In this episode of Sekulow, the team delves into the significant development that the Supreme Court has now ordered CNN to respond to ACLJ’s case concerning the defamation standards set by the New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling. With changes in media and technology, the definition of a public figure has evolved, leading to complex legal challenges. Join Logan Sekulow and his guests as they unpack the implications of the case, its impact on media accountability, and the broader resonance in today’s digital world. Listeners also explore a robust discussion about the upcoming Nehemiah Alliance prayer initiative, aiming to
SPEAKER 04 :
We got breaking news. Supreme Court orders CNN to respond to the ACLJ.
SPEAKER 05 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome to Sekulow. Packed show today. Jordan’s in studio. Will’s in studio. We’ve got CeCe Heil joining us a little bit later. My dad’s going to be calling us. It’s going to be really jam-packed. But if you want to be on the air, you can at 1-800-684-3110. We’ve got breaking ACLJ news. Maybe we’ll have Jordan actually break. Tell us what’s happening here. This is, of course, in our connection with CNN and our Supreme Court case.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. So we have got a case at the U.S. Supreme Court right now I’ve asked the Supreme Court to take. This case is about New York Times versus Sullivan, which is defamation of public figures. And, you know, the definition of public figures has certainly changed with social media. Basically, everybody can be a reporter. Everybody’s putting videos up. So the definition of it versus the time when that case came out, very different. But the idea is that if you are considered a public figure, The news doesn’t just have to make a misstatement or lie or get the facts wrong about you to file a lawsuit for defamation. You have to actually prove as the person who was injured. that you have to prove that it was actual malice by the media organization, which is a very high standard. So it’s like they knew it was wrong, and they were doing it because they wanted to hurt you. So that standard, of course, you have to get into the minds of people, and the burden is on the person who they lied about. The burden is not on the CNN. Right. to show that it wasn’t actual malice. Somehow you, the public figure, have to show that there was actual malice, which means getting inside a newsroom, getting inside the heads and intent. And so as the world has changed and as the media has changed so rapidly with podcasts and all these issues, I mean, almost everybody could fall under the line of so many new people, not everybody, but so many people could fall under this public figure. Yeah. And then if someone says horrendous things about you, you have no legal recourse if you can’t prove actual malice. So this case challenges that standard. And this is what happened when we filed. CNN waived their right to reply to our application. So for the court, the cert petition for the court to take the case. That was because they were hoping the court would just take ours and then say, okay, they take it to conference just with ours, and that means likely not hear the case. Right, throw it out. The Supreme Court yesterday gave CNN a deadline to reply. So even though they waived their reply, they are now being asked by the Supreme Court to reply to our brief, which means it’s not optional. 100% the Supreme Court will take the case. But this is exactly what CNN did not want to happen. So their strategy was, we’re not even going to respond. We’ll let the court just handle this. And the court has now handled it by saying, we want your response within a month. Yeah, this is a good moment.
SPEAKER 06 :
Exactly. And when you looked at the decisions by the lower courts that got it up to this level, many of them ruled in favor with CNN because of the New York Times v. Sullivan reasoning, even with judges at the appeals court level saying, under all standards, this is defamation. However, because of New York Times v. Sullivan reasoning, We cannot find that there was defamation here. So even that, the lower courts push it up to that Supreme Court question of, is the New York Times v. Sullivan standard even still relevant in its form as it is? And that’s exactly why we’re going to the Supreme Court with it.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. Next segment, my dad, Jay Sekulow, is going to be joining us. I think he’s going to break down a little bit more of this. Because you cannot imagine how many times… I’ve been reached out to by one of those quote unquote public figures who feel like their name is being drug through the mud for things that they never did over and over again. And sadly, we’ve had to tell them there’s really not much we can do because this is how the standard has been. This is the standard in America. Well, we want to be a part of changing that. And you can too. Protect yourself. Protect your friends and family. Go to ACLJ.org right now. We’ve got a petition about it right now. ACLJ.org slash sign. Be a part of it. Together we can hold the mainstream media accountable for the lies, smears, and attacks. For anyone. Not just the left. Not just the right. Not just conservatives and Christians, atheists, whoever. At this point, we know the rules need to be changed. And they should be. Go to ACLJ.org. Take action today. Get your name on that petition. We’ll be right back with Jay Sekulow. Welcome back to Seculo. Our dad, Jay Seculo, is joining us right now. Of course, this has been a big update. If you’re just joining us on the broadcast, thank you for watching. Of course, Supreme Court now is ordering CNN to respond and respond to essentially our suit saying, you know, at this point. What considered a public figure when you have been told lies continually over and over again, proven lies that there needs to be some better standard of accountability. And dad, this is a big moment because CNN has been told you can’t just ignore this. You have to respond.