Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2022 - The StoneZONE - Roger Stone

57:51

The Battle Against Internet Censorship, Is There Hope? The StoneZONE with Roger Stone, Guest Jason Fyk

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And now, Lindell TV brings you The Stone Zone, with legendary Republican strategist and political icon, and pundit, Roger Stone.
	Stone has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents, he is a New York Times best-selling author, and a longtime friend and advisor of President Donald Trump.
	As an outspoken libertarian, Stone has appeared on thousands of broadcasts, spoken at countless venues, and lectured before the prestigious Oxford Political Union and the Cambridge Union Society.
	Due to his four-plus decades in the political and cultural arena, Stone has become a pop culture icon.
	And now, here's your host, Roger Stone!
	Welcome, I'm Roger Stone, and you Are about to enter the Stone Zone.
	You know, if my show was one hour later, well, I'd call it Cocktails with Stone.
	But I'm happy with this time slot.
	I just want to remind you, you can find the Stone Zone five days a week at 4 o'clock Central, 5 o'clock Eastern, by going to StoneZone.Live.
	StoneZone.Live.
	If you want, you can go to FrankSpeech.com, scroll down to LyndellTV2, and see our show every day at 4 o'clock Central, 5 o'clock Eastern.
	The following day, you can see it at 3 o'clock Central, 4 o'clock Eastern on Lyndale One.
	That's a replay in case you missed the show from the day before.
	It's surprising how many people tell me how much they like the replay of the show.
	Many of these people tell me that they like my show much better than Wayne Allen Root, my good friend.
	So, I'm glad to be with you.
	Breaking political news last night, Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona says that he has at least 20 members of the Republican Caucus who will not vote for Kevin McCarthy for the position of Speaker.
	Many people don't understand that when the Republican Caucus met a few weeks ago and voted 181 To 31, I think it was, that that did not clinch the speakership for the congressman from California.
	Yet Fox continues to refer to Kevin McCarthy as the speaker-designate, or the man who will be speaker, when that isn't decided at all.
	Here's the difference between a cactus and a caucus.
	In the case of a cactus, all the pricks are on the outside.
	And that's our political commentary for today.
	Before we go to our guest, Jason Fike, entrepreneur, fighter, a free speech advocate, anti-censorship advocate, I want to remind you that today's program is sponsored and brought to you by the great folks at MyPillow.com.
	If you thought that MyPillow.com was just about pillows or bedding, well then you haven't been to the website.
	Let me just show you one of my favorite products before we go right to our guest, and that would be the six-piece towel set.
	Now I learned this from Mike Lindell himself.
	The bath towels you buy in a department store, say Macy's or Dillard's, that cotton is treated with an oil that while it does make the cotton more durable, it also makes it less absorbent.
	Not so with the terrific six-piece bath towel set you can get For $39.98 with promo code STONE.
	So I just use this as one example.
	Please do all of your Christmas shopping at MyPillow.com.
	That way you can support that great American patriot, Mike Lindell, who I've encouraged to seek the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.
	He has been a great fighter for free speech and election integrity.
	And of course, this great website.
	So, please go to MyPillow and use promo code STONE to do all your Christmas shopping.
	Mrs. Stone herself will be very, very grateful.
	Now joining us is my good friend Jason Fike.
	This guy is a fighter.
	Jason, welcome to the Stone Zone.
	Thanks for having me, Roger.
	So I met Jason Fike a little over four years ago in a Fort Lauderdale restaurant, and he laid out a path for me for internet freedom.
	And I must say, Jason, you are one persistent individual, and every single thing you told me was going to happen has happened.
	Everything has unfolded exactly as you told me it would.
	Back four years ago, internet censorship was just kind of beginning.
	We weren't anywhere near where we are today, where if you don't subscribe to the official narrative of the political establishment, the political media establishment, well, you have no voice at all.
	Jason Fike has been a major proponent for the repeal of Section 230 of the Federal Communications Law, the so-called decency section, and this fight has gone on since I first met Jason.
	Jason, tell us where we've been, where we are, and where we're going.
	Sure, sure.
	Thanks, Robert.
	Roger.
	So, If you recall, when we met at the restaurant, you know, I had gone through and I'd said like this wave of censorship and control was, was coming in, in, in short order.
	And, uh, you know, the reason I saw that as I had, you know, been a victim of it far before everyone else.
	I mean, uh, I had lost who I had at my peak, I think about 38 million fans and I had lost, uh, the substantial number of them.
	I had a pages taken away.
	But I had caught Facebook in a lie and essentially where they took my my content down because now in my circumstances, it wasn't political and it wasn't because of the narrative.
	It was mainly because of financial gain.
	It was anti-competitive and they took my content down and I had actually gone to a competitor of mine and asked to see if they could potentially get my pages reinstated.
	And Facebook's response to that was they wouldn't do it for me, but they would do it for that other company.
	What that meant is, is that the content wasn't really the issue.
	So the point of that is, is that when they're restricting, you know, people online, the law section 230 that covers these companies, it has to do with content, right?
	There has to be some sort of improperness to the content.
	And we had gone through and proved it wasn't because no matter what my content was, whether it was good, bad or indifferent, whatever it was, when it was removed, it was restored in the very same condition.
	The only thing was is that that company had spent $22 million in advertising, whereas I hadn't.
	So it was clearly a financial reason.
	So fast forward, we went and we sued Facebook.
