In this episode of Sekulow, we dive into the revelation by Google regarding the pressure it faced from the Biden administration to censor online content. The discussion emphasizes the role of government influence in shaping censorship policies on social media platforms, in particular highlighting the complexity of these interactions. The hosts underscore the importance of acknowledging this reality and address Google’s efforts to rectify past mistakes, marking a pivotal moment for free speech advocates.
SPEAKER 04 :
On today’s show, Google admits to the push for massive government censorship.
SPEAKER 09 :
Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Seculo. 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. Jordan is with me as well. We’re going to have a packed show today. We want you to be a part of it. 1-800-684-3110. Of course, we are leading one of the top stories, which is Google essentially admitted, hey, yes, we were censoring. Yes, we have deactivated thousands of accounts, including YouTube accounts for a lot of people. We obviously knew that was happening. um because we knew well-known people some who we were representing yeah some who are now the current deputy director of the fbi dan bongino was was at one of those people oh yeah i mean a pretty big list we continually bannon we continually fought with youtube for quite a while there were many times where we had an issue with them went back and forth now in the last year youtube has actually made a pretty strong and google’s made a pretty strong effort to say we were wrong and And we did this poorly. And they even put out videos saying, you can talk about life. You can talk about abortion. We’re not going to censor that anymore. We’re not going to. They were essentially shadow banning.
SPEAKER 03 :
There’s been a huge shift on social media to free speech.
SPEAKER 04 :
So I want to give Google.
SPEAKER 03 :
We need to do everything we can to keep it that way.
SPEAKER 04 :
So I want to give Google a little bit of credit in this for saying this, but obviously the big part of it, which is what Mark Zuckerberg said now a couple of years ago on Joe Rogan, which is, yeah, we were doing this, but that is because the Biden administration was putting immense pressure on Google to censor Americans and remove content, even if that content did not violate.
SPEAKER 03 :
youtube policy and it scares them because they get the protection section uh 302 protection from uh lawsuits because people can post things and if people do post things they don’t get you can’t sue them because someone posts something horrible even after they take it down yeah that’s part of the protection we have so that the internet and social media can continue to grow and they’re always concerned that the government holds that over their head and here’s what’s key there uh the government was holding it over their head. I mean, we knew likely Google wasn’t just doing this to do it policy-wise, that there was something going on. And I’m telling you, the power of the federal government because of that section. Much scarier than you think.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes. In that sense of like, you think Google almost bigger than the government.
SPEAKER 03 :
But really, not really. Not if you take away that provision. Because then they would be open up to every time somebody puts something up that’s quasi-death defamatory. Like all those videos you see of people… Plenty. Most of you, too. Places that are, say, you can’t film in privacy. Yeah. they’d be in a legal mess but the big news is one they’ve unbanned all those accounts and made sure but two the bit much bigger news is that the Biden administration was telling them to ban the people yes I think just like they were with twitter and other accounts they were naming I think that’s right because some of the biggest names obviously and then some random ones Right. They always do that.
SPEAKER 04 :
But when you look at this, I mean, this is what Chairman Jim Jordan, thanks to the oversight of Jim Jordan, Google commits. This is what Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID, elections, and opportunity to return to the platform. The Biden administration also, again, they pretty much admitted pressured them to remove content, even if it didn’t violate them. And they said it was unacceptable and wrong. This is a big moment. I think it’s something that we all need to, you know, you can’t necessarily say celebrate what Google is doing because, of course, they did have to first commit these issues to get to this point. But, you know, if we’re talking about moving forward here, I’m pleased with this.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think right now, moving forward, the big tech content where you put your creations on are much more friendly to just free speech in general. We need to do everything we can to be their friend and to keep it that way.
SPEAKER 04 :
Look, you’re going to spawn new creators, too, because people were leaving in mass and going to Rubble, which Rubble’s great. We’re on there. We love them. That means good and bad.
SPEAKER 03 :
You’re going to see lots of content you don’t like, but as we’ve all said, that’s what freedom of speech is about. There’s very little speech that is illegal in the United States, and that’s usually incitement. I don’t want to get into all that right now because it’s very difficult to prove, but They do have power because they’re a private company. So the more we can keep them open and honest and keep the government out, that’s why we don’t want the FCC telling people either.
SPEAKER 04 :
These are wins for free speech. We’ll get to that coming up in the next segment. We’ll also talk about how the ACLJ was directly involved in this. And we’ll break that down coming up. And, of course, we’ll talk about Jimmy Kimmel’s return. We’ll get to more later on. 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Secular. We are also following the news out of Texas, the ICE facility shooting. We know Ted Cruz was out there. We know right now that three people were shot, two are dead, including the shooter. If more information comes out about that, we will. It seems like the FBI said they’re probing it as a targeted attack of this ICE facility. The ammo had anti-ICE messages in it. It just seems like another one of these horrible situations, sadly, we have to report about.
SPEAKER 03 :
As of right now, we were saying in the latest news, no ICE officials reported.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, that was lazy. It was detainees.
SPEAKER 03 :
It was actually detainees. Is that correct, guys? That’s right, right? Yeah. So again, just horrible. I mean, no one should be doing that. First of all, whatever the politics of it were, anti-ice, why would you kill the people?
