Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 18, 2024 - Louder with Crowder

01:11:17

LIVE FROM SUPREME COURT: Can Biden Crush Free Speech?! + Jim Jordan Joins!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you.
	Two.
	Three.
	Jump!
	With me!
	Sit!
	Ass!
	With me!
	Oh!
	With me!
	King!
	Such fun!
	Jump!
	With me!
	Sit!
	Ass!
	With me!
	Jump!
	Oh!
	With me!
	Jump with me, flip us with me, fall with me, keep such fun.
	Jump with me, flip us with me, jump, fall with me.
	Great big hit, play what you're on.
	Great big hit.
	I'm playin' music.
	And I'm good at it.
	Great big hit.
	I'm playin' like you're on.
	Mm-hmm-hmm-hmm.
	Great big hit.
	I'm playin' music each day.
	Each day.
	Jump with me.
	Flip us with me.
	Fall with me.
	Keepin' such fun in here with me.
	One flip us with me.
	Jump off with me.
	It is the very early morning hours of March 18th, 2024.
	And later on this morning, in this building behind me, the Supreme Court of the United States is going to hear oral arguments on the case of Bernie v. Missouri, otherwise known as Missouri v. Biden.
	It's time to change 230, get rid of 230.
	We're for getting this in front of the Supreme Court.
	The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don't know they've been banned.
	I am anti-Trump overall.
	I ban him so how?
	Our government, they can advise big tech right now as it relates to online censorship.
	All major tech platforms ensure the American people have access to accurate information.
	YouTube dragged its feet before taking any action against Steven Crowder.
	You have Susan Wojcicki talking with senators to demonetize this very channel.
	We did announce the monetization change that Steven Crowder...
	The DHS flagged 4,800 pieces of misinformation.
	The strike was you quoting the CDC.
	We want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation and mis- and disinformation.
	Feel that tension?
	Feel that f***ing tension that shouldn't exist?
	When we quote the CDC, we survived the Vox Apocalypse.
	YouTube, Google said, hey, you're not going to make another dime off ads.
	We broadcast the single largest individual election live stream in the history, doing it through Rumble.
	Current members of the government and entities who are backed by the government deciding to put you in stocks in the town square.
	The message is really loud.
	What Google does when they're supporting a candidate or a cause, they suppress the negative search suggestion.
	Just by manipulating those search suggestions, they're flashing at you.
	We can turn a 50-50 split among undecided voters into a 90-10 split with no one having the slightest idea.
	We're also training our algorithms like if 2016 happens again, would we, uh, would there?
	I, I, it couldn't be different.
	Just the Hunter Biden story is enough.
	According to the polls, 17% of Biden voters would have changed their vote if they'd known about the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	You would have had the biggest political landslide victory for Donald Trump in all of modern presidential history according to the people who voted for Biden.
	Everyone just might want to hit a clean slate policy, but do it so that everyone can start using social media to serve us and not serving this algorithm non-human brain.
	There are forces out there that they don't want that information out there, so they suppress it.
	If you say something that they in power deem to be unacceptable, you can still have your life ruined.
	Thanks to Mug Club viewers out there, we've been able to file an amicus brief on behalf of Louder with Crowder.
	And with any luck, I'll be in that courtroom later today, sitting and witnessing these oral arguments and coming back out to give you my analysis on what I found in the courtroom.
	LouderwithCrowder.com slash Mug Club.
	You can use the promo code SCOTUS for $10 off.
	You can also try $9 Mugless.
	We cannot do this without you.
	From the bottom I think of everyone's heart here as a thank you.
	The firearm?
	Yes, would you have any?
	Would I or do I?
	Both, actually.
	What?
	What what?
	I don't know, I'm asking you.
	But I was asking you.
	Is this about the firearms again?
	Yes, would you have some?
	Well, since you're offering.
	Yes, actually I would.
	Thanks for watching!
	Thanks for watching!
	Walther, one of life's finest firearms.
	Try it, you'll buy it.
	You're a stranger in love, that's what I know.
	You're a stranger in love, I got to follow.
	I'm in the sweetest love.
	I'm in the sweetest love.
	Okay, quick sep.
	We're going to introduce everybody really quickly.
	Number two, CEO Gerald Morgan.
	Thank you for being here.
	Third chair, Josh Feierstein.
	Excellent.
	The reason why is because today is a very special stream.
	We have our own George the Greek down live at the Supreme Court.
	We are going to have Representative Jim Jordan on in just a few minutes.
	So if at some point today, at any point today, you see this if you're watching on YouTube.
	Head on over to Rumble, live show, weekdays, 10 a.m.
	Eastern.
	Of course, today it's at 11.
	So, we actually have filed with the Supreme Court here today our own amicus brief to the Murphy v. Missouri, or Missouri v. Biden, as it's known, case as it relates to big tech, as it relates to government censorship.
	And there's a lot happening today, which could be, frankly, depending on what takes place, it could be the most Impact, people use the term turning point, could be the most impactful event in relation to not only this election, but future elections in the changing landscape of social media.
	You know that we've been up against this really going back at least since 2015, dealing with official bans on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
	But this is happening, this has affected the outcome of elections, period.
	You know that, we've covered that on this show, and today we're going to get into the specific arguments that are being made before the Supreme Court And depending how this goes, depending on how the Supreme Court rules, that may change everything that you see as it relates to social media.
	So question of the day, and please do, this is going to be a topic of today, the algorithm.
	So to help the algorithm, if you comment, it helps.
	Maybe not if you're on YouTube because they get to determine it anyway.
	We'll get to that.
	Do you think the tides are turning when it comes to Well, legacy media propaganda, and are you concerned about those tides not turning yet as it relates to big tech, social media propaganda?
	That's kind of the problem that is taking place, right?
	We thought, hey, no more gatekeepers.
	It's not ABC, NBC, CNN.
	Well, we've really gone to just a few key platforms, and they control over 90% of the information that you see.
	Gerald, how are you feeling?
	I'm good.
	We're good.
	I'm completely out of— I know.
	You gotta breathe.
	I'm not just breathing.
	I'm completely—because I was going to you for an intro, but I already did it.
	Josh, you're good?
	Yeah, I'm doing great, man.
	I'm just ready for this court case.
	It's gonna be... Supreme Court case.
	It's going to be intense.
	And by the way, as you know, this show is made possible entirely by you.
	Yes.
	Mug Club.
	We are not giving a dime on YouTube, which is a big part of it, right?
	Just demonetized.
	Imagine if you walked into your office and said, well, you still have to work here, but you're not gonna be paid anymore.
	So, we made sure to uncouple from Big Tech because you are the ones who support this show, the investigative journalism, the ability for us to send someone down and file an amicus brief like today.
	Of course, you also get Nick DiPaolo, Brian Callan, Hodge Twins, Mr. Guns and Gear, the Mug Club Undercover.
	All of that, it's only supported by people like you.
	Yeah, and by the way, just so you know, not just anybody can print one of these things up and file it with the court.
	There are a lot of rules and regulations that go into it.
	It costs many, many, many thousands of dollars and a lot of man hours just to be able to get to the point we are now, much less sending people on the ground and doing everything there.
	So, thank you again, Mug Club.
	It does not happen without your support.
	Doing something like this is a big, big, big lift.
	It looks like a St.
	Patrick's Day hymnal book.
	It does.
	Well, I don't want to get pinched.
	I think it is.
	I was wondering about the typos.
	You're drunk.
	Makes sense.
	Did you just have a filler light?
	You just got really bright.
	You know, I think it's just the glow of heaven.
	What is it actually?
	I have no idea.
	I think the light just turned on right up there.
	I turned his light up a little bit.
	It was a little dark.
	Well, turn him back down.
	I'm seeing him too clearly.
	Okay.
	So, February 7th, this show company filed an amicus brief.
	In this case, Missouri vs. Biden.
	Let me set this all up for you.
	It's also known as Murphy vs. Missouri, so if you hear me use those interchangeably.
	All of these references today are available.
	Link in the description.
	Livewithcreditor.com today.
	That's particularly important.
	For those who don't know, an amicus brief is basically a legal argument filed by a person who isn't the direct party in that case, but has a vested interest in the outcome and has relevant either evidence, documents, or an argument.