	And, you know, I had kept Roger up to up to date with that.
	And, you know, we you learn things as you go along.
	And one of the things we learned is, is that the California courts are not inclined to fix this.
	Most people believe it is actually the law that is the problem that has created all this mess online, when in reality it's not the law so much as it is the court's application of that law.
	What I mean by that?
	Essentially, most people understand there's two aspects to this law.
	The first is that they can't be treated as someone else, therefore they're not responsible for what someone else puts online, right?
	Whatever the other person publishes.
	And the second aspect is that they are given limited, you know, protections, liability protections, to remove content.
	Okay, so those are the two things that most people understand.
	Now, we had gone to the court and said, well, they didn't remove my content in good faith, which should have applied to the second part where they are allowed to take down content, but it didn't.
	In fact, the court actually applied 230C1, the first portion, and said, well, you're treating them as a publisher, And publishers are allowed to take down content and therefore they're immune.
	We argued with them and said, wait a second, if taking down content is immune under the first portion, because you can't treat them as a publisher, what's the purpose of the second portion?
	Because that's removing content.
	Well, they said, well, no, no, that it's not redundant.
	Don't worry, because they perhaps can develop information.
	Now, what I mean by that is, is that they're actually allowed to advance, manipulate, modify, or change any information under the second portion.
	Well, that's not what it says.
	It says that they can restrict content that's offensive or objectionable.
	It doesn't mean that they're not allowed to manipulate it.
	So the courts absolutely botched it.
	I mean, they messed it all up.
	And we went through and we explained it to them over and over and over.
	And the thing was, is that we basically narrowed it down to it was one fundamental mistake.
	That all of the courts have seemed to make, and the reason is, and this is kind of like the magic potion, right?
	They misread a single word, and what it is, is that you're not allowed to treat them as the publisher.
	And in the circumstance of my pages, I was the publisher and I was never treating them as me, but they.
	That's synonymous as not seem publisher a pub to finish.
	It's actually defined.
	It's.
	We know who the publisher is because it would be another information content provider.
	That sorts it all out.
	The thing is, is that when they converted it to a publisher, it's indefinite.
	It could be anybody.
	That could include themselves.
	And that simple mistake changed it from not being able to treat them as someone else into they can't be treated as themselves.
	Well, we said that to the courts.
	And the courts didn't seem to care.
	So what ended up happening is we went all the way to the Supreme Court and I was dismissed at every turn.
	And everybody said, Oh, you're lost.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	I wasn't wrong.
	They didn't say that I was never proven wrong.
	I just simply wasn't heard.
	It just didn't do it.
	So we went all the way to the Supreme Court and we didn't, you know, and we asked the Supreme Court to look at this.
	And right at the same time we're going into the Supreme Court, another case ended, this case called Enigma v. Mauerbeits.
	That case actually made a completely different determination, and it said that motivation matters now.
	Now, most people don't know this.
	I mean, it's amazing that most people don't know this, but they said, and I quote, the Good Samaritan General Provision of the Communications Decency Act, that's Section 230, right, does not immunize anti-competitive blocking and screening.
	Wait a second, that's exactly what my case was about.
	It was anti-competitive.
	And they're saying the Good Samaritan general provision.
	Well, most people don't know what that is.
	I mean, it's, it's interesting because the first thing that any case should be asking, which they're not, it was the first case that ever did, did they act as a Good Samaritan?
	Did they act for the benefit of others?
	Because if they didn't act for the benefit of others, 230 shouldn't apply at all, like at all.
	That may be why you're seeing some of these companies make radical changes because they know that this is coming.
	We figured it out a long time ago, but the problem is, how do we get the courts to do it?
	Well, unfortunately, Supreme Court denied our case.
	Now, Supreme Courts handle three types of cases, right?
	First one is habeas corpus, when somebody is, you know, potentially going to be put to death, because it's a major thing.
	The second one is constitutional challenge.
	And the third is what's called a circuit court conflict.
	Well, my conflict was actually between the Ninth Circuit's decision and another Ninth Circuit's decision, meaning I didn't have a circuit court conflict the first time I went to the Supreme Court.
	It was a shame because I basically had been denied all justice, denied due process, denied a single day in court.
	And I'm sure, Roger, you're aware.
	I mean, it's a rough ride, you know, and as he said, I'm persistent.
	So what do we do?
	We turned around and we said, all right, well, I guess we've lost.
	Well, then with the Enigma decision, we actually had A strange scenario where we now had a conflict to go back to the California courts and say, wait a second, your judgment was wrong.
	Your own decision conflicts because either anti-competitive behavior is not allowed generally, or 230C1, you just can't treat them as a publisher.
	So essentially what we're asking the courts is, is all distributor liability eliminated by this first portion, or does motivation matter?
	Well, You'd think that they would handle this because, I mean, it's a conflict.
	The cases don't make any sense together.
	Well, no, that's not what happened.
	The Northern District Judge, who had previously retired with millions and millions of dollars of tech stock, decided to hold on to our case and dismiss it yet again.
	After seven months, he rendered a two-page decision and said, Enigma considered 230C2, and my case was the 230C1 case.
	Except the general provisions, not in either one of it.
	It's it's it presides over the entire statute.
	So they weren't doing it.
	They just I mean, he was there's something called the whole text canon or harmonious canons.
	It's the way you build a law.
