ILLINOIS DISQUALIFIES TRUMP??? Trump REMOVED From 2024 Ballot By Illinois Judge | America First Ep. 1300ILLINOIS DISQUALIFIES TRUMP??? Trump REMOVED From 2024 Ballot By Illinois Judge | America First Ep. 1300
In this episode of America First, host Nicholas J. Fuentes ( ) talks about a judge's ruling that disqualifies President Trump from running for re-election in the 2020 election, and the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on a case that could have a big impact on the future of the internet. He also talks about the latest in the "Big Tech vs. Big Government" case, and why he thinks we should all be worried about Big Tech's control over the internet, not Big Government's control of the Internet. And, of course, he talks about Bigfoot! America First is a show where you get to meet the hosts, talk to them, and hear their opinions on current events in American history, current events, and pop culture. Please be sure to subscribe to the show to stay up to date on all things America First. If you like what you hear, please HIT SUBSCRIBE and leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts! It helps us spread the word to the rest of the world about what we're talking about! and may God bless! ! -Nick and God bless you! -J.J. FuENTES Music: Fair Weather Fans by Nordgroove (feat. Jeff Kaale ( ) (ft. Zapsplat) (c) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) (featuring: SONGSOUND ( ) & Cozy Cozy ( ) is a tribute to the late, great, great song written and performed by Mark Phillips ( ) and his band, ( ) . ( , , and ) & , a special thanks to , ( ) , . ) ( ), and , & . & ( , also , an , , ) is ( ), ( , ) and ( . ) and ( ) - ( ). is a song written & produced by , including ( ) by . ( ) featuring the band ( ) in tribute to our good friend, , which is out in tribute, in honor of the late Mr. . , ), , is also ( ) ! ( & ) & ( ) with , we hope you enjoy it! ( ) has a song by with our new album, ) in the next episode,
Transcript
Transcripts from "America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. You can also explore and interact with the transcripts here.
00:09:40.000Our first story, we're talking all about the decision by an Illinois judge to disqualify President Trump from the 2024 presidential election ballot.
00:09:53.000They are joining 38 other states that have challenged the President's ability to appear on the ballot in the election.
00:11:09.000But he will have my absolute loyalty and support because nobody, nobody in the United States, maybe on Earth, has to deal with more BS than Donald Trump.
00:12:41.000Florida and Texas anti-tech censorship laws.
00:12:46.000Supreme Court will make a decision probably by June and it will determine the fate of the internet and thus determine the fate of the United States.
00:12:55.000So we'll talk about the case and what's gonna happen there.
00:14:28.000I was talking to Keith after the interview and he's like, well, I don't want to say what he said because I feel like Keith is angling for that Tucker interview because I'm always in the group chat like, admit it, he's a fed!
00:14:43.000And Keith is like, no, he seems legit to me.
00:14:47.000And I'm like, are you just saying that because you want to be interviewed?
00:16:09.000So, but if you're curious at all about what was said in the interview, you want to make it a little more digestible, I reviewed it for you, so you can check that out on my Rumble channel.
00:16:23.000Okay, with that out of the way, we're gonna dive in.
00:16:26.000First story, we're talking about Illinois, my home state, which has taken Trump off the ballot.
00:16:34.000Like I said, this has happened in three dozen states.
00:16:39.000And it's happening in different ways, but they're all approaching it the same way, which is that if you're wondering why this is happening or how this can happen, there is an article in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that says that anyone who has taken up arms against the government and engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion is barred from holding federal office.
00:17:09.000And 14th Amendment was ratified or approved with a slate of amendments, the Civil Rights Amendments, 14, 15, and 16, is it?
00:17:18.000And it was specific to the time period.
00:17:27.000At the end of the Civil War, they wanted to prevent Confederate generals or leaders from holding office so that they can engage in Reconstruction.
00:17:37.000So, it's really an anachronistic provision.
00:17:40.000It has not been applied since the Civil War or against anybody other than those who were engaged in the American Civil War 200 years ago.
00:17:51.000But states, in order to remove Trump from the ballot, are now using this provision against Trump.
00:17:58.000So different attorneys general and county or state election boards and state supreme courts are using this amendment to challenge Donald Trump as a candidate for president of federal office on the ballot in their states.
00:18:19.000And they can do this because, really, there is no such thing as a presidential election.
00:18:26.000Let me just get that straight so that people understand.
00:18:31.000The Electoral College decides who the president is.
00:18:36.000And the Electoral College is made up of electors who are appointed by the state legislature.
