Verdict with Ted Cruz - October 03, 2022


The Cloakroom Preview： Supreme Court Showdown Over Big Tech


Episode Stats

Length

26 minutes

Words per Minute

161.44165

Word Count

4,336

Sentence Count

155

Misogynist Sentences

7

Hate Speech Sentences

2


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:00:02.520 Guaranteed human.
00:00:04.120 Hi guys, Liz Wheeler here.
00:00:06.380 I have today for you a preview of The Cloak Room.
00:00:09.940 The Cloak Room is the series I host
00:00:11.360 with Senator Cruz on Verdict Plus.
00:00:13.700 We break down the nitty gritty legal aspect
00:00:16.660 of some of the political issues that surround us today.
00:00:20.040 You can join us at any time
00:00:21.000 at verdictwithtedcruz.com slash plus.
00:00:24.400 That's verdictwithtedcruz.com slash plus.
00:00:27.460 This episode today is one of my favorite ones.
00:00:30.580 So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
00:00:32.200 recently ruled against big tech.
00:00:35.760 They said, the court said that big tech
00:00:37.440 is not allowed to censor conservatives
00:00:39.240 based on conservatives' viewpoint.
00:00:41.780 This legal opinion is absolutely something.
00:00:44.760 This is very possibly could get in front of the Supreme Court
00:00:47.280 and have what might be the showdown of the century
00:00:50.180 between the courts, the Constitution, and big tech.
00:00:53.400 Senator Cruz breaks this all down
00:00:55.460 and answers the question,
00:00:56.900 is this going to be the end
00:00:59.680 of big tech censorship of conservatives?
00:01:01.980 I hope you enjoy this episode.
00:01:04.300 This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz
00:01:06.520 is brought to you by Field of Greens.
00:01:09.080 Back in the day, people grew what they ate.
00:01:12.080 Fresh vegetables and fruits were the core of their diet.
00:01:14.420 It's what they ate.
00:01:15.520 But as Americans became busier and busier,
00:01:18.040 now we eat pre-made, processed, fast food.
00:01:20.880 You know, the easy stuff, but not very healthy.
00:01:23.560 Definitely not the six cups of veggies and fruits a day.
00:01:26.320 But let me tell you about Field of Greens.
00:01:29.000 Field of Greens is packed with a full spectrum
00:01:31.120 of essential vegetables and fruits,
00:01:33.160 plus science-backed herbs and prebiotics.
00:01:36.140 This is what we need to stay healthy.
00:01:38.360 Field of Greens works fast.
00:01:40.200 You'll have more energy.
00:01:41.600 You'll look and feel healthier.
00:01:43.300 And it can even help you lose weight.
00:01:45.560 Next time you're at the doctor
00:01:46.460 and they compare your old lab work to your new lab work,
00:01:49.080 I bet the doctor will tell you,
00:01:50.500 you crushed it.
00:01:51.700 Join me and take Field of Greens.
00:01:54.020 And to help you get started,
00:01:55.000 I got you 15% off your first order.
00:01:57.740 And another 10% off when you subscribe
00:01:59.720 for recurring orders.
00:02:01.520 Visit fieldofgreens.com
00:02:03.820 and use promo code CACTUS
00:02:05.700 to collect this deal.
00:02:07.260 That's fieldofgreens.com, promo code CACTUS.
00:02:11.740 Fieldofgreens.com, promo code CACTUS.
00:02:15.220 Senator, we have a great topic to talk about today.
00:02:17.740 This made me very excited to see
00:02:19.380 out of your home state of Texas,
00:02:21.700 it's a potential Supreme Court showdown
00:02:24.380 on big tech banning conservatives
00:02:26.460 over our viewpoints.
00:02:27.460 We've all experienced this.
00:02:28.840 Anybody who is conservative and outspoken,
00:02:31.660 this is the ruling that came out
00:02:33.960 of the Fifth Circuit Court.
00:02:35.300 I wanna jump right into the legal aspect of this.
00:02:38.660 This is the ruling from Judge Andrew Oldham.
00:02:41.360 He says,
00:02:42.220 a Texas statute named House Bill 20
00:02:45.000 generally prohibits large social media platforms
00:02:47.780 from censoring speech
00:02:49.100 based on the viewpoint of its speaker.
00:02:51.200 The platforms urge us to hold
00:02:52.820 that the statute is facially unconstitutional
00:02:55.100 and hence cannot be applied to anyone
00:02:57.240 at any time and under any circumstance.
00:02:59.920 In urging such sweeping relief
00:03:01.600 the platforms offer a rather odd inversion
00:03:03.740 of the First Amendment.
00:03:05.080 That amendment, of course,
00:03:06.020 protects every person's right
00:03:07.700 to the freedom of speech.
00:03:09.860 But the platforms argue
00:03:11.280 that buried somewhere
00:03:12.440 in the person's enumerated right
00:03:14.640 to free speech
00:03:15.520 lies a corporation's unenumerated right
00:03:19.280 to muzzle speech.
00:03:21.020 The implications of the platform's arguments
00:03:23.240 are staggering.
00:03:24.460 On the platform's view,
00:03:25.500 email providers,
00:03:26.580 mobile phone companies,
00:03:27.660 and banks
00:03:28.240 could cancel the accounts
00:03:29.600 of anyone who sends an email,
00:03:31.120 makes a phone call,
00:03:31.820 or spends money
00:03:32.440 in support of a disfavored political party,
00:03:34.780 candidate, or business.
00:03:36.300 What's worse,
00:03:36.820 the platforms argue
00:03:37.560 that a business
00:03:38.120 can acquire a dominant market position
00:03:40.560 by holding itself out
00:03:42.340 as open to everyone,
00:03:43.680 as Twitter did
00:03:44.540 in championing itself
00:03:45.640 as the free speech wing
00:03:46.960 of the free speech party.
00:03:48.960 Then,
00:03:49.600 having cemented itself
00:03:50.640 as the monopolist
00:03:51.760 of the modern public square,
00:03:53.640 Twitter unapologetically argues
00:03:55.120 that it could turn around