	And these two, by separating them essentially into almost separate statutes, it conflicts with the way you build a law.
	And we're like, what?
	I mean, it just was didn't make any sense.
	Why are you?
	Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute, Jason, are you telling me the courts are corrupt?
	Is that what you're telling me?
	Well, I won't use that word, but I will tell you that they sure as heck aren't inclined to actually fix this.
	I mean, we hit them with a kind of a no brainer.
	And it was like, what do you mean it's it?
	Because think about it, right?
	I'm sure you're aware of how an outline works.
	And that's how a statute's written.
	230C is above C1 and C2.
	Well, that's where the Good Samaritan General Provision is.
	And they said, think about it.
	It doesn't apply generally.
	It's literally its name.
	So, Jason, we use something called Power Chat, and we have a question for you, which I'm sure you can easily knock out of the park.
	Luke in St.
	Louis, Missouri says, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants platforms like Facebook and Twitter, unlike publishers such as the New York Times, the Fox News, immunity from lawsuits from others based on what someone on Twitter, pardon me, users on the platform say.
	So if someone on Twitter libels me or Twitter themselves cannot be sued.
	While many, including your guest today, want to repeal 230s, others think that this is misguided.
	Some believe that repealing 230 will give an army of liberal lawyers the ability to wage war on conservatives as they are better organized legally, make it impossible for smaller non-big tech platforms like Gab or Parler or even Truth Social To compete against the bigger platforms that can afford to fight such lawsuits.
	Good question.
	Jason, take it away.
	OK, so he missed a key word in there.
	He said that they can't be treated as some, like as someone else.
	OK, that's really how it's supposed to work.
	And what most people are missing is the courts are not applying it that way.
	They are literally not allowing them to be treated as themselves.
	When they are a publisher, there's a difference.
	Again, they can't be treated as the publisher, which would be someone else.
	That makes sense.
	But if you can't be treated as a publisher, that's unlimited immunity.
	It's all distributor liability disappears, including the liability that's protected under the second part of the statute.
	That's a problem because that's a violation of the harmonious text canon, right?
	And whole text canon.
	But more specifically, he goes into And actually, Roger, you've sort of made a claim that I have not said.
	I do not believe it should be repealed.
	That's actually inaccurate.
	The way that I think that the resolution works, right?
	And this, I think, is actually what's about to happen.
	230C1 needs to be re-articulated, okay?
	And that is actually what the Fourth Circuit Court just did, and something we'll talk about in a few minutes.
	But the Fourth Circuit Court, and I quote, said that Section 230 is not licensed to do whatever one wants online.
	What that means is that they can be treated.
	as a publisher, but they still cannot be treated as the publisher.
	There's a distinct difference there now.
	What I think would resolve it is if the courts give.
	the word the effect right, it would.
	essentially narrow 230 C1 to its correct interpretation.
	which is they can't be treated as someone else.
	It would eliminate them being not being able to be treated as themselves.
	And it would then make 230C2 have a purpose, which is the portion where it allows them to restrict objectionable content.
	Now, that portion in and of itself, we have actually argued, because I also have a constitutional challenge against the United States currently running, because they deny me all due process in my way to the Supreme Court.
	But in that circumstance, 230C2 is actually unconstitutional.
	The United States lacks the power to restrict speech and therefore it cannot convey that protection or that authority to any other body, whether they're private or public.
	You know, people, of course, you know, freak out and they say, well, wait a second, they have a First Amendment right.
	Well, they do.
	And they could take down content without Section 230.
	Section 230 is not actually, it has really nothing to do with rights.
	What it does is it actually is a statutory privilege.
	It's a protection.
	The protection is essentially enforced by the judiciary.
	Now, what that means is that if Section 230 C2 were to go away, they could still censor.
	They could still take down content.
	But what it does mean then is that if they commit unlawful acts, you could bring a cause of action.
	So that is how I really think it needs to be fixed.
	C1 needs to be clarified and C2 could either be completely struck if it's severable or At least clarified that otherwise objectionable would have to be considered subjectively in accordance with the rest of the words in the statute, which is lewd, lascivious, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.
	So they would all have to be unlawful effectively.
	But the big thing here is this.
	When we went back to the Ninth Circuit Court, right now, the Northern District Court has separated the statute into two pieces and we said, no, that doesn't work logically.
	Via canons of statutory construction.
	It's just redundant.
	It doesn't work well.
	The court said no.
	230 C2 provides a separate grant of immunity quote.
	perhaps because they developed information in part.
	Now that sounds all well and good, and it is partially.
	true that they can perhaps develop information in part because.
	it's a proxy result of considering any content is development.
	But as soon as you get into content development, it shouldn't apply to 230c1.
	Because, again, if you go back to what they said was, you can't treat them as a publisher, right?
	Well, if you can't treat them as a publisher, development, even in part, is publishing.
	The court didn't resolve anything.
	So, on the second run to the Ninth Circuit Court when they tried to separate this, we said, look, either it has to be that they acted as a good Samaritan, Because it has what's called a formal intelligible principle.
	I know that's a complicated word, but that's basically what a general provision is formally.
	If it's not an intelligible principle, if it lacks one, let's just say Good Samaritan isn't the intelligible principle.
	Another case said, well, then it's unconstitutional.
	So we hit them with a catch-22 question.
	And what do they do?
	They pivot on a discretionary procedural and dismiss the case and said, oh, it wasn't filed timeliness.