SPEAKER 04 :
Shot into a vehicle. So maybe the thought was they were going to. Hey, I do want to play this. As we talk about this Google censorship, you said that we have a clip from Hillary Clinton. I think this is kind of a fun flashback clip. This is only from a year ago. This is not like a flashback from 10 years ago when we started talking about content moderation. Of course, look, this comes on the heels of everything that happened with Jimmy Kimmel. This comes on our involvement, even in this case specifically. Let’s go ahead and hear Hillary Clinton.
SPEAKER 10 :
If the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control. And it’s not just the social and psychological effects. It’s real harm.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, so I mean, it’s real hard, social, psychological effects. Look, I don’t disagree with that in the sense of there are real social and psychological effects in social media. You’ve got to be very careful in what you allow your kids to see, even what you allow in your own brain. I think we all know that over the last couple weeks.
SPEAKER 03 :
If you’re an adult who is sane and doesn’t have those issues, just don’t look at the comments. I always say that. Don’t read the comments, Hillary Clinton. So let’s talk about, though, how we were involved in this. Yes, I want to show it to people. I’m going to hold it in my hand right now. This goes back, actually, this is a Supreme Court case that just came out. In light of all of these changes, the case kind of came to a moot point. But I want you to see it and read it carefully who the ACLJ was representing here. This is the brief, the amicus brief, representing Charlie Kirk, And some others, including people like David Harris, Robbie Starbuck. And this is your ACLJ, you know, Jay Sekulow, Stuart Roth, Jordan Sekulow, our team, Craig Partial. We were the attorneys for Charlie Kirk fighting back against that censorship because, again, those not only were we affected. But people like him, I mean, seriously affected when they had to go find other platforms. And unfortunately, he’s not here for this day when not only had Google kind of already probably done this. I don’t think Charlie Kirk was having issues there.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think in the last year, they’ve really done better.
SPEAKER 03 :
But to know that it wasn’t just Google, that it was really, like Zuckerberg had said about Facebook, that it was the Biden administration threatening them. Yeah. And I think, and let me tell you something. It’s not telling them, Hey, please do this. They say, Hey, please do this. Or else we might want to start looking at those exemptions you have and your immunity you have from prosecution because you know, you put this information up there and someone gets COVID and sick. Maybe we’ll let that family sue you if we remove that. And imagine how many of those you could put a company like Google. Um, they’d have to, well, it would no longer be alphabet. Yes. They would have to be broken up. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Be broken up into many different sources. Look, I think when you look at this, um, it’s not shocking, but it is shocking when you actually read it, that Google is saying, yes, this is what happened. Because even Zuck, you know, kind of like backed off. Like he said, yeah, they created a portal where they could- He did it on his own.
SPEAKER 03 :
He did it. Yeah, exactly. He went and testified on his own. He didn’t require this kind of, I mean, that was what?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, so what happened to lead to this?
SPEAKER 03 :
hearing congressional oversight and they just said yes and finally yes finally through that and through a court order a court decision from the district court this was the case leading up to our Supreme Court case said that the White House colluded with big tech. We know this was going on the member, the disinformation boards that they were getting rid of, but then they weren’t really getting rid of their renaming. I mean, this is why we all jumped when the FCC said, oh, we’re going to, you know, if they don’t do it, we’re going to, we’re going to change this. And, you know, I think he probably overspoke. I think Pam Bonney, when she said hate speech, same kind of thing. She immediately changed that to incitement, which is the real legal issues. There’s no laws on hate speech and things like that. The idea here is that the more freedom of speech, this goes into, again, why we were representing Charlie Kirk in this matter. And by the way, just kind of a reminder of where people go in those positions who have these serious reaches. What attorneys do they turn to when they could have turned to anyone? Who do they turn to when they’ve got an issue like this? It’s the American Center for Law and Justice. And I want to make sure everybody at Turning Point and other organizations know that we are there for them. that we’re not your competitor, that we are the attorneys and that we also are broadcasters. We want to make sure that you’re protected too and at no cost so you don’t have to turn and spend your donor dollars on millions of dollars of legal fees Our donors have provided the resources for us so we can defend you. And so if you’re in those kind of matters, obviously higher profile folks probably could text us or call us. But even if you’re not, Always go to ACLJ.org slash help. Our attorneys go through it every single day. And I will tell you, whether you’re a small podcast and you’re having issues, we will assist you. And we have been assisting people, whether it’s Facebook, whether it’s they can’t do ads. This is the beginning of…
SPEAKER 04 :
Of all of this.
SPEAKER 03 :
And I will tell you through ACLJ Action, Logan, and through kind of our expansion work that we’ve done in Washington, D.C., we have better relationships with the government affairs teams of these big tech corporations. So many times we are able to get these resolved quickly without legal action. But people, if they don’t tell us… And oftentimes, you know, I’ll hear from people like in Facebook, they say, if you don’t tell us, we don’t know if the AI or the system or some guy in some other office is doing this, you know? So you’ve got to, don’t imagine that we just know the problem. Always come to us with us and don’t feel bad about it. So if you need that help, big organization, small, aclj.org slash help.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, it’s a simple form.