00:03:56.400 and ban all pro-LGBT speech
00:03:58.980 for no other reason
00:04:00.180 than its employees
00:04:01.280 want to pick on members
00:04:02.320 of that community.
00:04:03.640 Today,
00:04:04.120 we reject the idea
00:04:05.220 that corporations
00:04:05.980 have a freewheeling
00:04:07.380 First Amendment right
00:04:08.780 to censor what people say.
00:04:10.720 Because the district court
00:04:11.740 held otherwise,
00:04:12.620 we reverse its injunction
00:04:14.040 and remand
00:04:15.100 for further proceedings.
00:04:16.500 So,
00:04:17.180 this is an incredibly
00:04:18.480 important decision.
00:04:20.720 So,
00:04:21.360 let's take it
00:04:21.840 in several pieces.
00:04:22.720 Number one,
00:04:23.380 let me commend
00:04:24.160 the Texas State Legislature
00:04:25.880 and Governor Abbott.
00:04:27.100 The state of Texas
00:04:27.840 passed serious legislation
00:04:30.440 designed
00:04:31.280 to tackle
00:04:32.460 and stop
00:04:33.160 big tech censorship.
00:04:34.560 And,
00:04:34.580 and Texas is leading
00:04:36.520 unfortunately
00:04:37.300 in a way
00:04:38.160 that the federal government,
00:04:39.360 Joe Biden,
00:04:39.880 won't do.
00:04:40.660 And unfortunately
00:04:41.560 in a way
00:04:42.200 that Congress won't do.
00:04:43.340 I've been pushing
00:04:43.980 for Congress
00:04:44.480 to do something like this,
00:04:45.640 but Democrats
00:04:46.180 are blocking it in D.C.
00:04:48.460 with Schumer and Pelosi
00:04:49.540 running Congress.
00:04:50.500 They won't allow this
00:04:51.260 to move forward.
00:04:52.080 And so,
00:04:52.700 the Texas State,
00:04:53.380 the state legislature
00:04:54.180 said,
00:04:54.700 to heck with you,
00:04:55.400 we're going to do it.
00:04:56.200 We're going to protect
00:04:56.800 30 million Texans.
00:04:58.000 We're going to protect
00:04:58.840 free speech rights.
00:04:59.760 And so,
00:05:00.160 it made it
00:05:00.680 illegal
00:05:01.620 for the big tech companies
00:05:03.340 to censor
00:05:04.460 based on viewpoint,
00:05:05.660 based on politics.
00:05:07.280 And it created
00:05:08.160 an enforcement mechanism,
00:05:09.640 including the ability
00:05:10.520 for the Attorney General
00:05:11.780 to file
00:05:13.740 an injunctive lawsuit
00:05:15.020 against big tech
00:05:16.080 to force them
00:05:17.080 to stop censoring.
00:05:18.800 Now,
00:05:19.340 what happened
00:05:19.960 is big tech,
00:05:20.960 which,
00:05:21.240 which has
00:05:21.820 more money
00:05:22.860 than Midas.
00:05:24.080 It has
00:05:24.620 unlimited cash.
00:05:25.960 They print gold.
00:05:27.840 What did they do?
00:05:29.000 They hired
00:05:29.920 an army of lawyers
00:05:30.820 and filed a lawsuit
00:05:31.740 seeking to stop
00:05:32.680 the bill.
00:05:34.040 And they succeeded.
00:05:34.980 They got a district court
00:05:35.920 to agree with them.
00:05:36.700 this is the appeal
00:05:39.640 from that injunction.
00:05:42.000 And this opinion
00:05:43.620 is masterful.
00:05:47.220 This is a very,
00:05:49.100 very serious
00:05:50.020 judicial opinion.
00:05:51.740 Let me stop
00:05:52.580 for a second
00:05:53.100 and give
00:05:53.600 a little bit of color.
00:05:55.040 And let me give you
00:05:55.460 a little bit of color
00:05:56.040 on a couple of sides.
00:05:57.380 Number one,
00:05:58.900 the judge who wrote it
00:05:59.980 is a judge
00:06:00.520 named Judge Andy Oldham.
00:06:02.000 I've known Andy
00:06:02.800 for some time.
00:06:03.560 Andy was a law clerk
00:06:06.180 to Judge David Centel
00:06:07.520 on the D.C. Circuit,
00:06:08.640 who was one of the top
00:06:09.600 conservative appellate
00:06:10.540 judges in the country.
00:06:11.900 He was then a law clerk
00:06:13.140 to Justice Sam Alito
00:06:14.280 on the U.S. Supreme Court.
00:06:17.040 Andy is a veteran litigator.
00:06:20.560 And in fact,
00:06:21.280 he was in my old office.
00:06:22.780 As you know,
00:06:23.480 I was for five and a half years
00:06:24.940 was the solicitor general
00:06:26.060 of Texas.
00:06:26.740 Well, Andy
00:06:27.220 was in that office
00:06:29.140 after I left.
00:06:30.240 He didn't work for me,
00:06:31.720 but he was deputy
00:06:32.600 solicitor general of Texas
00:06:34.020 and did an excellent job.
00:06:37.180 And in fact,
00:06:37.640 after being deputy SG,
00:06:39.260 he went on to be
00:06:40.220 general counsel
00:06:41.620 in the governor's office
00:06:42.820 for Greg Abbott.
00:06:44.660 And so when Donald Trump
00:06:46.200 was president,
00:06:46.920 there were multiple vacancies
00:06:48.480 on the Fifth Circuit.
00:06:50.600 And the way it works
00:06:52.060 with judicial appointments
00:06:53.140 is that every federal
00:06:54.800 judicial appointment
00:06:55.680 in the state of Texas
00:06:57.460 has to get my sign off
00:06:59.320 and has to get the sign off
00:07:00.360 of John Cornyn.
00:07:01.140 And the two of us
00:07:01.840 have a very serious
00:07:02.900 and thorough vetting process.
00:07:05.520 In fact,
00:07:05.940 we have a bipartisan
00:07:07.060 judicial evaluation committee
00:07:08.700 that plays an important role
00:07:10.000 in it.
00:07:10.640 But Andy is someone
00:07:12.280 who I enthusiastically
00:07:14.860 supported President Trump
00:07:16.400 nominating.
00:07:18.140 Cornyn and I both recommended
00:07:19.900 to President Trump
00:07:21.960 that he nominate him.
00:07:23.020 And for that matter,
00:07:23.740 Greg Abbott,
00:07:24.380 my old boss
00:07:25.080 and good friend,
00:07:25.820 was effusive.
00:07:27.620 Abbott called me
00:07:28.540 and said,
00:07:28.960 this guy is a rock star.
00:07:30.460 You want him
00:07:30.960 on the Court of Appeals.
00:07:32.560 President Trump
00:07:33.300 nominated him.