	In other words, They didn't care about fixing it again.
	They didn't care about my constitutional rights.
	They didn't care about due process.
	They didn't care about justice.
	They just found a discretionary reason to get rid of me again.
	This is a problem.
	Now, most people would have given up by now, right, Roger?
	This is why I'm persistent.
	Not you, Jason, not you.
	You are, as I said earlier, you're the most persistent sumbitch I've ever met in my life, and I love that about you.
	You were right when we met four years ago.
	You have called this at every step of the way, and you have refused to give up on the fight for internet freedom and free speech.
	That's why we're honored to have you on the Stone Zone.
	A follow-up message on PowerChat from Luke in St.
	Louis, Missouri.
	He apologizes for misstating your position on 230, and he thanks you very much for your answer.
	So thank you, Luke, and others who want to follow us on PowerChat.
	It's a great source of our questions.
	Let's do it.
	We're going to do a quick commercial break.
	We're going to come back with Jason Fike, entrepreneur, free speech advocate, and one tough SOB in the fight for free speech and free content.
	As I said at the top of the show, we're brought to you by the good folks at MyPillow.com.
	And instead of doing your Christmas shopping with these multi-international corporations who hate your guts and who use slave labor in China, I really ask that you do all of your Christmas shopping at MyPillow.com.
	One of my all-time favorite products are the men's and women's slippers.
	Now, by using promo code STONE, you can get a deep discount on Mike Lindell slippers.
	And these slippers are unique because they have a patented technology that makes them both incredibly comfortable and incredibly durable.
	My good friend, Officer Sal Greco, loves his MyPillow slippers, so please go to MyPillow.com, check out the slippers.
	While you're there, my wife's favorite product, the 3-inch mattress topper.
	This is like sleeping on air.
	Uh, and you get 40% off when you use promo code STONE.
	So, uh, of the products here, this one, for whatever reason, seems to be the most popular here on the Stone Zone.
	Uh, if you're in the bedding area, try the mattress topper.
	Um, you will, you will love it.
	Uh, it is like sleeping on air.
	Thank you for allowing us to take this commercial break, and please do all your Christmas shopping at MyPillow.com.
	It's a great way to support Mike Lindell.
	It's a great way to support this platform, FrankSpeech.com.
	It's a great way to support the Stone Zone.
	Let's go back to our guest now, Jason Fike.
	Jason, I have another question that comes into us from Eric on PowerChat, who says, Jason, you say the big boys see this coming.
	Is this, in your opinion, why those who own Twitter decided to sell to Elon Musk?
	Good question.
	I don't think it necessarily motivated that sale.
	I think Elon was strategic in his purchase.
	You know, we all have to, you know, to thank Elon for the fact that You know, it's not often that somebody will risk everything, you know, because I mean, he knew he was getting into a fight, maybe not necessarily the fight that he thought he was going to get into.
	Of course, that was like Donald Trump didn't expect how bad this was going to be.
	But in truth, he strategically set it up so that they couldn't not sell it to them.
	Now, he, of course, is undermining a lot of what's going on and, you know, and stopping this and proving that, you know, it just had fluff.
	I mean, and all these these people and You know, in reducing seventy five percent of its labor and yet becoming profitable.
	I mean, obviously it wasn't running right.
	I mean, they spent more time.
	All these companies spend more time restricting speech.
	And they say, well, that's that's actually their right.
	Well, it's not, believe it or not.
	And that's one of the cases that sort of changed my position.
	The Fifth Circuit case that looked at HB 20 Texas law.
	One of the biggest takeaways from that law was that the court said that if speech is considered Well, that's huge.
	That's very big.
	publishing its expression it's a first amendment protected right but if it's post publishing removal in other words censorship there's no expression in there it's suppression and that they determine that removing content after it's been published by somebody else is not a first amendment protected right well that's huge that's very big and that's just the thing is is that if these companies are doing that they're not it's not a first amendment protected right to censor you
	Actually, what that is, is a statutory privilege of liability protection.
	And that's what we're trying to separate for everybody is, is that, you know, and realistically, the government is pointing, I mean, I liken it to, I'm sure everybody is aware of the Abbot and Costello who's on first routine, right?
	That's how these courts and government are playing is, oh, well, no, it was Facebook.
	Oh, no, it was Twitter.
	It was government.
	It was the FBI.
	It was, I mean, Everybody's pointing at everybody else and nobody's anchoring.
	Who's on what base?
	Well, that's what we're trying to do here is we're trying to anchor them to their own actions, right?
	But some things have changed, and actually, this is where we can go into a couple good things that are really happening.
	Now, as far as the rest of the sites that are selling, well, I mean, if you think about this, and I actually do want to go back to the one, we were just about to go into a constitutional challenge.
	Now, I don't know if people know what that is, but that's not just like suing Facebook anymore.
	Because the United States denied me due process, they didn't give me a single hearing, it gave me the standing to go after the law itself.
	That's who I'm suing now.
	Technically, I'm suing the law, but the government is the one that defends it.
	So right now, they're trying to kick us out on standing.
	Sound familiar, Roger?
	But they're trying to kick it out on standing because they can't even determine who's on first.
	They're saying that I'm holding the government accountable for what Facebook did to me.
	No, I sued Facebook for what Facebook did to me.
	The government was the one who dismissed them, not Facebook.
	Facebook didn't dismiss itself.
