S586 - DeSantis Scores MAJOR Victory As FL Senate Passes Anti Censorship Bill NUKING Big Tech From Orbit
DeSantis Scores MAJOR Victory As FL Senate Passes Anti Censorship Bill NUKING Big Tech From Orbit. The Republican governor is gaining massive popularity among Trump supporters and the GOP for taking action on BLM riots and big tech censorship.
The latest bill could be the end for Wikipedia, Facebook fact checking, and social media censorship and bias against conservatives
Project Veritas recently launched a lawsuit against Twitter making this a huge week, a huge past few months for conservatives.
#Censorship
#DeSantis
#FreeSpeech
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In what may be one of the most consequential actions in the culture war yet, the Florida Senate has passed its social media censorship bill, which would stop big tech from censoring users and news organizations.
This will have far-reaching implications.
It could end Wikipedia.
It could end Facebook fact-checking and protect the individual and news organizations from censorship.
In our next story, a state of emergency is still on in Elizabeth City as the family of a black man who was shot says the video shows he was executed.
In our last story, the woke left is actually now kind of angry that they realize the Disney Plus show Falcon and the Winter Soldier is anti-woke.
They even are starting to realize the bad guy is Antifa and the reaction is hilarious.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show, give us 5 stars, and if you really like the show, share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
One of the biggest threats facing Republicans is social media censorship.
Over the past several years, very prominent conservatives have already been removed from many of these big tech platforms, and some of Trump's most ardent supporters were removed years ago, and this likely contributed to Donald Trump's defeat.
Now, I said it a few years ago.
Republicans were too stupid to solve the problem of big tech censorship to save their own careers.
But there are some at the state level who know just how serious this is.
And this brings me to Ron DeSantis.
I don't know what's going to happen in 2024.
It's a long ways away.
But as of right now, a lot of people are murmuring that name as a potential run for president.
Maybe he will run on his own.
Maybe he will be Trump's vice president come 2024.
But right now, one of the biggest priorities of Ron DeSantis is protecting users on social media from bias.
And we got news.
The Florida Senate has just nuked these big tech companies from orbit with a bill That is fairly bold.
It would bar these companies from banning people based on political viewpoint.
It would require that users have the ability to opt out of algorithms.
And that includes shadow banning.
And it gives some basic protections to the users should they get banned for their political viewpoints.
But more importantly, it protects businesses.
I mean, we saw the New York Post and other news stories suppressed by Facebook and Twitter.
This bill would prevent that.
It would stop these companies from being able to restrict a news publication's ability to report the news based on the story's content or their political viewpoint.
Amazingly, it would actually cover my business as well and many other YouTubers, people like Steven Crowder.
Now, Crowder's over in Texas.
Texas's bill may go through and give him similar protections.
But it's time to start having some very serious discussions about whether or not we all need to move to Florida or Texas, assuming these bills actually get signed into law.
After that, there's still the issue of federal jurisdiction, because these big tech companies are in California, and whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold these state laws.
But You may get an emergency injunction should they ban you, so it seems like a good reason to move to these states.
I mean, Texas and Florida got rid of their restrictions.
You can go out, you can hang out, you can have drinks, go to restaurants, life's normal, and now they will protect your political opinion.
In the marketplace of ideas.
It's the most important thing for conservatives to make sure they can actually debate their ideas.
Because that stands right now.
You will get banned for saying the wrong thing.
And there's nothing these conservatives can do about it unless or until these bills become law.
This is huge, my friends.
And I'm going to show you some examples of just how serious the bias is.
I am going to definitively prove the bias exists.
I think it's funny that The mainstream press that lies all day every day would argue it's not true.
They actually claim, in my Wikipedia today, Tim Pool says that conservatives face bias at the hands of big tech.
I can prove it definitively, no questions asked.
I'm going to show you the proof, definitively.
And you can share it with your friends and say, look at that.
That's the evidence.
Which brings me to Project Veritas.
Because the example, for the most part, is them.
It literally is them.
They're suing Twitter.
This is a huge day for conservatives, the anti-woke, and the pro-free speech crowd with the passing of this bill.
Let's read the news.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member by clicking this big ol' Members Only button.
You can then go to the Members area and you get access to exclusive segments for members only.
By becoming a member, you're helping to support my work.
In the event we get banned, we will still have this website up and running where you can see my content.
Now, to be honest, I'm actually talking about whether or not we need to move to Florida or Texas if they pass these bills.
Because I read through this bill and I gotta tell you, it is powerful stuff.
It would protect my company.
That if we want to report on news, we don't have to fear getting banned.
That's powerful stuff.
Here's the story from the Sun-Sentinel.
Social media crackdown clears Florida Senate giving Ron DeSantis one of his top priorities.
Before we get started, smash that like button, subscribe, hit the notification bell, and share the show if you really like it.
The Sun-Sentinel says, in one of Governor Ron DeSantis' top priorities of the legislative session, the Florida Senate on Monday passed a measure to crack down on social media companies that remove users from their platforms.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted 22-17, along almost straight party lines, to approve
the proposal SB 7072, which will now go to the House.
DeSantis has made a priority of the issue after decisions by Twitter and Facebook to
block former President Donald Trump from their platforms in January, after Trump supporters
stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The bill, in part, would bar social media companies from removing political candidates
from the company's platforms.
Companies that violate the prohibition could face fines of $100,000 a day for statewide candidates and $10,000 a day for other candidates.
The proposals also would require social media companies to publish standards about issues such as blocking users and apply the standards consistently, which they don't do.
Pointing to the dominance of a handful of technology companies, such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, Bill's sponsor Ray Rodriguez, R. Estero, said, Big Tech is not a free market, and that the state has a role in regulating such companies.
They do.
Quote, when the battle is between a monopoly on one side and hard-working Americans on the other, the right side of history has always been on the side of the people, Rodriguez said.
It has never been on the side of the monopolies, not in this country.
But Senator Jeff Brandes, a St.
Petersburg Republican who joined Democrats in voting against the bill, said the measure is unconstitutional and that it's a big government bill.
Perhaps.
What is with these pathetic and spineless Republicans that are too stupid to stop these companies from shutting them down to save their own careers, ideologies, families, children?
Are you insane?
Now, I'm not a staunch conservative.
I agree with conservatives on some things.
I agree with the left and liberals on some things.
But one thing I think is, we must allow free inquiry, and we can't have a handful of billionaire oligarchs telling you, telling us, what we can or can't say.
Now, think about the pandemic.
In a country where people have been locked down for a year, and their opinions are being funneled through big tech.
Yeah, that's creepy.
Maybe you want to talk about your opinions on certain issues that are questionable or taboo.
I may not agree with those opinions, but you're allowed to have them.
Well, now you go on social media, you can't go see your friends, the only thing you're allowed to say is, what, orange man bad?
That is creepy and wrong.
Who is this moron in the Republican Party who doesn't get that?
I've had these arguments.
I was talking to a libertarian and they say, oh, we can't regulate these private companies.
It's a violation of their free speech.