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah. So it’s interesting. CNN strategy was when we filed the search petition, you don’t have to respond to a petition filed at the Supreme court. It’s not required. So they took the strategy of we filed our petition. That is a formal request, probably 80 pages of briefing, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. Then the other side can file a response or they can waive a response. Here they weighed their response thinking that that was going to maybe be the end of the case. Well, we just got word late yesterday, and this is a huge development on a very strategic and important case. We got word yesterday that the Supreme court of the United States has ordered CNN to file a response in writing. by the end of middle of March, end of March. So they’ve got to file in about four to six weeks. The importance of this is then we will have the opportunity to respond again to CNN for the lies that they told about Professor Dershowitz. Let me tell our ACLJ members and our ACLJ champions and those listening to the broadcast, remember what this case is about. Alan Dershowitz is a Democrat. was one of our defense attorneys at an impeachment trial, the first one, of Donald Trump. He was one of my co-counsels. We brought him into the case. He handled specific constitutional issues, very specific, saying that there was no grounds to impeach the sitting president of the United States during that proceeding. He got a lot of flack from the left on that, as you can imagine. But what happened was, CNN went on air as soon as he was done with his first presentation, misstated his main thesis of the case. In fact, they said he said the opposite. So under the New York Times versus Sullivan, when you’re dealing with a public figure. they basically had, as you said, Logan, blanket immunity. They could say whatever they want. The standard that we would have to reach to prove defamation is very, very high. But what’s interesting here is one of the judges at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the only thing standing in the way from Professor Dershowitz and justice is this old 1964 Supreme Court case which actually talked about public officials, like government officials. It didn’t even really talk about public figures. You want to know an interesting side note here, Logan and Will, and that is Alan Dershowitz was a law clerk for Justice Goldberg in writing a concurring opinion on that very case. And it was taken way further than what that initial Supreme Court decision meant. So this is a chance to right a wrong and to reflect the media as it now is.
SPEAKER 06 :
And once again, this is obviously a completely different media landscape than it was when that original Supreme Court opinion was issued. And as even it shows that the person bringing this, Professor Dershowitz, was one of the people that helped craft the concurring opinion in that issue. But I think also we can’t. normally forecast or tell what the Supreme Court’s going to do. It’s very mysterious to the outside, the way that they hold their conferences, which cases they decide to take and which they decide not to. But it does seem that this is at least a good sign that there are justices interested in reviewing New York Times v. Sullivan. that when we filed our sir petition and CNN decided we’re not even going to bother replying, that now the Supreme Court wants to hear what CNN has to say to defend itself.
SPEAKER 07 :
It’s interesting because generally when the strategy of not responding, which is what they initially did, was also to kind of get a temperature read of is the court interested in this or not. For instance, we were set for a conference to vote on certiorari on Thursday. Tomorrow. They were to vote tomorrow on the case, whether they were going to hear it or not. But what happened here was CNN was hoping that there would be no order. It would go to conference and be denied. But instead… a number of justices of the supreme court said no we want to hear what cnn has to say and then we’ll decide if we take it so it’s going to delay it until probably april maybe even may we’ll file another round of briefs in this but this is a really significant case uh for accountability in the media and long overdue
SPEAKER 03 :
Back to 1964 when this case came out, Dad, and you look now to 2026, who is a public figure has changed so much. I mean, it’s not just a handful of people who make it on three TV channels or are well-known in local news or newspapers. And there’s so many citizen journalists and podcasts and people in the media and the Netflix, all these different ways. It’s not the same kind of control. So it makes it nearly impossible for anyone who’s got any kind of name out there and following to bring a defamation case where someone has absolutely either lied about you or just recklessly disregarded. That means you don’t care if it’s a lie or not to show that actual malice standard. But you, the plaintiff, it’s also a bizarre move in court. have to prove the intent of the defendant in this case. I mean, you have to show what was going on in their head or in their newsroom as they were putting the piece together. They don’t have to defend it. You have to actually present it, which also makes it almost an impossible bar to overcome. And this is, I think, in the changing media landscape, the perfect time for the Supreme Court to look at this to say, you know, this might not be the right standard anymore for 2026 and onward.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I think, Jordan, that’s exactly right. You had a dual burden here, which you don’t have in any other kind of case. So you had this dual burden where you had to meet the threshold of knowledge of falsity, and then the burden was on us to establish the issues rather than the defendant having to establish their defense. But look, the fact that the Supreme Court said we want to hear from you on this is a big development. It’s a very positive development for justice here. Alan Dershowitz was wronged. We want to make it right. That’s why we’re stepping in and hold the media accountable. We get so many calls where people say we want to hold the media accountable. This is a bad case.
SPEAKER 03 :
We have two now cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, one out of Calvary Chapel in California and those unbelievable fines that California, millions of dollars of fines. They want to still levy the state of California against the church, the Calvary Chapel church there. And of course, this case and both before the U.S. Supreme Court, the ACLJ handling those. I just want to remind people, I mean, these are happening nearly simultaneously, Dad.
SPEAKER 07 :
No, they are. And so we’ve got two major cases, one on religious liberty, one on the First Amendment. And, I mean, these are big cases. I mean, some of the biggest cases, frankly, we’ve held in that situation in California. …from the church to pay a fine on a policy that was… I think we’re losing you.