00:07:34.120 We confirmed him.
00:07:36.080 And I got to say,
00:07:37.360 look no further
00:07:38.100 than this opinion
00:07:38.960 to have confirmation
00:07:39.960 as to why
00:07:40.980 that was an incredibly
00:07:42.740 important decision.
00:07:44.420 This opinion
00:07:45.400 is over 100 pages long.
00:07:48.180 It is careful.
00:07:49.880 It is thorough.
00:07:51.720 It is scholarly.
00:07:53.120 Another odd bit
00:07:54.320 of commentary
00:07:54.920 when this opinion
00:07:55.600 came down,
00:07:56.340 I really wanted
00:07:58.460 to read it.
00:07:58.960 It was Sunday,
00:07:59.460 Sunday afternoon.
00:08:01.260 And I was home
00:08:02.460 in Houston
00:08:03.060 and had taken,
00:08:07.940 no, I'm sorry,
00:08:08.320 it was Saturday afternoon.
00:08:09.260 It was Saturday afternoon.
00:08:10.440 I was home in Houston
00:08:11.220 and I had taken
00:08:12.780 my daughter,
00:08:13.820 Catherine,
00:08:14.260 who's 11,
00:08:15.520 and one of her friends
00:08:16.820 to the nail salon
00:08:17.880 to get a mani-pedi.
00:08:20.740 So they're both
00:08:21.520 sitting there
00:08:22.120 getting their toes done.
00:08:23.940 And, you know,
00:08:25.320 dad's a little kind of,
00:08:27.320 I'm not terribly at ease
00:08:29.120 in a nail salon
00:08:29.920 with the whole
00:08:30.540 mani-pedi thing.
00:08:32.980 And I got to say,
00:08:34.800 there are lots of like,
00:08:36.560 like women walking in
00:08:37.680 who are doing double takes.
00:08:39.120 You know,
00:08:39.320 what on earth
00:08:40.040 is Cruz doing
00:08:41.680 sitting in the nail salon?
00:08:43.800 And then,
00:08:44.940 like they said,
00:08:46.980 hey,
00:08:47.140 if you want to sit
00:08:47.840 with the girls
00:08:48.400 while they're doing this,
00:08:49.300 you can.
00:08:49.780 I'm like,
00:08:50.080 yeah, sure,
00:08:50.500 I'll go sit with them.
00:08:51.300 And so they had me seated
00:08:53.440 in the chair
00:08:54.820 for the mani-pedi thing,
00:08:56.920 which had a whole like
00:08:58.680 massage thing
00:08:59.840 in the chair.
00:09:00.340 So I did enjoy
00:09:01.120 the like back massage thing
00:09:02.560 to turn on the auto massager.
00:09:04.740 But I'm sitting there,
00:09:06.340 I was not getting
00:09:07.300 the mani-pedi,
00:09:08.000 so I had my shoes on,
00:09:09.440 needless to say.
00:09:10.000 I'm next to the girls,
00:09:10.900 but I kept thinking,
00:09:12.220 you know,
00:09:12.600 someone is going
00:09:13.980 to video me
00:09:15.000 in this mani-pedi thing
00:09:16.660 and it is going
00:09:18.380 to drive
00:09:19.160 lefty Twitter insane.
00:09:22.140 But while I'm sitting
00:09:23.540 there in the chair
00:09:24.300 with my daughter
00:09:25.180 while she's having a blast,
00:09:27.200 I'm reading this opinion
00:09:28.800 on my iPhone,
00:09:30.240 just sitting there
00:09:31.220 like for a half hour,
00:09:32.360 just reading the opinion
00:09:33.380 in the mani-pedi chair
00:09:34.540 while Catherine
00:09:35.920 got her toes done.
00:09:36.980 I was going to ask you
00:09:38.040 if you got a mani-pedi,
00:09:39.140 but then I thought,
00:09:40.060 you know what,
00:09:40.460 I would already know
00:09:41.420 if he did,
00:09:42.080 because if someone
00:09:43.120 was painting his fingernails,
00:09:44.580 there would have been
00:09:45.360 a photo of that
00:09:46.020 on Twitter already,
00:09:46.820 so the question was moot.
00:09:48.760 No, that is true.
00:09:50.380 Nope, I use clippers
00:09:52.200 and do it myself.
00:09:53.560 That's sufficient.
00:09:55.100 So, let's talk
00:09:56.040 about the opinion.
00:09:58.220 The opinion is
00:09:59.620 really impressive.
00:10:01.520 It goes,
00:10:02.060 so one of the things
00:10:02.720 to understand,
00:10:04.320 this law has not
00:10:05.320 gone into effect
00:10:06.100 in Texas yet.
00:10:07.540 So, there are two ways
00:10:09.400 generally to challenge
00:10:11.800 a law as unconstitutional.
00:10:13.620 One way
00:10:15.760 and the way
00:10:16.260 typically a law
00:10:17.280 is challenged
00:10:17.780 as unconstitutional
00:10:18.660 is what's known
00:10:19.340 as as applied,
00:10:20.560 which is
00:10:21.340 a law is in effect
00:10:23.280 and the government
00:10:24.460 comes and tries
00:10:25.340 to enforce it
00:10:26.060 against you
00:10:26.840 in some specific context
00:10:28.340 and you go file
00:10:29.520 a lawsuit and say,
00:10:30.780 enforcing this law
00:10:32.300 against me
00:10:33.100 as applied
00:10:34.120 under these facts
00:10:35.080 right here and now
00:10:36.020 is unconstitutional.
00:10:37.480 That's the way
00:10:38.100 the vast majority
00:10:39.220 of lawsuits
00:10:39.880 about constitutionality
00:10:41.000 are adjudicated.
00:10:43.620 And we talked
00:10:45.520 about that distinction
00:10:46.560 in our last episode.
00:10:48.860 But the other way
00:10:50.100 to challenge it
00:10:50.840 is what was happening
00:10:51.600 here and it's
00:10:53.160 what's called
00:10:53.780 a facial challenge.
00:10:55.760 And it's a challenge
00:10:57.500 that is often
00:10:59.480 and in this case
00:11:00.500 it was brought
00:11:02.360 before the law
00:11:03.120 even goes into effect.
00:11:04.580 And a facial challenge
00:11:05.980 is a much harder
00:11:07.140 thing to prevail on.
00:11:08.060 A facial challenge
00:11:08.900 is saying
00:11:09.500 there is no circumstance
00:11:11.540 in which this law
00:11:13.100 can be applied
00:11:13.840 unconstitutionally.
00:11:14.820 It is on its face
00:11:16.240 unconstitutional.
00:11:18.280 Doesn't matter
00:11:18.700 how it's applied.
00:11:19.960 This law cannot stand.
00:11:22.460 The most frequent area
00:11:24.720 where a facial challenge
00:11:26.500 is allowed
00:11:27.180 is in the First Amendment