And I was like, dude, when they monopolize the town center, when you can't even talk to your politicians or speak politics in a public setting because they bought the land and they control 90% of it, you need to regulate that.
They are seizing the commons.
Company can still exist.
Company can still be the biggest and only platform.
In that space, they can make all the money in the world.
Just got to follow certain rules to make sure you do not destroy the fabric of this country.
Yet there are still holdouts.
Many libertarians and many republicans who are like, oh, it's a violation of the corporate personhood.
Don't care.
I want to see reasonable debate exist.
People who want to run for office have a right to speak and speak to the public.
You cannot give the Democrats a platform to reach new people and bar Republicans from doing it.
I hope the St.
Petersburg Republican gets voted out, and I hope it's because he gets banned.
Quote, This is a bill you would see in countries that we don't want to talk about.
Some that are 90 miles south of here, and some that are a little further south, Brandis said, alluding in part to Cuba.
It makes me uncomfortable that we have to have this conversation.
Democrats also suggested that the bill is politically motivated.
DeSantis is a close Trump ally, and many Republicans were outraged when the former president was blocked from social media platforms.
Quote, We know this bill is as much about political messaging as anything, Senate Minority Leader Gary Farmer, a Democrat from Lighthouse Point, said.
But Senator Kelly Stargel of Lakeland said people have exercised free speech on social media and that platforms arbitrarily shut down the expression.
I'm going to prove it.
Just you wait.
When you get to a situation where a business has a monopoly on a message and the ability to direct a message through that monopoly, that is where the government kind of sometimes comes in and steps in.
She said, I think this bill is trying to strike that right balance by allowing free speech and at the same time trying to make sure the business is not arbitrarily setting up that speech and blocking out people they don't want to win.
This is not an issue of politics entirely.
I think this is an issue of entrepreneurship, small business, as well as the right to political discourse.
I run a business that uses these platforms.
I've been working very hard setting up TimCast.com so that we can't just get shut down overnight because if you rely on someone else's company for your business, Well, you're in for a rude awakening.
See, look, if you're somebody who makes, you know, tools, and your metal supplier or whatever says, you know what?
We're not gonna work with you anymore.
You can always try and source a different supplier.
Maybe it's difficult, but you can.
Well, if you're in the online video space, you have YouTube.
YouTube's monopolized the space.
Google has subsidized YouTube to the point where other platforms can't compete.
And if you want to run your business, this is the place to do it.
Keeping in mind, I'm not a moron, I understand, YouTube provides me with benefits, algorithmic boosting and things like that, which do help me get traction and help me run my business.
But even with that, you know, I try to follow the rules, YouTube still stops me from saying newsworthy things.
And I've talked about some of these things.
For the most part, I seem to be okay, but there are some newsworthy things I can't say.
They would ban me for reporting the news.
Can't have that.
So I got to set up alternatives, as do many other people.
I want to show you an example now of exactly, well, proof.
This is a video from Project Veritas of Dan Crenshaw confronting Jack Dorsey.
But the fact remains that community standards on social media platforms are perceived to be applied unequally and with blatant bias.
Mr. Dorsey, in just one example, I saw a video of From Project Veritas that was taken down because they confronted a Facebook executive on his front lawn.
But here's the thing.
I can show you a video of CNN doing the exact same thing to an old woman who was a Trump supporter in her front yard.
I've looked at both videos.
It's an apples-to-apples comparison.
CNN remains up.
Project Veritas was taken down.
I'll give you a chance to respond to that.
I have a feeling you're going to tell me you have to look into it.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Project Veritas put up a video where they confronted a Facebook executive in front of his home and they blurred his address.
And they said, you can't do that.
You can't show people's homes.
How about this story from the New York Times?
Is an activist's pricey house news?
Facebook alone decides.
The New York Post has complained that Facebook is blocking and downplaying its stories, but the platform doesn't pay any special deference to journalists.
The story was the New York Post and the Daily Mail.
They had a breaking story.
A Black Lives Matter leader, I believe one of the founders even, a supposed trained Marxist, had purchased a 1.4 million dollar home or some, you know, a home of a relative price, as well as several other homes ranging at about half a million each.
Those stories were barred from Facebook.
They said, you can't do that.
You can't show people's addresses.
That was a story about me that explained where I live and made it very easy for people to know.
So we basically were like, okay, well, I guess the cat's out of the bag on that one.
We have, you know, what are we gonna do?
Can't pretend anymore.
The story went viral.
Twitter propped the story up, made it go trend for three days plus.
A fake story, completely fabricated.
And that's okay.
Yet, when Project Veritas confronts somebody, they get removed?
I take you now to the proof.
This is a tweet from CNN, February 20th, 2018.
Certainly, this video that I'm doing right now showing you this must be fine.
Why?
Well, I'm just showing you a verified tweet from CNN with 2.2 million views outside of a woman's home with a reporter.
They say, a Florida woman who ran a Trump supporters page that unwittingly promoted a Russian-coordinated event on Facebook says she doesn't believe she was influenced by Kremlin-linked trolls.
CNN went to a private residence home, showed the home.
That's allowed.
Facebook removes news because it might show someone's home.
Project Veritas gets banned from Twitter.
You see how these companies lie.
I get it.
Twitter and Facebook are not the exact same company.
Okay, there's a difference.
Well, now we're seeing Project Veritas suing Twitter.
You may have heard the news already.
Just want to highlight this.
This is from, you know, just over a week ago.
They're suing Twitter for false and defamatory statements.
Reckless regard for the truth.
What's happening in Florida, what's happening now, is powerful.
What James O'Keefe is doing, suing CNN and Twitter for their lies, is powerful.
But let me show you the bill.
I want to mention, too, we also have Texas, which is doing this, but let me show you this bill, SB 7072.
Section 3, Section 501.2041, Florida Statutes, is created to read, unlawful acts and practices by social media platforms.
As used in this section, the term algorithm means mathematical set of rules that specifies how a group of data behaves.
I'm not going to read through every definition.
They do mention censor.
Any action taken by a social media platform to delete, regulate, restrict, edit, alter, inhibit the publication or republication of, suspend a right to post, remove, or post an addendum to any content or material posted by a user.
The term also includes action to inhibit the ability of a user to be viewable by or to interact with another user of social media platforms.
This is really interesting.
That might have a serious impact on the ability to block or mute people.
Keep that in mind.
There are reasons why this might get challenged.
But, check this out.
A journalistic enterprise.
What pertains to my channel is, a journalistic enterprise is defined as an entity that publishes in excess of 100,000 words available online with at least 50,000 paid subscribers or 100,000 monthly active users.
That is a lot of news websites or publishes 100 hours of audio or video available online
with at least 100 million viewers annually.
Well, that might not cover everybody, but it certainly does cover my company.
That means if I fear censorship and they pass this law, I can go to Florida, run my business,
say whatever I want.
And if they try and remove my company, I can cite this law and fight back.
They go on to define several other issues, particularly user, which means a person who resides or is domiciled in this state and who has an account on social media platform regardless of whether the person posts or has posted.
This is where it gets really interesting.
A social media platform that fails to comply with any of the provisions of this subsection commits an unfair or deceptive act or practice as specified in S.