00:18:45.000And in the first few decades of the United States, that is exactly how it worked.
00:18:52.000The state legislatures would put up a slate of electors, they would go to the federal government, and the electors would choose the president.
00:19:01.000So there is no presidential election in the Constitution.
00:19:41.000In those states, we're making decisions about the presidential election.
00:19:46.000But the presidential election isn't real.
00:19:49.000There are elections held by states, specifically by state legislatures, to determine which electors the legislature will send to Washington, D.C.
00:20:14.000So, it is a lot of these state Supreme Courts, it is election boards, it's a lot of different organs are making these decisions and it's a big mess because it's not their decision to make.
00:20:38.000It says, quote, A state judge in Illinois ruled on Wednesday that former President Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to appear on the state's primary ballot.
00:20:49.000The decision creates uncertainty for the state's March primary election, in which early voting is already underway.
00:20:59.000Supreme Court to provide a national answer to the questions that have been raised about Mr. Trump's eligibility to appear on ballots in more than 30 states.
00:21:12.000Of the State Circuit Court in Cook County said the State Board of Elections had erred in rejecting an attempt to remove Mr. Trump and said the board shall remove Donald Trump from the ballot for the general primary election on March 19, 2024 or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed.
00:21:35.000But the decision by Judge Porter, a Democrat, was stayed until Friday, which means Mr. Trump can remain on the Illinois ballot at least until then.
00:21:44.000Judge Porter's ruling makes Illinois the most populous state where Mr. Trump has been deemed ineligible.
00:21:50.000Officials in Colorado and Maine earlier ruled him ineligible on similar grounds.
00:21:55.000The ballot challenges focus on whether Mr. Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat disqualify him from holding the presidency again.
00:22:04.000The cases are based on a largely untested clause of the 14th Amendment enacted after the Civil War that prohibits government officials who engage in insurrection or rebellion from holding office.
00:22:17.000Formal challenges to Mr. Trump's candidacy have been filed in at least 36 states.
00:22:24.000Well, many of those objections have been rejected or dismissed, while others remain pending in state and federal courts.
00:22:31.000It is not clear yet what Judge Porter's ruling would mean practically for Republican voters in Illinois if no higher court steps in before Friday.
00:22:41.000The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine's Democratic Secretary of State each found Mr. Trump ineligible.
00:22:47.000The former president, who is leading in primary polls, has appealed those decisions and his campaign has described the attempts to remove him from the ballot as anti-democratic.
00:22:58.000Mr. Trump is likely to appear on ballots in both Colorado and Maine, however, which are holding their primaries on Tuesday.
00:23:06.000The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Colorado appeal on February 8th in a case that could determine Mr. Trump's eligibility nationally.
00:23:16.000Justices across the ideological spectrum are skeptical of the reasoning used to disqualify Mr. Trump and is not sure when they will issue a ruling.
00:23:26.000So, 36 states are challenging his eligibility to be on the ballot.
00:23:32.000In Maine and Colorado, it has been contested.
00:23:36.000Supreme Court started hearing this case from Colorado on February 8th and they will make a decision and that will be determinative for the whole country.
00:23:45.000And the question, as the article said and as I said, concerns this 14th Amendment, which there has never been a ton of scrutiny applied to the language here.
00:23:56.000Has not been applied to anybody not from the Civil War.
00:24:02.000So, we don't know 100% how they'll rule, but it seems likely that they will allow Trump to remain on the ballot.
00:24:10.000But, we've talked about this premise before on the show.
00:24:15.000Whether Trump is allowed to remain on the ballot or not, in some states or all states or any states, might not even be the point.
00:24:31.000Because this is another form of lawfare, the same kind of lawfare we talked about last week when Donald Trump was ordered by the Attorney General in New York State to pay half a billion dollars, a half billion dollar fine, and that was after the 90 million dollars he was ordered to pay in damages and the defamation suit.
00:25:30.000It might not even be... Probably, attorneys have told, I'm sure legal counsel for these various organs of government have said, that there's no chance that this will hold up.
00:25:45.000Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection or rebellion.
00:26:17.000Every legal case demands serious financial resources.
00:26:24.000For Donald Trump to have to contest his standing on the ballot in several states or dozens of states costs a lot of money.
00:26:32.000It also causes him a lot of political problems.
00:26:35.000He's engaged in a competitive primary right now, or at least it was considered competitive at one point.
00:26:41.000And that would have been a serious argument against his electability.