SPEAKER 03 :
We’ll try to reconnect here in just a moment. Yeah, but I mean, just to underscore to people, so we’ve got two up for consideration at the Supreme Court right now, both involving speech, one involving, again, religious liberty, but both kind of First Amendment cases because, of course, the free exercise of religion, free speech, and we’ve got the defamation issue, too. Is my dad back on? Yeah, dad’s back on. This is a very busy time for the ACLJ, and that doesn’t account for all the trials we’ve got going on at the district court level and, of course, the appeals court cases we’ve got going on, too.
SPEAKER 07 :
I want to encourage our ACLJ friends and members and especially our ACLJ champions, support the work of the ACLJ. You’ve got two great examples here. The church case, the case against CNN, it happens because of your support to the ACLJ. Go to ACLJ.org and join our team. Very important that you stand with us.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. We have a petition right now, and we can hold the mainstream media accountable at aclj.org. Because look, as Jordan said, so many of us have gone from what you’d consider radio personalities to television personalities to now anyone really can kind of fit in that world of being a public figure as we are all on social media. So this protects you as well. Of course, this is doing it from the mainstream point of view, but there are many different ways that this could upend current settled law that has been a pain for all of us For many, many years, including, like I said, there are so many people who had rightful claims to this, who have reached out to us over the years, and we’ve had to have that very kind of sad and serious conversation with them saying, sadly, there is nothing we can do. You’re a public figure. The actual standard to get any kind of libel defamation was so high that essentially we knew you could just go out there and lie. But you have a different court and it’s a different day.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, it’s when you look at a lot of the stories that are going on in the world right now, even with Don Lemon, with the protections that he’s trying to claim, the heightened protections because of being a journalist. It is something that for a long time, the media has gotten an extra level of protection than what the First Amendment just affords to everyone else. So I think it’s important that something like New York Times v. Sullivan be reexamined by the court. And that’s exactly what we’re doing here.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. You can be a part of it today. You can join with us. Go to ACLJ.org. Again, take action. Add your name to that petition at ACLJ.org. Look at all the incredible, great content. We have a little bit different coming up in the next segment. CeCe Heil, one of our senior attorneys at the ACLJ, is going to be joining us. Talk to you about a new project that’s going to be leading into the midterm elections. and how you can get involved with that as well. Then later on in the broadcast, we’re going to keep breaking this down as well as take calls and comments, and we’re going to discuss a little bit about CBS and Stephen Colbert and that whole situation and get our take on that. We want to hear from you, though, first. 1-800-684-3110. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Secular. We are going to take your calls, so go ahead and get in line. 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110. We’re going to be talking about a lot of different topics. Of course, Supreme Court ordering CNN to respond to the ACLJ. But I did want to kind of take a detour here and talk a bit more about some really interesting things. We always try to provide different opportunities for you to get involved. And CeCe, this is a really different one. This will be heading into the midterm elections. And some of our friends in the ACLJ is joining with them.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right. And so, you know, our listeners know that the ACLJ, we are fighters. We are in the fight. We’re engaged. You know, we are taking action all the time. But we don’t lose sight of the fact that our greatest tool that we have is prayer. And so we have joined with the Nehemiah Alliance for a 52 day service. prayer initiative to basically pray for the protection and blessing of the Lord around our nation and to rebuild our walls. And it follows Nehemiah, if you’re familiar with that story. The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed and Nehemiah decided that that had really left the city vulnerable for attacks from the enemy and really symbolized spiritual ruin. And so he wanted to rebuild those walls and bring unity To the people and protection to those people. And he did it in 52 days through prayer and fasting and the blessing of the Lord, obviously, also the blessing of the government and with the engagement of the people. And so we believe, you know, it’s the 250th anniversary, as you said, of our founding on Judeo-Christian values. And we look around and we see that our walls really have crumbled and we need that unity and we need that blessing and we need that protection. So we are, the Nehemiah Alliance follows 52 days of prayer. It’s going to start on September 10th and it’s going to go to November 1st, 52 days right before the critical midterm elections. And really we’re, just saying to pray for your family so you’re right around your walls your family your community your state and your nation and then it it’s going to be a unified prayer that everybody prays together and that is really modeled after general patton who in world war ii we were losing the battle because of the rain he couldn’t get his troops on the ground. Tanks moved because the rain was crazy. So he had all of the soldiers, all of them, pray a unified prayer every single day. And the rain stopped. They prayed for the rain to stop and for victory. And you know the story, the rain stopped. And of course, we had victory in World War II. So that’s the pattern. Everybody who signs up will be praying a unified prayer for 52 days. And you sign up at na52.org and you just sign to really just be a part of the prayer team and then you’re going to fast ask you to fast pray for the 52 days fast for three days and that’s after esther and repent of our sins like daniel and then on october 31st gather at the national mall as a unified people as one nation under god
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, in CC, this is something, obviously, the ACLJ, you mentioned we are fighters, but we also are a Christian organization. We believe in the power of prayer. That’s why we periodically have prayer guides that people can go through and be praying together. This whole concept of unified prayer is something that we firmly believe in here. This is a broader approach. It’s not just with ACLJ. It’s with the Nehemiah Alliance and many other great organizations that have joined on to this as well. But also there’s a move to get even congressional recognition of this. And I wanted you to speak to that because it’s part of what we here at the ACLJ can do as well with our government affairs team. Absolutely. and all of the things that we have in DC of getting this broader, not just as a grassroots movement, but also for people to recognize within the halls of Congress that this is important as well.