501.204.
A social media platform must publish the standards, including detailed definitions it uses or has used for determining how to censor, deplatform, or shadowban.
They must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadowbanning standards consistently.
They must inform each user about any changes to its user rules, terms, and agreements before implementing the changes and may not make changes more than once every 30 days.
They may not censor a user's content or material or de-platform a user from the social media platform won.
Without notifying the user who posted or attempted to post.
Two, in a way that violates this part, a social media platform must provide a mechanism that allows a user to request the number of other individual platform participants who were provided or shown the user's content or posts.
This is insane!
This is huge.
That means if you post, you need to be able to see who they are showing your content to.
They say, provide upon request a user with the number of other individual platform participants who are provided or shown content or posts.
A social media platform must categorize algorithms used for post prioritization and shadow banning.
That means you need to know why they are prioritizing you or shadow banning you.
They should give you a categorization.
Allow a user to opt out of post prioritization and shadow banning algorithm categories to allow sequential or chronological posts and content.
Now Twitter does this.
On Twitter you can say, just show me the content as it comes in.
I still believe there's an algorithm because they don't show me every post that comes in.
You may notice this.
Maybe you're following a few hundred people and you're like, I haven't seen a post from this person in a long time.
That's right.
Without you realizing it, they are controlling what you can see or hear, even when you say, don't do this.
Social media platform must provide users with an annual notice of the use of algorithms for post-prioritization and shadow banning and re-offer annually the opt-out opportunity in subparagraph F2.
Now, think about this.
If YouTube has to tell everyone this is what we prioritize, people will absolutely start making content to fit the algorithm.
Now, I'll tell you something.
I'll tell you one thing.
It's fairly obvious what YouTube prioritizes and why.
First, they prioritize content over 10 minutes, but they tell you this.
If you want to run ads, mid-rolls, or end-rolls, you gotta make content longer than 10 minutes.
It's also fairly obvious that people are more likely to remain on podcasts.
Why?
Well, I'm talking to you about things you can put it on and listen to it in the background.
More of an audio platform at that point.
For our vlog we launched recently, Cast Castle, we can see that even though the videos are comparable length, they don't get nearly as high of a watch time because it requires people's full attention.
So we know, based on obvious factors, what works.
If YouTube publishes their algorithm, It's gonna be a whole new ballgame.
People are gonna see what words are banned, what words are promoted.
They're gonna see what content to make, and you will see the rise of many massive companies, and everybody will basically chase the algorithm, basically destroying it.
This could seriously hurt.
Seriously hurt YouTube.
They're going to say, A social media platform may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadowbanning algorithms for content and material posted by or about a user who is known by the social media platform to be a candidate for political office, beginning from the date of qualification and ending on the date of the election or the date such candidate for office ceases to be a candidate of the election.
Post-prioritization of certain content or material from or about a candidate for office based on payments to the social media platform by such candidate for office.
Okay, okay.
We get the point on all this.
A social media platform must allow a user who has been de-platformed to access or retrieve all of the user's information, content, material, and data for at least 60 days after being de-platformed.
Now that's big.
If you're gonna run a business, if you're gonna run for office, you need to be in a state that gives you these protections.
When we saw Lauren Southern and Carl Benjamin banned from Patreon, they lost access to their customer list.
And that's it.
They were told, oh, we'll give you your money, you know, but you can't use the platform anymore.
If you were in Florida, you'd be able to.
They go on to say a social media platform may not take action to censor, de-platform, or shadowban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast.
Post-prioritization of certain journalistic enterprise content based on payments to the social media platform by such journalistic enterprise is not a violation of this paragraph.
I'm not going to read through everything, but they do say up to $100,000 in statutory damages per proven claim.
Actual damages.
Think about this.
I make a certain amount of money operating on YouTube.
Certain political candidates raise money.
If you get banned, that's actual damage.
Say, hey, we were unable to do our fundraising because we were removed.
So they're going to have to pay $100,000 plus.
It's not just happening with Florida.
We saw the bill from Texas.
Now, I don't know if it's going to actually fly.
It's from April 1st.
They say, some experts have raised doubts whether the bill will hold up in court.
Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Republican State Senator Brian Hughes of Mineola, was approved after 2 a.m.
Thursday.
This measure would apply to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, among others.
Would also require the companies to disclose their content moderation policies, publish regular reports about the content, They remove and create an appeals process for user content that has been taken down.
The Texas Attorney General would be allowed to file suit against any company that violates a provision of the bill, if upheld in court.
The Attorney General could recoup reasonable attorney's fees and investigative costs.
I think Florida's bill is better.
I think Ron DeSantis is hitting it out of the park.
Not perfect.
You know, I don't know how strong he is on free speech in the long run, but this is a move in the right direction.
A lot of people on the left, for some reason, are defending massive multinational private corporations, saying they have a right to free speech too, and I'm like, I don't care about massive multinational private corporations and their free speech, for the most part.
I understand that you can't force companies to say or do certain things, but there's a difference.
I made this example about Wikipedia.
It's a very important example.
Section 230 protects a bunch of these platforms.
Now, my understanding is that Wikipedia would be hit by this as well.
You can't ban someone or remove content.
That'll be really interesting to see how Wikipedia tries to squirm past this one, publishing endless walls of lies.
Imagine this.
You're in Florida.
You post some content.
It is politically opinionated, but you post to Twitter.
You see, these bills are aimed at social media platforms that we're used to talking about, that we're focused on.
But don't forget, Wikipedia functions almost the exact same way.
Now let me just explain something to you.
This is gonna be big.
It's why I say nuked from orbit.
If you go on Twitter and you got a little picture of your face and you say, you know, Barack Obama is a bad man.
And they say, we're gonna ban you, you can't insult Obama that way.
Or how about this?
You say something like, Barack Obama does these things.
Barack Obama extrajudicially assassinates people.
And Twitter says, we're gonna ban you for saying that.
Well, now, according to this bill, you can say you can't ban me from my political opinion.
That's not fair.
You can't censor me or demonetize me.
So, for a major journalistic enterprise, they can't remove it.
What happens if you have someone on Wikipedia who contributes to an article about, say, I don't know, Jack Posobiec or Mike Cernovich, and they include something positive?
Because right now their pages are just loaded with, you know, smears.
Or how about Project Veritas?
We'll use them as an example.
Wikipedia says that Project Veritas is part of a disinformation.
That's their goal or something like that, which is not true.
That's an outright lie.
First, let me say this about Wikipedia.
They claim that it's just user comments.
Well, this is going to be their downfall.
Section 230, as you know, protects a platform for what other people say on their platform.
Without Section 230, Wikipedia could not exist.
And I don't think Wikipedia should be protected anyway.
Why?
When you go on Facebook or Twitter and you say something politically, your face appears next to it.
We know it's your statement.
On Wikipedia, you go to edit an article, you include a statement, and then Wikipedia publishes that article in real time under its own name.
Sorry.
If you have users submit things, and then you publish it as Wikipedia, it literally says, from Wikipedia, Okay, well then Wikipedia made that statement, not the user.