	Let me explain to you what this case is, okay?
	It's a case, not the Samickers brief, but the case itself is about the Biden administration communicating with big tech, colluding, let's use that term, colluding with big tech to remove content that they didn't like, which means that the Biden administration's actions, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
	I know libertarians will say, oh, private platforms, they can do whatever they want.
	We are way past that, especially after COVID.
	We were dealing with this for a very long time.
	COVID accelerated it.
	There is no doubt now.
	That places like YouTube, Facebook, at one point Twitter, now X, I still have to get that right, that they were doing the bidding of the government.
	Why?
	Because the government said so.
	Also, these platforms said so.
	They were doing it out in the open.
	So think about that for a second.
	They tried to claim, though, that the Biden administration, their counter-argument is that the government, I guess, was just exercising First Amendment rights in trying to persuade platforms to allow content and ban other content.
	Think about that for a second.
	That is their argument.
	I don't know what the hell they're talking about.
	I don't know what they're talking about.
	Someone should censor that.
	Yes. Not us.
	No, not us. We're about truth.
	So let me give you a few examples here as to what has been targeted by the government.
	Just before you say, oh it's just about conservatives and people just whining and claiming to be a victim.
	Okay.
	No.
	The COVID lab leak theory, it's now not referred to as a theory, but at one point in time, right, the Biden administration, this government said, we want you to specifically either throttle it, outright label it as misinformation.
	There were different steps that they had taken.
	If you criticize the efficacy of lockdowns, Or of the vaccines, which we did in this program, we were suspended for that.
	If you at any point questioned the legitimacy, not only the legitimacy, I want to be clear, of the 2020 election, but the changing of laws in states which affected the outcome of the election.
	If you criticized the unconstitutional changing of the laws, for example, in Pennsylvania, you could be removed.
	And also, keep in mind, one year, this was the biggest election stream ever in the history of, well, big tech on social media platforms.
	They removed us.
	They removed us and that's why we were able to stream to Rumble.
	That's not a small detail and the big reason for that, it was taking place in real time.
	Remember when the red wagons came in with ballots in Michigan and they were plastering up the voting precincts?
	We covered that in real time.
	It was impossible for them to say it was a conspiracy theory when everyone was watching and saying, what is happening?
	Now they had made up their excuses the next day or, for example, the pipe bursting in Georgia.
	That never actually happened?
	That never actually happened.
	There's a real value in seeing things in real time, and that's been a problem for this administration.
	So I want to be clear, it's not about conspiracy theories.
	It's about proven, at least facts, or at least, let's just even give them debatable information.
	information, like the COVID lab leak theory.
	Now it seems far more likely than unlikely.
	At the very least, it's a 50-50 wash.
	Anything that you wanted to...
	No, no, no, we're good.
	I know we've got Jim Jordan in about eight minutes here, but we'll detail some of the arguments in this case in just a minute to give you kind of a brief, and then we've got a lot more information after we do the interview with Jim Jordan to go through with everybody.
	And we have George the Greek down there.
	We also have George the Greek!
	Did noodles just have to go to the bathroom?
	He almost died.
	I was thrown off for a second.
	He was choking?
	He choked on a fly.
	He did it so quietly.
	That was the quietest choke.
	He was eating sunflower seeds.
	I like a guy who politely chokes.
	Yeah, you don't do that.
	Sunflower seeds?
	Yeah, I don't trust him.
	I don't trust him.
	Even for adults.
	He was choking?
	He choked so quietly you could hear a rat piss on cotton.
	That's usually how it happens.
	Do they typically do that?
	I've heard they do.
	I don't know their preference.
	It's like a urinal cake.
	Before we get into the arguments, we actually are going to check in again.
	We have George the Greek down there, but we also have our on-the-ground correspondent outside of the Supreme Court, as opposed to in, like George the Greek.
	Thomas Finnegan, let's go to him.
	Finnegan, what are you hearing about down...
	Why aren't you at the Supreme Court?
	Hi, Steven.
	Hi.
	Fine.
	You're supposed to be outside of the Supreme Court to cover the free speech case.
	Where are you?
	Well, I slept through my alarm, and I missed my flight, and I remember that you want me to go to a court, and the closest I could get to is the nearby pickleball court.
	Pickleball?
	And I made good time.
	Pickleball?
	The court?
	I see what you're...
	Is that, is that actually... Pickleball is growing in popularity, combining elements from badminton, tennis, and ping-pong.
	Finnegan, you are a waste of space.
	I don't even, I don't, I don't care anymore.
	It's a fan-friendly sport.
	Anyone can play.
	What does it have to do with big tech or free speech, Finnegan?
	That's the point that we're getting to.
	Pickleball is free.
	You just have to sign up at the Rec Center.
	Using your services should be free.
	Tim Cutt, I don't want to...
	I promise you, George the Greek is in the Supreme Court right now.
	Do we have the audio feed, actually, from George?
	Yeah, we do.
	Okay, so you can hear, he is in there right now, just so you can hear what it is that he is hearing.
	Let's bring that up just really quickly.
	Why are you showing the street fighter?
	Is that a fun thing to show?
	So get their reactions and also hear maybe novel arguments that are being made or a poor defense by the Biden administration.
	So he'll be able to give us kind of an insight into what's actually going on and maybe which way they'll lean.
	They're arguing today, they'll judge the kind of rule on this in June, I believe, and announce the decision.
	We'll be covering that as well, but you can kind of understand with a 6-3 court where people are probably going to head.
	We're looking at those votes that might sway like Kavanaugh, right, or Roberts.
	Maybe what their reactions, what their questions are to kind of make some indication of what they think.
	Yes.
	So let's go through these arguments really quickly after Representative Jim Jordan.
	We'll go through these in detail.
	Do you have these numbered there, Toolman?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So argument number one that's being made.
	Um, that Big Tech is, is, uh, not only is it large enough, but the way they operate, they need to be considered a public square, a digital town square.
	Meaning they are not just a publisher, right, they are not just the New York Times, for example, or NBC News, because they don't want to be.
	They benefit from Section 230, and they are so ubiquitous, they are required for people to express their opinions right now, and they benefit from the protections of legal liability, that they need to be subject to the constitutional constraints on limiting speech just as a real Town Square would be.
	And by the way, this is being made right here today, but we have been making this here at this show for years.
	Ladder with Crowder has been censored by Facebook, or been targeted for selective oppression by Facebook.
	Ladder with Crowder was fingered by Facebook as a page to throttle.
	But this week, for the first time, we ran into this problem with Google here on YouTube.
	And there has been just definitely an uptick in election time. And the idea too is this kind of goes to
	the what we've talked about with big tech is that it's the digital town square, right? So it kind of
	it's predicated on the same idea that you can't ban someone from a town hall just because they're
	critical of you. All right. So and Joe, you can jump, but I know we have to get to Tim Jordan here
	pretty quickly. Here's another argument that you'll see that's being made today. I want to be clear.
	Are these our arguments or these are the arguments period? These are the
	These are arguments kind of period, but they're based on arguments that are being made as well, right?
	Some of them are actually ours.
	And go to argument number two right now.
	Argument number?
	We scrolled down just a little bit to four.
	Go back up to number two.
	Oh, what happened?
	Oh, I apologize.
	Your finger moved the thing.
	Well, it's because I'm looking at the amicus brief and it says don't write on this because it's a crime or something like that.
	It's not like a mattress tag.
	Okay.
	So, by the way, I've broken the law with taking off the tags.
	Oh yeah, all the time.
	I particularly take the tags off of the face gloves that I use on my little ones because, you know, that can scratch their eye.
	I took it off my mattress.
	I buck the tag sign.
	I don't care.
	I'm a tag ripper, dude.
	I don't care.
	I'll tell anybody.
	Josh the Ripper.
	I don't pay my taxes either.
	Careful.
	So.
	Argument, I guess, number two here that you're going to see is that the Biden administration, it violated Section 230 by specifically coercing platforms to censor.
	Right, which they said they're persuading.
	Their word is persuading, we say coercing.
	Why?
	Because it's the federal government.
	You know what happens if you don't obey, right?
	It's like the mob.
	There's consequences.
	Exactly.
	Another argument that is being made here today, that the Biden administration, number three I guess, that they turned social media, effectively these platforms, into an arm of the government.