SPEAKER 01 :
And that was one of the things, it was governmental blessing that Nehemiah did this. So that was a critical point of this. And the ACLJ was absolutely critical in getting our first congressional commendation, and that’s from Senator Blackburn right here in Tennessee. And she did a commendation for the Nehemiah Alliance and got it entered into the congressional record. There are more coming from Congress that our governmental affairs team is working on, more commendations coming from Congress. There will be more coming from governors from a lot of the states from state legislators. So we really want to encourage state governments to get involved, you know, state leaders to step up. And we definitely have the blessing of our government and hopefully we’ll have the blessing of President Trump as well.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think this is a great thing for our organization to get involved in and also you individually. Of course, today we thought it’d be good to bring it up. This is still months away until it begins. But today, of course, is for a lot of our listeners, a lot of our viewers. This is Ash Wednesday. This is the beginning of the season of Lent season heading in, of course, to Easter. So we wanted to give you the opportunity to know there will be something similar in some ways where we’ll be able to join in group prayer. Just in a few months leading in, like I said, those midterm elections. Of course, it’s not only 250th. It’ll be the 25th anniversary of September 11th when this kicks off on the evening of September 10th. So a lot of people’s minds and hearts will be on America. during the next few months and we want to give you an opportunity to get involved with this again it’s at na5252.org sign up today uh and then you’ll be reminded as time goes on i’m sure from the organization uh about what they’re doing there because like will said it’s always good with the aclj to show you not only how we can get involved on the big level supreme court but of course how you can get involved of course we encourage you to sign the petitions do all those things but really to join like-minded people in prayer in this moment. It’s a great, easy way also. It’s something you can share with your friends and say, hey, this is something we should get involved in.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right, and if you sign up today, I know, again, it doesn’t start, you’re thinking it doesn’t start until September 10th, but if you sign up today, you get the prayer today, you could start praying that prayer today. There are other things on the website, like Sonic Flood has their May Day song, which was written for the National Day of Prayer. So that’s the theme song for this, Second Chronicles 714. So there are kind of special things that you’re going to get, videos that you’re going to get, different things that you’ll get if you sign up today and you’ll be involved throughout the whole process. And of course, good plug for Sonic Flight. I had to plug him a little.
SPEAKER 04 :
Which if those don’t know, I don’t think we’ve ever said this.
SPEAKER 06 :
I don’t think we should let people know why that’s important.
SPEAKER 04 :
CC’s husband, Rick, is the lead singer of Sonic Flood and has been doing that for decades. So great, obviously legendary Christian band and great worship music. So if you’re looking for somewhere to turn, we always like to say there’s always trusted sources. Definitely Rick and Sonic Flood is one of those. So you will get involved. It is sort of a family affair here at the Nehemiah Alliance event as we’re all kind of coming together for this. I do think it’s a great moment. I think it’s a great time to, again, get together, share information. And I’m sure if there are things like you’re going to be invited to gather on October 31st, if you can’t, that’s obviously not going to disqualify you from praying with all of us. So all of these are different ways.
SPEAKER 06 :
There’s also a virtual component of that, that you can be a part of that and still pray with the group.
SPEAKER 03 :
I just want to make sure people know this. reminder because in midterm elections it’s it’s all about turnout right you don’t the turnout numbers are much lower than presidential elections you’re talking lower like 70 percent right so so these kind of reminders i mean the prayer is serious but it’s also a reminder for those engaged in the prayer to be talking about it with their friends and family and those at their church to make sure they know where they should go vote or if they’re going to be out of town to request maybe go early voting or an absentee ballot to make sure because This midterm election will determine the rest of the Trump presidency for history. Yeah, the success or failure. This will be the end. The final two years will be determined by what they can get done, what kind of Supreme Court nominees, if there’s a vacancy, make it to the Supreme Court, will be determined by this midterm election because you got 35 Senate seats up and every House seat up.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. And we know where things are trending right now.
SPEAKER 03 :
So certainly it’s interesting. Both the Democrat and Republican Party are in a tough spot right now. So it could go either way. It’s kind of and we’re still too far away. But right now we just need to be reminding people, hey, don’t forget about this is coming up sooner than you think once you get past the summer.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yep, and that’s the, again, we’re going to discuss that even more in the second half hour of the show. If you don’t get us on your local station, find us broadcasting live on ACLJ.org. However you get your podcasts, however you get your broadcasts, we are there. Whether it’s on the Salem News Channel, whether it’s on YouTube, however you get your content, the ACLJ is there. Find us live every day, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. And, of course, archived, again, wherever you get your podcasts, at ACLJ.org.