Okay, well now they're going to say, no, no, no, you can't do that.
The user said this.
Think about how amazing it's going to be when Florida and Texas passes these laws.
And then you can go onto Wikipedia and say, my opinion on Jack Posobiec and Project Veritas is they are amazing and they are heroes and do great work.
And then Wikipedia says, we are going to remove that content because that we don't agree with.
Your sources are not reliable.
Whoa, whoa.
Reliable?
How do you know?
That's an opinion.
You can't remove my speech because of my opinions.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating Wikipedia has more than enough users to qualify as a massive social media platform.
I'm pretty sure.
Maybe I'm wrong.
right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Wikipedia as we know it will not be able to function.
Good.
Wikipedia maybe was a good thing a long time ago.
I used to be a big fan.
But as media became more and more dominated by rage-bait garbage articles, it makes no sense to allow Wikipedia to be an opinion aggregator and then assert these things as fact.
What Wikipedia does is it takes comments from opinion articles and then cycles them into an encyclopedia, claims it's from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, laundering opinion articles into fact statements.
That should not be allowed.
Okay.
Section 230 protects them.
It's gonna change the game, my friends.
Because it's not just about Wikipedia.
It's about all of these social media platforms and what this truly means.
Will Facebook be able to run fact checks anymore?
No, probably not.
They will fall under this as well.
And as you know, Facebook restricts news organizations based on their fact checkers who get approved by third-party organizations, and that's entirely arbitrary.
The Pointer Institute, they say, they're the ones who determine whether or not a fact check is true.
Look, I'm not a fan of fake news.
I hate fake news.
A lot of people made fake news websites and literally wrote fake articles to generate traffic and made lots of money doing it.
Remember one story about two guys in Arizona making $20,000 a month just making things up and posting them?
That's a bad thing.
Well, you know what?
Facebook won't be allowed to remove those anymore.
And I think it's a good thing.
I don't know how you solve the problem of fake news, and I think the people who do that are problematic, but the idea that you could just empower mainstream corporate press so they can lie solves nothing.
They just go and lie, and then people go on Wikipedia and publish those lies, and some of these fact-checking organizations on Facebook, they also publish lies.
Facebook should not be the arbiter of truth, nor should Twitter, because we all saw what happened with the Hunter Biden story.
We knew it was true.
They blocked the New York Post.
Then we can see the story about Project Veritas.
They questioned a Facebook exec removed for sharing private information, but CNN is allowed to say, sorry if it's all or nothing.
You either allow people to share what they say is true, or you don't allow anyone to do it.
This is gonna be huge.
I don't think people realize the ramifications of what this means.
It means all the Flat Earth videos that come back.
It would mean all of the crazy kooky conspiracy videos will come back.
Maybe not all of them, but many of them.
Because you can't just censor a user.
And then what about news organizations?
What about outlets that they say are fake news?
I've never been a big fan of the Gateway Pundit, for the most part.
I think that they post, you know, hyper-partisan, you know, hyperbolic content.
But they certainly have more than 100,000 active users per month.
They probably get 100,000 per, like, hour, if that.
Probably way more.
They're probably getting hundreds of millions.
Well now they're a news outlet.
Facebook won't be allowed to remove those things or slap labels on them saying it's fake news.
Now Facebook's trying to get around this by saying it's not us, it's a third party.
Nah, I don't play that game.
You give only certain people the ability to appoint fact checkers?
Those are your editorial staff as far as I'm concerned.
And the consideration they receive from your business is priority access to claim other stories are fake news.
It's the bread and butter of their business.
The fact-checking organizations need to raise and make money by fact-checking.
Facebook gives them priority access to do so, which allows them to fundraise and make ad revenue.
That is consideration.
In which case, Facebook is providing something of value for individuals to provide a service to their platform.
That is Facebook making a statement.
Shut it all down.
This is going to change the game.
Likely, if this is signed into law, and it probably will be soon, because I'm assuming it'll go through the House.
Florida is Republican.
Ron DeSantis will likely sign this, just like the anti-riot bill, and let the lawsuits begin.
It will cost these big tech companies so much money to deal with millions of people in this state.
Class action, maybe?
I don't know.
I'm willing to bet Laura Loomer will light up a lawsuit in two seconds.
Absolutely.
All she has to do is declare she's going to run for office again.
And then what?
All she's got to do is declare that she's being unfairly censored.
And what are these companies going to do?
Then they'll sue.
They'll declare federal jurisdiction.
And then we get to see the true test.
Will the federal courts defer To the rights of the individual or the corporation.
It's going to be interesting.
They say the corporations have a right to free speech as well, perhaps.
They say that the individuals under the Constitution have a right to free speech, but the corporations have a right to free speech because they're considered people.
They have personhood.
I wonder though, as I was told by Will Chamberlain, that the Supreme Court may side with promoting speech as opposed to curtailing it.
Which means, if you have a business which allows people to post speech, and they're trying to silence someone's speech, If the argument is, do we force someone to speak or remove someone's ability to speak, the courts will say, we will err on the side of protecting speech because the First Amendment constrains our ability to remove it.
If you want to have an argument about why a company is forced to host certain speech, it's a different argument from the court's ability to say, someone can be shut down from speaking.
But I don't know for sure.
I don't know what I'll play out.
But I just think people need to realize how deep the ramifications are of this.
Wikipedia, done.
Facebook fact-checkers, done.
Nuked from orbit.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
I'm getting sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over again.
But that's the way it's been going for the past year or two years.
We have another police shooting.
Actually, we have two more police shootings.
Why?
Because we live in a country with hundreds of millions of people and things like this will happen.
I guess the left's argument is that because they shouldn't happen, and they shouldn't, we should abolish all of the police!
Instead of, we can't control the wind.
We can't adjust our sails.
So that's why I'm, you know, more of a reform guy.
But at this point, this is why I've been saying, get out of cities, and cops need to resign.
We have this story.
Andrew Brown Jr., family lawyer, says video shows an execution.
Maybe they're protesting.
They're not rioting.
I'm seeing people say unrest.
The people in Elizabeth City are marching around.
I've not seen any videos of hardcore rioting, so it's important to call it what it is.
People protesting.
They're allowed to protest.
The issue is, this country is destabilizing.
Because every little moment, and I don't mean this, someone dying is a much bigger one, but I mean like every little moment, like microaggressions, becomes a major story.
You get some guy in the news where it's like he sent a nasty letter to someone, it's like, oh, you get a guy in the street, and some other guy's like, hey you, you get out of my neighborhood, and they're like, oh no, oh, and they post the video.
This kind of hyper-focusing on minutiae is ripping us apart.
And then, to a greater degree, to a greater scale of impact, you have these deaths.
They're also ripping us apart, but you need to understand, man, they shouldn't happen.
There should be accountability when there should be accountability, but it's not going to stop.
So therein lies the big challenge.
If I got this story right here, where the family's saying it's an execution, are we going to get more riots?
Probably.
What about this story?
That's right, we got another one from yesterday.
Virginia deputy mistook cordless house phone for gun in shooting of black man, attorney says.