00:26:45.000Again, whether these challenges are successful or not, if there's a question, if there's even an open-ended question, which it is right now because it is yet unresolved, as to whether or not he will be able to appear on the ballot, it's a political problem.
00:27:05.000That's why, as I've said from the start, you can't consider any one of these pieces in isolation.
00:27:13.000You can't regard the FISA warrant, or the special counsel with Russia, or the impeachment number one, or impeachment number two, or the defamation suit, the rape suit, the Fulton County charge, the Manhattan charge.
00:27:27.000You can't look at any of that in isolation because it's all part of the same cacophony.
00:29:01.000They vowed and they committed themselves basically the day after the election that they would endeavor to make sure it could never happen again.
00:29:08.000They subverted, delayed, procrastinated all these tactics to undermine Trump's first term, overthrew him with the mail-in ballots and all the funny business in 2020, and then they used January 6th as the pretext
00:29:25.000To crush him in the intervening four years between then and this upcoming election.
00:29:37.000But that is, as I said last week, what makes him the most consequential figure.
00:29:42.000Because if he can get in, I mean, and this is the big if, this is the big open-ended question, if he can get in, he has an opportunity at totally transforming the executive branch of government.
00:29:55.000And to truly become a transformational president.
00:30:00.000We haven't had a transformational president arguably since Reagan or FDR.
00:30:09.000If he wins and if he's able to get the right people.
00:30:13.000But I'm beginning to fear that what a lot of people have speculated about might come to pass, which is that maybe Trump will not be the nominee.
00:30:24.000Because things are looking very good for him.
00:30:26.000I posted the other day on Twitter, the Michigan primary was last night, which we covered.
00:30:32.000And like I said last night, there were over 100,000, now that all the votes have been tallied, there were over 100,000 protest votes in the Democrat primary against Joe Biden.
00:30:44.000Over 100,000 people voted not committed in the Democratic primary.
00:30:50.000They got a Democratic slip and they voted not committed.
00:30:54.000And as I said last night, the margin of victory in 2016 was 10,000.
00:33:21.000And you can draw your own conclusions.
00:33:23.000Does that tell us anything meaningful about what the margin of victory will be on election day eight months from now?
00:33:29.000The fact of the matter is, the polling favored the Democrats four years ago, eight years ago.
00:33:34.000It favors Trump unequivocally in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
00:33:42.000If he wins all those states, he adds six.
00:33:46.000To his Electoral College victory in 2016, and like I said, then becomes the biggest Republican winner in 30 years.
00:34:00.000And what does that tell you about the system?
00:34:03.000That not only is the biggest Republican winner in 30 years Donald Trump, but it's Donald Trump after he was charged by the federal government for insurrection, or for conspiracy to whatever.
00:34:30.000If Trump expands his margin of victory in 2024, in an historic Republican election, that's like the country's over.
00:34:42.000The way the country used to be is over.
00:34:45.000Because again, that's after Trump went out there in 2020 and resisted the result of the election, and the peaceful transfer of power, and 1,100 of his supporters got rounded up, and he got charged, and they try to keep him off the ballot.
00:35:01.000I mean, this guy's like an enemy of the state, and he's gonna win.
00:35:04.000At least that's what the polls say right now.
00:35:07.000And when you start to think about that, the converse is also true, which is that I don't know that the government would ever allow that.
00:35:16.000And certainly that's why they're doing everything they can to prevent him from funding his campaign, appearing on the ballot.
00:35:23.000I mean, they're trying to prevent this guy from, they're really trying to prevent him from doing anything.
00:35:28.000They're trying to paralyze him by having him show up in court and pay all this money and paralyzing his business.
00:35:34.000And if he doesn't stop, if he's not dethroned, if he makes it to the convention, one has to wonder if he'll make it to election day.
00:35:44.000I'm just saying and you know I pray that Trump is able to make it through and win this time but the stakes couldn't be higher right now and that is a it's kind of a scary thought actually so so that's Trump that's the Illinois decision and we'll see what happens like I said a stay was issued so it's not enforced until after Friday the Supreme Court might take it up
00:37:37.000So the government can print as much resources as they need.
00:37:39.000The system can produce as much cash as they need to do whatever they want.
00:37:46.000It's all the people that live in reality that get messed with.
00:37:50.000Trump doesn't have unlimited resources.
00:37:52.000He can't pay half a billion in cash and 90 million dollars to the defamation case, and run a presidential campaign, and defeat all these challenges for him to appear on the ballot, and they're going to appoint a monitor to spy on his business, and his family can't run it, and it just goes on and on.
00:38:11.000That's what maximum pressure actually looks like.