SPEAKER 05 :
Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Seculo. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome to Sekulow. Second half hour coming up. And we’re going to take a lot of your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Some of you have been on the hold for a while. We are discussing a few different topics. Of course, CNN has been, well, we hope to, will be responding to the ACLJ and Supreme Court. Supreme Court has ordered them to respond in our case saying, you know, essentially the case idea is that The standard of what has been set for what a public figure is and what libel is and what you can do in terms of protecting yourself from the endless lies that get spewed on mainstream media, the standard has been so high that it’s almost been impossible. Now the court’s going to take a look at it. It’s what we hope. Take a look at what it would be because a lot of you watching this right now would probably now be considered public figures. I do want to take a phone call really quick off the top because we’ve got a lot of calls coming in on a lot of different issues. But I want to go to Robert in Maryland. Always a good caller. You’ve been a hold for half an hour. Let’s go ahead and take care of you. Go ahead, Robert.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I wanted to ask all of you, you know, in Israel’s attack on Iran just within this past week, have they destroyed any of the nuclear sites in Iran?
SPEAKER 06 :
So, Robert, what we’re hearing and nothing official that there have been targeting from Israel on nuclear sites, but there it is seeming to ratchet closer to war again between Israel and Iran, as well as you have. all the threats from the Ayatollah against the United States and the statements by President Trump. So nothing that I’ve seen that I’d be comfortable reporting at this time, but I think that these next few weeks are going to be very interesting to watch and see how they unfold. I’ll put it like that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, thank you so much, Robert. We’re going to obviously stay really close, pay attention to what’s going on in Iran. We know when a lot of mainstream media will not be covering it because it is not the number one and only story. For some reason, they’ve decided will be the story of the week. We know it could get lost in the shuffle. We’ll make sure we keep you updated as well. Let’s go ahead and let’s take one more call. Let’s go to Steve in Oregon. Steve, go ahead.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hello. Uh, first time. So I don’t know if I’m audible. Are we working?
SPEAKER 04 :
You sound great, Steve. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay. Um, my main concern is the, uh, rapid and overwhelming, um, lie that are being told by everyone from politicians to private entrepreneurs on the internet, trying to make a buck. Um, it’s, it’s rampant. It’s, uh, it’s overwhelming. And, uh, well, a couple of months ago, I almost got sick. We’re almost $600. by a commercial online that was AI generated.
SPEAKER 04 :
Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, that, Steve, it’s a whole other story of having to deal with people who are definitely out there frauding and using a lot of known entities and faces. There’s going to be a lot of lawsuits coming up over that. A lot of it’s not happening inside of our country, so that’s one of the big concerns. But we can actually start looking at what it would be to protect our own within our own. So whether you’re an American citizen and you have another Americans or news organizations who’ve decided that you are now the target of them and they don’t care what they say, they don’t care what the lies are. And now we can maybe broaden, Jordan, that definition of what not only a public figure is, but what continual defamation is. Because sometimes it gets to the point where people like Steve watch this and go, I’m just sick of watching everyone lie because we know they’re only doing it to get clicks, to get views, to get people to watch. And they even know it themselves. That is untrue.
SPEAKER 03 :
And take away this ridiculous standard of having the plaintiff, so the person who was lied about, and even in our case, the lower court judge in the appellate court said this was defamation, but the bar here was that you couldn’t show the actual malice. And to show that actual malice as the plaintiff is very difficult because then you have to get into the mind to show that they either lied about you on purpose, or they just recklessly disregarded the truth. They didn’t care if it was true or not. They were going to put this statement out. And that’s what we need to change in the United States of America. As more and more people qualify for being public officials or a public person because of social media, you want that protection so that someone cannot destroy your credibility and hide behind the fact that they are a major news source so somehow they can say whatever they want about you And it’s very difficult to ever hold them accountable.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. Look, we take your calls and comments on this. I know a lot of you have that as well as you may have seen news bubbling up about Stephen Colbert and his ongoing battle with his own network with CBS. We’re going to discuss that as broadcasters who’ve been dealing with similar rules and conversations. We’re going to discuss that coming up here in the next segment. We’ll be right back. Seculo, phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Look, I think we should give this a little bit of attention, but maybe not as much as some of the mainstream media is giving attention, because I think that’s precisely what they want. Look, we have been on the air, terrestrial radio, for 30 years now here at Seculo. In some form or fashion, we have been on the air, terrestrial radio, for 30 years, and we have always understood that there are very specific rules the FCC lays out when you have a political candidate on. Now, I’m not necessarily saying that I agree with those rules. I’m not necessarily saying that they should be held up in 2026. But you know what? They’ve been the rules. They have been the law of the land for a very long time at this point. And we know what we have to do. Typically, it involves, by the way, because people know what our show content is. All it typically is, is say we have on a political candidate. A lot of times they’re more conservative leaning. we also shoot off an email to their rep on the other side and say, or the other candidate and say, we’d be happy to have you on as well. Nine times out of 10, actually I’d put 99.9% of the time, You either never hear back or you get a decline because it’s usually someone who knows what they’re getting into.