Now listen, I've been around long enough to know to wait and not trust the narrative from the people who want unrest or want to abolish police.
I'm also, however, I've also been around long enough to know, there's no point in playing these stupid games anymore.
So you know what?
Abolish the police.
Look, I don't live in these areas, and if you still do, I don't know what you expect of me, because I've said it 50 billion times.
If your house is burning, and I say, yo, get out of your house, and you're like, nah, I'm good, I'm like, alright, I'll see you later.
You think I'm gonna come to your aid?
You got these cops who are staying in these areas.
This is what's going to happen.
Let's read these stories, see what's going on with this family, because listen.
Like I said, accountability is a good thing.
If these cops did something wrong, let's get to the accountability.
Let's not just have a police department that operates with impunity, or I should say, police departments that operate with impunity.
But what's going to happen when every single moment, even like Micaiah Bryant, is where they claim the cops did something wrong, and then it results in riots?
We got an open letter from a black LAPD veteran, a black LAPD cop, to LeBron James about what he's doing wrong, but he comes from a place of respect.
I don't think there's a way out of this unless the media stops covering it, to be completely honest.
But honestly, I don't even know if that would do anything because these stories perpetuate because we have social media.
Humans are addicted.
There's certain things that trigger our emotions and make us angry.
And it's no coincidence that these are the kinds of stories that get maximum play in the media and in social media.
Because if I put up a video of a cop helping get a cat out of a tree, yes, some people might share it because they think it's funny.
But if you put up a video of a cop beating somebody, it's going to go viral because people are going to be like, we demand justice.
What happens then is, if people only ever see one thing, they assume that's reality.
So I'll give you an example actually.
We talked about this with the Chauvin trial.
Now Chauvin was found guilty on all charges.
I don't know what the point of that was.
He'll probably get off on appeal.
But the analogy I use is, imagine there's a boxing match going on.
And the cameras only ever showed Fighter A landing punches on Fighter B. From watching that, you'd be like, wow.
You know, this fighter A is really winning, but for some reason, every time they show him how to land a punch, his face gets worse and worse because they're editing out all the punches landed by fighter B. You get the point?
The point is, if you're only being showed one thing, it will become your reality.
And the issue is, social media propagates things that, like, human anger drives this.
It's rage bait.
That's why we call it rage bait.
So you'll see every single police brutality video, and you will see them played on repeat and from other angles for years.
You go on Reddit, what do you see?
On the front page, it'll be police brutality.
And I'm like, this video's from five years ago.
I saw this when it came out.
They keep recycling it.
What they don't show you is, I don't know, a cop doing routine patrol work.
What they don't show you is, like, a cop buying a box of donuts and having a laugh.
What they don't show you is a cop saving someone from a car fire or de-escalating a fight.
Why would that go viral?
It's not out of the ordinary for that to go viral.
Now, here's the problem.
If no one wants to share the, you know, 90 plus percent of the time, or 95 percent, where the cops are doing routine police work, even when it is boring, like, I'm giving you a ticket, you're like, oh, I'm getting a ticket.
And all they highlight is the extreme moments, and they repeat them for years.
Reruns for years!
Then people are gonna live in this world where they go around saying that cops are hunting black people and that's what they are saying.
Because they've lost their mind.
Look, any person can walk into a police department and be like, how's it going?
And the cops will be like, howdy, that's it.
There's no patrol of people like, oh, we're gonna come get, we're looking for you.
That's just not how it works.
Even in places where they do have bad policing, places like Chicago, it's not, look, you see a cop in the street of Chicago, you say howdy, they say howdy, that's it.
Now, there are troubling instances in Chicago.
It's a big city, a lot of crime.
But the videos that go out, the only videos you'll see, are going to be the worst of the worst.
And like I said, they will be recycled.
A year later.
You could get a video of a cop saving a cat from a tree, or pulling a kid out of a burning building.
And that video will not go viral.
Maybe it will.
But will it get played again a year later?
Often, no.
Man, it's just crazy.
When I was on Reddit the other day, and I'm scrolling on the front page, and I see police brutality, police planning drugs, I'm like, dude, these videos are so old.
But they get play, man.
They make money for these people.
Here's a story out of North Carolina.
We'll see what's going to happen.
They say attorneys for Andrew Brown Jr.' 's family said Monday they were frustrated to only be shown 20 seconds of body camera footage of sheriff's deputies shooting and killing Brown last week.
But what they did see amounted to an execution, family attorney Chantelle Cherry Lassiter told reporters.
Now, you know what?
I'll tell you this.
I don't know if it's an execution.
But it's probably bad they're delaying releasing this body camera footage.
When we had Micaiah Bryant, the cops were like, look, we released the footage right away!
Yeah, because it made them look good.
Like, here's a woman with a knife.
She's going to kill somebody.
This cop saved her life.
In this instance, they're dragging their feet.
Sheriff deputies shot and killed Brown, a 42-year-old black man, while carrying out a search and arrest warrant.
Family attorneys said the footage began with deputies firing at Brown, who had his hands on the steering wheel of his vehicle while being shot at in his driveway.
Cherry Lassiter said Brown then drove his vehicle away from the deputies while they continued to shoot.
She said Brown did not present a threat to the deputies.
Deputies continued to shoot after Brown's car crashed.
She added, saying his vehicle was riddled with bullets.
It's just messed up how this happened.
Brown's son Khalil Farabi said, he got executed.
It ain't right.
Sorry.
I have no benefit of the doubt left.
The George Floyd thing and many of these other circumstances where I'm like, wow, we better, you know, get accountability.
I'm not playing that game anymore.
Sorry.
It's nothing personal to the family.
I just don't believe it.
They can release the body camera footage and we'll see what's up.
Because what if... Who knows what it is?
It could be the guy is told, don't move, don't get in the car, and the guy gets in the car anyway, puts hands on the wheel, and then they shoot him.
Why?
His hands on the wheel.
Are we... Are they trying to imply...
That the only reasonable time a cop would shoot somebody is because they think they're gonna have a gun, not because they may be behind the wheel of a vehicle that can run somebody over.
Nah, I'm not playing this game.
It may very well be the cops were overzealous and shot this guy and they shouldn't have.
Or there may be something we're not seeing because of course the family is going to say.
It benefits us.
We were, you know, we were victimized or something to that effect.
Well, the protesters for the fifth night have taken to the street again.
So, this story is from last night.
They say, protesters were back out in Elizabeth City Monday night, just hours after attorneys and family members of Andrew Brown Jr.
said a small portion of the body cam footage showing he was shot and killed by police.
Demonstrators called for more footage to be released.
I agree.
I agree.
I think they should absolutely release more footage.
But until then, I don't know what you want me to comment on other than this stuff's going to keep happening.
Now I'll tell you what's interesting, and what I don't care for.
Fox News.
Andrew Brown Jr.
search warrant.
Drug deals captured on camera weeks before a fatal police shooting.
I don't care.
Andy Ngo tweeted something.
I commented on this.
There was some guy who like threw a brick at cops, they cropped his photo so you just see his face, and the full picture is him holding a revolver of some sort.