00:38:18.000We're going to get into the other Supreme Court case.
00:38:21.000And like I said, I've been threatening to talk about this for the past two days, but we're finally going to get into it.
00:38:28.000So our other big story tonight is about two other Supreme Court cases.
00:38:34.000The United States Supreme Court has taken up two cases regarding two separate state anti-tax censorship laws.
00:38:43.000And you may remember, because I believe, I know that we covered the Florida law.
00:38:48.000I don't remember if we covered the Texas law.
00:38:52.000But I'm about to tell you the whole story of tax censorship, or a big part of it, or a big piece of it.
00:39:01.000So, of course, January 6th, 2021, insurrection happens.
00:39:07.000Donald Trump, within two weeks, is banned from all social media.
00:39:11.000And at the time, he's the sitting president, so he's not the former president yet.
00:39:16.000He's the impeached and badly damaged sitting president of the United States, and he was banned within weeks from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, everything.
00:39:28.000Even banned from back-end services people are less familiar with.
00:39:35.000And I said at that time, I said that this was the beginning of the end for the tech censorship regime.
00:39:41.000I said this may be the best possible outcome.
00:39:44.000Because taking Trump down, Trump is almost too big to fail in a very narrow sense.
00:39:53.000In the sense that Trump commands a massive loyal following such that somebody who stands to profit will try to get in that space and it will be lucrative.
00:40:51.000If you ban Trump, as evidenced by the creation of True Social and other platforms, he could go and take his business to another platform and get 10 million people to come over.
00:41:04.000And it won't be the biggest platform and it won't compete with Twitter, but it will be viable.
00:41:26.000And by the way, not only from the private sector in the form of alternative tech.
00:41:30.000Because it will be financially viable or there will be some political reason to back that as a project.
00:41:38.000But also, I said there might be a legal remedy.
00:41:41.000Because now, maybe a legal group will have an interest in challenging censorship.
00:41:45.000Or, I said a state will pass a law under political pressure from Republicans or from Trump, and maybe that could be the source of a legal remedy.
00:41:56.000So, if you go back and watch my show from January 21, not to make it about me, but I did say that that is precisely what would happen, and that is what happened.
00:42:08.000True Social came around and Rumble received investment from Peter Thiel and merged with Locals and all these things started to happen.
00:42:16.000Elon Musk, I think that might be what inspired Elon Musk to take an interest in purchasing Twitter, which he announced his intention to do that just a year later in the beginning of 2022.
00:42:28.000So I really think that was the beginning of many conversations about a viable alternative tech solution to censorship, which came in the form of the Trump Media Entertainment Group, Rumble, and the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk.
00:42:48.000On the other hand, on the public front, there was an effort by Ron DeSantis as governor of Florida at that time to get a law through the Florida State Legislature banning censorship.
00:43:24.000Then Texas passed a similar law a few months later.
00:43:27.000And Texas said that if somebody is banned from social media for viewpoint discrimination,
00:43:35.000Then that user could take the platform to court and they can get their account back if they could prove that it was viewpoint discrimination.
00:43:46.000And so both laws were immediately challenged.
00:43:49.000They were challenged by a lobbying group that had been contracted by the big tech firms.
00:43:54.000And this case has made its way up the federal court system.
00:44:51.000Although they're good for now, I mean, they happen under pressure.
00:44:55.000They exist in an environment where there's constant intense pressure to restrict speech.
00:45:01.000We've seen the limitations of this on Twitter, where Elon Musk has completely backed off of his initial creed on Twitter.
00:45:10.000He said that he was going to enshrine in the Terms of Service, basically the First Amendment, that anything that is lawful will be permitted and anything that isn't will be censored.
00:45:22.000But he said that would be the extent of censorship.
00:45:27.000It has been a year and a half since he took over the platform and they're still banning things based on hate or conspiracy theories or I mean whatever the same kind of nonsense TOS from the previous regime and that was under pressure after the October 7th attack.
00:45:46.000So we've seen the limitations on all sides, on True Social, on Rumble, on Twitter, and like I said, these other laws passed in the Texas and Florida legislature, they were stayed.
00:45:59.000An injunction was filed on both of them after they were challenged in the court by the lobbyists for Big Tech.
00:46:06.000So what has to happen is that the Supreme Court must set the precedent.
00:46:22.000So the Supreme Court is hearing these two cases, and I'll read, this is the article about this.
00:46:29.000It says, quote, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical on Monday of laws in Florida and Texas that bar major social media companies from making editorial judgments about which messages to allow.