	Yes.
	Right?
	When they actually say you have to, at this point, permit this viewpoint and not this viewpoint.
	Or if they say, you have to go by these CDC guidelines, you have to go by this establishment's guidelines.
	Institutional, right?
	That's why he's very big.
	Trust your institutions.
	Well, if you don't trust your institutions, you're not going to be able to operate.
	So effectively, this administration outsourced constitutional violations to private companies, which is really kind of an odd thing to outsource.
	Yeah, you figure you're just going to do the job yourself.
	But it's a commodity.
	Argument number four that you'll see, and we'll get to all these again after Representative Jordan, that algorithms, and this is something you will probably see Supreme Court justices discuss after this, I will tell you this, a lot of conservatives, a lot of people, they're not as involved as you are, so they don't fully understand what it means.
	The algorithms have enabled censorship to take place without the public knowing at all.
	This is something that we specifically brought to the attention of the Supreme Court here today.
	Non-public algorithms, they allow for shadow banning to take place.
	So you may know about, for example, demonetization.
	Sure.
	Our problem personally has not been with demonetization, it's been with not even being able to reach the people who are subscribing, people who hit the notification bell.
	And let's define what algorithms are.
	This is artificial intelligence coded by humans with a mission in mind.
	In other words, someone codes an algorithm, like you see with Google, to affect the election.
	Someone codes an algorithm to flag the Hunter Biden story as misinformation.
	Someone codes an algorithm to show you penis or dildo, which is on YouTube and non-age-restricted.
	But questioning, for example, lockdowns or even pointing to Sweden and them not having lockdowns is not something that you will see, even if you're looking for it.
	That's an algorithm and it's not public.
	You see your screen.
	You see your feed because of something that is happening beneath the service that is being obfuscated by design.
	And think about this for a second.
	Algorithms determining the content.
	That's a human being then putting it in the hands of an artificial machine.
	But it starts with a human.
	What do you think that does to investigative journalism?
	So imagine they're being coerced by the government, if you will.
	The government says you're not allowed to actually Make sure that people see this.
	Let's go back to Watergate, which, keep in mind, it wasn't that Nixon knew about Watergate.
	It wasn't that Nixon cleared it.
	The scandal was him saying, well, how do we contain this so the public doesn't know and they don't assume that I was the one involved with this?
	Now, picture if Nixon was in charge of Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter, Spotify, as Jen Psaki refers to it.
	It's a whole new company.
	You would have never known about Watergate, or at the very least, people would say, ah, it's a nothing burger, to use a term that I hate and the people who use it.
	Really quickly, we have an update.
	The Supreme Court arguments are going a little long so Jordan's going to be probably quite a bit late, maybe 20 minutes.
	So let's, we can keep going in this and then we can actually get into the details of each one of these points because we actually have some very good detail to every one of these arguments and why they're important to you guys and how we play a part in this as well as some of the other people that have filed here.
	So we can get into that stuff and then when Jim Jordan is able to come on.
	I can do that.
	We can also, when we want, we can have George come on and give us a little bit of an update from inside as well if we want to do that.
	Well, you guys let me know when the best time is to do that.
	And by the way, if you're watching right now, the best thing you can do to cut through the algorithms, if you are not a Mugg Club member, download the Rumble app.
	Okay, you can watch on YouTube, that's the worst scenario.
	You can hit the subscription, it doesn't really mean anything.
	You can hit the notification bell, you can go over and watch on Rumble, download the app so that you know, you choose the notifications that you get.
	Here's an argument, I guess number five, that the The algorithmic censorship taking place at the hands of the Biden administration constitutes a prior restraint on free speech.
	What do I mean?
	Big tech, meaning a few companies, they censor themselves, they self-censor in advance because they know that the Biden administration will come down on them.
	I'm sorry, persuade them.
	Well, so when they did it in the first place, right, and so this is that censoring speech in advance, they basically did it once.
	And made an example of people.
	Right.
	Right?
	So they're like, ah, we had to come down on you guys here.
	Oh, a little bit of extra scrutiny for your company here.
	It'd really be a shame if we had to come and do the same thing to you.
	So once you've done it once, these other companies then act because they know how the government is going to then act if they don't do what they want them to do.
	Right.
	And so that's a really big deal.
	It's like the mafia, right?
	To go back to that example, the mafia just has to go and burn one guy's business to the ground for everybody else on the block to fall in line and go, you know what?
	They don't even have to threaten me.
	I'm going to do what I know they want me to do, which is pay them weekly to stay in business.
	That's exactly what the government is doing here, and that's the argument that's being made.
	Oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you guys.
	There is the promo code SCOTUS, right?
	$10 off if you join Mug Club, because we would not have been able to do this without you.
	So we'll have Jim join us.
	And so there's a link in the description.
	Make sure you go and click that.
	It automatically puts the promo code in for you.
	We make it as easy as possible.
	And look, you don't want to be gay, so subscribe to your channel.
	Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	I mean, some people want to be.
	I don't think.
	Yeah.
	No, actually no, I don't think anyone wants.
	1920's gay.
	Like happy.
	You don't want to be happy.
	Yeah, like the Flintstones?
	Go subscribe.
	It was a time.
	You unhappy?
	It wasn't gay, the time was gay.
	It's $10 off, come on.
	I'm gay.
	The English language, it's not like the romance language, it's not as descriptive.
	It isn't?
	Let's go through the specifics on this, since Representative Jim Jordan is going to be later.
	And guys, just let me know when.
	We will.
	He's in there right now, so that's why he's going to be there.
	I notice they're not covering it on the mainstream.
	Of course not!
	Shocker!
	So the first argument that I presented to you, okay, that big tech is so large it needs to be considered the town square.
	And we can just hit number one again, Tim, so they know.
	Do it.
	I mean, you got it there.
	So let me ask you this.
	Should your politics allow private companies to deny you, for example, a bank account, a cell phone, to get a loan, to buy an airplane ticket?
	Think of those things.
	No, of course not.
	Because you vote Republican?
	Even, let's say, because you believe that all vaccines cause autism, which we do not, I'm not saying that here, I'm saying let's take a radical leap.
	Let's say that you believe that Ted Cruz's dad shot JFK.
	He did!
	Should you not be able to take a puddle jumper with spirit?
	You should be subjected to hell just like everyone else.
	And remember the Chinese social credit score?
	It's like an episode of Black Mirror.
	And more importantly than that, with Section 230, it's very specific.
	This is outlined as you deal with, for example, cell phone companies.
	They cannot remove you due to your politics.
	Of course, they can remove you from the comments section at the newyorktimes.com, but they are not a utility.
	They are a publisher.
	And these platforms, these social media platforms, are treated as utilities.
	So let's, let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that private companies can just, they can do whatever they want.
	Well, this is not one of those cases, and even then there is precedent to say that that is not always the case.
	Right, and we don't even have to go to the Chinese credit score to have examples of this.
	We can use Alex Jones.
	We can use Kanye West.
	No matter what you think of people, they had beliefs and political opinions that they expressed that caused them to be debanked, right?
	So you no longer can do business with Chase, I believe, in Kanye's case, right?
	Then you have people saying, you know what, Alex Jones, we're no longer going to let you process credit cards.
	With anyone.
	I'm not talking about just like a provider.
	I'm talking about the credit card company that the provider then is going to.
	So Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Diners Club, if that's still a thing.
	You basically can't do anything with a credit card.
	Okay, how do people pay to see your content?
	How do people support you?
	It's just like Canada when they're freezing the accounts of these guys, truckers, doing protests, right?
	So these things happen.
	And then it's AWS, which almost everybody except for Rumble, thank God, uses as the backbone and the cloud for their services to say, you know what?
	We have a Terms of Service as well.
	You can't use our site.
	They came after us because of the BlackRock story, right?
	And said, hey, you can't use our services to put this article up, guys.
	You should go after them.
	You should go after them.
	That's the kind of stuff that's happening today.
	Just on your viewpoint, much less all the stuff that we've done journalistically that is absolutely airtight, 100%.
	Still don't have a lawsuit, by the way.
	Not one lawsuit.
	I'll keep you updated.
	I still don't have a lawsuit.
	Or a mayor contacting us for more information from, I don't know, Nashville.