SPEAKER 03 :
You basically just have to make the invitation. You have to offer. And usually, like Logan said, they are not ever going to say yes to that because you’re not promising it’s going to be a friendly interview or you’re not going to ask tough questions. They know that you’re coming from a different perspective there, but you have to give them that opportunity. And that’s only around really when you’re talking to people running for office, when you’re talking about them running for office and their election, not talking to a senator about a piece of legislation and things like that. So it’s a limited time that we’re talking about. So when we’re talking about when they’re actually running for office, you’ve got to at least offer that time to the other candidates. That’s all the Colbert Show had to do is offer that time to other candidates. They don’t have to treat them the same in the sense that they could ask tough questions. They could say, you said this.
SPEAKER 04 :
uh are you sure you’d be the best nominee and two of the republican i mean colbert could be nasty too and likely you know both of them would say no maybe in this case one of them would have said yes because we’re still in primary season yes and i think that’s where things get a little actually more interesting with this story is you have a candidate running in texas you have two candidates running uh and steven colbert went out and said cbs told me i couldn’t air this this is the interview they told you they didn’t want to say This is not unlike what Don Lemon was doing. These are publicity stunts. Do not fall for the publicity stunts. Stephen Colbert has been very well aware of the rules that you have to go by. CBS gave him what we’d have to do to have this guest on, which was essentially invite Jasmine Crockett on as well, which seemed to be too far for Stephen Colbert.
SPEAKER 06 :
That’s right. And I want to read the statement that CBS put out. But I think this also ties in to the New York Times v. Sullivan thing that we were talking about earlier, the case that we have at the Supreme Court, because this is dealing with very old broadcast rules, the FCC equal time rule, which we have criticized things like this with the FCC historically. Yeah, that’s right. It’s not saying that it’s not an outdated rule, but it’s also shows that he was gaming it for his own gain. And this is what the late show, the statement from CBS said about the late show. They were not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Representative James Tallarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Representative Jasmine Crockett. and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled, which is what legal departments do every single day at broadcast news organizations.
SPEAKER 04 :
Not even just broadcast, every major mainstream television network, entertainment brand, I’ve been in the guts of them. The messages that you would get from standards and practices, from lawyers, they approve every script that goes out for the most part on all of these shows. And they don’t approve it for creative content. They’re not getting involved in saying, I think that joke isn’t funny. What they’re saying is that goes over the line on what is legal for the FCC or when you’re marketing to families or whatever it may be.
SPEAKER 06 :
There are rules. So then it says the Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing equal time options. Also, you know this was a game because at this point it has 5.8 million views, this interview, which is titled James Tallarico on confronting Christian nationalism and strange days in the Texas legislature. He did this whole game to play the victim card so that they could get more views on it. Because you know what they weren’t probably going to get? 5.8 million views of that interview on Colbert’s show. So they are using this to look like a victim again. Maybe there’s other ulterior motives as well. But then they’re lying. Because James Tallarico, this candidate, has tweeted two things that are factually untrue. Breaking, our campaign raised $2.5 million in 24 hours after the FCC banned our Colbert interview. And two, this is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas. The FCC didn’t ban the interview. The FCC, if it had triggered equal time things, could have fined CBS, but it wouldn’t have the power to take it off air. CBS’s legal department presented options of how to air it, and they decided it wasn’t worth giving Jasmine Crockett the airtime. So maybe it’s actually James Tallarico is concerned he’s not going to be able to survive this primary without a little help from someone like Colbert,
SPEAKER 04 :
violating sec rules yeah and colbert at this point you know is months away from his show ending he is trying to build his own clout and credibility i’m sure fielding offers from a lot of different organizations of where he’s going to land after this if not he doesn’t just build something on his own that is simply in the cards look at it from a bigger marketing perspective everything is marketing and they are all trying to get you to watch this interview why one to generate views To give Stephen Colbert a little bit more credit than he has right now. Not credit in terms of credit. Credit in terms of when he goes out to go sell himself again, which is what’s going to happen. Because remember, in ratings, by the way… If you look at pure ratings, Stephen Colbert was often number one, was typically number one. However, on YouTube, Jimmy Fallon destroys Stephen Colbert, destroys him. So new media had turned, really, away from Stephen Colbert and had turned. So he needs that content to start spiking. There’s all kinds of motives that could go into this. What I don’t like is that he’s playing a victim card in something that we all are very well aware of, which is the equal time rules. I don’t think I even agree with the equal time rules in 2026. But I don’t pretend they don’t exist or that I’ve never heard about them before or that this is the first time the FCC has gotten involved. Give me a break.