00:46:42.000The laws were enacted in an effort to shield conservative voices on their sites, but a decision by the court expected by June will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the Internet era, with broad political and economic implications.
00:47:00.000Though a ruling in favor of big platforms like Facebook and YouTube appeared likely,
00:47:06.000The court also seemed poised to return the cases to the lower courts to answer questions about how the laws apply to sites that do not moderate user speech in the same way like Gmail, Venmo, Uber, and Etsy.
00:47:22.000And so you understand, the crux of the case is as follows.
00:47:30.000The big tech companies have contracted a firm, I think it's called Net Solutions or Net... it's Net something.
00:47:38.000But the argument from the big tech lobbying firm is this.
00:47:42.000They say that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, when they choose to censor editorial content, they say that that act of censorship is a form of speech.
00:47:56.000That Twitter gets to decide what appears on its website or what doesn't appear on its website in the same way that the New York Times decides what they publish on their website or not publish on their website.
00:48:10.000And so the platforms are effectively arguing that they are a publisher.
00:48:15.000And that choosing to publish or not to publish is speech.
00:48:20.000It's protected, ironically, by the First Amendment.
00:48:23.000Their right to censor, their right to not publish certain content by banning accounts, interfering with the algorithm, and manipulating in other ways, they say that is speech protected by the First Amendment, ironically.
00:48:37.000You getting banned by giant tech monopolies is the First Amendment at work because these companies have a First Amendment right to ban you so that you don't get to post on their platform.
00:48:49.000And this is where people say that as a private platform, as a privately owned platform, they get to determine that.
00:49:00.000They say the First Amendment protects speech from government, but it doesn't protect speech from a private entity.
00:49:08.000You don't have a right to use Twitter's platform for speech because Twitter has a right, their own free speech right, to publish what they want and to censor what they don't want.
00:49:20.000And maybe that sounds like a good argument, but here's the problem.
00:49:25.000When the social media companies are search engines, it actually really predates the social media companies.
00:49:32.000The Communications Decency Act in 1996 has a famous provision, it's called Section 230, and in 1996 there's a federal law that says that big tech companies will be protected from liability
00:49:50.000For what is posted or published on their platform.
00:49:55.000Because there's a free speech interest in having large platforms.
00:50:02.000And they're really acting as platforms rather than publishers.
00:50:06.000Meaning that if I go on Facebook and I commit a crime on Facebook, like let's say I stream a mass shooting or let's say I say, hey let's go kill everybody and people do it.
00:50:18.000The Communications Decency Act Section 230 says Facebook cannot be held liable even though they publish that content, it's my content.
00:50:29.000And since it's such a large platform and I posted it there, they're technically classifying Facebook as a platform, as a conduit for me to publish.
00:50:40.000So Facebook isn't the one publishing it and therefore does not have liability.
00:50:45.000Since I posted it on a very large platform, the liability belongs to me alone because I'm the creator of the content.
00:50:52.000So this is the provision in 1996, section 230 of the CDA.
00:50:59.000And the reason that this law was passed is because the federal government argues that there isn't a free speech interest.
00:51:07.000For the purpose of promoting a free speech culture in America, for the purpose of our politics,
00:51:14.000They said that we should extend this special protection from liability to internet platforms.
00:51:24.000But this is in contradiction with the argument from
00:51:29.000The lobbying firms for big tech, because the lobbying firms are saying, well we get to censor because we're a publisher like the New York Times.
00:51:38.000We get to censor because we have a right to speech, and we have a right to determine what's on our platform.
00:51:46.000But if they're a publisher, and in essence they're owning or taking responsibility for every post that is allowed or not allowed,
00:51:55.000Then they can't claim the protection from liability by Section 230.
00:52:00.000Because Section 230 absolves them of the legal responsibility or legal liability from the content.
00:52:41.000Or claim rather, that their individual writers are just using New York Times as a platform and if someone defames somebody that New York Times isn't liable.
00:52:51.000And this is a big, I mean especially lately this is a big issue with this Dominion voting system lawsuit against Fox News and Newsmax and other media companies.
00:54:14.000It says, quote, several justices said that the states violated the First Amendment by telling a handful of major platforms that they could not moderate their users' posts, drawing distinctions between government censorship prohibited by the First Amendment and actions by private companies to determine what speech to include on their sites.
00:54:35.000Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, I have a problem with laws that are so broad they stifle speech just on their face.
00:54:43.000And she's referring to the laws that would be against tech censorship.
00:54:49.000She says that prohibiting platforms from censoring, that is stifling speech.