SPEAKER 03 :
If we take you on, it’s no cost.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s simple form. You fill it out. And again, like Jordan said, whether you’re a small creator or maybe you’re one of these big organizations or maybe you’re just, you know, you have any kind of legal help that’s within our scope. You just fill that out. It doesn’t go to a call center. It doesn’t go to some, you know, other people that are going to then sort through it. It goes straight to one of our lawyers and they decide whether it will be something that we can take up or not. They’ll get in touch with you very quickly. That’s one of the best parts about our system is, yes, we are a big organization, but we’re not too big in the sense you’re calling into organizations. Morgan and Morgan. Morgan and Morgan. You’re calling in. No offense to them. They’re the biggest in that world. Yes. But you call them. You’re talking to a call screener. If you had an issue with an 18-wheeler, yes. Go with them. Yeah. I don’t know if you go with them. There’s others.
SPEAKER 03 :
There’s other options. You can go low key, you can go big, but we’re saying is… There’s no more to it.
SPEAKER 04 :
When it comes to free speech. When you call them, it goes often to a phone bank because they have so many people. This goes to a lawyer. This links you up directly with the ACLJ.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, and that’s why we did it online because attorneys like to read. Because then they can call you back or email you back and say, hey, we got this. Can you provide, I’ve got three more questions for you. Or you said it was this person. Can you put me in contact with them? And we always try first to resolve issues without having to take actual court action. But we will still represent you. We’re your representative. And you’re not having, if we decide to take your case on, your situation on, and it becomes a case, at no point is there any cost to you. And let me just thank our donors for that. We can continue to do that because you donate to the ACLJ. We can continue to expand to have those relationships to resolve what will be, I think, the future we know is going to be more and more social media tech kind of issues with free speech. We have to continue building up our teams in Washington, and we can do that with your continued financial support of the ACLJ. As I always say, big or small, I never want to have to say no to a case because we think it will be too expensive for the ACLJ. So far, we’ve never had to do that. And that’s thank you to our donors. But as these cases will always continue to be more complicated, And as the issues get even more serious, we need your financial support. I mean, freedom of speech, we know, is the topic right now and is the debate is, do we want censorship of freedom of speech or not? As you know, lawful, ugly, bad, things we don’t like, things we love, it’s much better to protect it all. You protect it all, that means your Christian speech, your pro-life speech, your questions about those in power, get protected. If you start picking and choosing sides, you know what happens? The other side comes in, and let me tell you, the other side, the left, a lot better, as we’ve already seen. They didn’t have any laws or rules on the books. They just used pressure.
SPEAKER 04 :
Just pressure, and they’ll cave to it. And also because they theoretically would probably say, oh, maybe they’re on our side in this. When you have…
SPEAKER 03 :
What we have seen is that these tech companies, one, they’re not really on size, and two, I think what they have learned is that the right, because of our views on free speech, which took them some time to, I think, understand, realizes it’s much safer for them because we don’t threaten to take away their status. We understand they need the ability to create with AI and things like that, and that means that sometimes the AI is going to say things that are bad and they need to fix, and that’s okay if we’re going to compete with the world.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, we’re innovating. that’s right now we do want to thank everyone who also is aclj champion and you become a champion today that’s someone that gives on a monthly recurring basis it’s such like a membership fee if you will but again you can do that for as little as five dollars a month and you could choose how high that goes and that really creates incredible base for us you do get a couple little perks here and there but for the most part it’s just people saying hey i want to set it forget it and i want to support the aclj so thanks to all our champions i want you to give me a call right now as well we’ll be right back Welcome back to Sekula. I do want to take your calls, by the way, coming up in this half hour and in the second half hour. Phone lines are completely open. A lot of you are watching right now. A lot of you are just taking in this information. I get that. But give me a call. Did you watch also the Jimmy Kimmel return last night? Was it even available in your market? It was not available in our market. I had to go find it online. But I want to hear your thoughts on his pseudo apology. But we’ll talk about that in the second half hour. Give me a call 1-800-684-3110. Now we don’t ever want to leave you without giving you a real update on what’s going on with the ACLJ. And this is another free speech battle that is happening with a very interesting ruling out of California.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, absolutely. We have another case that the abortion distortion continues and it’s out in California, which is not shocking. But this is a case where you had a sidewalk counselor who is just again trying to give the people that are approaching the abortion clinic options and they have the abortion clinics hire these abortion escorts. And what their job literally is to do is to interfere with the sidewalk counselors getting to any woman approaching the abortion clinic. And so in this situation, this involves a case where a sidewalk counselor was trying to talk to a woman and and the escort abortion escort gets in the middle and as she’s trying to stop him from approaching there’s some touch physical touching that happens and of course they file the abortion clinic files against this man and instead of going suing civilly for an injunction They go try to go around that the protections that the First Amendment applies to these injunctions. They try to go around and file a workplace violence restraining order. And then what you get with that is a myriad of restrictions on this sidewalk counselor that go well beyond what the First Amendment allows.
SPEAKER 04 :
Completely unrelated.
SPEAKER 01 :
Completely unrelated. So what actually happened here? One example is that there’s a buffer zone of 100 yards. So basically a football field, which is way beyond. And what they have to do is an injunction can’t burden more speech than is necessary. So that 100 yards is definitely burning more speech. But Jordan, you can tell how it goes even further in ridiculous restrictions.