	Right.
	Who's also gay.
	Allegedly.
	I don't think so.
	Allegedly.
	He's not a subscriber, though.
	That's what I heard.
	That's what I heard.
	Maybe he wants to be.
	So, again, this brings us to the second argument that we made, a little more detail, a little more granular here, that they violated 230, again, by coercing platforms.
	That's Chris Pratt's new social.
	Coercing platforms to censor certain speech, right?
	And this, let me give you some details here with the Biden administration.
	So Section 230, if you don't know, allows platforms Um, kind of to censor a narrow type of speech without being considered the publisher.
	Let me read this for you.
	It says, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
	Otherwise objectionable?
	That's broad.
	Yes.
	Well, that's why you couldn't publish Ashley Biden's diary.
	Oh.
	Why?
	Joe Biden showered with her.
	Oh.
	When she was old enough to know it was creepy.
	You know that, right?
	Also, Ilhan Omar married her brother.
	Bang.
	It's true.
	This is where the administration, though, also violated this, because demands go outside of this narrow window.
	For example, questioning the CDC, questioning the WHO, questioning the idea of massive lockdowns, and even bringing up, for example, sounding the alarm bells that this could have catastrophic results for children and the educational system, which we now know to be true, that's not lascivious.
	That's not outrageous, that's not violent.
	Obscene.
	That's not obscene.
	Questioning, for example, what happened in Pennsylvania, what happened in Georgia, which of course Stacey Abrams has done, everyone from Stacey Abrams to Amy Klobuchar to Hillary Clinton as far as questioning election results, that's not obscene.
	And the demands from the administration are far outside of that scope.
	So that's the actual Trojan horse when people refer to that.
	It's, okay, well look, this administration actually has the right in these companies if something is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, otherwise objectionable.
	That's the term.
	Let me ask you this.
	When Gerald Morgan... Oops.
	I mean, Boy Scout personified, honestly, when he said that actually more children die from the standard flu annually than all years combined of COVID, as far as children, infants and toddlers.
	When he says the standard flu is more dangerous to them, according to the CDC, and quotes the CDC, For which we were suspended and the content was removed.
	Does that meet the threshold for obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing?
	Yeah, you know what my crime was there?
	I was looking at the CDC report from the state of California and referencing the last ten flu seasons and the deaths of those age groups.
	That's all I did.
	We pulled the overlay up and highlighted four of the last ten years had higher death rates at that point in time.
	And that's even with counting every single accidental death as COVID at the time because somebody died with COVID but not because of COVID.
	Right.
	Right?
	Does it meet that threshold?
	How about Biden-Burisma?
	Why was that removed, which would have affected the election?
	We're not just talking about Hunter Biden.
	Former Vice President Joe Biden, when you're talking about the relations, the 10% for the big guy, the type of relationships that he bragged about with China until he tried to say that he was tough on China, does that meet that threshold?
	Because this administration has worked hand-in-hand with big tech to ensure that those stories don't get out.
	People talk about Donald Trump not relinquishing the reins of power.
	Okay, they want you to be afraid of the idea of Donald Trump saying, I'm never leaving, I'm staying forever and putting his feet... What would you consider an administration, while in power, abusing their authority in using social media to censor any negative stories to ensure that they remain in power?
	What would you consider... that's refusing to relinquish the reins of power.
	Like Russia.
	What about going after your political opponent with over a hundred different counts, I believe, or charges?
	Right.
	I think that's probably something that falls into that as well.
	The administration is, again, this is the Saul Alinsky tactics, they're doing exactly what they're accusing us of doing.
	Exactly.
	Which brings us to argument, I guess, number three.
	And you guys can jump in wherever, because I know there's a lot of legalese here, but this amicus brief, and I believe all the information today from the Supreme Court, is going to be made publicly available.
	Yeah, we'll tell people where they can go and get it.
	And for you in Mug Club, we're actually working on, there's a way for us to give it to you in Mug Club via PDF.
	Okay.
	So I think there's a way we're going to make it available to everybody in Mug Club as one of the benefits of joining, if you guys want to read through it.
	Otherwise, you'd have to go through the Supreme Court and kind of scroll through everything to try to find it in there.
	It's so cold in here, I hurt my neck.
	You hurt your neck because it's cold?
	Well, there's only two ways to hurt your neck.
	Man.
	No.
	Uh-oh.
	I've got a few ways.
	Number three, the Biden administration, you're totally right, they turned these social media platforms into an arm of the government.
	Okay, so there were two ways that this was accomplished, or possible ways.
	Coercion of platforms.
	They said persuasion.
	And then they also had threats of reviewing Section 230 and the protections if the platforms don't cooperate, right?
	So it's, oh, you know what?
	We might review this and remove the liability protections.
	No, no, no, no, wait, we'll do what you say.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	We'll do what you say.
	We'll do what you say.
	Even though they're already violating Section 230.
	They also, by the way, directly participated with these platforms to be controlling speech.
	To what point?
	Okay.
	The Ministry of Misinformation.
	That's a joke, obviously, but it happened.
	It's not a joke.
	Let's back that off a little bit.
	Jen Psaki saying, we really would like to see more of this from Spotify with Joe Rogan.
	That's a private company.
	Well, actually, sorry, it's a publicly traded company, Spotify, if I'm not mistaken.
	I know many of these companies are.
	What do you think happens when they go, oh wait, hold on a second, we have a duty to our shareholders and the White House press secretary just told us what we need to do?
	Right.
	Publicly.
	Yeah, exactly.
	This was a public press briefing.
	This was not an email that we happened to find out about later from the Twitter files.
	It was something that she said publicly and felt comfortable saying it.
	Fearless.
	Completely fearless.
	Yes.
	Because they have no fear of accountability.
	So this administration has been intertwined with these platforms directly in controlling them and censoring your speech, to be clear.
	Which, by the way, has already been dramatized on screen.
	I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice.
	Well, uh, how are we supposed to know when that is?
	You won't.
	I'll let you know.
	You are the bouncers, I am the cooler.
	All you have to do is watch my back and each other's.
	Take out the trash.
	Are we the trash?
	I think so.
	Compared to... God has never made a better looking man.
	Oh my god.
	The way his hair just kind of like, just lazily just falls perfectly right there.
	And then the reverse shot is to that mongoloid.
	How do we do that?
	How do we do that?
	Look at my jawline.
	Shut up.
	Such a weird movie.
	I'll tell you what to do.
	It's a bizarre movie.
	We need 25 bouncers and this bar is still in business.
	One of them needs...
	What the...
	🎵 Why don't you be a bouncer?
	I don't know, man.
	Alright.
	It's a career choice, man.
	It's a career choice.
	Once you make your decision, you gotta stay there.
	You had a 401k to uphold.
	It's roadhouse time.
	Okay.
	So arguments...
	Number four.
	We use this term so much.
	Algorithms, algorithms, algorithms.
	Think about what that is for a second and how dangerous it is.
	And these algorithms enable censorship to take place without the public knowing at all, without you knowing at all.
	And this is something that we brought in our amicus brief exclusively.
	You know about the Clean Slate campaign.
	We do not want to be slaves to the masters of algorithms, because it's an artificial brain.
	It's not even a real person at that point, but it was put into that position by someone who likely hates everything you stand for.
	When you see an algorithm, or you hear the term algorithm, it determines everything that you see, everything that you don't see in your social media platforms, in your YouTube feed, in your meta, sorry, Facebook feed, TikTok, whatever it is.
	It was created by someone in Palo Alto, 99% of whom, we've run these numbers, have not only voted but donated directly to the Democratic Party, and they want to determine what it is not only that you see from one side as a consumer, but what you can say.
	As either a content provider or simply someone using the Digital Town Square.
	And then it goes to an algorithm.
	So let me kind of give you some examples here.
	These completely private algorithms.
	What do they facilitate?
	Shadow banning?
	Um, there's also algorithmic demotion, meaning, uh, we're gonna make sure that you simply don't see this content.
	For example, for a long period of time you could search, Lauder with Crowder changed my mind abortion, and you would find a video from PBS with 400 plays.
	Exactly.
	Supporting abortion.
	It leaves content creators completely unclear as it relates to what content is allowed, which is by design, right?
	It's confusing you.