00:54:58.000Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee, read a sentence from a 1976 campaign finance decision that has long been a touchstone for him, which says, quote, indicating that he rejected the state's argument that they may regulate the fairness of public debate in private settings.
00:55:26.000So Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are in favor of big tech.
00:55:33.000I'm really glad that Donald Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh from the Federalist Society and everybody fought to confirm him so that he could doom us to internet hell and no free speech in the modern world.
00:56:26.000So, back then everybody said, oh it's so great, we're appointing these young justices and they're gonna help Trump and they'll be around forever.
00:56:44.000Henry Whitaker, Florida Solicitor General, responded that the state has an interest, a First Amendment interest, in promoting and ensuring the free dissemination of ideas, which is true.
00:56:56.000There is a spirit of the First Amendment.
00:56:58.000If all of the public square is on mass digital media, and it's a monopoly or an oligopoly,
00:57:09.000And those oligarchic companies are able to censor with discretion whatever they want.
00:57:17.000Now you can read into it and say, well, but the First Amendment doesn't talk about Twitter.
00:57:22.000Okay, but we won't have free speech in society if Facebook gets to control who gets to have a Facebook account.
00:57:31.000So it kind of defeats the whole purpose.
00:57:34.000Justice Elena Kagan said the major platforms had good reasons to reject posts inciting insurrection, endangering public health, and spreading hate speech.
00:57:44.000Why isn't that a First Amendment judgment, she said.
00:57:48.000The court's three most conservative members, Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, were sympathetic to the state laws.
00:57:57.000All three said phrases like content moderation were euphemisms for censorship.
00:58:02.000Justice Kagan asked whether states could tell services like Venmo, Dropbox, and Uber that they may not discriminate on the basis of their users' viewpoints.
00:58:12.000Paul Clement, a lawyer for the challengers, said, wouldn't that be all right?
00:58:16.000Mr. Clement said no, responding that all of those services are still in the expressive business, meaning that speech is part of their core activities in ways not true of a gas station or an ice cream stand.
00:58:31.000Justice Alito asked Mr. Clement, does Gmail have a First Amendment right to delete Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow's Gmail accounts if they don't agree with his or her viewpoints?
00:58:40.000Mr. Clement responded that the service might be able to do that, adding that such questions had not been the focus of the litigation.
00:58:48.000He added that forbidding the platforms to make distinctions based on viewpoint would destroy their business.
00:58:56.000So they're effectively arguing that any tech company can go after anybody.
00:59:00.000So they can turn off your Uber, your Venmo, your Gmail.
00:59:05.000Big Tech is writing the laws, the legal decisions.
00:59:09.000The laws from Florida and Texas differ in their details.
00:59:13.000Florida's law prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state, while Texas law prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user's viewpoint.
00:59:25.000The two trade associations challenging the state laws, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said that the actions Judge Oldham called censorship were editorial choices protected by the First Amendment, which generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content and viewpoint.
00:59:46.000The groups said that social media companies were entitled to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by newspapers, which are free to publish what they like without government interference.
00:59:58.000Justice Kavanaugh embraced that position.
01:00:04.000Asking Mr. Whitaker, the lawyer representing Florida, whether states could tell publishing houses, printing presses, movie theaters, bookstores, and newsstands what to feature.
01:00:14.000Mr. Whitaker said that newspapers and bookstores are engaged in inherently expressive conduct while our whole point is that these social media platforms are not like those.
01:00:25.000He said that indeed the platforms were common carriers required to transmit everyone's messages and that the Florida law protected free speech by ensuring that users have access to many points of view.
01:00:38.000So Justice Kavanaugh, a conservative, is saying that Google is the same as
01:00:59.000Houston Chronicle, which has a staff of 100 people, and, you know, who knows what their revenue is, and maybe they have a readership in the hundreds of thousands, and their writers write what their editors tell them to,
01:01:13.000They have the same legal protections as Google, which has 95% of the search results in America and is the dominant search platform in just about every country in the world for billions of people.
01:01:43.000If you're writing for the Houston Chronicle, you should be protected from government interference, just like Google should, which enjoys Section 230 protection, so they have no legal liability, and enjoys massive federal contracts, and has near monopoly status.
01:01:58.000It's the same, says Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative Trump appointee.
01:02:11.000It says, quote, Several justices said it was hard to reconcile the platform's argument on Monday with what they had said last year in cases concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media companies from liability for what their users post.
01:02:29.000In those cases, Justice Thomas said, the platforms maintained that they were merely conduits for others' speech.