SPEAKER 03 :
I want to say two things about it. One is, think about what this does to the individual to have a workplace violence restraining order issued against them when they need employment, jobs, and things like that. I mean, it’s a lot different than an issue, an injunction about how close you can get to protest. But the second part, which is shocking here, this is remember in state court is that what comes with that is a three year second amendment ban. No second amendment rights for this individual. Now, did they have a gun when they were there? No. Did they have illegal firearms at their home? No. Do they have in their past any kind of gun charges, anything like that? Do we even know if they’re a gun owner?
SPEAKER 04 :
No. It’s just one of the,
SPEAKER 03 :
But one of the restrictions is we take away your Second Amendment rights. So because they had the audacity to protest for the unborn children being killed in those facilities, their constitutional right, Second Amendment constitutional right, not just their First Amendment right. It doesn’t charge you like you’re a felon. Yes before anything with the restraining order right and again that’s and when you’re looking at a workplace violence restraining order that’s one thing and even those have been challenged in court but let’s not even go there this is so again it’s so typical to see in a place like California to say we’re in the state court let’s do something that really goes and hits hard so before we even get through the case we’re going to issue a restraining order and start really taking away this person’s rights. I mean, what’s next? They can’t vote? That’s what I’m saying. It feels like that vibe. Yeah. But the issue here is that now… Freedom of speech can be tied to we don’t like your speech, so we’re also going to take away your second amendment. All of your constitutional rights. We’ll start with first amendment. We’ll work our way down. We’ll go to second amendment. What happens next? So what I want to tell you is, again, there was no, I want to make it clear, no connection to a gun and the situation. I don’t even know if the individual themselves is a gun owner. But they want to make that, again, part of the cases that you don’t get your freedom of speech, 100 yards, which is absurd. 100 yards? By the way, you lose another constitutional right to protect your home, protect your family, if you want to, again, use, utilize that constitutional right. This should be… shocking to everyone listening right now. And it is why the ACLJ partnering with other attorneys in California jumped on this and said, we’ve got to be a part of this because it’s one thing with just the first part, CeCe, just the restriction on speech. That’s enough. But then you start restricting other constitutional rights in a state court setting. This is what I think Newsom and these others are talking about, Logan, when they say we are going to war, you know, not in the physical sense, but in the legal sense to use every option we can to to punish those we disagree with. And here it is. We’re going to strip you of some of your most core, basic constitutional rights because we disagree with your speech that those children are being killed in those facilities.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, and it’s a total circumvention of the First Amendment protection. That’s exactly what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to say, we know that we can’t get anything under the First Amendment because it protects his right to this speech. So we’re going to now try this workplace violence, you know, restraining order. And like you said, it was a complete ban on possession and ownership of a gun, which had nothing to do with anything in this situation. So what’s interesting is we have the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project join with us on this amicus because anybody who wants to use their voice to say anything, correct, you are a target now of this type of runaround of the First Amendment.
SPEAKER 03 :
You know, Logan, I think this is interesting in CC2 is we saw some years where I think people were like, you know, the protester with the sign. I don’t know. We even saw it at the ACLJ. People were just not as excited necessarily about these cases. Yeah, the tone changed. But I think after what happened with Charlie Kirk and we saw on campus how important freedom, protecting freedom of speech is, people have now shifted back and said, you know what? Like the message. pro-life message don’t like the maybe the animal right message maybe like both some people do in the pro-life movement there are a lot of also those who are also pro-animal rights fine is that they understand wow there’s a war on just speech that people don’t like or that annoy people and we have to protect all of it and at the ACLJ while we typically our clients come from our viewpoint because that’s who they reach out to and who we reach out to It’s not always the case. We’re protecting everyone’s free speech right, not just those we agree with. And I think what we’ve learned in the last few weeks is that is the goal of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, so that we can have dialogue that isn’t nasty, that isn’t angry, that we can go back to where we can go to the dinner table or have friends that are politically on the other side of the aisle and we’re not afraid to even… And we don’t have to… Even if we’re still friends, we don’t have to ignore talking about issues. And I think that… Because once we… When we stop talking, and I think people have said this, but it is true, when you stop talking and you just demonize, you get violence. And that’s why the First Amendment is so important. Dialogue…
SPEAKER 04 :
actually prevents violence all right we will be back absolutely in just a minute so stay tuned we do have a second half hour coming up on the broadcast the aclj is getting involved in all this we’ll also talk about how what our next steps will be i want to hear from you too at 1-800-684-3110 but if you don’t get us in your local market you can find us broadcasting live on youtube on rumble on aclj.org however you get your podcasts we are there and of course support the work of the aclj this is a very important time become a champion really it’s a great time to do that go to aclj.org opt in become a champion that’s someone that gives on a monthly recurring basis help us take this to all 50 states all the work that we do here at the aclj and around the world
SPEAKER 09 :
keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Sekulow. Second half hour coming up and phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. My brother Jordan Sekulow is joining us right now as well in studio. And we are talking about a couple different things. One, Google saying, hey, you know what? Not only were we censoring, we were censoring those accounts because the Biden administration told us we had to or else. And they have now said, hey, If you were one of those creators that we took down time to hop back on our platform, it’s time to do that. This is a big move. This is a good move by the way. Look, Google had to get to this to admit to it. We know people like Facebook and Meta earlier on admitted to this is what was happening, but I think it’s good. I think it’s good to have new creators that can come into the platform, not scared of what they’re going to say or not say or get demonetized. Uh, Um, obviously there is common decency that we want to support, but if you go on YouTube, of course you’re not necessarily always going to find that, but just as a dad and as someone who, who, who wants a good creators out there, I want people creating good stuff. Um, it’s, it’s good for your brains, but of course this does help, uh, in the freedom of speech side of this. And of course this is in the wake of everything that’s happening, including, uh, The return to television after, what, three days off of Jimmy Kimmel Live, which of course created a huge spike in numbers. And they put a thing that said President Trump, one of his responses was, well, people are going to watch tonight. It’s right. Now we’ll see if people continue to watch. I watched the 30-minute monologue that was not available in our local market. what was he amongst the three where was he last okay so um last night was he he probably will be number one they haven’t put out the official ratings but just on youtube the monologue has done i think close to nine million all right but like tonight do you think he goes back to being number three we’ll see it was you know they’ve packed it with some good guests It’s a very neutral guess. Last night was Glenn Powell from Twisters and Peyton Manning.