	So I'm holding the government accountable for basically protecting the illegal taking of my liberties and property.
	Government can't do that.
	So anyhow, all of these things are now transpiring, but we've got some really good news here.
	You know, what Roger and I were talking about, it almost is like divine intervention.
	This was very, very strange.
	We had gone back and when we were dismissed on timeliness, right, which was like kind of a mind blower, like what?
	Like really?
	The 230 is essentially like a moving target.
	It's very difficult to get the courts to anchor anything.
	On November 2nd, we filed a motion for reconsideration and we basically said to the courts, are you kidding me?
	Here's our entire timeline.
	Did you miss something?
	Like we have been in courts basically non-stop for years.
	And the very next day, another decision came down.
	It was Henderson versus Public Data.
	It was a 4th Circuit decision.
	And I got it on the 4th, right?
	So now it's been two business days.
	And the 5th and 6th were a weekend.
	And we read it over the weekend.
	And I was like, I went to my lawyers.
	I was like, Oh my God, we need to file this supplemental like immediately.
	Well, it turns out the 4th Circuit decision proved we were right.
	From day one, we have been right.
	We've been right about the interpretation of it, the application of it, and let me explain why, okay?
	So we actually filed a supplemental on the 7th, and on the 8th, they just flat denied us.
	So we got it in there, and we now have what's called a Circuit Court conflict.
	The 4th Circuit Court is in conflict with the 9th Circuit Court, besides the 5th and a couple other situations.
	Let me bring this up real quick here.
	Oh, I may have actually lost it.
	Oh, so anyhow, let me just quote, the Fourth Circuit Court came to the conclusion, and actually let me set the stage for this.
	So the first case that ever considered Section 230 was the Fourth Circuit Court, right?
	They were the first ones that did it.
	It was back in 1997, and it was a case called Zaran v. America Online.
	So this was the fundamental precedent that Everything has built on over the past 26 years.
	And now Justice Thomas called it questionable precedent.
	I call it flat wrong precedent.
	But listen to this.
	The Fourth Circuit Court revisited Ziran versus America Online.
	So it went back to its original precedent and said, hey, look, you guys got this wrong.
	Let us clarify.
	So they just undermine their own foundation, right?
	And it said, quote, yeah.
	Zoran's list of protected functions must be read in its context, and that context cabins that list to merely editorial functions.
	It cannot be stretched to include actions that go beyond formatting or procedure alterations.
	In other words, they're saying 230c1 only applies to the service functions under 230c1, which is what we said all along.
	They went on and they said an interactive computer service becomes information content provider.
	Now this is the big one, right guys?
	This is the difference between being a platform or being a publisher, or how they can be treated as a publisher.
	It says, so when they become an information content provider, it says whenever their actions cross the line into substantively altering the content at issue in ways that make it unlawful.
	What that means is, is that as soon as they make any kind of content moderation decision, 230c1 is out.
	It's over.
	Well, they took down my content, they put it back up, they solicited a new owner, all under 230c1, meaning my case was dismissed wrong, like flat wrong.
	They went on even further and they said, Zoran then said that Section 230c1 prevents suits that, quote, cast the defendant, which would be Facebook, in the same position as the party who originally posted the offensive messages.
	Well, it was my content.
	I was never treating Facebook as me.
	I never tried to.
	So this can apply, meaning the court was wrong.
	And the courts have been wrong for a long period of time.
	And lastly, they said, now this is a really, really good one.
	Now, if you recall, my content was taken down, but then it was restored for my competitor.
	So Roger, wouldn't that logically mean that whatever my content was, Good, bad, or indifferent.
	Whatever it was when it was taken down, it was the identical content was restored.
	What content was improper?
	None.
	It doesn't make any sense, right?
	No, the answer would be none.
	If you're just tuning in, we're with Jason Fike, who's probably done more to fight for your right to free speech on the internet than anyone alive today, with the possible exception of Elon Musk.
	By the way, I do have to announce that On Twitter, the page, or I should say the profile, for real Roger Stone, who is not me, who has never been me, has finally been taken down.
	So that fraud has been ended.
	No, my profile has not been restored.
	The profile that was frozen and cancelled in 2017.
	And as President Donald Trump would say, well, let's see what happens.
	If you have a question for Jason Fike or for me, you can go to powerchat.live slash stone.
	But this is a fascinating odyssey in the fight for free speech and for free access to the Internet.
	Jason, I'm sorry to interrupt.
	Tell us, what is next?
	Where is this going?
	Well, that's actually where we're at at this point.
	Like I said, content was never the issue here.
	And in fact, the Fourth Circuit Court determined, thus, for Section 230, protection to apply.
	Which it did to me.
	We require that liability attached to the defendant on account of some improper content with their publication.
	This wasn't about content.
	So now that we have this 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit conflict, we've got a 9th Circuit, 5th Circuit conflict, and even the executive branch has recently called it an affirmative defense, which is bizarre, but even that comes into a conflict.
	And our next step is the Supreme Court.
	So, We are currently working on a Supreme Court cert with all of these conflicts.
	And considering that they're already working on two Section 230 cases, it would be very easy to consolidate this case because we cover more of these conflicts than these other cases do.
	It's all over the place.
	Nobody knows what this law does.
	We've got it centered on what this new court, you know, these four circuit courts have basically fixed.