01:02:37.000Now you're saying that you are engaged in editorial discretion and expressive conduct?
01:02:44.000Doesn't that seem to undermine your Section 230 argument?
01:02:48.000Mr. Clement responded that a key part of the provision was meant to protect platforms from liability for making editorial judgments.
01:02:56.000Federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions in 2022 about the constitutionality of the two laws.
01:03:04.000A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S.
01:03:06.000Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida's law.
01:03:13.000Judge Kevin Newsom wrote for the panel, quote,
01:03:34.000But a divided three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit refers to lower court's order blocking the Texas law.
01:03:41.000Judge Oldham wrote for the majority, quote, We reject the platform's attempt to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution's free speech guarantee.
01:03:58.000So finally, this is the Supreme Court case that we have all been waiting for.
01:04:04.000Now we don't know what the decision will be, but this is the fundamental question that we've been talking about going back even before 2021, going back years.
01:04:17.000Nancy Pelosi talked about employing that on the Democratic side.
01:04:20.000Many Republicans talked about using it in various ways.
01:04:24.000There was the last-ditch effort in the final year of the Trump administration to use the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 in such a way that it would force the platforms to refrain from censorship.
01:04:40.000But ultimately it was too little too late from Trump, too little too late from Republicans in Congress, or really nothing at all.
01:04:48.000So we suffered basically five or six or seven years of tech censorship before there was any kind of real recourse or response.
01:05:35.000But it's Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, and we haven't heard from the others, but presumably the others will be against.
01:05:44.000So they'll be ruling on the side of Big Tech.
01:05:47.000Could be a landmark decision which would basically forever enshrine the right of Big Tech to censor.
01:05:52.000But the substance of the matter, as I've said from the beginning of this entire show, tells you that you can expect nothing, nothing from the government.
01:06:52.000And the Supreme Court is saying that when these near monopolies, which again are protected by the state, they're not just any, they're not an organic monopoly, if those even exist.
01:07:03.000These are monopolies that are only allowed to exist by favorable treatment from the government, how they were classified by the Communications Decency Act.
01:07:11.000I think it was 1994 actually, now that I'm saying it.
01:07:19.000Conservative Federalist Supreme Court judges are defining mass censorship by the biggest companies in the world, by the monopolies in the communications and media space, which have billions of users, and they are now the digital public square.
01:07:37.000The argument from conservatives is that when those entities censor, that's speech.
01:07:42.000Free speech is when Google can censor you.
01:07:49.000When Google, again, one of the biggest companies in the world, they're engaged in artificial intelligence, search queries, they got YouTube, I mean these are serious businesses to be engaged in.
01:07:59.000The advertising business online, this is a massive business.
01:08:05.000When they censor you, when they delist certain things in the search results, when they ban people from YouTube, that's free speech.
01:08:12.000That's the First Amendment, says Brett Kavanaugh, says the defenders of liberal democracy and the Constitution and all that, you know, all that bullshit.
01:09:00.000In 2020, when the Hunter Biden laptop somehow got in the hands of journalists, because that should have been public information, but the Hunter Biden laptop somehow makes its way to the public, and what do they do?
01:09:17.000The intelligence community goes to the tech platforms and lies and says, so that's Russian disinformation and all the platforms suppress it.
01:09:29.000The feds, the spies, literal American government secret police goes to the tech companies that control all the information and says you need to suppress this because this is a foreign subversion and they do and it turns out to be real and it influences the election.
01:09:46.000The suppression of it influences the outcome of the election.
01:09:50.000Then you have the mail-in ballot thing, where state supreme courts and everybody is just changing the laws, making it up as they go along.
01:09:57.000We're just going to send a ballot to everybody.
01:10:53.000And if they're not voting, they're going to be counted in the next census, where they will be living, where their children will be, and then their children are going to be voting.
01:11:04.000So it's like, the whole thing is just totally rigged.
01:11:16.000If you thought that the judge, because everybody has some, everybody has some holdout hope that an institution is going to come in and save us.
01:11:25.000They really, that is what I would call it.
01:11:41.000The people that really run the executive branch are the bureaucrats, the permanent bureaucrats in all the federal agencies and departments.
01:12:15.000So, people look at the presidency and on some level they say, well, the presidency is impotent.
01:12:21.000People look at the legislature and they have rightly determined that these legislators, they don't write the laws, they don't read the laws, they don't even understand the laws.
01:12:29.000They'll pass a spending bill that is 5,000 pages, it gets finished the day before the vote, and it gets passed 400 to nothing, 400 to 35.