	And it completely, there's no context when these censorship decisions are being made.
	So what happens is people just start self-censoring or you have other companies, for example, conservative companies saying, you know what, just play ball and make sure you don't even go close to the lines with YouTube or Meta or TikTok.
	We just, we don't want to risk it.
	Why?
	Because we're terrified!
	They'll demonetize us.
	They might, they might demote us.
	Why are you?
	Because the algorithm, we don't know what it is.
	Let's just all play ball.
	We already know we can't question the efficacy of vaccines.
	We already know that we can't talk about elections or interference.
	We already know that we cannot talk about lockdowns.
	We know all of these things.
	We know that we can't talk about puberty blockers with kids.
	We can't talk about sexual assault in female prisons from biological... We know that we can't... So don't talk about those things in the play It's Safe.
	Don't talk about anything that may even broach those subjects.
	Think about that.
	Now, transparency, which is what's being pushed for here, could help with a lot of that.
	In other words, it's not about taking control over these companies, it's about ensuring that they're playing by the rules that everybody else is.
	If you know what determines the algorithms, that at least helps, and they'll at least have to straighten up and fly right.
	These are steps to take that are easy to take, there's precedent, and the left and the right, why would anyone be against transparency?
	for the algorithms created by these platforms who are treated
	as utilities, public utilities, and they benefit from Section 230.
	You are asking them to play by the rules that everyone else does.
	Right, and look, I think we need to make sure that people know, like,
	it's possible that the justices in this case would have never even heard of,
	like, some of the terms that we just talked about there.
	Not because they're not smart people, because that's not their world, right?
	They wouldn't have heard about like algorithmic suppression or using it as really a weapon against conservative viewpoints or viewpoints you just don't want out there.
	But because we filed this brief, the clerks in a lot of cases will read this and highlight sections or summarize.
	Depending on the justice.
	Some justices want to make sure they do their own reading.
	Some justices, give me the high points, and this will actually make it into the record now.
	And so they'll see, wait, they're doing what?
	Right.
	Right?
	So some, one of those justices, their clerks, a group of them, a lot of them may even reference this in their opinions.
	Can I pause you for one second?
	Bring up CNN right now because we have a segment on this.
	Oh, they were just talking about bloodbath from Donald Trump.
	This is a perfect example happening in real time.
	Donald Trump talked about the automotive industry and China and what they're doing in Mexico and how some of these auto manufacturing plants have moved over and he was talking about China taking advantage of our trade laws and that there would be a tariff in China and that if he wasn't elected we have a whole segment on this that if he was not elected that there would be a bloodbath right there would be a bloodbath for the automotive industry.
	Now this was one of those quotes where when it happened I didn't even think it would go anywhere but it's a slow news day and so what happens is his original speech Is demoted.
	The algorithm says you're not going to see Donald Trump's speech because it is clear as day what happened, but the algorithm tells you, CNN, CNN, well you can just bring it up right now, it doesn't say Bloodbath, but it did just 12 seconds ago, CNN, the talking heads, telling you what Donald Trump meant by Bloodbath is what you see.
	Remember, January 6th, Donald Trump said, peacefully and patriotically, walk over, march over, make your voices heard.
	That, you couldn't find it.
	Couldn't find it anywhere.
	What you could find was a talking head saying that Donald Trump called for violence.
	This is an algorithm.
	Think about what happened in Charlottesville.
	Donald Trump said very clearly, I'm not talking about neo-Nazis or skinheads who should be
	condemned totally.
	Right.
	But there, you had good people on both sides, meaning, keeping up a historical statue, taking it down.
	Completely condemned neo-Nazi skinheads, in no uncertain terms.
	Remember?
	You were told, find people on both sides, including Nazis and skinheads, because you didn't see what Donald Trump said.
	It's really hard to search for it, even today!
	But you can have the other people telling you what Donald Trump meant.
	That's the algorithm.
	That's the shadow banning.
	That's the demoting.
	Now add that up with every single story, every single day.
	You think that affects elections?
	We just throw it under the umbrella.
	Algorithms!
	Think of how corrosive that is.
	Honestly, you go back to Pravda, you go to a lot of these other countries, a handful of oligarchs determining what the media can cover isn't all that different from five to ten people in Palo Alto who have direct meetings with the government.
	At this point, comment below.
	What's the difference?
	What's the difference?
	Comment.
	Because I don't see one.
	This is not about private industry at this point.
	And this brings us to the argument number five here.
	That the algorithmic censorship constitutes a prior restraint on free speech.
	What do I mean by this?
	They decided, this administration, what was verboten on free speech before you even spoke it.
	Okay, so let's say a COVID expert Who's skeptical about the mRNA vaccine?
	Let's say someone who actually created, developed the mRNA technology himself!
	Skeptical?
	Censored.
	Gone.
	Question some facts about the 2020 election?
	Censored.
	Gone.
	Question lockdowns?
	Censored.
	Gone.
	Stream the Oscars and are critical of propaganda?
	Censored.
	Gone.
	Gone!
	This has already happened.
	So some key points here to remember.
	You, right now, all of you, watching.
	If you're watching, listening, you are all publishers.
	The comments you leave, the posts you make, those are considered published content.
	You can be held liable for that.
	You are responsible for what it is that you post.
	Not with these platforms.
	Here's another key point.
	Section 230 only permits platforms to censor obscene content without becoming you, the publisher.
	That's the important distinction.
	But that is not how this is acting, and this is not... I can't explain to you enough.
	These algorithms, this administration, they're not demanding that obscene speech, that snuff videos be removed.
	It's just the Ashley Biden diary because of investigative journalism.
	It's just live streaming an election where there's a voting precinct that says a pipe burst in Georgia and you find out in real time that it's not true and the government says hold on a second that could be misinformation because they were covering in real time before we got to the lie that we told.
	This has nothing to do with the actual law.
	That's the issue.
	All right, so we've got Jim Jordan in about 10 to 15 minutes.
	We know he's coming, so what we'd like to do now is if we can is go to George, who is
	live outside of the Supreme Court for just a few minutes.
	We're working on it now.
	Oh yeah, we just got his image now.
	Got his image?
	All right, good.
	Perfect.
	So we have, do we have a stinger or no?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	All right, it's time for George the Greek, live from the Supreme Court.
	All right, George the Greek.
	I appreciate you being there, sir.
	You look sharp.
	It looks like it warmed up because you're not wearing your overcoat.
	Oh, the audio doesn't work.
	We can't hear George.
	Oh, he looks pissed.
	Can you hear me now?
	Yes, it was just having the microphone.
	Yeah, small detail, but we got it now.
	What was that?
	Was that in your cameraman's pockets for God's sake?
	We're trying to cut out wind noise in creative ways.
	No, we got it.
	Can you hear me alright?
	I can hear you alright.
	So you were just there in the Supreme Court.
	Is there anything that you noticed specifically, a major update for us?
	Yes.
	So I was right up front.
	It was a great vantage point.
	And I got to see things that you really couldn't understand in audio.
	So broadly speaking, you know, the conservative judges were kind of questioning the government a lot and vice versa with the liberal judges.
	But, you know, I could see like Clarence Thomas visibly frustrated.
	Can you pause one second?
	I think we're still getting the feed from inside the Supreme Court.
	It's audio from outside protests.
	Oh, is that someone with a megaphone?
	Yeah, a really large one.
	We're trying to get away from it.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I thought it was like we were on the wrong radio frequency and we were getting... Oh, well, alright.
	What an asshole.
	Unless they're friendlies, I don't know.
	Sorry, continue.
	Well, it depends.
	Continue.
	You're saying Clarence Thomas, who I love.
	Yes, well, we love him.
	You know, he's kind of stoic, you know, he doesn't really say much, but in the court I could see him visibly frustrated at some of the answers the government was giving as to how they justify their actions.
	You know, not really saying much, but, you know, sort of rolling his eyes, tucking himself back in the chair.
	Alito, definitely the most hostile of all the judges, questioning not only the government's motives, but their methods.
	Which I thought was helpful.
	On the flip side, Missouri got a lot of heat from the liberal judges.
	And, you know, unfortunately, you know, I think the Missouri lawyers kind of dropped the ball when the comparisons between newspapers and social media platforms came up.
	I think they had a good opportunity there to delineate the difference between the two.