00:11:28.360 context
00:11:28.920 and there's a doctrine
00:11:29.900 called First Amendment
00:11:31.080 overbreath
00:11:31.780 which is that
00:11:32.440 it will chill speech.
00:11:35.740 It will have such a
00:11:37.680 chilling and deterrent effect
00:11:39.400 that people will
00:11:41.040 refrain from speaking.
00:11:42.340 So this was
00:11:43.300 a facial challenge
00:11:45.400 an overbreath challenge
00:11:46.500 under the First Amendment.
00:11:49.280 And by the way
00:11:50.420 big tech had
00:11:51.200 lots of high-priced lawyers
00:11:53.020 who made lots of
00:11:54.380 vigorous arguments
00:11:55.260 about this.
00:11:56.760 What the Fifth Circuit
00:11:58.000 opinion that Judge Oldham
00:11:59.300 wrote does
00:12:00.660 is goes systematically
00:12:01.800 through and says
00:12:02.720 number one
00:12:03.460 look this doesn't
00:12:05.460 chill
00:12:06.040 this law going into effect
00:12:08.360 doesn't chill
00:12:09.040 any speech
00:12:09.840 and in fact
00:12:10.600 big tech
00:12:12.180 is not asking
00:12:12.940 for a right to speak
00:12:14.180 they're asking
00:12:14.740 for a right to censor.
00:12:15.960 Nobody is stopping
00:12:17.200 big tech
00:12:18.660 from saying
00:12:19.240 whatever it wants.
00:12:20.880 What this law
00:12:21.720 is saying
00:12:22.280 is that big tech
00:12:23.920 cannot silence
00:12:25.220 other speakers
00:12:26.140 and so it goes
00:12:27.000 through systematically
00:12:28.020 and says
00:12:28.600 well
00:12:28.880 is there a right
00:12:31.060 to censor
00:12:31.980 that is separate
00:12:32.720 from the right to speak?
00:12:34.020 And one of the arguments
00:12:35.020 big tech says
00:12:35.900 is they said
00:12:36.460 well
00:12:36.760 we're a publisher
00:12:38.340 and we're engaged
00:12:39.720 in editorial decisions
00:12:41.000 about what to allow
00:12:42.080 other speakers
00:12:42.980 to say
00:12:43.660 and not say
00:12:45.160 and there is
00:12:45.900 a whole line of cases
00:12:46.920 where for example
00:12:47.960 newspapers
00:12:48.760 can choose
00:12:50.580 what op-eds to run
00:12:51.680 and what op-eds
00:12:52.340 not to run
00:12:53.000 but what the opinion
00:12:54.400 does is go
00:12:55.140 through systematically
00:12:56.300 and distinguishes
00:12:57.120 and says
00:12:57.520 well that's not
00:12:58.260 what big tech
00:12:58.840 is doing
00:12:59.280 they're not
00:12:59.800 holding themselves
00:13:00.460 out as a publisher
00:13:01.440 and saying
00:13:01.980 we're choosing
00:13:02.720 we're only running
00:13:03.900 the speech
00:13:04.380 we say
00:13:04.880 and in fact
00:13:05.520 big tech
00:13:06.720 routinely represents
00:13:07.860 to congress
00:13:08.400 to its consumers
00:13:10.000 to everybody else
00:13:11.000 that they're an open
00:13:12.240 marketplace of ideas
00:13:13.520 and they're not
00:13:14.180 responsible for the content
00:13:15.500 of what they say
00:13:16.440 and in fact
00:13:17.180 congress
00:13:18.400 in section 230
00:13:19.400 of the communications
00:13:20.060 decency act
00:13:20.920 explicitly said
00:13:21.780 big tech
00:13:22.220 is not a publisher
00:13:23.140 and they're not
00:13:23.600 responsible for the content
00:13:24.760 of what people say
00:13:25.940 which
00:13:26.260 um
00:13:27.540 the fifth circuit
00:13:29.200 reasonably interpreted
00:13:30.480 say well
00:13:31.040 they can't claim
00:13:31.720 to be a publisher
00:13:32.320 and claim not to be
00:13:33.220 simultaneously pick
00:13:34.240 one or the other
00:13:34.840 you don't you don't
00:13:35.440 get to have your cake
00:13:36.200 and eat it too
00:13:36.840 there's something else
00:13:39.180 the texas legislature
00:13:40.020 did which is
00:13:40.800 it regulated them
00:13:42.200 as as what's called
00:13:44.900 a common carrier
00:13:46.380 now what is a common
00:13:48.160 carrier
00:13:48.540 and the opinion
00:13:49.000 does a very good job
00:13:49.900 of going through
00:13:50.300 the history of this
00:13:51.100 common carriers
00:13:51.800 initially they came up
00:13:53.000 with in the
00:13:53.440 transportation context
00:13:54.620 um
00:13:55.900 people who ran
00:13:57.000 say a ferry boat
00:13:57.960 uh
00:13:59.260 across a
00:14:00.740 let's say
00:14:01.620 a river
00:14:02.160 or a lake
00:14:02.840 um
00:14:04.180 and early
00:14:05.120 early on
00:14:05.840 there was legislation
00:14:06.800 common carrier
00:14:07.500 legislation
00:14:08.160 that was
00:14:08.660 understood as being
00:14:10.240 permissible
00:14:10.820 that said
00:14:11.340 if you're running
00:14:11.920 a ferry boat
00:14:12.700 you can't just
00:14:14.140 arbitrarily decide
00:14:15.580 Liz I don't like you
00:14:17.400 so you can't cross
00:14:18.340 the river
00:14:18.740 that if you hold
00:14:20.140 yourself out to
00:14:20.920 the public
00:14:21.420 as a
00:14:22.520 common carrier
00:14:23.940 meaning I carry
00:14:24.960 the public
00:14:25.660 then you can't
00:14:27.120 discriminate against
00:14:28.420 and say I'll only
00:14:29.300 carry you
00:14:30.000 but not you
00:14:30.720 um
00:14:32.020 that doctrine
00:14:33.060 has been around
00:14:33.900 for hundreds
00:14:34.820 of years
00:14:35.460 it's also been
00:14:36.540 applied very
00:14:37.200 specifically
00:14:37.820 in terms of
00:14:39.700 communication
00:14:40.320 and again the
00:14:41.180 opinion goes
00:14:41.740 through the history
00:14:42.320 of it
00:14:42.560 it was first
00:14:43.040 applied
00:14:43.540 with the telegram
00:14:44.920 where you had
00:14:45.400 telegram lines
00:14:46.240 and it used to be
00:14:46.900 the telegrams
00:14:47.940 did discriminate
00:14:49.220 against speech
00:14:50.160 and so for example
00:14:51.060 the telegraph
00:14:51.720 companies