01:13:44.000And then Trump gets charged with conspiracy and the Fulton County stuff and
01:13:50.000New York legislature passes a bill about rape claims and one is brought forward from 40 years ago and they award a 90 million dollar damages.
01:15:23.000It's a big network and we really have no say.
01:15:26.000That's what people are fundamentally realizing, like I talked about last week, is that the government's not legitimate because we have no say.
01:15:44.000You know, they're hunting people down from Charlottesville seven years later and charging them with holding a torch with intention to intimidate.
01:16:20.000The only way that we are going to be able to solve this is by building a parallel society.
01:16:26.000And that means that we need people that are willing to die for our cause, that have a completely opposite or completely different metaphysics.
01:16:34.000I mean, we really need, like, Catholic zealots.
01:17:01.000Let's say they went to Princeton or Yale, they clerked for a Supreme Court judge, they got on the Federalist list, they got to the Supreme Court, and let's say now was the moment to flip that switch.
01:17:12.000Now is the moment, I mean maybe Google would murder them or whatever, but maybe now is the moment when they flip the switch and they deliver that decisive blow.
01:17:26.000And there are various critical junctures there where the right person placed in the right position at the right time could make the right call.
01:18:36.000What needs to happen is that we need that nomenclatura, we need the cadre of Groyper, Catholic, rape, kill and die types that are willing to hold it close to the chest for their whole life and place themselves in high positions of power.
01:18:56.000But I don't even know how they do it, because I'm thinking about the model of the Jews.
01:19:00.000I mean, of course, this is what the Jews have done, but the Jews had the backing of the State of Israel, and they had the backing of the banksters.
01:19:07.000So, I don't even know the Wikicargo called what the Jews have done in our country.
01:19:27.000They don't deliver the right decision.
01:19:29.000And this was like the all-important thing.
01:19:31.000If they could get the tech companies to be treated like a public utility and protect everybody like us from talking, we would be in a really good position.
01:19:41.000We would be very well positioned to make political change.
01:19:44.000Without access to the means of mass communication, it's a huge problem.
01:19:49.000And if they rule this way, it'll be a major setback.
01:19:52.000It means it basically will never be resolved.
01:29:35.000And he comes on the scene as basically a Jewish-Israeli operative and says, I'm a fascist body, I'm a mysterious fascist bodybuilder, exotic, esoteric, etc.
01:29:46.000And the point is to rip off this goyish mask, this goy name thing,
01:29:54.000And to say, no, this guy's Ben Shapiro.
01:29:57.000This guy's Ben Shapiro pretending to be David Duke.
01:30:00.000Or he's Ben Shapiro, not David Duke, he's Ben Shapiro pretending to be Hitler or something.
01:30:07.000So, it's to put people on guard about the kind of subversion that's happening all the time.
01:30:13.000You have all these people, they're Jewish, or they have a Jewish mentor, and they come on the scene and say, no, no, no, don't worry about Jews and Israel, worry about something else.
01:30:20.000And I'm here to say, okay, the person that's saying that is Jewish.
01:31:21.000He's the perfect example because he champions this like, oh, I'm a fascist, extremist, blah, blah, blah.
01:31:27.000But also, we should be colorblind and really, we don't need to worry about Israel.
01:31:32.000If Israel were destroyed, that wouldn't help us, blah, blah, blah.
01:31:36.000And then you find out what he's really about and he's like the most Jewish person you've ever seen.
01:31:43.000So, but his network, he's part of a vast network that involves Teal, and Palantir, and Andresen, and Yarvin, and it's, and ultimately the State of Israel.
01:31:57.000So, but if you don't see that, you just don't get it.
01:32:01.000Chinese Catholic Millennial sent $3, 2 halves if you can get into an Ivy or NESCAC, don't go to community college.
01:32:08.000Some of the best networking is done in your freshman cohort.
01:32:11.000Beware of degeneracy, fornication, and alcoholic gluttony.
01:34:57.000It's my actual birthday with year and I'm older than Jesus when he died and think today so leap year so it'd be February 29th and it would be 8 times 4 be 32 so it'd be what was another leap year what 96 or 2000 February 29 2000
01:37:09.000No, maybe I'm wrong about the leap year thing.
01:37:13.000The hint is throwing you're saying think today well today is leap day so I'm thinking that but if you're one year earlier it wouldn't be a leap day it would be a non-leap day year so you wouldn't turn nine in 2024.
01:37:26.000I don't know this this doesn't make sense.