	You know, newspapers being publishers and having the right, you know, to sort of pick and choose versus social media platforms.
	I think the discussion there got a little muddled.
	Overall, I feel like it's probably going to be some kind of a split decision.
	And the real question is not really if Biden, you know, violated.
	There is a violation there.
	I think it's going to be how broad their ruling is.
	Do they limit it specifically to the injunction at hand or do they take a very broad ruling here and outline more terms?
	I think that's very TBD at this point.
	Yeah, it seems like it could be.
	Did you notice anything as far as, you know, when we were talking, for example, about the algorithmic censorship?
	You know, you helped us introduce terms here that they may not even be familiar with.
	Was that something that they asked about or they followed up on?
	Uh, so I left a little bit early so they may still do that.
	Nothing directly on that point.
	They did generally speak about some of the methods used by social media platforms, but really the conversation focused on the intent, you know?
	What was the subject matter at hand and did it rise to a level of violating the First Amendment and even provisions of Section 230?
	Again, those social media platforms were not a party to this case.
	It was really the federal government at issue.
	But algorithmic censorship, not really a topic of conversation as much as I would have liked it to be.
	It was more about the nature of the content and whether there was good faith involved.
	Yeah, and that's important to note because a lot of people don't know.
	We are already at that point.
	The federal government is involved.
	We're not just discussing YouTube at this point or Facebook.
	This is where it is.
	There's no doubt.
	There's no argument as to the fact that this had taken place.
	It's just okay to what degree.
	It's the severity of the outcome.
	I believe that Gerald Morgan had a question.
	Yeah, just a quick question, George.
	So on a couple of the justices that we said we were going to keep an eye on, you said Roberts a lot of times likes to go the opposite direction maybe of the majority just to make it look like more of an even split of the court.
	For him and maybe Justice Kavanaugh, did you see anything that gives you any indication on what they're thinking?
	Yes, actually, I would say that that's an apt characterization of Justice Roberts in this case, sort of middle of the road.
	And if anything, I think a little bit deferential to the government, especially in cases of what we would call an emergency and their ability to communicate quickly with, say, social media platforms.
	And this is part of the discussion that I wish the respondents brought back to, which is, yeah, you know, you have those hypotheticals.
	But in this case, we were talking about memes.
	You know, we were talking about You know what I mean?
	It really was an opportunity there to bring those things back and I think more of that discussion should have come in because we're really not talking about a national emergency exclusively here.
	We're talking about the government overreaching.
	On things they have no business overreaching on, and way outside the bounds of Section 230.
	Right.
	Well, we have to broom you right now, George DeGree, because we have Representative Jim Jordan on.
	Not that he's more important, but, you know, we see you every day, so we'll check back in with you in a little bit.
	This has been George DeGree.
	Good work from him!
	Alright, it's going to be a stinger upon a stinger upon a stinger because now we do have, do we have him on?
	We're ready?
	We are good to go, gentlemen?
	Give us a minute.
	Is he up there?
	I see him, we're just getting it all set up right now.
	You guys told me you were ready.
	I wish that anybody else had the passion for how much I hate you right now.
	By the way, I thought George did a pretty good job there.
	He gave us some indications on what these justices were thinking.
	I love the fact that Clarence Thomas can't hide his disappointment.
	He's like, ugh.
	He seems like somebody, we've said this before, he seems like somebody that we would enjoy hanging out with.
	I would love to clerk for Clarence Thomas.
	I know.
	He probably walks back into his scores like, can you believe this shit?
	Let's have a beer and talk some shit.
	And look, one of the reasons that we're bringing Jim Jordan on, he was one of the people that signed on, he had his own amicus brief as well, and he's been leading the charge, been very vocal on Section 230, and this plays right into that, even though this isn't specifically 230, it does play a role in this, so that's one of the reasons we've got him, and I think we've got him ready to go for you now.
	Also, he was one hell of a wrestler.
	He was!
	And he did wrestle, we have actually people here who attended his wrestling camps.
	Really?
	Yeah, I believe it was the Jordan Brothers if I'm not mistaken, and none of the weird stuff like that DuPont bastard.
	No.
	Just does a good job coaching.
	Let's go to Representative Jim Jordan.
	Alright, Representative Jim Jordan, can you hear me, sir?
	I can.
	How are you?
	I'm doing very well.
	Thank you for, thank you for being here.
	And we actually have some people out here who did attend your, I don't know if you call them like wrestling clinics?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	It's my brother's, my brother's camp.
	He's, he's, uh, he does a great job and a great business he has.
	And so, yeah, we were, we were just talking about that.
	It would be great.
	I, what I wouldn't give to see you, I don't know what your go-to, if it was a single or an ankle pick, you know, uh, someone, someone there like Zuckerberg or the like, you know what I mean?
	In a consensual way.
	Yeah, a man who knows a little something about wrestling.
	Yeah, well, that's a long time ago for me, but I wanted to play middle linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers, even though I'm from Ohio.
	I grew up in the 70s, and I love Jack Lambert, but when you're my size, you gotta wrestle.
	So it was a great sport for our family.
	Like I said, my brother's done well with his business there, so all good.
	Well, it never really leaves you.
	I mean, you also look like you stay relatively trim.
	My point is, I'm pretty sure you could beat the hell out of most of the people in our House of Representatives.
	That's something, if nothing else.
	Which shows restraint.
	Let me ask, and you're doing this live from the Rumble Studios, which we appreciate because we know that's a safe space, to use the word, where we're not going to be censored on Rumble.
	We had an amicus brief.
	I know you've been leading this charge here.
	What was the main argument that you laid out in your own amicus brief here today?
	When the government does something that they, you know, through some private company that they can't do by themselves, when they're coercing, when they're censoring through someone else, that is still censorship.
	And that's the fundamental line.
	And I just came from the argument.
	I will tell you that there was one line that I still can't believe Judge Jackson said this.
	But she actually said to the Solicitor General from Louisiana, she said, you've got the First Amendment hamstringing the government.
	Now, think about that.
	What?
	That's the whole thing in purpose.
	Like, it's opposed to the government.
	I mean, the fact that you have a person from the United States Supreme Court make that statement in the arguments on a case about censorship and the First Amendment, it's just like, I'm like, At one point, I can only know what to say.
	Like, how can you say the same thing?
	That's like saying, the problem with the Second Amendment is it's going to make the government afraid of coming to your house to take your guns away.
	It's exactly right.
	It's so scary what we heard there.
	But I thought he did a good job, the Solicitor General from Louisiana, laying out this is a fundamental, you know, First Amendment case where you've got the government, I think, coercing, significantly encouraging is another one of the standards and the tests in some of the cases that have been in front of the court before.
	And I think that's clearly the case.
	Remember this too, Stephen.
	On the third day of the Biden administration, the White House sends an email to Twitter saying this, take down this tweet, ASAP.
	And the tweet was from RFK Jr.
	Everything in the tweet was accurate.
	But on the third day, they're starting the censorship operation.
	And the irony is, they're going after the very guy who's going to run against them in the primary, for goodness sake.
	If that's not the definition of why government is not supposed to do this, I don't know what is.
	No, that's a very good point.
	We were just talking about today, for example, the bloodbath controversy with Donald Trump, where what they do is it's impossible to find his original comments where it couldn't be more clear.
	This is not even remotely controversial, the referring to a bloodbath regarding the automotive industry.
	You don't find that.
	You find what all the talking heads say, and you add that up day after day after day after day, let alone one story.
	Hunter Biden laptop.
	One story changes the outcome of the election.
	I don't know if you know this, Representative Jordan.
	The first time the public saw the Hunter Biden laptop, Mayor Rudy Giuliani was on this show, and it was incidental.
	And I said, wait, wait, what?
	He goes, yeah, that's the Hunter Biden laptop.
	I go, wait, that's the actual?
	He goes, yeah, he left it over here at a computer.
	I have it right here in front of me.
	I'm like, this is happening?
	And of course that got removed.
	That got suspended.
	That week.
	And we've been at the middle of this accident.
	Let me ask you this, though.
	Because I know you've subpoenaed a lot of records, and a lot of this information wouldn't have been public if not for, for example, Elon Musk taking over Twitter.
	Very good.
	Very true.