SPEAKER 06 :
And here’s how you know they knew this game would be played out and they would win it. And it’s not just the 5.8 million views that they’ve gotten since they published it. It’s these comments that are beneath it. I’m watching this because my government tried to hide this from me. Dear FCC, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise. The FCC doesn’t want you to see this. Let that sink in and share it. The fact that those are the comments means they’re distortion of the truth. of saying the FCC doesn’t want you to see it. No, the FCC just has a rule that may be outdated, and you can litigate that in the public eye, but you can’t sit here and say, Donald Trump doesn’t want you to see me. He’s afraid we’re going to flip Texas. That’s also saying that Donald Trump just wants Jasmine Crockett to have more airtime. It’s the most absurd argument when we know what the reality is.
SPEAKER 04 :
Is not having Jasmine Crockett on and not making that invite, shouldn’t that… If you look at it from a very different point of view, by the way, that you specifically don’t want to fulfill the obligation to have the other Democrat candidate running who happens to be Jasmine Crockett, I think that that should be very telling for mainstream media of what they want to present to you. Okay, let’s look really closely at what we’re talking about here.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, in reality, that’s exactly what the reason of the equal time rule was, is so that people who had a giant platform couldn’t pick and choose who you got to see, be the gatekeeper of the candidates. And Jordan, this is almost proving something that we aren’t a big fan of, the equal time rule, proving the need for it for people like Stephen Colbert.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I mean, and my question is, I haven’t looked it up on YouTube. Did more people watch on YouTube than watch this show?
SPEAKER 04 :
I would say 100%. I’d say that he averages about two and a half million.
SPEAKER 03 :
So three million more people watched it by not being on the air.
SPEAKER 04 :
Exactly. It’s all marketing.
SPEAKER 03 :
And the CBS had no problem with that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, yeah, because the equal time rule only applies to terrestrial over-the-air broadcasts.
SPEAKER 03 :
Do you think he could face any kind of disciplinary action from CBS at this point?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, he is going very hard against the network. In his monologue, he took their statement, which said, we gave him options, and he said, here’s what I think about this, and threw it in the trash can. As Logan said, maybe he’s also trying to exit his contract early.
SPEAKER 04 :
Maybe he’s trying to get out early or just build some clout to, you know, for MS, what do they call it now? For someone to give him a sweet offer, which I’m sure he’s going to get, by the way. You know, he’s a talented guy. He’s a good broadcaster. But these are the moments where I think that I wish the American people would see through the noise. and realize that you’re just being marketed to and lied to. It has nothing to do with the politics of it. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has nothing to do with this person running. It has to do with drumming up YouTube views. So he has more clout to go sell his show when his wraps up in three months. I see things a little bit differently and also pretending that these laws haven’t existed forever and you’ve had to deal with them before. I guarantee you have. You just didn’t want to see Jasmine Crockett or maybe Ted Cruz. You want to see those people showing up on his show. How dare they? Always, always in the cards. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. We’d love to take your calls in the next segment. 1-800-684-3110. Get on hold right now. Welcome back to Seculo. Last segment of the day. We’d love to hear from you. We’ve still got a few lines open at 1-800-684-3110. For those of us joining on YouTube or on Rumble, a great way to get involved, of course, if you haven’t subscribed, subscribe. But even just in the chat, let me know where you’re watching from. If you don’t know what to comment or don’t know what to say, I always love to read where people are watching because it’s really great. And we start talking about these lawsuits with CNN and definitionists. Because of independent media like ourselves, we’re able to reach the entire planet for the most part. As long as your country allows YouTube or Rumble, or ACLJ.org, you’re able to see our show. And it’s really been amazing to reach all the corners of the world, and it’s been amazing. There are a lot of calls coming in. We will take some of them at 1-800-684-3110. We have a call coming in. Ronald, South Carolina, watching on Rumble. Ronald, go ahead, because I think this is an interesting question related to our case with CNN.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, thanks for taking my call. If the Supreme Court decides with… with those who have been victimized with defamation and stuff like that, does that mean that the church that Don Lemon had, let’s say, stormed, would they be eligible to sue for damages?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, and Jordan, I’ll toss to you on this as well. But with Don Lemon actually being charged under the FACE Act, there’s a civil path for that as well. So it wouldn’t even have to be a malice question there because he’s being charged under the FACE Act.