SPEAKER 03 :
People everybody loves. That everyone loves. Might as well put the Savannah Bananas on too. Exactly. But what will be interesting to see is if by next week…
SPEAKER 04 :
uh jimmy kimmel’s back to a million you know third place i would love to see what people’s thoughts were because i watched the whole 30 minutes i think that there were some good moments in it i think there was some not so good moments in it he’s turning point turning point did not say we’re thrilled with it because he didn’t come back and really give them an apology he apologized to the audience said he never wanted to trivialize someone’s death He did, honestly, a good moment where he got visibly emotional, whether you want to believe him or not. I can’t really say one way or the other. Where all of a sudden he gets overwhelmed emotion talking about… That wasn’t off the cuff.
SPEAKER 03 :
Erica Kirk. I want to make sure that people, they understand.
SPEAKER 04 :
These guys are reading teleprompters. Yeah, very scripted. And he talks about Erica Kirk forgiving Shooter. He mentioned he was a follower of Jesus’ teachings. These were the words you did not expect to hear out of Jimmy Kimmel. But of the 30 minutes, I would say a good 15 to 20 of it was sillier uh you know conversation about president trump and the fcc and the fc and and he gave props to the conservatives that stood up for him including ted cruz who’s like his number one enemy uh ben shapiro and a lot of those people who came out and said you know that they did it so he gave some props to them it wasn’t really so much standing up for jimmy camill it was saying the fcc should not be doing this this threat
SPEAKER 03 :
It wasn’t like people cared about Jimmy Kimmel coming back or not. It was, they shouldn’t be making that decision because the FCC, they should be making the decision because he said something horrendous. And it was probably, they should have said it was more like a, he’s going to be a cool down or ban, a temporary.
SPEAKER 04 :
Temporarily, we’re going to, that’s what I said, like Fox does when there’s a tragedy, Gutfeld doesn’t go on. They don’t do the show. They say, you know what? This is not the right time. They go to continue news. Now I watched last night on our Nextar station to see what they ran. They ran another hour long, essentially deep dive news piece. I stayed for about 25 seconds. This was Nextar because Nextar and Sinclair both were not airing the show. I don’t even know. Local stuff. Local news creator.
SPEAKER 03 :
I’m sure it was good.
SPEAKER 04 :
We’re going to play some of it. And I want to get your feedback as well. You’re not going to spend too much time on it, but I think you should hear some of what he had to say and get your opinions across. Again, you can give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. Because it all is under this sort of censorship concept and where we step in. where we don’t, where we agree, where we disagree, where the advertisers in the network should have said something, maybe not the FCC. I think if you didn’t have that, it would be a whole different story.
SPEAKER 03 :
The people, really. Viewers are who, because that’s where the money comes from, is advertising. And if people aren’t watching, the advertising goes lower. And these shows, like you said, are so expensive to produce. It seemed like they were all kind of going the way of the dinosaur. Absolutely. Especially if the number one was gone.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yep. All right. Hey, we’ll be right back in just a moment. If you were watching during the break, we are going to discuss also the UN speech President Trump gave yesterday, which was filled with some, I guess you’d say, technical difficulties, including an escalator that broke as soon as… Let me say, they weren’t technical difficulties.
SPEAKER 03 :
As someone who’s done a lot of this at the UN, yes, the UN is pretty junky. And they always say it’s because of the US funding. It’s also because they won’t turn the air conditioning on because of climate change. I was there in Geneva in the summer, and I think it was 77 degrees inside the building. Outside in Geneva, it was cooler because you’re on the lake. And you’re like, what is this? To the point of when people are sweating and uncomfortable in a setting that’s supposed to be formal, but you realize, again, and I remember telling you there live from there, we were the only Americans in the building. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, they are going to, the Secret Service is going to investigate this as potential sabotage as we found out that there was multiple people online that were joking about whether this could happen. Before it happened, saying, what if the elevator broke down?
SPEAKER 03 :
UN staff was actually heard by New York Times.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I think some of it’s up on the screen right now. You can see people were talking about it, saying that it would be funny if when this president steps on the escalator, the elevators, that maybe it…
SPEAKER 03 :
shuts down staff members have joked that they may turn off the escalators and elevators and simply tell him they ran out of money so he has to walk up the stairs i will tell you this that’s because they keep saying the u because the u.s pulling funding which by the way we still provide a lot of funding to the to the u.n second definitely done intentionally A hundred percent. I’ve been there.