And Andy was like, why did you crop this photo?
And I'm like, stop demonizing the gun.
You know what I mean?
Like, bro, I understand this guy may be a criminal.
I want to know what happened in his driveway.
I understand that dude may have thrown a brick at a cop.
I don't care if he has a gun.
Why should I be mad if somebody's exercising an inalienable right to keep and bear arms?
Yeah, if you're somebody who lives on the south side of Chicago, you're a black dude, you can have guns, same as everybody else.
The gun wasn't the problem.
The dude was apparently charged with, like, throwing a brick at a cop.
Look, look, look.
My point is, This guy, Andrew Brown Jr., may be a criminal.
That's fine.
We have a court of law.
People must be tried.
They must be charged with crimes.
You don't just kill them.
Obama did it.
But, we don't know what happened until we get this body camera footage.
They were supposed to release it yesterday, I guess.
That may be important because some of the witnesses have to testify.
And if they show the faces, then it could corrupt the case.
So, I don't know what to tell you, man.
I don't know what to tell you other than, it's gonna happen again.
It's gonna keep happening.
It's gonna keep happening because these things happen.
You know, you don't see breaking news when a white person is shot by a cop, because there was a narrative at play.
For the longest time, we've been told growing up, racism was a problem, because racism was a problem.
But now we're at this point where we have these laws, you know, we've passed many laws, and abolished many laws, because we got the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we got Loving v. Virginia, you know, these things are illegal now.
There's still remnants of the systemic racism of the past.
When we used to, like, literally ban people from buying houses in certain areas and things like that.
Racial covenants in housing.
We got rid of those things.
We're far from perfect.
We have a long way to go.
But not because of that.
Because we know it's wrong.
We recognize it's wrong.
And because regular people don't pay attention, they are sensitive to the idea of racism.
And good.
Racism is bad.
So you got these people who hear a story, and they're gonna share it.
They're gonna be angry.
You got a lot of people who will just virtue signal.
They'll just share for the sake of being like, hey, look at me, I fit in.
Okay.
Well, the ratings for the Oscars are down 58%.
Nobody's watching these shows anymore, so I don't know who you're fitting in with.
No reasonable person likes people dying.
But are you paying attention enough, or are you fueling the injustice by not paying attention?
Yahoo News says, Virginia deputy mistook cordless house phone for gun, according to an attorney.
Isaiah Brown, a 32-year-old black man, was walking down the street away from his house in Spotsylvania County and was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher when the Virginia sheriff's deputy responded to his house following reports of a domestic incident.
The footage and audio, which was released late Friday, appeared to show the deputy then yelling, drop the gun, multiple times and saying over his radio, he's got a gun to his head.
The deputy then yells, stop walking towards me, stop walking towards me, and stop, stop, before shooting Brown.
The Virginia deputy mistook a cordless house phone Brown was holding for a gun David Haynes, his attorney, said in a statement provided to USA Today.
Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting and clearly told dispatch that he did not have a weapon more than 90 seconds before the deputy arrived.
Isaiah is now fighting for his life as a result of these completely avoidable errors by the deputy and dispatch.
If this story is true as they tell it, this cop should have his gun taken away from him.
He should be put on desk duty.
Alright, if somebody calls 911, and they're walking around with a phone, I understand a cop could be scared, but I don't think being scared is justification for just shooting somebody and putting them in a hospital.
Alright?
The cop should have a responsibility to take cover, assess the situation.
I know it's not easy.
I know it's not easy.
I'm not gonna pretend it is.
I've been in conflict zones.
I've never had to wield a weapon and shoot somebody in these conflict zones.
I've only reported.
So I've gotten to, like, run and hide.
Now this guy has got a 911 call, potentially for a domestic incident.
Domestic, you know, for domestic violence.
I understand why he's worried.
He's got a gun to his head?
What does that mean?
And then you shoot him?
Here's the trouble, man.
If this guy's on the phone talking to 911 and he can't hear what the cop's saying, you see the problem with this?
That's why I do think we need to assess what we are doing.
This guy should not have been shot.
But is this the case of a callous officer who was racist?
I certainly do not believe so.
Is this a case that will result in mass rioting if the dude dies?
Probably.
And then they'll call for murder charges on this cop, and I gotta tell you right now, you know where I'm at?
Good.
Absolutely.
Manslaughter, sorry.
He'll probably get manslaughter.
Kim Potter's got manslaughter.
Convict him.
I mean it.
I really, really do.
You know why?
This is what I was saying.
I am sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again.
Bro, if you keep sticking your hand in the fire, how many times do you want me to come out to get your back when you won't take responsibility for yourself?
Now we have seen what these people want with police.
Abolition.
Abolition of police.
And you ain't got no regular people coming out waving flags and defending the cops.
They're not doing it.
So you got, even if it's only 5% of the people in a city who are saying abolish the police, well that's 5% voting for abolishing police and 95 abstaining.
If you don't take responsibility for your own community, don't expect me to come and do the work for you.
Now, I've heard a lot of people leave in cities.
A lot of cops quitting the force.
I respect it.
I really do.
What was this cop thinking?
I can't believe that there are cops right now at a time like this who would be stupid enough to respond to any 911 call.
And I mean it.
I'm not kidding.
You know, the people come to me and they say, these cops want to do the right thing.
You know, I've mentioned this.
Sure, sure.
Alright.
Then I respect that.
If this cop knew that he will spend, you know, 10 years in prison for the sake of trying to save someone from domestic violence, it's respectable.
It is.
Because you're truly willing to sacrifice yourself to help somebody.
But there are a lot of cops who have resigned, and I respect that a great deal, because they're refusing to exacerbate the situation.
So I'll explain.
Maybe this guy, this cop, was like, I might go to prison because people are losing their minds, but I must save someone.
Alright, then this guy shows up, shoots a gun at the phone, and now we're gonna have more riots?
Dude.
We just need police to respect the wishes of the communities that say, get the F out.
It's that simple.
This cop shows up to Makaya Bryant's, you know, apparently Makaya Bryant's the one who called the cops.
Cop shows up, she's got a knife, she pulls it back, he shoots to save the woman.
Now even LeBron James is mad.
These people don't care.
They just want it to burn.
A bunch of stupid people screaming that the person with the knife should have been allowed to use it.
You know why?
The ideology of the woke left is clearly and definitively might makes right.
You know, and I'm sick of moderates, liberals, conservative types like disaffected liberals pretending that these people want to live the same way you do.
Stop asserting your worldview on these people.
They believe might makes right.
That's why they have no core moral framework.
That's why they cancel each other.
That's why they can run big campaigns saying, stop Asian hate.
And then when Ted Cruz says, I would like to ban discrimination against Asians in universities, the Democrats say no.
Might makes right.
They don't actually believe in principles.
They believe in power.
So let's stop for a second.
Why are they mad Micaiah Bryant died?
Because she was the one who had the power.
Why do they say rest in power?
Might makes right, they say.
Therefore, Micaiah Bryant should not have been shot and killed.
She should have been allowed to do what she wants.