	Which we're very grateful for.
	What are the most shocking examples that you've seen through the records that you've subpoenaed between the Biden administration and big tech platforms?
	Do some spring to mind?
	Yeah, I'll do that question first.
	So we had this one communication from Nick Clegg, like the head of global affairs or global something for META.
	And Nick Clegg is talking with, this is actually an internal communication we got through our subpoenas.
	But Nick Clegg, this is when the government's pressuring Facebook to take down certain things and certain posts.
	And Nick Clegg says, this looks like it encroaches on free expression.
	And of course, the irony is Nick Clegg, former Deputy Prime Minister in Great Britain, is lecturing and explaining to Americans how the First Amendment works.
	I mean, I thought the irony there was unbelievable.
	But I want to back up a second.
	I was there Saturday when President Trump used the term bloodbath.
	And as soon as he said it, I go, they're going to go after that term.
	I know exactly what the press is going to, we've seen it, you've seen it time and time again.
	And of course they did it.
	And anyone who was there, the context was trade issues with China relative to the automotive industry.
	This is how crazy the left is.
	But yeah, that one email from, internal email from Nick Clegg.
	Where he talked about, I think this approaches on free expression, I thought the irony of the former Deputy Prime Minister telling Americans how the First Amendment, how our Constitution works.
	Yeah, it is, and some of these things are incredible.
	Now, they're not as shocking to us because we've lived Through this.
	For example, we've had, you know, content executives at YouTube ask us to send them our videos privately so they can let us know what changes to make if we don't want to run afoul of borderline guidelines before doing it publicly.
	Not only being demonetized for not violating the rules, but, you know, the same thing happened with Facebook.
	This was something that they admitted to had happened leading up to an election.
	We had an election stream, biggest that had ever taken place, then it's removed by the next election.
	And the issue is not so much that the left, we all know the left, they're crazy, right?
	What happened is you had the mainstream media, legacy media, who had a stranglehold.
	And everyone thought, there are no gatekeepers anymore.
	This is great.
	This is what social media allows.
	And for a while it did.
	And now, of course, they're working hand-in-hand with the government.
	We're almost back to three networks.
	It's basically meta, you know, Google, Alphabet, sorry, YouTube.
	And thank God, Twitter was purchased.
	But outside of that, for the longest time, this was a trifecta.
	You can toss in TikTok.
	You can toss in maybe Apple, Spotify, Microsoft.
	It's five companies.
	And they have all made decisions regarding content the same day.
	For example, Hunter Biden.
	For example, Alex Jones removing him.
	That can't be a coincidence.
	That's 10 people on a conference call, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And there's a... No, you're exactly right.
	And there's this... I always call it the template, trying to tie in the the bloodbath comment and what the press did there with how this whole thing operates.
	It's, I think, pretty basic what you see time and time again from the left, is the left will tell a lie, The big media will report the lie, big tech will amplify the lie, the laptops, Russian disinformation, Russian information operators, so big tech will amplify the lie, and then when we try to tell the truth, they call us racist, they call us names, and they say you're crazy.
	And that's exactly how it plays out time and time again, and because they have this overwhelming support in big media, legacy media, and in big tech, minus Twitter, Well, I appreciate you saying that.
	And by the way, it's in spite of what has happened, right?
	And people like Rumble.
	Why would President Trump use that term?
	Completely out of... but that's the template.
	Now, the good news is, I think more and more people are waking up to
	the template that's used by the left and how big media and big tech weigh in with that.
	Which is the good news, and it's because we got folks like you out there telling the truth
	and getting... cutting through all the garbage and baloney we get from today's left.
	Well, I appreciate you saying that. And by the way, it's in spite of what has happened, right?
	And people like Rumble, and I will say this, you're one of the people who's been spearheading this.
	It's in spite of a lot of our representatives, because I can tell you we've had calls and meetings with representatives saying we want to do something, but guess what?
	They all have podcasts.
	So they don't want to push that hard.
	They all have Facebook pages.
	So even Republicans.
	Not going to name names, but they're not out there with the zeal that you have, and it consistently surprises us.
	It's in spite of the fact that not a lot has been done because we've been out here taking the hits, and I know that you have actually been there taking the hits.
	Not all Republicans are created equal.
	Let me ask you this.
	How do you expect or How would you expect the judges to decide in this case, and then how would you like them to?
	For example, if they rule against Biden, do you think they'll keep it narrow or go after 230, you know, more broadly in its application?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, I will tell you, based on what I heard today, I think it's kind of hard to gauge where they're going to land.
	You could definitely sense, at least I could, at least I felt this way, that the left judges,
	the judge on the left, they're not gonna be on the side of stopping the censorship on the side
	of the Solicitor General from Louisiana who was arguing the case.
	But how it all shakes out, I don't know.
	Someone did raise, could we keep it kind of narrow?
	I think that that's a possibility, but I just, you never know, and sometimes what you think happened
	in the arguments is not how the decision actually, how the decision actually plays out.
	Right, yeah, it seems like it could go either way.
	it could go either way. And we do have George in there, and he did say he was a little bit
	We do have George in there, and he did say he was a little bit disappointed
	disappointed that they didn't really push, for example, the algorithmic censorship, that that wasn't
	that they didn't really push, for example, the algorithmic censorship,
	that that wasn't really brought up, the decision actually plays out. Right. Yeah, it seems like
	really brought up, and that they kind of dropped the ball a little bit when comparing,
	meaning people on our side, the solicitor from Louisiana, when it came to comparing
	newspapers to these platforms. It's very important to delineate between publishers and platforms. And we've
	been making that argument for a long time.
	It seems like maybe it's unfamiliar to some people, and they're making the argument on our side with
	good intentions. I know Gerald has a question. Yeah, Representative Jordan, just really quickly,
	I know you've been very vocal about 230, and obviously the only reason that this show has
	survived is because of our Mug Club subscribers.
	The only reason we're able to file an amicus brief today was because of the Mug Club subscribers, but not everybody has that.
	Do you see any relief coming soon on 230 and finally cleaning up this problem once and for all?
	Because it's just been a long, long, arduous fight.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I don't see any quick remedy, frankly, with divided government, where the White House is, the Senate control.
	I don't see that.
	One of the things I think that did get raised by when the government was arguing And questions from some of the more conservative judges is, was there pressure put on these social media companies to say, oh, that there's antitrust concerns if you don't censor?
	There's other issues that, you know, we can influence other things that you care about if you don't censor the speech.
	We're encouraging you to censor.
	And I think that's really important because that's one of the things from our committee work that we sense was going on.
	There's actually an email, I think, Where an internal email with Facebook where they said, well, maybe we could paraphrase it, but it basically says something like, maybe we should go along with the suggestions from the government because we got bigger fish to fry, other issues to deal with.
	Right.
	And so was government wink wink hinting, oh, we're going to have some antitrust concerns, other issues relative to 230.
	If you don't censor.
	The speech that they were trying to get him to censor, which was almost universally conservative speech.
	Of course, yes.
	I would love, if somebody in your team has a chance to read this brief, please get in touch with us.
	We have a lot of emails, phone calls, videos of big tech doing this to us over the years that we would love to just get in your hands, give you ammunition to be able to use.
	Trust me, we have them dead to rights on a couple of things.
	We just need somebody to take the phone call!
	By the way, including exchanging of actual funds, of actual money, just so you know, from Big Tech, and then doing things where they actually would issue a refund, which was effectively an admission of fault.
	I won't say which platform, but we have that taking place, and I have a lawyer on full-time retainer who is...
	Yeah.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	We'll have one of our lawyers on the committee staff get in touch with you guys.
	That's important.
	Yeah.
	No, we're incredibly grateful.
	And I know that you're a busy man, so I don't want to keep you too long, Representative Jim Jordan, but let me ask you this.
	Greatest American wrestler of all time and greatest international wrestler of all time?
	Well, there's three.
	Gable, Smith, and Sanderson.
	So, you know, Gable was the guy, when I was growing up, y'all looked to train, undefeated in college until his last match, and then wins the 72 Olympics.
	And I was, what, I was eight years old watching that, and I thought, you know, that got me fired up.
	John Smith came along.
	I happened to actually compete against Smith.
	Smith was maybe the greatest six-time world champ, two-time Olympic champ.