00:14:52.180 uh
00:14:53.080 were owned
00:14:53.940 by bipartisans
00:14:55.380 and so they
00:14:56.020 would suppress
00:14:56.880 for example
00:14:57.560 election information
00:14:58.760 that was contrary
00:15:00.640 to their partisan
00:15:01.280 leanings
00:15:01.700 they wouldn't
00:15:02.200 transmit a telegram
00:15:03.400 that said
00:15:04.460 hey uh
00:15:05.380 hypothetically
00:15:05.980 the democrat
00:15:06.480 won here
00:15:07.120 or the democrats
00:15:07.760 winning here
00:15:08.240 or the republicans
00:15:08.940 won here
00:15:09.600 is winning there
00:15:10.240 they would suppress
00:15:11.240 that speech
00:15:11.800 because they
00:15:12.120 disagreed with
00:15:12.660 the politics of
00:15:13.420 it and congress
00:15:13.880 came in and
00:15:14.380 regulated it
00:15:15.060 and said look
00:15:16.060 if someone
00:15:16.460 sends a telegram
00:15:17.200 you gotta send
00:15:17.720 the damn thing
00:15:18.360 whether you agree
00:15:19.200 with it or not
00:15:19.940 you're a common
00:15:20.660 carrier
00:15:21.100 carry the message
00:15:22.140 all of this
00:15:23.740 the fifth circuit
00:15:25.180 walked painstakingly
00:15:26.580 through and said
00:15:27.400 listen
00:15:27.800 big tech today
00:15:29.880 they are monopolists
00:15:30.900 they are much
00:15:31.480 they are common
00:15:32.140 carriers
00:15:32.600 that's how the state
00:15:33.360 regulated them
00:15:34.320 and and you can
00:15:35.860 provide
00:15:36.560 an equal access
00:15:38.480 rule
00:15:39.580 this opinion
00:15:41.340 it will be challenged
00:15:43.480 it could easily
00:15:44.120 go to the supreme court
00:15:45.320 but i gotta say
00:15:46.100 reading this opinion
00:15:47.280 i i would encourage
00:15:49.580 you know
00:15:49.940 we did this before
00:15:50.980 on dobbs
00:15:51.580 dobbs was another
00:15:52.400 very very serious
00:15:53.740 opinion
00:15:54.300 by justice alito
00:15:55.720 i would encourage
00:15:56.420 people to read
00:15:56.980 this opinion
00:15:57.420 it is fascinating
00:15:58.500 and exceptionally
00:15:59.620 well done
00:16:00.180 some of the
00:16:01.960 industries that
00:16:03.000 have been regulated
00:16:03.740 as common carriers
00:16:04.760 that's happened
00:16:05.660 via congress
00:16:06.600 meaning our
00:16:07.120 federal congress
00:16:07.940 this happened
00:16:09.360 via the state
00:16:10.460 of texas
00:16:11.300 will that become
00:16:12.380 an issue in any
00:16:13.180 way that it was
00:16:13.700 done by the state
00:16:14.320 and not the
00:16:14.700 federal congress
00:16:15.440 so i don't
00:16:17.560 think so
00:16:18.420 um
00:16:19.320 it is true
00:16:20.860 that that the
00:16:21.720 common carrier
00:16:22.340 legislation
00:16:23.100 by and large
00:16:24.020 a lot of it
00:16:24.560 certainly
00:16:24.920 dealing with
00:16:25.720 for example
00:16:26.200 telecom
00:16:26.920 or railroads
00:16:27.680 is at the
00:16:28.080 federal level
00:16:28.680 um
00:16:29.980 but the question
00:16:31.560 is whether
00:16:32.280 it's permissible
00:16:33.180 under the first
00:16:34.060 amendment
00:16:34.460 and the first
00:16:35.080 amendment
00:16:35.380 analysis
00:16:35.940 is not
00:16:36.480 different
00:16:37.040 whether it's
00:16:38.300 congress
00:16:38.680 regulating
00:16:39.300 or the state
00:16:39.860 regulating
00:16:40.480 so
00:16:40.840 we've talked
00:16:41.880 before on cloak
00:16:42.860 room
00:16:43.120 about how
00:16:43.680 the supreme
00:16:44.200 court
00:16:44.620 has incorporated
00:16:46.100 the first
00:16:47.140 amendment
00:16:47.460 against the
00:16:47.980 state
00:16:48.260 so the first
00:16:48.860 amendment
00:16:49.120 by its
00:16:49.500 own
00:16:49.660 explicit
00:16:50.040 text
00:16:50.480 only applies
00:16:51.500 to congress
00:16:51.980 congress
00:16:52.420 shall make
00:16:52.820 no law
00:16:53.280 is how
00:16:53.540 it begins
00:16:54.120 but the
00:16:55.500 supreme
00:16:55.820 court
00:16:56.180 has interpreted
00:16:57.020 the free
00:16:57.480 speech
00:16:57.760 protections
00:16:58.480 exactly the
00:17:00.100 same
00:17:00.440 against state
00:17:00.980 and local
00:17:01.340 governments
00:17:01.780 so if
00:17:02.360 it is
00:17:03.220 unconstitutional
00:17:04.620 under the first
00:17:05.280 amendment
00:17:05.620 for congress
00:17:06.300 to pass a law
00:17:07.220 restricting speech
00:17:08.680 it's equally
00:17:09.280 unconstitutional
00:17:10.020 for the state
00:17:10.600 to do that
00:17:11.180 um
00:17:12.060 in this
00:17:12.900 instance
00:17:13.580 if it would
00:17:16.420 be constitutional
00:17:17.600 for congress
00:17:18.820 to regulate
00:17:19.660 big tech
00:17:20.220 as a common
00:17:20.720 carrier
00:17:21.160 and put
00:17:21.500 the same
00:17:21.940 obligations
00:17:22.500 of non-discrimination
00:17:23.440 that they put
00:17:24.740 on telephone
00:17:25.840 companies
00:17:26.380 or telegraph
00:17:27.000 companies
00:17:27.480 then it's
00:17:28.820 equally
00:17:29.140 constitutional
00:17:29.700 for the
00:17:30.080 states
00:17:30.340 to do it
00:17:30.740 that the
00:17:31.000 first amendment
00:17:31.520 doesn't apply
00:17:32.160 differently
00:17:32.740 um
00:17:33.880 and so
00:17:34.280 the principle
00:17:34.980 is the same
00:17:35.900 uh
00:17:36.880 and so
00:17:37.180 I don't
00:17:37.640 think
00:17:37.880 that look
00:17:38.340 could big
00:17:40.320 tech try
00:17:40.920 to come up
00:17:41.400 with some
00:17:41.740 argument on
00:17:42.360 that
00:17:42.640 I suppose
00:17:43.480 but I
00:17:44.020 I can't
00:17:44.540 think of
00:17:44.820 a good
00:17:45.040 one sitting
00:17:45.480 here
00:17:45.740 what
00:17:46.760 what is
00:17:47.300 big tech's
00:17:48.160 appeal