	And we're going to be doing this, this, um, the Supreme Court cert on behalf of myself, but it's, but it's going to have ripple effects to everybody because this could legitimately change the internet.
	So everybody that's scrambling to, to change the laws and all that stuff.
	Why?
	Why are they scrambling so hard?
	Because you got to realize we're dealing with a lot of corruption in this world right now.
	They may be scrambling because they're afraid it's actually going to work properly again.
	That's what we see happening now.
	Roger, you know, The burden this takes on us, right?
	The longevity, the long fight that we endure.
	Now we had, and I'm not even sure you're aware, but we formed the Social Media Freedom Foundation, which is a 501c charitable organization fighting for everybody's freedoms online.
	If you want to learn more about this stuff, there is tons of material in there.
	Stuff that you don't hear from everybody else.
	None of these ridiculous claims, you know, that Section 230 does whatever they want and a platform can do whatever it wants online.
	They're just ridiculous claims.
	But if you want to learn more, go to socialmediafreedom.org.
	And if you can contribute, we need the help.
	You know, we're not a huge corporation or anything else like that.
	This has been me fighting this for far longer than I expected to be fighting it.
	But we have a real chance at fixing this, like really fixing this.
	We're about to try one more time and we'll have to see how it goes.
	But you'll probably be seeing us in a Supreme Court Jason, what would you say that you and your colleagues have spent in legal fees so far?
	days will be filed.
	We're hoping to be done before Christmas.
	And then it's up to the Supreme Court.
	If they're going to fix it, they're going to fix it.
	Jason, what would you say that you and your colleagues have spent in legal fees so far?
	Well, if you consider the time invested, you know, people often think that we've only spent a few hours on this.
	I guarantee by myself I've spent two to three thousand hours on it, We've we've torn it apart all the way back to its precedent.
	I've got several lawyers that work on it.
	You know, a long time ago, most of the money ran out, but there are hard costs that are involved in filing a Supreme Court cert.
	Like, for example, you can see it over my shoulder that the white book that's on the the the desk back there, that was actually the book for our first petition assert in the Supreme Court.
	And those books cost us almost fourteen thousand dollars just to produce.
	You have to actually produce the books physically and give them to everybody else like that.
	Those are hard costs that will be coming involved here.
	But in terms of time and loss of revenue and everything else like that, we are millions deep in this.
	And we have received very little help and very little support from anybody yet.
	We've been right all along.
	The thing is, is that if people want to have this fixed, you got to back the right people that are doing the right job.
	And that's what we need right now is the support of everybody.
	And if you can't help financially, that's okay.
	Share this.
	Tell people that there is actually a resolution that could actually free up the internet.
	I hope that Elon maybe sees this one day and realizes we're on the same path here.
	We're trying to get the same thing done and realistically we're ahead of the curve.
	This is a very, very key point.
	Folks, please go to socialmediafreedom.org.
	You can see it right there on the screen underneath Jason's photo.
	We'll bring it back up here in a second.
	He needs your help.
	This is not just his fight.
	This is your fight.
	This is our fight.
	He has borne this fight almost extensively himself.
	He hasn't had the kind of grassroots support that he really deserves, but he's fighting for your right not to be censored on the internet.
	And he is this close to victory.
	Because as I said at the opening of the show, he's one of the most persistent individuals I've ever met and everything he's ever told me over the last four years turned out to be exactly right.
	So take a moment, go to his website, put it back up for you here in a second.
	Uh, it is, put that back up for me if you would, Reagan.
	There you have it.
	Socialmediafreedom.org.
	Send a generous contribution.
	You can get all the information there.
	This isn't just his fight.
	This isn't some obscure intellectual argument.
	This is about our fundamental freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
	Uh, I don't know anybody who's been this resilient.
	A lesser man would have given up years ago.
	But Jason Fight is a fighter.
	That's why we're privileged to have him here on the Stone Zone and why he really does need your support.
	I have a feeling that victory is around the bend.
	I have a feeling that this fight has paid off.
	Please go to his website and check it out.
	Jason, back to you.
	I just want to thank you, you know, Roger, that you sort of stuck by me Even through all of the things that you were dealing with, you know, I would reach out on occasion and say things and he'd say, you know, yeah, stay in there, stick in there.
	And, and, you know, we, we've, we've watched you deal with a lot in the past couple of years.
	I mean, this is truly a fight for this nation.
	Um, it's no different with this.
	I mean, the reality is people say, well, why don't you crowdfund where on big tech?
	I mean, that that's.
	The problem I have here is I'm fighting media.
	I'm fighting social media.
	The mainstream won't touch this.
	Why?
	Because if I accomplish this, the reality is the mainstream media will lose its power because they won't be the authentic sources anymore.
	They won't be the people that anybody cares about anymore.
	They can't be forced down your throat.
	That's why they're terrified.
	They lose the control if we win.
	That's just it.
	It's we.
	It's not just me.
	I'm on, I'm on here fighting for everybody.
	And I know Roger was fighting for everybody.
	I mean, the thing is, is that it's a direct cause that is good for the people.
	That's what we're fighting for.
	So, and if you just, you know, now that Twitter's kind of opened up, I mean, I was predominantly using Facebook, but I have shifted most of my attention now to Twitter, uh, because of Elon.
	Um, I would say, follow me there.
	My, my, it's just at my name, Jason, F Y K.com.
	But you can find me there, you know, if you need to reach out or if you have connections or shows or anywhere, word has to get out.