The woman in New Yorker took a gun and put a bullet in another woman's head.
We all saw that video.
Why aren't they protesting for that?
That's their ideology.
They like the idea that if you have the power, you can do whatever you want.
And so they don't like the idea that the cops have the power.
And so the problem then is, these cops and these conservatives are like, people in these cities want to live like I do.
They don't.
And stop propping them up.
And start respecting their vote.
I love it.
These leftists are like, Tim's only telling cops to resign because he thinks it'll get really bad.
I'm like, but it is getting really bad.
We are seeing crime skyrocketing.
We are seeing people in Minneapolis call city council begging for their cops back.
Complaining about long wait times.
Yeah, it got bad.
I don't care.
Whatever.
Abolish the police.
Fine.
I got a sheriff's department.
Okay?
I'm good.
I'm in the middle of nowhere.
You have a right to keep and bear arms.
Stop assuming other people want to live the way you do.
Especially when you know their moral framework is fascistic.
It's not fascism because it's got a bunch of weight attached to it, but it is fascistic.
And this comes from the late David Graeber.
When he said elements of the left have adopted the there is no truth but power framework from the fascists, they're using that.
And that's true.
That explains everything, doesn't it?
Now we got this guy.
Dion Joseph letter to LeBron James.
It's respectable.
It is.
He said, Dear LeBron, I am not going to come at you from a place of faith.
And for those that aren't familiar, it's because LeBron put out a statement.
He put a picture of this cop up.
He says, What you do for children and other acts of charity show a huge heart.
But your current stance on policing is so off-base and extreme.
Your tweet that targeted a police officer who saved a young woman's life was irresponsible.
You basically put a target on the back of a human being who had to make a split-second decision to save a life from a deadly attack.
Instead of apologizing, you deflected.
I'm not gonna read the whole thing.
But he says, quote, You hate racism and police brutality?
So do I. But you cannot paint 800,000 men and women who are of all races, faiths, orientations, who are also mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, preachers, coaches, community members, and just humans with such a broad and destructive brush.
You see, the problem is, This guy, Dion, seems like a good dude, but he doesn't understand that LeBron's moral framework is not the same as his.
I think you and I, you watching, our moral framework is based on Judeo-Christian values.
You know, a lot of atheists will be like, I don't need religion to be moral, but I put it this way, the Fifth Amendment, you know, speedy trial, innocent until proven guilty, these are rooted in Blackstone's formulation.
These are rooted in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
If there is but one righteous person, I will not destroy these cities, right?
Something to that effect.
I'm not a big Bible scholar or anything, but that's a general idea.
So we have a moral framework based on a certain value system, what we hold true, and it's a combination of Judeo-Christian values.
A lot of it's been stripped out, no joke.
However, combined with classical liberalism, individuality and respect for the individual, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But people like LeBron and the woke left are collectivists whose mentality is there.
There is no truth but power and might makes right.
So when you go to LeBron and say you're being a hypocrite, what are you doing?
He doesn't care.
None of these woke leftists do.
They just want power.
They say, rest in power.
It's fascistic.
So you can disagree.
You can think it's wrong.
But you all need to realize these people don't have the same moral framework as you do.
They want to live in a society where people can go and kill each other because there's no truth but power.
No, for me, I don't want to.
But I do respect the right to keep and bear arms.
Which means, if these fascistic individuals want to come near my house and threaten me, my friends, and my family, I have a right to defend myself.
That's what it's for.
Among other things, you know, defend yourself from them or other tyrannical forces and foreign invaders, etc, etc, but that's an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
It's going to keep happening.
More to come.
More riots.
Until you realize these people are just fascistic.
They're authoritarians, and they believe might makes right.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Spoiler alert for all of you who have not yet seen The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
It is a new show on Disney+.
Not a big fan of Disney+, for a lot of reasons, but I ended up buying a year subscription and then canceled it, but I still have it.
I'm really glad I watched The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
The gist of this story, my friends, is that a show the left thought was going to be woke turns out to be extremely anti-woke, And now they're all mad about it.
I love this.
Now, you may have seen the stories from many conservatives and anti-woke commentators saying, the Falcon and the Winter Soldier is too woke!
Even I said that.
There's a scene where Sam and Bucky, Bucky's white, Sam is black, are walking, arguing, and the cops pull up and they're like, sir, is this man bothering you, to Bucky?
And I groaned, and apparently there's a rumor going around that people just ditched the show, and they're like, oh, I'm not gonna watch this woke absurdity.
But the show is deliciously anti-woke, and now we can see the results.
Leftist publications and woke organizations are actually angry at the conclusion of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, my friends.
I love this.
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Let me give you this simple story, and again, you've already been warned of spoilers.
This is a story about a black man, Sam Wilson, the Falcon, a veteran, who was good friends with Captain America, Steve Rogers, a white man.
At the end of Avengers Endgame, Steve Rogers, Captain America, gives the shield to Sam Wilson.
But in the beginning of the show, Sam gives the shield to the government.
He didn't want it.
And the message they convey is that he was conflicted.
You know, he was a black man in America.
Did he want to be Captain America?
He wasn't so sure.
So he gave the shield away.
Immediately, a lot of people were, you know, getting angry and we see conservatives saying it's woke.
No, no, no, no.
This is the redemption arc from someone who was having that woke anger and then becoming an American patriot.
The gist of this show is that a black man is told by all of these people around him that the country doesn't represent him, that he shouldn't be supporting Steve Rogers who's a white man, and he says no.
He puts on the American flag, he uses that shield styled like the American flag, and he beats Antifa with it.
That's the show.
I'm not even kidding.
It's complicated.
It's not just a fan fest.
The Trump supporters are not going to be cheering at every single turn.
It's a nuanced show, but it is brilliant.
In the last episode, Sam Wilson defies this older black man and says he's going to represent America.
He's going to wear that shield.
No one is going to tell him he can't fight for this country.
And he beats open borders Antifa types.
They're called the Flag Smashers.
I love it.
Even the guy they thought was the toxically masculine white privilege guy.
You know, U.S.
agent John Walker, who was given the mantle of Captain America.
It's complicated.
He turns out to be a hero!
I love it!
Everything they thought was gonna happen.
The show goes totally anti-woke, my friends.
This is a turning point.
It's not just about the Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Let me show you a couple things.
James Carville on the State of Democratic Politics from Vox.com says, Wokeness is a problem and we all know it.
Bravo, good sir.
Thanks for finally paying attention.
We also have this.
Changes at Basecamp, a company that many people thought was the wokest of woke in Silicon Valley, so they say, is now announcing they're getting away from politics.
No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account.
We're going to be backing away.
Yes, we're compressing this.
We're getting rid of it.
Look at this big list.
They're like, nah, we're going to get away from all this woke stuff.
Now maybe, maybe they realized.
Wokeness was negatively impacting their bottom line.
Maybe Disney realized people in America like the American flag and don't like the extremists running around killing people and burning down buildings.
Maybe they realized most Americans just want to be left alone.
And so, now that Donald Trump is out of office, and they're realizing they've lost a lot of money, they're pulling things back.