SPEAKER 04 :
It was as soon as Melania stepped on it. I mean, that’s the one thing is that the timing was so, I mean, you’re watching it right now. It’s working. It’s working. It’s working. She steps one foot on it and it shuts down. Give me a break. And there’s multiple. I mean, there’s, you see, there’s multiple. The others are going fine. Yes. And done. Trying to make her fall and him fall. Yeah, well, yeah, she loses her balance. And theoretically, you’d think he’d fall. I mean, honestly, if they’re not as good as sabotaging, do it a little bit further up. That’s what happened.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think they’re a little nervous about, you know, having the President of the United States potentially fall. And then, of course, the teleprompter. I will tell you this. Again, the teleprompter is a very simple, very, very simple piece of technology.
SPEAKER 04 :
It is, but for some reason, they can’t get it right.
SPEAKER 03 :
But I’m telling you, they have problems with any other speaker.
SPEAKER 04 :
No, I don’t know. I did not care to watch the rest.
SPEAKER 03 :
They did not. And so I’m telling you, this was all done as sabotage because they knew that Donald Trump was coming there to tell them what the truth was. If you don’t get your countries in order, get the hostages out, by the way, and you let your countries be overrun by radicals like the UK and others, you know, I will say France and some of these other countries have done a much better job on immigration than others after being there over the summer. You’ve been in the UK, I’ve been in the UK. They have kind of just let it go. um and i i think you know he made that message it was also interesting because they they and i think they kind of messed up because he he he also had planned that day and still did it a big reversal on russia and ukraine which we haven’t gotten to where he said you know what i’ve been dealing with this putin guy now for two administrations enough doubling down um i’m gonna give know if if uh nato wants to purchase u.s weaponry they can use it however they want uh i think that’s after all these drones have gotten close to european cities and you’ve seen all these airports have to shut down because of russian drones suspected there was also this big um just that secret service fine in new york of all those servers that were that were had the ability to shut down all cell services let me tell you who was likely responsible for that yeah Russians.
SPEAKER 04 :
And at the same moment, you also had, I sent it to you, Russia is definitely on a weird PR move campaign too because they did their own alternate version of the Eurovision Song Contest, which is something that my family, we get around, we watch it every year.
SPEAKER 03 :
Most of the world somehow participated, but not the actual country, right?
SPEAKER 04 :
It was as Russian as you’d expect because it was all these countries that, a lot of countries that are not allowed. So I think Cuba, Russia, ones that have issues. And then it’s in the United States.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, that’s what I thought. It’s like, what?
SPEAKER 04 :
We looked it up and it was an Australian singer who lived here for a couple of years who had moved back already, but they found a way to kind of loophole an American. But it opened with Putin coming out, making a statement. It was in English and it was in Russian. No, I forgot who won. I can find out who won it. Venezuela. Yeah, I think Russia knows better than to win it. They’re like, you know, we should… Ukraine was not there. No, I don’t think so. But they’re doing all these like count… And look, it was a…
SPEAKER 03 :
A lot of those countries wouldn’t be in Eurovision because they’re not in Europe.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, but there’s some rules there.
SPEAKER 03 :
Is the UAE usually in Eurovision? Sometimes, I think they are.
SPEAKER 04 :
There’s a big, huge problem right now with Israel. Israel is right now, three or four of the major countries have said they’re going to protest if israel’s allowed to perform this year uh because usually they do this is like spain oh yeah israel’s usually top 10 uh because they make crazy pop music and that’s uh i know this is totally off topic here but we’re saying it’s actually important for people to know what’s going on in the world yeah when you watch something like this and it was available on youtube I thought it was going to be available on like Rumble maybe or like RT but no it was actually on YouTube this sort of Russian song contest made for the world stage I think you’re going to see Putin try more of those kind of things because he has lost Trump now right for now
SPEAKER 03 :
And so what Trump said, which is very clear, is that he now believes that Russia is a paper tiger. Vietnam won. Oh, interesting. And that because they’re a paper tiger, he said, you know, any real military, let’s be honest, should have been able to overrun Ukraine if you’re the size of Russia in days like we all talked about years ago. And this kind of indiscriminate killing and now these drones in Europe, enough? I’m going to let NATO do what they want. If they want to buy our weapons and go after the Russians, go for it. What that means for the United States, we’ll have to have some others on to talk about that. You know what? The UN really messed up because he was going to give a message, probably one message they actually agree with, that they’ve been looking for the United States. And I believe President Trump on this. I think he really, really has tried. I mean, he went to Alaska to work with Putin. And even like Melania said, every time he walked in there, he said, great remarks. And then she’d say, yeah, but they just blew up a maternity ward. And so… when they could have had a great moment at the UN. Instead, it’s all overrun by… You talked about the AI and bioweapons and trying to secure those. These are things that the UN would like, but because they have Trump derangement syndrome. I mean, so they’re like… Staffers are doing some ridiculous things. And let me tell you something. Secret Service… does need to get to the bottom of, because that was dangerous, uh, on the, uh, on using, using any kind of like, you know, shutting down. Yeah. Whoever had access to that. And then, um, on just impacting his speech. I don’t know about the, that doesn’t be dangerous, the crime, but, but again, those staffers should be fired.
SPEAKER 04 :
it becomes the story instead of whatever the speech was going to be.
