are made specifically for enjoyment. They have a specific target audience.
NEVILLE: So, should those be allowed in prison?
TRAVIS: No.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, sir.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I am going to take an e-mail right now, gentlemen. Excuse me.
Pop up that e-mail for me and I will share it with you, from Jerrold in Louisiana: "Movies? They should be working prisoners so hard they wouldn't have time to watch a movie."
And I also have a phone call now I would to go ahead and take. And who is on the phone? Spencer.
Calling from where, sir? Texas.
Go ahead, Spencer.
SPENCER: Yes.
I just think if these guys, they are worried about their constitutional rights being taken away, they should thought of that before they broke the law and landed in prison.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thank you, Spencer, for speaking out.
And now I have Barbara from Georgia here in the audience.
BARBARA: Yes.
I would just like to say I agree with the congressman. I think that things have really -- they have gone too far. And we should concentrate on things for the prisoners that are educational, and that can help rehabilitate them, and have them have better lives when they -- if and when they do get out of prison. NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Krakoff, we are running out of time here, but I do want to give you the final word on this segment.
KRAKOFF: Well, there are many movies that are educational that are R-rated that inmates won't be able to be exposed to unless this is struck down. I think it is a wonderful opportunity to expose inmates to historical films, educational films, some of which are R-rated.
And I understand the audience's feeling about prisons being places for punishment, which they are. But it seems to me that we all are at risk if the First Amendment is diluted to the point that it was in Russia and some of the other totalitarian countries.
NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Krakoff, Mr. Zimmer, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And when we come back: When President Bush talks, do markets listen? Still ahead on TALKBACK LIVE: First it dives. Then it soars. What or who is driving the market?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This law says to every dishonest corporate leader: You will be exposed and punished. The era of low standards and false profits is over. No boardroom in America is above or beyond the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: That said, are you ready to ride the bull? Tell us where you're hiding your money after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Right now, let's take the pulse on Wall Street, where the closing bell will ring in just a few minutes. After yesterday's monster rally, stocks stumbled a little bit this morning, as consumers caught some of the blame for slowing the economy.
And earlier today, President Bush signed legislation aimed at combating corporate fraud and accounting abuses. Was that enough to goose the market or is it going to take more than that to keep the bulls satisfied?
Here to talk about it: Andy Tobias, a financial journalist and author of several best-sellers, including "The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need."
I am going to have to pick that up, sir.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: He is also treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.
Welcome, sir.
ANDY TOBIAS, FINANCIAL WRITER: Thanks. Good to be with you.
NEVILLE: Great.
Also with us: Paul Maidment, executive editor of "Forbes" magazine and editor of Forbes.com.
Welcome to you as well, sir.
PAUL MAIDMENT, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "FORBES": Thank you. Pleased to be here.
NEVILLE: OK.
Listen, OK, Mr. Tobias, we will start with you. The Dow rose, what, 447 points yesterday. It has been up more than 1000 points over the past few trading days, down a little bit now by about 50 points. So the question is, are the bulls really back in town?
TOBIAS: Well, on a day-to-day basis, this sort of thing is impossible. It is certainly interesting. It's like going to the track, I guess. But short term, nobody knows.
The big picture is what matters, because you should not be in the stock market at all if you are not in for at least five or 10, or even 20 or 30 years. If you are in for the next year or two, let alone the next week, you are making a big mistake.
NEVILLE: Yes, but you know what? There are people who have been in it. And they only have a year or two or five years to go. So what do you say to those people? They did not make a mistake. They have been in it for a long time.
TOBIAS: Well, no -- well, look, if people have been putting $100 a month or $1,000 a month, whatever, into the market for the last 50 years and they are getting ready -- they are now 70 and they are starting to withdraw it, even despite the terrible hangover that we have been through -- and the Nasdaq down 75 percent and the S&P down 40, 45 percent -- boy, if they have been doing this since 1950, 1960, they have done fantastically well.
If somebody started four or five years ago, let alone just two years ago, well, that was a pretty rough time to start. But the big picture of it, to say whether the market is going to go next week or last week, let me give you one kind of anchor for perspective, because it is one that I use all the time.
Alan Greenspan, you will remember, in December of 1996, almost six years ago now, floated this phrase "irrational exuberance." And it turns out -- if you read the biography of Greenspan's life, it turns out it was not just he who really worried about the Dow, but it was Robert Rubin, secretary of the Treasury back then. They both were really concerned, because the market had been going up and up and up. And the Dow was up to 6500. It was really kind of scary. And the Nasdaq was up to 1250.