00:17:48.680 going to be
00:17:49.260 based on
00:17:49.760 what's their
00:17:50.060 argument
00:17:50.360 against this
00:17:50.920 ruling
00:17:51.260 um
00:17:53.500 that it
00:17:55.000 violates
00:17:55.520 the first
00:17:55.980 amendment
00:17:56.440 that they
00:17:57.180 are publishers
00:17:57.780 and they
00:17:58.520 are choosing
00:17:59.260 what speech
00:18:00.360 to transmit
00:18:01.000 and what
00:18:01.500 speech not
00:18:02.160 and so
00:18:02.500 for example
00:18:03.260 um
00:18:04.460 there was
00:18:05.440 a case
00:18:06.020 that the
00:18:06.360 supreme court
00:18:06.880 considered a
00:18:07.560 law out of
00:18:08.280 florida
00:18:08.720 that said
00:18:09.260 if a
00:18:09.580 newspaper
00:18:10.180 wrote
00:18:11.460 uh
00:18:11.860 published
00:18:12.340 uh
00:18:12.740 an
00:18:13.160 editorial
00:18:13.640 that was
00:18:14.120 critical
00:18:14.640 uh
00:18:15.840 of
00:18:16.320 of a
00:18:16.900 political
00:18:17.320 candidate
00:18:17.860 that that
00:18:18.340 candidate
00:18:18.660 had a
00:18:19.000 right to
00:18:19.360 respond
00:18:19.860 in equal
00:18:20.340 space
00:18:20.900 and the
00:18:22.740 supreme court
00:18:23.220 said you
00:18:23.560 can't do
00:18:23.940 that that's
00:18:24.540 unconstitutional
00:18:25.320 the supreme
00:18:25.880 that the
00:18:26.280 paper is
00:18:26.880 exercising
00:18:27.520 its first
00:18:28.140 amendment
00:18:28.460 rights
00:18:28.900 deciding
00:18:29.880 what
00:18:30.540 editorials
00:18:31.840 to publish
00:18:32.520 and it
00:18:33.700 also talked
00:18:34.520 about in
00:18:35.040 the world
00:18:35.440 of of
00:18:35.960 overbreath
00:18:36.500 that there
00:18:36.840 was a
00:18:37.140 chilling
00:18:37.380 effect on
00:18:38.040 that
00:18:38.240 that what
00:18:39.640 it could
00:18:40.000 do is
00:18:40.680 discourage
00:18:41.260 papers from
00:18:41.800 talking about
00:18:42.300 politics
00:18:42.760 all together
00:18:43.380 because look
00:18:44.420 space in a
00:18:46.200 newspaper
00:18:46.740 costs money
00:18:47.660 and there's
00:18:48.840 a there's a
00:18:49.500 finite amount
00:18:50.220 of space
00:18:50.840 and so
00:18:51.480 if a newspaper
00:18:52.620 knows if we
00:18:53.520 write about
00:18:53.960 politics we
00:18:54.660 got to give
00:18:55.020 equal space
00:18:55.820 to the other
00:18:56.240 side that's
00:18:56.920 giving away
00:18:57.400 free newspaper
00:18:58.360 that costs
00:18:59.000 us revenue
00:18:59.580 and a rational
00:19:01.220 thing for a
00:19:01.900 newspaper to do
00:19:02.640 is let's just
00:19:03.060 not talk about
00:19:03.720 it all together
00:19:04.380 and the supreme
00:19:04.840 court said well
00:19:05.420 that's
00:19:06.360 chilling speech
00:19:07.460 that's
00:19:07.820 discouraging
00:19:08.440 speech
00:19:08.980 one of the
00:19:10.220 things the
00:19:10.660 fifth circuits
00:19:11.160 decision says
00:19:12.020 here is
00:19:12.680 is look
00:19:13.260 big tech
00:19:15.180 is very
00:19:15.680 different from
00:19:16.280 a newspaper
00:19:16.880 there's not
00:19:17.780 a finite
00:19:18.360 number of
00:19:19.080 tweets
00:19:19.500 it's not
00:19:21.240 like allowing
00:19:22.860 someone to
00:19:23.620 tweet something
00:19:24.180 they disagree
00:19:24.820 takes away
00:19:25.800 with some
00:19:26.340 other tweet
00:19:26.840 they want
00:19:27.440 that that
00:19:28.480 it is
00:19:28.800 essentially
00:19:30.040 infinite
00:19:31.600 and big
00:19:33.720 tech is not
00:19:34.560 purporting
00:19:35.260 they don't
00:19:35.880 claim
00:19:36.740 to be
00:19:38.200 endorsing
00:19:38.920 what's said
00:19:39.380 on their
00:19:39.640 platform
00:19:40.120 they don't
00:19:40.520 claim to
00:19:41.260 be
00:19:41.640 doing what
00:19:43.000 an editorial
00:19:43.540 page does
00:19:44.700 they claim
00:19:45.720 to be
00:19:46.240 the public
00:19:46.780 square
00:19:47.120 the whole
00:19:47.520 predicate
00:19:47.960 of section
00:19:48.440 230 is
00:19:49.320 it's not
00:19:50.040 our fault
00:19:50.480 it's not
00:19:50.840 us speaking
00:19:51.620 it's somebody
00:19:52.080 else speaking
00:19:52.740 and I thought
00:19:53.360 that was
00:19:54.460 one of the
00:19:54.980 more
00:19:55.480 insightful
00:19:57.240 and clever
00:19:58.040 aspects
00:19:58.540 of the
00:19:58.960 opinion
00:19:59.400 was taking
00:20:01.880 the premises
00:20:02.760 behind section
00:20:03.940 230
00:20:04.520 and
00:20:06.460 essentially
00:20:08.220 flipping them
00:20:09.280 against big
00:20:10.140 tech and
00:20:10.700 saying
00:20:11.140 look you guys
00:20:12.560 have argued
00:20:12.980 very persuasively
00:20:13.900 you're not
00:20:14.300 publishers
00:20:14.720 okay you're
00:20:15.260 not publishers
00:20:15.920 well then don't
00:20:16.500 pretend to be
00:20:17.020 publishers
00:20:17.440 you are a
00:20:19.360 common carrier
00:20:20.040 you're just
00:20:20.720 a vehicle
00:20:21.360 AT&T is not
00:20:23.020 a publisher
00:20:23.580 if I call
00:20:24.500 and tell you
00:20:25.120 something
00:20:25.600 AT&T is not
00:20:26.880 responsible for
00:20:27.640 what I said
00:20:28.160 to you
00:20:28.440 the same thing
00:20:29.060 if I tweet
00:20:29.620 something at
00:20:30.340 you
00:20:30.520 a common
00:20:31.580 carrier
00:20:32.000 likewise
00:20:32.560 it's not
00:20:33.280 their fault
00:20:33.780 and one
00:20:34.380 of the
00:20:34.520 things they
00:20:34.780 can point
00:20:35.140 out
00:20:35.320 they said
00:20:35.660 you know
00:20:35.900 what
00:20:36.180 if big
00:20:38.480 tech
00:20:38.720 disagrees
00:20:39.440 they can
00:20:41.000 say so
00:20:41.460 so
00:20:42.860 if I
00:20:44.740 tweet
00:20:45.200 something
00:20:45.720 that they
00:20:46.500 don't