	We've got to press the Supreme Court to handle this because it's, you know, in the case of Gonzalez, it's great that they're considering whether suggesting content is or is not considered, you know, content provision.
	But this goes way, way, way deeper than what we're talking about.
	The reality is they're not allowed to make any content decisions.
	What do I mean by that?
	The algorithms, you know, they say, well, they just show you content they want.
	Well, think about that.
	If they're showing you content, are they not a content provider?
	That's just it, is the courts are not applying it that way, but the reality is they are.
	So all of the fact checking, all of the content moderation, all of those things, they're responsible for all of that, except for what is limited under 230C2, which is to restrict Objectionable offensive content.
	We all know that it goes way beyond that.
	So Jason, in terms of time frame, when do you see this going down?
	Is it 30 days?
	Is it 45 days?
	Is it two weeks?
	When does the rubber hit the road here?
	Outside of Thanksgiving dinner, I have spent the past five days Drafting the next Supreme Court cert.
	I do the first run through and my attorneys jump into it afterwards and then we go into all of the details and so forth.
	But we're expecting, we're hoping to be done.
	We definitely want to be done before Christmas.
	We're hoping to be done at least a week before and file the cert before that.
	At which point, you know, we should have a response from the You know, Facebook will throw in a response saying, oh, we're out of our minds and crazy and so forth, as they generally do.
	But the reality, you know, in truth, they don't have much leg to stand on.
	So we should know whether or not they're going to consolidate our case by mid-January, maybe at the latest early February.
	And if they do, well, it's game on.
	I mean, it will be.
	I mean, and people will be remembering this interview and saying, whoa, I remember when this even before this even happened.
	That may be coming soon.
	All right, folks, please go to socialmediafreedom.org and support Jason Fike in this heroic effort.
	He is, above all, a fighter.
	Jason, we thank you for joining us here on The Stone Zone and taking complicated issues and breaking them down in a way that our audience can understand them.
	God bless you for being here.
	God bless you in this fight.
	And again, folks, please go to socialmediafreedom.org and support this valiant effort because Jason's not fighting for himself.
	He's fighting for you.
	He's fighting for me.
	He's fighting for America.
	God bless you and thank you for being with us.
	Thank you, Roger.
	All right, folks, that was Jason Fike.
	Uh, here on the Stone Zone, uh, and a, not a simple issue, but one I hope you could understand.
	He is a fighter, my friends.
	He is a brawler.
	He sought me out four years ago.
	Everything he said about the fight over free expression and free speech has turned out to be true, and I believe that he is on the cusp But he needs your support.
	Again, if you have questions for us here, there are two ways to get them to us.
	You can go to stone at stonezone.com.
	That's one way to send us a question.
	But what we have really tried to prefer now is powerchat.live slash stone.
	And that is also an excellent way to give us a question.
	Let's take a couple while we have a few minutes here for the balance of the show.
	Here is a question from Barry in Phoenix, Arizona, who says, Can Mike Lindell win the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee?
	Well, first of all, with Jesus Christ, all things are possible.
	And as I said on Brandon Howe's show just a few nights ago, while the Republican National Committee Which consists of three members from every state and therefore a total universe of 300 votes requires 151 votes to win the chairmanship is very much a closed shop.
	Mike Lindell is the one individual who has the kind of grassroots appeal and mechanism that could up end this process.
	See, if I were a Republican state chairman or a Republican National Committee man or committee woman, I'd be worried about the ire of the voters.
	I'd be worried about the ire of the grassroots Republicans.
	And those are the people who, by different rules in different states, determine who will be the National Committee people, who will be the state party chairman, and who will ultimately have a vote on the National Committee.
	So I want to be very clear.
	I very strongly support Mike Lindell in this effort.
	It is nothing less than heroic.
	It is uphill.
	But again, as I say, with Jesus Christ, nothing is impossible.
	We'll have more about this on The Stone Zone tomorrow night.
	By the way, tomorrow we're joined by Bryson Gray, the rapper.
	Christian gentleman, friend of mine, an extraordinarily talented entertainer who has refused to sell out, who's remained a matter, a man of principle, but who's going through his own battle with internet censorship.
	You're definitely going to check out Bryson Gray right here at the Stone Zone tomorrow, four o'clock central time.
	5 o'clock Eastern at stonezone.live.
	You're not going to want to miss that.
	We're also going to do a full half hour of Ask Stone.
	This is a very popular function.
	Here is another question from Power Chat.
	Sammy in Boca Raton, right up the road, says, Trump in 24, can he win again?
	Several former presidents through the course of history, Martin Van Buren, Little Van as he was called, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, and Grover Cleveland, served as president and sought to make a comeback.
	The problem is that with Donald Trump, all of the old rules are kind of cancelled.
	Prior to Donald Trump, no international businessman had ever become president.
	Every president before him had either been a governor or a senator or a general until Donald Trump came along.
	In 1940, the Republicans nominated a businessman, Wendell Willkie.
	He ran the best race against Franklin Roosevelt of the four times Roosevelt was elected president.
	But until the American people recognized how broken our system of government was, and until they lost faith in all institutions, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Congress, above all the fake news media, well, the timing was not right for Donald Trump.
	Personally, I wanted Donald Trump to run for president as early as 1988.
	I advocated it at that time.
	I wanted him to run again in 2000, but he was too smart for either one of those endeavors.