SPEAKER 03 :
But I see the point. It’s a different charge. I mean, Don Lemon doesn’t really have a counter to I was defamed because of… how I was presenting it. His argument in court is the charges they’re bringing against me don’t work because I’m a journalist. So he’s got a different kind of defense. So it’s a different situation. These are situations where you’ve got so-called news being reported about someone and that is incorrect news and you know and it can be refuted And oftentimes they will write somewhere in their news, you know, some back pages of the paper or some random comment on TV that they got that wrong. But they do at a time where people don’t really ever see it. If they even go that far because of the protection of New York Times versus Sullivan, what this would what this would force newsrooms to do is. is really get their facts straight and make sure their headlines aren’t misleading either. Because we see a lot of misleading headlines about people now, and when you read the actual story, it doesn’t match the headline, so to speak. And so that alone could become defamation, but for this standard, which would mean that you have to prove that the person that wrote that headline either knew that they were writing a false headline, or didn’t care they had reckless disregard it’s very tough uh to prove what’s inside someone’s head um because there might not be a lot of evidence on it they might not have written a bunch of emails back and forth or phone calls or texts saying i’m gonna do this even though i know it’s not true So you’ve got to get inside their minds. So they basically made a standard that makes it nearly impossible for anyone who considered a public figure to bring these kind of cases, even when they have been defamed, as the lower courts have acknowledged with Professor Dershowitz. They say he was defamed, but there’s no action the court can take right now under the current case law from the Supreme Court under New York Times v. Sullivan because of the The actual malice standard.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, and here’s the kind of absurdity of this entire thing when you even dig down a little bit deeper into what CNN actually did. They created a false legal doctrine claiming it was the Dershowitz doctrine based off what they said that he said on the Senate floor in the well of the Senate. by clipping out a portion of his presentation before the Senate, but leaving the qualifier out of it. So basically him giving an if this, then this scenario, they clipped part of it out and played that not just one time but repeatedly over the course of many different broadcasts and called it the Dershowitz doctrine which was in fact the opposite of what he was saying so now when you think about a world that we live in now say When New York Times v. Sullivan happened, you didn’t have instant rewinds and broadcasts that were archived on places like C-SPAN.org that you could go back and watch. It wasn’t as readily available for the public to go fact check themselves if what they’re saying is true. And maybe you could even give them the benefit of the doubt that they misheard it when they reported it. So, OK, I understand giving someone that doesn’t have all the modern tools, the ability that maybe they made a mistake in reporting. Maybe they weren’t very good at what they were trying to do their job. You don’t have those excuses anymore that a journalist was just incompetent. No. Especially with writing headlines. And when the news organization repeats it over and over and over again, they have the ability to get it right. And the public has the ability to view the source material and see that you are correct or wrong. So just in and of itself, the fact that the world has changed like that and what CNN did… This shouldn’t apply. This should be something where you don’t even have to read their mind. They defamed the individual here because they could have proven themselves wrong very easily and they didn’t do it. So once again, that’s why something like New York Times v. Sullivan needs to be reassessed in this current day and age. It needs to be reassessed, and that’s exactly what we are doing at the Supreme Court with this cert petition. And now that the court, obviously, when it was going to conference, thought, this is serious enough. We need to hear what CNN has to say. We never know if they’re going to take the case or not, but at least they are saying, we got to hear what the other person’s saying.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, let’s take the last call of the day. Let’s go to Bill in Wyoming about the Colbert situation. Bill, go ahead.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, thanks for taking my call. Actually, I want to combine two things. First of all is the fact that with these late-night TV shows, they can actually make their own political statements, but if they disguise it under comedy, then they can get away with it. Number two, if it’s controversial, what they can do is they can put it online so that it’s controversial, and then people will click on it, so that’s what’s called quick-baiting, and they can make money out of it.
SPEAKER 03 :
That the YouTube, when they posted the interview to YouTube, more people saw it on YouTube than would have seen the interview if it was only on the Colbert show by about at least 3 million more people saw it on YouTube.
SPEAKER 04 :
That is true for television in general right now. Right. So not just related to this moment, Stephen Colbert, a lot of what Jimmy Fallon kills it because Jimmy Fallon has actually always been in the business of seven to eight minute content from Saturday Night Live. And then of course that they were the king of clips. Same thing. many more people watch Saturday Night Live now on YouTube the day after than watch it live in the moment it’s just the world we live in more people watch this show 98% of you watching right now are not watching me live you’re watching this show at your own decision you don’t miss shows anymore because you’re not as interested in that topic but you’re interested in a topic that’s coming up and you go back and forth to it throughout the day and we can see that by the way when you’re like skip forward we can see where the dips are So we know. Look, we’re able to monitor. That’s interesting analytical data we’re able to get. That being said, I hope you enjoyed the show today. We only have a minute left. We appreciate it. There is a great way to get involved in that lawsuit, and that is, of course, to sign our petition at ACLJ.org. We filed in that critical defamation case in the Supreme Court. CNN tried to ignore it, but yesterday they said, nope. The Supreme Court said you have to respond, ordered CNN to respond. They are taking this case very seriously, and you need to be involved in it right now. We’re preparing our next Supreme Court brief, and you can get attached to it. That’s by going to ACLJ.org slash sign. Again, not asking you for financial support, just asking you to sign the petition right now. Of course, all the ACLJ content is available for free at ACLJ.org because of people’s financial support. No paywalls there. All of it’s available. Absolutely for you to take it. Send it to your friends. No worrying about, oh man, the little pop-up’s going to come up and say I have to be a subscriber. Not at ACLJ.org. We’re not going to annoy you with that. Go to ACLJ.org right now. Sign that petition. Of course, if you can’t support, it’s a great way to do it. It’s become an ACLJ champion. Someone that gives on a monthly basis. Check out all the great options at ACLJ.org. We’ll talk to you tomorrow on Secular.