00:20:46.760 like
00:20:47.140 if I
00:20:48.460 tweet
00:20:49.020 there is a
00:20:50.500 difference
00:20:51.000 between
00:20:51.720 boys
00:20:52.340 and girls
00:20:53.260 big tech
00:20:55.480 disagrees
00:20:55.940 with that
00:20:56.420 the circuit
00:20:57.780 said you
00:20:58.120 know what
00:20:58.420 nothing's
00:20:58.880 stopping
00:20:59.140 twitter
00:20:59.560 from
00:20:59.840 attaching
00:21:00.360 appending
00:21:01.020 to my
00:21:01.500 tweet
00:21:01.880 this is
00:21:03.660 a horrible
00:21:04.180 hateful
00:21:04.880 transphobic
00:21:06.080 statement
00:21:06.900 that we
00:21:07.400 cannot stand
00:21:08.100 and we
00:21:08.380 disagree
00:21:08.840 and we
00:21:09.340 think
00:21:09.600 boys and
00:21:10.220 girls are
00:21:10.580 exactly the
00:21:11.180 same and
00:21:11.560 no one
00:21:11.800 could possibly
00:21:12.260 think to
00:21:12.560 the contrary
00:21:12.980 they can
00:21:13.500 say that
00:21:13.860 nobody's
00:21:14.600 stopping
00:21:14.920 them from
00:21:15.460 speaking
00:21:15.840 and by
00:21:18.600 the way
00:21:19.040 they do
00:21:20.240 that
00:21:20.580 they're
00:21:20.840 now like
00:21:21.940 flagging
00:21:23.140 things they
00:21:23.640 disagree with
00:21:24.360 usually anything
00:21:25.000 right of center
00:21:25.700 as you know
00:21:26.560 you know
00:21:26.960 this is
00:21:28.120 dubious
00:21:28.660 this is
00:21:29.100 false
00:21:29.320 so they're
00:21:29.600 doing it
00:21:30.020 right now
00:21:30.940 fifth circuit
00:21:32.660 says well
00:21:33.000 gosh if you
00:21:33.540 want to
00:21:33.800 speak you
00:21:34.220 can but
00:21:35.580 you're not
00:21:36.020 claiming a
00:21:36.600 right to
00:21:36.940 speak you're
00:21:37.540 claiming a
00:21:38.000 right to
00:21:38.380 censor you're
00:21:39.080 claiming a
00:21:39.620 right to
00:21:40.060 silence another
00:21:41.140 voice that
00:21:41.820 you don't
00:21:42.220 like that's
00:21:42.880 altogether
00:21:43.320 different
00:21:43.920 that's a
00:21:45.300 really important
00:21:45.860 distinction I
00:21:46.500 think big
00:21:47.600 tech is
00:21:48.180 definitely
00:21:48.680 trying to
00:21:49.300 have their
00:21:49.600 cake and
00:21:49.980 eat it
00:21:50.240 too so
00:21:50.760 they argue
00:21:51.640 we are not
00:21:54.260 a publisher
00:21:54.820 for purposes
00:21:55.640 of liability
00:21:57.000 law for
00:21:57.780 purposes of
00:21:58.340 defamation for
00:21:59.200 purposes of
00:21:59.780 section 230
00:22:00.540 but we are
00:22:01.900 a publisher
00:22:02.400 for purposes
00:22:03.040 of the
00:22:03.360 first amendment
00:22:03.920 so they're
00:22:05.200 arguing it's
00:22:05.780 different sources
00:22:06.780 of law
00:22:07.920 it's still
00:22:09.680 pretty damn
00:22:10.220 inconsistent and
00:22:11.000 I think this
00:22:11.540 opinion quite
00:22:13.480 rightly points
00:22:14.380 out the
00:22:14.900 incoherence
00:22:16.060 of you either
00:22:17.320 are or you
00:22:17.800 aren't and
00:22:18.660 I think it
00:22:20.500 does so very
00:22:20.980 effectively
00:22:21.380 the question
00:22:22.500 then is is
00:22:23.220 this going to
00:22:23.780 reach the
00:22:24.180 supreme court
00:22:24.760 and how is
00:22:25.700 this court
00:22:26.080 going to
00:22:26.420 rule on
00:22:26.800 it if
00:22:27.060 so
00:22:27.380 I think
00:22:29.540 it's quite
00:22:29.880 likely to
00:22:30.360 reach the
00:22:30.720 supreme court
00:22:31.320 this is a
00:22:32.280 major
00:22:33.300 major
00:22:36.020 constitutional
00:22:36.600 issue
00:22:37.080 there's an
00:22:37.580 enormous amount
00:22:38.120 of money
00:22:38.400 behind these
00:22:38.900 lawsuits
00:22:39.420 it is a
00:22:40.720 law that
00:22:41.340 affects
00:22:41.880 directly
00:22:43.680 30 million
00:22:45.120 Americans
00:22:46.400 30 million
00:22:47.200 residents of
00:22:47.760 Texas
00:22:48.140 you know
00:22:49.720 just under
00:22:50.560 10% of
00:22:51.260 the US
00:22:51.580 population
00:22:52.260 it is a
00:22:53.580 law that
00:22:53.920 will have
00:22:54.260 dramatic
00:22:55.080 impact on
00:22:55.960 big tech
00:22:56.480 nationally
00:22:57.240 if they're
00:22:58.420 not allowed
00:22:58.800 to discriminate
00:22:59.280 in Texas
00:22:59.900 it could
00:23:02.000 well force
00:23:02.560 them to
00:23:02.880 change how
00:23:03.340 they behave
00:23:03.860 to people
00:23:04.340 all over
00:23:04.740 the country
00:23:05.220 so I
00:23:08.360 think it's
00:23:08.700 quite likely
00:23:09.200 the court
00:23:09.580 takes this
00:23:10.020 case
00:23:10.320 it's not
00:23:12.080 a certainty
00:23:13.640 but but if
00:23:14.540 I were a
00:23:14.960 betting man
00:23:15.480 and I'm a
00:23:15.840 betting man
00:23:16.340 I would
00:23:17.300 bet yes
00:23:18.000 that they
00:23:18.420 would take
00:23:18.700 the case
00:23:19.100 and I'm
00:23:20.960 you know
00:23:23.120 the court
00:23:26.160 had stepped
00:23:26.800 in before
00:23:27.500 and disagreed
00:23:29.200 with the
00:23:29.500 fifth circuit
00:23:30.100 on staying
00:23:32.100 the application
00:23:33.020 of the district
00:23:33.620 court's
00:23:34.120 injunction
00:23:34.640 that was at
00:23:36.080 a preliminary
00:23:36.620 stage and
00:23:37.880 we've talked
00:23:38.380 before about
00:23:39.260 how a
00:23:40.540 number of
00:23:40.980 the justices
00:23:41.580 in the
00:23:41.920 court are
00:23:42.420 minimalists
00:23:43.140 and incremental
00:23:43.660 lists
00:23:44.220 that prior
00:23:46.300 decision
00:23:46.940 I don't
00:23:48.020 think it
00:23:48.480 at all
00:23:48.820 foreshadows
00:23:49.580 where this
00:23:50.280 decision on
00:23:50.940 the merits
00:23:51.360 goes
00:23:51.800 this is
00:23:52.940 now a
00:23:53.600 major