	Yet in 2016, we reached a point in which the time and the man were perfect.
	Do I believe the Lord chose Donald Trump for that moment?
	Yes, I do.
	You can make fun of me over at Salon or Media matters for America or any one of these other elitist freak sites.
	I don't really care what you say.
	I do believe in the prophecy of Kim Clement.
	Donald Trump will serve two terms.
	He's already served one.
	He will be back.
	I believe he has a lock on 45% of the Republican primary electorate, perhaps as many as 50.
	And in a split field or one-on-one with Governor DeSantimonious, he will ultimately prevail.
	Those who say he can't be elected are the same people who said he couldn't be elected in 2016.
	So fasten your seatbelts.
	I believe Donald Trump will be back.
	We have a few more minutes for questions.
	Kevin in Sandusky, Ohio says, Do you have a favorite cologne?
	That's a great question.
	That's what I haven't had before.
	Yes, there's a difference, first of all, between cologne and aftershave.
	Cologne is a lingering scent.
	Aftershave is actually bad for your skin.
	Aftershave is mostly alcohol.
	Dries off the skin on your face after you have shaved.
	I do not recommend it.
	What I do recommend is a good moisturizer after a clean shave.
	My cologne of choice is Aqua de Parma.
	Aqua de Parma has been around since the 1920s.
	It was the cologne of Rudolph Valentino, of Clark Gable, of Gary Cooper, of Cary Grant.
	It is now has different formulas, but the original formula of Acqua di Parma is what I prefer.
	Check it out.
	No, I don't get any kind of kickback.
	I'm just answering your question.
	Thank you very much.
	Enrique from Miami asked, what is this about cuffs on a suit jacket?
	Let me explain this to you.
	There you see a cuff.
	That is an old school Italian tailoring, also English tailoring custom, just like you have cuffs on a suit.
	These are cuffs on a suit jacket.
	It is a great old world look.
	It's very rare to see it.
	A gentleman I've been following on Telegram, a gentleman by the name of Sartor, who I like.
	He has also achieved this style.
	You may want to check it out.
	That's about what we have time for here on The Stone Zone.
	One more time, I ask you to please go to MyPillow.com and use promo code STONE.
	We're going to put that up for you.
	In a second, there it is, Promo Goatstone.
	To do all your Christmas shopping, whether it is pillows, or bedding, or the mattress toppers, or the dog beds, or the pet blankets, or the incredible slippers, which I referred to earlier, there's a wealth of products there that make great Christmas gifts.
	So please do all of your Christmas shopping at MyPillow.com.
	And if not there, you can go to StoneZone.com.
	StoneZone.com.
	First of all, I'd like you to subscribe.
	Subscriptions are free right now by going to StoneZone.com.
	As soon as you go online, a box will pop up in which you put your email address and you will become one of our valued subscribers.
	You can also go to StoneZone.com and go to the shop and get your copy of Stone's Rules.
	Stone's Rules is my manual for life!
	It has an introduction by my good friend Tucker Carlson.
	And now by going to stonezone.com and going to the shop, I think it is stonezone.com, you can get your signed copy of Stone's Rules.
	It's a great Christmas gift.
	It doesn't matter whether you're in politics, or whether you're in agriculture, or whether you're in tech, or whether you're in fashion, or whether you're in retail.
	It doesn't matter if you're out of work!
	StoneZone.com is the place to get your copy of Stone's Rules.
	I'm very proud of the fact that my friend of 30 years, Tucker Carlson, wrote a terrific introduction for this book.
	So please go to StoneZone.com.
	In the meantime, This has been the Stone Zone.
	I thank you for joining us.
	God bless you, and Godspeed, and again tomorrow, Bryson Gray joins us in the Stone Zone.
	Hello, I'm Mike Lindell, and I'm excited to announce my new product, My Coffee.
	I get products all the time from entrepreneurs from my new platform, MyStore.com.
	And when I tried My Coffee for the first time, I was blown away.
	It is the best coffee I've ever had in my life.
	I spent the last four months doing my due diligence, and this family-owned business micromanages every step from the fields to the cup to ensure the best quality coffee you're ever going to have.
	It starts with the beans that are grown in Honduras.
	Honduras' volcanic soil and humid climate make the perfect growing conditions for coffee plants.
	Which produced the best beans ever!
	Then each batch is tested for its aroma, taste and other aspects to meet the highest standards in the coffee industry.
	And after that it goes into production which is all done right here in the USA!
	It's like you're getting that small batch specialty coffee but delivered right to your front door.
	So go to mystore.com or call the number on your screen.
	Use the promo code and you'll get your very own My Coffee for 25% off.
	You guys all know that I've traveled the country for the past year and a half.
	I've stayed in hundreds of hotels.
	I've tried every coffee out there.
	Well some of the coffees have that terrible aftertaste.
	Some that leave me jittery or I get an upset stomach.
	Well, my coffee is different.
	It's the richest, smoothest, best coffee I've ever had.
	My coffee comes in a variety of flavors.
	You get them ground or whole bean, plus it's certified organic and non-GMO.
	I guarantee it'll be the best coffee you've ever had.
	So go to mystore.com or call the number on your screen.
	Use your promo code and you'll get my copy for 25% off.
	And I'm going to give you deep discounts on all my store products.
	That's mystore.com.
	It's my new platform for USA entrepreneurs.

▲