SPEAKER 03 :
Listen, even if you’re the Russian speaker or the, this beer, that shouldn’t happen to you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, the Russians are interesting because in that like song contest, one of the things they majorly pushed in it is if you’ve been a fan of the Eurovision song contest, it has gotten a little out of control in terms of, um, it’s not as family friendly as it used to be. It can be a bit intense and, and, Russia came out and said, well, our version is completely family friendly. We are conservative values. We are family values. You know, trying to push a different narrative coming out of Russia as well, which is you’re not going to see. I mean, oddly enough, is the messaging you get from a lot of a lot of the conservative Christian organizations is what was coming out of Russia. So I know they’re playing this sort of marketing. They’re trying, especially when you have people even on the right and, you know, kind of publicly proclaiming their love, it feels like, for Russia and for Vladimir Putin. Phone lines are open for you. We’re going to take as many as we can coming up at 1-800-684-3110. Before we head to break, because let’s just set up the Jimmy Kimmel thing, I want you to hear from Jimmy Kimmel. This is part of his apology. If you say quote-unquote apology last night that happened. Let’s do this and we’ll head to break and we’ll talk about it coming up.
SPEAKER 08 :
I don’t think what I have to say is going to make much of a difference. If you like me, you like me. If you don’t, you don’t. I have no illusions about changing anyone’s mind. But I do want to make something clear because it’s important to me as a human. And that is, you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. I don’t think there’s anything funny about it. I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed sending love to his family and asking for compassion. And I meant it. I still do. Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make. But I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both. And for those who think I did… point a finger i get why you’re upset if the situation was reversed there’s a good chance i’d have felt the same way i have many friends and family members on the other side who i love and remain close to even though we don’t agree on politics at all i don’t think the murderer who shot charlie kirk represents anyone this was a sick person who believed violence was a solution and it isn’t it ever
SPEAKER 04 :
And if that is where things had ended, I think with Jimmy Kimmel, I think a lot of people said, OK, you know, it wasn’t maybe a full fledged apology, but at least it was something. But then it just went into his typical 20 minute kind of rant against. He went around the FCC, had a lot of Trump jokes, had a lot of stuff, and then circled back around and did a full another segment that then ended. by saying that how moved he was by erica kirk’s speech a very similar tone to this beginning so i understand it’s a comedy show they want to pack it forward what he certainly did not do was say we’re going to try to chill the tone he said you know what the show is he even admitted that he’s like when we started the show it was a comedy late night talk show And it’s not really anymore. I mean, he pretty much said that almost word for word, saying this is a political commentary show. And the fact that they have them saying that, you know, is pretty interesting. It should change the way, honestly, it should change the way guests decide to go on the show. Because if you’re going to admit to say this is just a political news show or a political commentary show, then I don’t know if you should be getting Peyton Manning. I don’t know if you should be getting some of these top leading names. Because I don’t feel like if you had said, hey, come on and do one of these shows on CNN, you likely are going to get those guys to show up. We’ll be back with your calls and comments coming up in just a moment. Hey, all right, phone lines, we’re going to go to you next because some of you have been waiting to hold for a long time. I’ll make sure you get your voice heard as well. This is going to kind of cover all the topics.
SPEAKER 03 :
Be nice to the phone screeners. They want to get you on the air.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, so just don’t curse. Let’s go to Sean in Florida first. You’ve been holding for half an hour, Sean.
SPEAKER 03 :
They’re dealing with us who keep talking.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, go ahead, Sean. Hey, guys. Thank you for all the work you do. So I’ll be very brief with this. So I know a lot of people. Okay, thank you. I know a lot of people. We’ll want to say, Oh, they don’t want to hear what I’m going to say, but I think after what’s happened with Mr. Kirk, I think we have to strategically adjust what we’re doing. So my point is this moving forward. I think that all public speakers, especially when they’re getting to be larger ones, I think that all public speakers moving forward should have bulletproof glass in front of them, even if it’s a small event. Maybe a sheet or two. It’s highly effective. It’s extremely cheap. And it’s very mobile. People come, they sit up just like the president. It’s effective. And if we would have had that in place that day, either… It would have deflected or the guy wouldn’t even have shown up to do it because he knew it would have been pointless.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, Sean, I understand your point. I mean, there’s pros and cons of it in terms of the way you connect with an audience.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think it’s a speaker’s decision at this point. And as Logan said, as guys who have been on stages, large, small, who’ve done those events where you want to be more grassrootsy, if you had that kind of barrier and you’re already on a stage, one, that’s even more difficult to connect to an audience. But then two, if you were doing kind of like what Charlie was doing, that wouldn’t have worked at all.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I mean, yes. I mean, do I agree with you that I don’t think the person probably would have even taken a shot knowing that there was some sort of bulletproof vest? You’re probably right, Sean. But does that… A lot of these guys are wearing vests.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, it is. That doesn’t protect everything.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s tough. It’s a tough decision to make. I think it’s one that I don’t think we should say has to or doesn’t don’t have to. But I think security in general needed to be better. And I think we need to look and we saw at the event that the president now usually almost always walks around it. To the point of making me nervous, to be honest. At the very end, when he was with Erica at the end, I’m like, get off the stage. And I know the point, and it was a beautiful moment, but your heart rate starts going.
SPEAKER 03 :
You can’t really see. There’s some kind of reflection.