	Uh, and the international style was just phenomenal.
	Great guy.
	In fact, our youngest son was, uh, assistant coach for John, uh, one year when he first got out of college.
	But then Sanderson, undefeated in college, and Olympic and world champion, and maybe more importantly now, won, like, twelve or thirteen titles for Penn State.
	They're just, they're gonna win again this week.
	It starts Thursday.
	You gotta get on ESPNU and ESPN because they cover the whole darn tournament, which I'm looking forward to.
	Yes, as a coach.
	And also, the embarrassing thing is, uh, I think Did the same ankle pick on every one of his top 10 ranked opponents.
	Like, with Kael Stannis, it didn't matter what... You knew it was coming, and you couldn't stop it because of his setup.
	We had Daniel Cormier, you know, UFC champion on the show.
	And he goes, oh, you know Kael?
	I was like, yeah, I watched your matches.
	He ankle picked me, bro.
	I saw it coming.
	I couldn't stop it.
	You must like UFC too.
	So, Bo Nickel was a three-time national champ for Penn State, is killing it in UFC.
	He's going to fight in UFC 300.
	We just went to the fight down in Miami a weekend ago, but Nickel's fighting in the next one out in Vegas, and he's just killing everyone.
	So, he's not a championship fight yet, or title fight yet, but he's on the main card.
	So, I really think this guy is going to do well.
	He's already doing well, but he just has that He's doing very well, but he did say that he believed he would beat a wild chimpanzee in a fight, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.
	Outside of that, I'm a fan.
	But when he said it, I said, do you understand that they go for the face and groin to tear it off immediately?
	This is not the same thing.
	I will be tuning into that, especially UFC 300.
	We appreciate it, Representative Jim Jordan.
	You're welcome anytime, and we will be in touch with our brief, getting it to your folks.
	Thank you guys so much.
	Keep up the great work.
	Thank you, sir.
	God bless.
	This has been Representative Jim Jordan.
	He said he would beat a chimpanzee.
	That's not going to happen.
	Maybe a baby chimpanzee.
	That's not understanding your opponent.
	You'll die from sudden disease afterwards.
	It's going to bite you.
	If we want, we have George still in front of the Supreme Court.
	If we want to go back and see if he had anything else for us, up to you.
	We'll find out if he has something for us.
	I don't want to go in, wear his headphones in the cameraman's pocket with a bunch of gummy bears.
	In the bathroom.
	He's drinking a Zima.
	By the way, Josh Feierstein is going to be at Bricktown Comedy Club in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
	Friday, March 22nd.
	So this Friday.
	This Friday!
	Two shows this Friday.
	I've never been to that club, Tulsa.
	It's nice.
	I was just there with Brian Callen this weekend.
	That's right, it was a surprise spot.
	A little surprise opening for him.
	Really?
	He was lying.
	We were not high.
	He was lying.
	He was joking.
	Yeah.
	Alright.
	A boy doesn't kiss and tell.
	No, he doesn't.
	What are you doing with those shifty nipples, dude?
	Really quickly, look, and I'm sorry, I'm shameless here.
	SCOTUS promo code $10 off if you join Mug Club.
	When I was talking to Jim Jordan, the only reason the show survived to get to this day was because of Mug Club, because you foregoed millions and millions and millions of dollars in revenue to be able to do it.
	So that's why I was telling him, because I'm pretty sure, even though he may know who you are, may have watched the show, probably doesn't know the whole backstory to that.
	The only reason we survived was Mug Club.
	Join Mug Club, $10 off, click the link in the promo, Or are you gay?
	Let's not use it as a pejorative, even though it's an effective one.
	I don't know.
	Don't be gay.
	Let's go to this in real time right now.
	Look, look.
	Trump attacks migrants, praises January 6thers, and rallies.
	And it's Dana Bash talking.
	And this guy.
	Thank you so much for all being here.
	So let's see how they characterize this, and then I'm going to show you why they're lying.
	Here's the big problem, not that anyone watches CNN, no one does aside from maybe the Charlotte Airport, and they're a captive audience, it's against their will.
	It's the fact that you can't find the original clip, the context, but social media algorithms will guarantee that you see the commentary.
	Crappy commentary like...
	He doesn't just need primary voters now, he needs enough voters to win re-election.
	He has not changed his speech.
	He has not changed his speech.
	He actually doubled down on it the day after he gave that speech.
	He went on his social media platform talking about Liz Cheney.
	I can't do it.
	The rest of the unselect committee.
	I was trying to blend them together.
	I want to hear someone say that he attacked migrants.
	Please tell me what he did.
	... baby drill and free the January 6 hostages being wrongfully imprisoned.
	I just want to say as you come in.
	You were there on January 6th.
	The people who were in jail after the process.
	He survived.
	Survivor.
	Are they gonna cry?
	Yeah, they're not.
	And it was not a normal tourist visit either.
	It was a violent attack.
	He's the voice!
	Horrific attack on the capitol.
	Together they work!
	He sounds like the Indian in Peter Pan!
	January 6th is protest!
	Void him!
	This is actually central to his campaign.
	He began his rally talking about January 6th.
	What a forehead.
	This really just speaks to, you know, Trump's got one strategy, one note that he's been doing in 2016, 2020, and now 2024.
	It's read me to the base.
	It is not a pivot to the general election.
	I love how that one says, it's red meat to the base while you lie to yours.
	So let me, before we go to Mug Club, let me show you what the media has been doing because I have no doubt they'll still do it right now.
	This has been taking place Saturday, Sunday, we will show you the montage of them deliberately misrepresenting what President Trump said.
	And by the way, it's not even close.
	It's not, well maybe I could see how it could be interpreted.
	Nope.
	Absolutely not.
	And they did it anyway.
	And the reason that you've seen all of this is because the algorithms made sure that all of this was pumped into your feed regardless of how untrue, and of course in relation to journalism, you know, quality control.
	Shitty!
	The race for the White House and former President Trump's campaign now on the defensive after his fiery rhetoric at a rally in Dayton, Ohio on Saturday night.
	Trump warning while discussing the economy that there would be a, quote, bloodbath if he is not re-elected in November.
	The former president said some migrants aren't people, are not people.
	He cast doubt on the future of American democracy if he loses in November.
	The presumptive Republican nominee warned there would be a, quote, bloodbath, unquote, if he loses the election.
	He uses these high-impact words that have either the direct or implicit tone of violence.
	What I heard was a continuation of the same rhetoric, the same endorsement of political violence that we've seen from Donald Trump for years.
	He's even predicting a bloodbath.
	What does that mean?
	He's going to exact a bloodbath?
	There's something wrong here.
	Yes.
	With you.
	It's a repeat of Fight Like Hell.
	It's a repeat of... Yes.
	He said bloodbath, only in this case... Look, all of you have used the term Fight Like Hell.
	All of you know that Fight Like Hell could mean a litany of things.
	When they say, is he going to exact a bloodbath?
	Please, please, please, out there, if you're going to be on their side and tell me how they've taken this out of context... You ever taken part in a literal bloodbath?
	I don't even know what it is!
	What is a bloodbath?
	I don't know, like, what is it, they think he's gonna, they think the White House is going to be the new bordello of blood?
	Yes.
	I don't, I have no idea how dumb they think you are.
	As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that bloodbath has only been used as a colloquialism.
	I don't think it stems from, we can get the research done, I don't think it stems from at one point an actual bath of blood.
	Right.
	Let's go through this anyway because this is relevant to Section 230, what's happening at the Supreme Court.
	The lies are amplified and the truth is silence.
	Do it in Mug Club! Do it in Mug Club!
	All right, okay.
	Do it in Mug Club!
	We will do it in Mug- Okay.
	I got it!
	I got it!
	Loudonwithbrenner.com slash Mug Club.
	Use the promo code SCOTUS.
	We're going to show you the actual bloodbath clip.
	And then of course we'll show you the media repeatedly using the term bloodbath,
	which Nancy Pelosi probably hasn't seen in three decades.
	And all of this, of course, is impermissible here on YouTube.
	So if you're on Rumble, click that button.
	Join Mug Club.
	I couldn't find a more perfect example, and by that I mean I'm angry, I have work on myself to do.
	YouTube, piss off.

▲