Well, of course, what happened in the next six years is, the Dow went from 6500 to almost 12000. Nasdaq went from 1250 to 5200. In these last six years, we have all worked very hard. We have become smarter. We have laid zillions of miles of fiberoptic cable. So, we're a stronger country than we were, in a lot of ways. And you could argue that it is no longer irrationally exuberant for the Dow to be 6500 or for the Nasdaq to be 1250. Maybe we have grew into those valuations. Maybe that is fair now.
NEVILLE: Let me get Mr. Maidment in there and ask you.
So, this corporate responsibility law, the president signed the bill today. What is this going to do to the market and to consumer confidence, for that matter?
MAIDMENT: Well, I think that, certainly, it has huge symbolic value. There's no two ways about that, as America wants to see people suffering further perceived lows to the world, what's happened with the collapse of the bubble, as Andy Tobias was referring to.
So, from that point of view, I think it really does do a great deal. It's not the revolution perhaps that it's been touted by the some in Washington. But, nevertheless, it is really quite substantial piece of legislative reform. What is going to really going to matter, though, is the law of unintended consequences. There are still lots of bits of this that we just don't know the hard detail of. And the devil in all of these things really is in the detail.
NEVILLE: Right. So, having said that, is there going to be some sort of incubation period that we have to wait to see, to see if in fact public confidence will rise again?
MAIDMENT: Well, I think that the important thing you have got to see here is what this new supervisory accounting board is going to do, how tightly it regulates both its own industry, the auditing and the consulting side of the accounting industry, but also what it sort of does to companies.
And I think you could make a case that there is a fear out there that what we're seeing here is the start of a really long-term attack on the limited liability corporation, which has actually serviced America really, really well. And if that sort of thing happens, I think that is actually quite bad news for the economy long term. If the market is able to be allowed to reform itself, then a lot of these reforms I think that we have seen being signed into law today, we'll look back and say those were the right things to do and they were a positive way of jolting the economy forward.
NEVILLE: Sir, can you give me a quick laundry list of exactly what the corporate responsibility bill incorporates?
MAIDMENT: What it does is, it provides stiffer terms for people convicted of basically cooking the books.
Now, it should be said that that is something that, like all these white-collar crimes, is actually extremely difficult to prove. But, nevertheless, it sends a strong message. It's a message that America wants to hear. And it is a right message, that business must be honest and operate with integrity. Now, that is one part of it.
It creates an oversight board to look after the accounting profession. There hasn't been an overall regulator for that. The details of that, we don't yet know. And legislation will come. And it is creating a new class of white-collar crime called securities fraud as well, to go along with mail fraud and phone fraud, which has been the primary way of entrapping corrupt executives in the past.
NEVILLE: OK, thanks for clarifying that for us.
I have an e-mail now I would like to pop up there from P. Martin in North Carolina. Here's a question. He says: "Will Bush enforce the law on past companies that have been guilty of breaking this law?"
Who wants to take that?
MAIDMENT: Well, I don't think you can retrofit laws. That is not the way the legal system works. And it has been the case along the way here that, actually, there has been a lot of law already on the books in terms of corporate fraud, which, if there is a will and there are resources to prosecute cases, will end up putting people in jail.
These sort of investigations have been launched against companies like WorldCom. We saw the Adelphia executives being arrested, led out in handcuffs and chains just a few days ago. So, certainly, where there is clear cases of fraud in the past, I think this administration is very determined to act against it, because they have their eye on the midterm elections. And they want to be seen to be being strong on this.
NEVILLE: OK. Great.
I have to take a break right now. I know, Daniel, you are standing by on the phone. I am going to get to you after the break. And Cheryl (ph) over there in the audience has something to say.
We will take a break. And we're back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Arthel Neville.
We are talking about Wall Street and whether now is the time to jump back in.
Cheryl, you say what?
CHERYL: I think this reform act has been a very positive and necessary step towards building consumer confidence. But I think that people will still be a little wary until they see the reality of this reform act taking place. NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Cheryl.
And, Daniel, you're calling. You're a student at Mississippi State. What do you have to say, Daniel?
CALLER: Well, I am currently a 21-year-old student here at Mississippi State and have been saving some money. And with the market being so low, I have been looking at getting into the stock market. And I have already started investing some money and was wanting to basically know if this was a good idea to do.
NEVILLE: Quickly, who wants to answer that? Tobias.
TOBIAS: It's a great thing to do. You are 21. Get into the habit of putting money into the market every month or quarter or whatever for the rest of your life. The market isn't so low here. It seems low because it was so much higher. It was wildly overpriced. By many measures, it is still high.
But if you are in this for the long term and you are -- especially you have this huge advantage of being 21, it is a great personal discipline to get in to. You are doing exactly the right thing.
NEVILLE: Andy Tobias, Paul Maidment, thank you very much for joining me here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
All right, I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back again tomorrow, 3:00 Eastern.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