SPEAKER 04 :
There is a disconnection.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes. And I think people get it when it’s the President of the United States, the Pope, things like that. When it becomes kind of your activist that you’ve waited hours to see and maybe interact with, that becomes a lot like you’re going to go to a concert and the band’s going to be behind a screen.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s like a COVID meet and greet kind of thing.
SPEAKER 03 :
We don’t want to be at that point in the world. The truth is this is why we’re talking about dialogue and making sure those who have obviously both a mix of political anger where I disagree with Jimmy Kimmel and psychological issues mixing together that we need to do a better job and those families need to do a better job of letting law enforcement know so they’re not just running rampantly during events like that when they’re telling people basically. And our laws are trying to figure that out. We’ve seen that with some of the school shootings and parents being prosecuted because they assisted or they knew and they did not notify law enforcement in time. At the same time, this is, again, I think it’s up to the speaker. So if you’re someone who says, you know what, I only feel comfortable doing it this way right now. If that’s what Erica Kirk said right now, I don’t think anybody.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think she was the only one I think that used it other than the president during that.
SPEAKER 03 :
No, wasn’t it all of the government speakers? All the government speakers? I’m not positive about that. Maybe you’re right.
SPEAKER 04 :
Maybe the government, maybe the non-government speakers, she may have been the only one. Also, she led into President Trump.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, I think once it moved from the turning point team to the administration officials, that’s when I think it went behind.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I have some friends who work in the business of that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Sometimes the Secret Service just says, they just beg. And they say, please, this makes our job so much easier if you’re going to let in 100,000 people or 80,000 people to this job. Just put all, if you’re going to have half the cabinet speak, including the president and vice president and all the rest of them there in the crowd, when they’re up there, please do this for us.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, absolutely. Let’s go ahead and take a couple more calls. Let’s go to Edward who’s calling in Oregon. Edward, you’re on the air.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, how you doing today, gentlemen? Hey, Edward. I was calling in regards to the abortion clinic and the unlawful rulings that are coming out. And you did state that your first amendment right is definitely abridged, but then they come after your second amendment. The part that you’re missing is they also hit you on the fifth amendment because as you’re convicted, You lose your right to unlawful search and seizure and the right of self-incrimination. As convicted, they can come to your house and search whatever you want. Even if you don’t have a gun, they can search your house without a warrant because you’ve been convicted to see if you have a gun.
SPEAKER 03 :
And this person has not been convicted and as of now has lost this constitutional right for three years. And this, I think, Edward, might even make you more angry. The way California and this court would like this to end, I don’t believe this will end this way, but the way they would like this to end is that these, like the Second Amendment rights and other rights, like the 100 yards and firearms, even at his own home. They’re not even saying a concealed carry. They’re saying ownership. So if he does own a weapon, which maybe he does legally, I guess he has to go through some process to turn that in. All of that is so unconstitutional and incompetent. But it doesn’t just say three years and that’s it. Three years and can be renewed. Why? Like, who gets to make the renewal? Just because, well, hey, it’s working. The guy hasn’t shown up. Or does he have to violate the order, which, again, we believe won’t be upheld anyways. But what I’m saying here is, like you said, Edward, they actually wanted to do this indefinitely without a conviction. Right. hoping he didn’t have anybody come to his defense. It was like being convicted of a felony without ever being convicted of anything. Right. And getting the consequences. The only thing you weren’t getting was actually being put in jail.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yep. Let’s go ahead and take a call. We’ll see if we can answer it. I will tell you, impact on getting jobs and things like that. Oh, that changes everything. Yep. Let’s go to Roger quickly in Alabama. Roger, go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
I’ve got a good one for you. I was an amateur radio operator for about 20 years and we had to study the FCC rules and regulations and how our transmissions went out. It’s called 95.7 and your transmission had to be beautiful. It couldn’t have any noise in it. You couldn’t cuss and there were other things you couldn’t do and you couldn’t
SPEAKER 03 :
get on there and transmit false information and i don’t i don’t i think what’s changing that is that that is a much blurrier topic now uh with the government i think we don’t want them to be by the way i think a lot of the false information they were talking about was false information that would lead people to believe they are under attack yeah or there’s a tornado coming yeah yes that you know you don’t joke around with the world of the ward situation. We’ve been talking about it here behind the scenes that all of this kind of content, we’re working on something actually now with another major organization, corporation with FCC issues and some of these broadcast issues and antitrust issues and I will tell you It all probably, instead of piecemeal, you know, my idea is if you want to revamp it, revamp it. The piecemeal, you know, from the 1940s and 50s, it’s not going to work. So, you know, either revamp or let it stand. And as you’re seeing, we’re moving away from it anyways. You know, the sports is moving away from it. You’re able to get broadcast in how many different ways? Yes, I guess your ears still work, right?
SPEAKER 04 :
Not your body. There are antennas. There’s HD antennas, yes. A lot of those were taken away. A lot of those the government runs now, but there is HD versions of digital. Yeah. All right, that’s going to do it for today’s show. Support the work of the ACLJ while you’re at it. I know we’ve been all over the map today. But understand we’re doing all of this work. Yeah, and all around the world. Be a part of our team, even internationally at ACLJ.org. Take a look at the great free info we give you, free content, and all of it’s free because you support the work. Talk to you tomorrow.