00:23:54.280 serious
00:23:55.040 decision
00:23:55.580 on the
00:23:55.940 merits
00:23:56.280 of the
00:23:56.560 overbreath
00:23:56.980 challenge
00:23:57.640 I like
00:24:02.280 the chances
00:24:02.920 of five
00:24:05.300 or even
00:24:05.720 six justices
00:24:06.560 of the
00:24:06.860 court
00:24:07.200 agreeing
00:24:08.860 with the
00:24:11.340 fifth circuit
00:24:11.740 on this
00:24:12.120 case
00:24:12.420 oh
00:24:13.420 I can't
00:24:14.780 wait
00:24:14.920 I can't
00:24:15.520 wait to
00:24:15.860 see how
00:24:16.300 this unfolds
00:24:16.920 I hope
00:24:17.260 that is
00:24:17.820 correct
00:24:18.120 five or
00:24:18.600 six
00:24:18.780 justices
00:24:19.300 that's
00:24:19.640 a
00:24:19.780 pretty
00:24:20.600 hefty
00:24:21.920 majority
00:24:22.280 right there
00:24:22.780 okay
00:24:23.420 I do
00:24:23.960 want to
00:24:24.180 go over
00:24:24.460 to
00:24:24.620 mailbag
00:24:25.080 for a
00:24:25.500 second
00:24:25.700 and I
00:24:25.960 want to
00:24:26.140 ask
00:24:26.320 this is
00:24:26.740 a
00:24:27.200 very
00:24:27.540 culturally
00:24:28.140 hot
00:24:28.580 topic
00:24:29.120 Chrissy
00:24:29.900 Teigen
00:24:30.300 who is
00:24:31.080 a mega
00:24:31.860 celebrity
00:24:32.260 the wife
00:24:32.700 of John
00:24:33.080 Legend
00:24:33.380 I'm sure
00:24:33.740 you're
00:24:33.900 familiar
00:24:34.140 with her
00:24:34.540 she tragically
00:24:35.480 lost her
00:24:36.000 son
00:24:36.440 halfway
00:24:37.100 through
00:24:37.300 her
00:24:37.460 pregnancy
00:24:37.820 two
00:24:38.100 years
00:24:38.360 ago
00:24:38.540 she had
00:24:38.800 a placental
00:24:39.260 abruption
00:24:39.740 essentially
00:24:40.540 she was
00:24:41.000 bleeding
00:24:41.280 out
00:24:41.620 they had
00:24:42.040 to induce
00:24:42.720 her labor
00:24:43.200 he wasn't
00:24:44.020 yet
00:24:44.200 viable
00:24:44.660 she
00:24:45.260 miscarried
00:24:45.780 she publicly
00:24:46.280 posted the
00:24:46.780 pictures
00:24:47.080 they were
00:24:47.520 heartbreaking
00:24:48.340 pictures
00:24:48.900 fast forward
00:24:50.140 two years
00:24:50.800 to right now
00:24:51.620 Chrissy Teigen
00:24:52.620 announces
00:24:53.780 that she
00:24:54.640 recently
00:24:55.500 realized
00:24:56.380 that her
00:24:56.980 miscarriage
00:24:57.720 of two years
00:24:58.500 ago
00:24:58.760 was actually
00:24:59.920 an abortion
00:25:01.040 she said
00:25:01.560 she realized
00:25:02.120 this in the
00:25:02.680 wake of
00:25:03.340 Dobbs vs.
00:25:04.200 Jackson
00:25:04.460 Women's Health
00:25:05.120 which overturned
00:25:06.240 Roe v.
00:25:06.740 Wade
00:25:06.920 do you have
00:25:07.860 a response
00:25:08.440 to Chrissy Teigen
00:25:09.140 if there's a
00:25:11.100 medical procedure
00:25:11.940 in that context
00:25:13.020 it's not an
00:25:13.840 abortion
00:25:14.220 and it is
00:25:15.860 the law
00:25:16.360 in all 50
00:25:16.980 states
00:25:17.340 and it should
00:25:17.800 be the law
00:25:18.300 in all 50
00:25:18.860 states
00:25:19.300 that doctors
00:25:20.860 can intervene
00:25:21.740 to save
00:25:22.240 the life
00:25:22.620 of the mother
00:25:23.040 even if it
00:25:23.880 means tragically
00:25:25.140 losing the
00:25:25.900 child
00:25:26.280 that there
00:25:27.220 is nobody
00:25:28.900 even the
00:25:29.880 most robust
00:25:31.600 pro-life
00:25:32.200 advocates
00:25:32.800 nobody argues
00:25:33.880 that when
00:25:34.920 the woman's
00:25:35.580 life is in
00:25:36.200 danger
00:25:36.560 that you
00:25:37.120 can't
00:25:38.120 take
00:25:38.800 extraordinary
00:25:39.400 medical steps
00:25:40.160 to preserve
00:25:40.700 the mother's
00:25:41.480 life
00:25:41.740 and so
00:25:42.560 in those
00:25:43.340 circumstances
00:25:44.180 she may
00:25:47.980 want to
00:25:48.500 characterize
00:25:49.120 it as
00:25:50.240 abortion
00:25:51.340 in this
00:25:52.700 political
00:25:53.160 context
00:25:53.960 but she
00:25:55.920 described it
00:25:56.600 at the time
00:25:57.180 as a
00:25:57.560 miscarriage
00:25:59.140 and it
00:26:00.580 certainly sounds
00:26:01.240 like that was
00:26:01.720 an accurate
00:26:02.160 description
00:26:02.720 seems to me
00:26:04.060 she described
00:26:04.680 it in quite
00:26:05.160 some detail
00:26:05.760 very tragic
00:26:06.760 every parent's
00:26:07.560 worst nightmare
00:26:08.240 but to
00:26:10.400 now characterize
00:26:11.080 it as an
00:26:11.460 abortion for
00:26:12.060 politics
00:26:12.620 also seems
00:26:14.060 to add to
00:26:14.640 that tragedy
00:26:15.320 senator thank
00:26:16.320 you for this
00:26:16.760 legal analysis
00:26:17.600 on the
00:26:18.740 fifth circuit
00:26:19.400 court ruling
00:26:20.100 on texas's
00:26:21.180 hr or
00:26:22.680 house bill
00:26:23.180 20 this is
00:26:24.320 the kind
00:26:24.740 of legal
00:26:25.520 stuff that
00:26:26.440 i like the
00:26:27.600 best when we
00:26:28.180 do on the
00:26:28.720 cloakroom it's
00:26:29.420 what it's
00:26:30.280 diving into
00:26:30.740 these issues
00:26:31.140 not just on
00:26:31.640 a tweet
00:26:31.980 form not
00:26:32.480 just in an
00:26:32.880 op-ed but
00:26:33.340 really getting
00:26:33.920 into the
00:26:34.520 background of
00:26:35.600 what underpins
00:26:36.420 this big fight
00:26:37.620 big tech is
00:26:38.280 one of the
00:26:38.660 big fights of
00:26:39.220 our time and
00:26:39.820 it's gonna be
00:26:40.140 really fun to
00:26:40.640 see how this
00:26:40.960 plays out so
00:26:41.740 it was good
00:26:42.700 it was good
00:26:43.460 sitting here with
00:26:43.940 you tonight
00:26:44.300 i'm liz wheeler
00:26:45.260 this is the
00:26:46.020 cloakroom on
00:26:46.580 verdict plus
00:26:47.180 this is an
00:26:48.440 iheart podcast
00:26:49.380 guaranteed human