It could just be that, you know, without Trump, they're like, okay, we don't need this stuff anymore, and they're realizing you cannot wield the One Ring.
It could be that they lost too much money, that people were canceling their accounts, and they're like, rewrite the show!
Make it not woke!
Can we get a guy with an American flag to beat Antifa for a minute?
That'll get people to buy our product.
Listen.
How many people cancelled their Disney Plus accounts?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you this, it wasn't the woke people.
Oh, actually, no, they probably did anyway because they'd cancel everybody.
But they were losing regular Americans.
So now we get this show.
Let me read you some of this.
And it's just, it's so hilarious how now the, you know, the woke people are like, Well, they thought for a while that certain things were going to happen, you know, and they didn't get what they wanted.
No, instead, it's a show where a black man says, I'm gonna fight for America, take the American flag, and use it to beat Antifa.
I just love it.
I love it.
Here's the story from Inverse.
They say, Falcon and the Winter Soldier is Marvel's darkest ending since Infinity War.
Now, hold on a minute.
You may not be a big fan or care about any of these shows, but let me just show you the downfall of wokeness in Hollywood, at least here.
Because most of you probably know by now, the Oscars saw a 58% reduction in ratings.
To its lowest point...
Ever.
Now we have this story.
Check this out.
They say, Sam Wilson is Captain America, but the bad guys still won.
I love it!
They think the bad guys won because Antifa lost.
Isn't that hilarious?
They say at the end of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Sam Wilson has taken up an identity that belonged to his pal Steve Rogers, keeping a precious gift within a trusted circle.
What's more, a black man is wearing the star-spangled mantle.
Hear, hear!
Because absolutely one of the bloodiest battles ever fought in the history of the planet was by people in the United States to end slavery.
Now, other countries did it before us.
Many of them did it through payments and reparations and things like that.
We fought, and we won.
The Confederates lost.
People died.
That's what that flag represents.
We're not flying the Confederate flag.
Now, we have free speech, you're allowed to.
Not a personal fan.
You're allowed to if you'd like, but we fly the American flag.
Because that represents what our ancestors fought and died for.
Among other things, preserving the Union, I get it, there's a lot of complicated issues.
So if Sam Wilson, a black man, says he wants to fly that flag, Respect.
They said he wore the star-spangled mantle vowing to try something new with the complicated legacy that is Captain America.
With smiling faces and good vibes, the Falcon and Winter Soldier ends on a happy note.
Even Isaiah Bradley accepts his part in the MCU.
But who actually walks away?
Who dies and who lives?
Perhaps most importantly, who ends up richer?
The Flag Smashers are defeated?
Sure.
But consider for a moment if the Flag Smashers were even the bad guys to begin with.
In the show, the Flag Smashers wear masks, commit acts of terrorism, and kill people because they want open borders.
I am not exaggerating.
That's the plot.
The good guys beat them up, and John Walker, he's this soldier who's got, like, PTSD.
His friends had died.
He watches one of his friends die at the hands of one of these terrorists, and then he kills one of them.
And they told us, all of these leftists are laughing, saying, haha, he's the bad guy, Captain America's the bad guy.
And it turns out he's a good guy!
They literally had this dude beat Antifa to death, and it's supposed to be this powerful moment, but then he redeems himself, and he becomes a hero helping Salmon and Bucky.
And now they're saying, are the Flag Smashers even really the bad guys?
I think when you kill innocent people, that's the point.
The good guys don't do that.
There's a point in the show.
Check this out.
Look at what they're saying.
There's a point in the show, alright?
Check it out.
John Walker.
He's a soldier.
He's given the mantle by the government to be Captain America.
But he's just a regular guy.
He's a soldier.
He's not a regular guy.
He's like a decorated war hero.
He's got a friend.
His best friend, Lamar, a black man.
And they fight together and they work together.
Well, one of these flag smashers kills Lamar.
And Walker, in rage, chases one of them down and kills them.
It was a sad moment.
It was horrifying that he did this.
The guy was like, it wasn't me.
It's like, you're a terrorist organization who kills innocent people.
You just killed another man and he used deadly force to stop him.
He shouldn't have.
That was a powerful moment in the show.
But in the next episode, or not in the next, in the last episode, He chooses to save hostages instead of fighting for revenge and even has the flag smasher woman who murdered a black man say his life did not matter.
I kid you not, she says that.
She says he doesn't matter because he couldn't do anything for her politically.
And I'm like, oh, that is Antifa.
That is the woke authoritarians who pretend to care about people but would kill them in a moment's notice saying they don't matter.
And his best friend, a war hero with PTSD.
I say PTSD because there's a point where he said, imagine if we had the super soldiers see him in Afghanistan, how many of our friends would not have died?
The dude clearly is suffering from what he's experienced as someone who wasn't a superhero, didn't have these powers, and was fighting and watched his friends die.
The Flag Smasher killed his friend, a black man, and said his life did not matter.
You mean to tell me you think they're the good guys?
Nah.
Disney put out a message that is deliciously anti-woke, they say.
With a rumored pandemic storyline that was cut during rewrites, clumsy politics that leave the Flag Smashers ill-defined, I think they're pretty easily defined, a terrorist group of far-left wingnuts who want open borders, and an outcome that leaves certain characters dead and certain people alive, and questionably redeemed, oh, I love it!
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier has perhaps the darkest ending in the MCU since Infinity War.
What makes it especially painful is that the ending really is the complete story of America.
Questionably redeemed, you know why?
Because John Walker was supposed to be white privilege.
He was supposed to be toxic masculinity.
And in the end, he's a good guy.
They can't take it, can they?
Check it out.
Throughout The Falcon and Winter Soldier, Marvel has, if imperfectly, reckoned with the story of America.
America is a mythology of symbols, in which people telling its story omit the truth when inconvenient and uncomfortable.
Isaiah Bradley was one such inconvenient truth about Captain America, the personification of America itself.
Isaiah Bradley was left out of the mythology of Captain America while John Walker was handed the role by virtue of his abilities, service record, and let's say it out loud, his handsome Caucasian looks.
They really don't like him.
We then learned why it lacked the fiber to be Captain America.
In his new U.S.
agent identity, Walker is given a literal license to act in a way that's more suited to his pragmatic methods and underlying jingoism bubbling beneath the surface.
Steve Rogers didn't like bullies, but Walker sure did bully his way through missions.
Don't you know who I am?
He once barked in an episode.
There's no better proof of white privilege in the MCU than the crowning of John Walker as Captain America.
His comparatively light punitive sentence when he failed, and his effortless segwaying into an adjacent role.
John Walker's turn, after his on-duty murder of a flag smasher, classified Walker as a villain, if not a functional antagonist for our hero, Sam and Bucky Barnes.
Walker proved he's not fit for the role of a superhero, let alone the role of Captain America.
That only made his redemption moment more questionable in the season finale.
No, it didn't.
The Flag Smashers were literally killing innocent people.
And that's the plot.
Sam goes to this woman and he says, you gotta stop killing innocent people.
I understand you're fighting for what you believe in.
And she's like, I'll do what I want.
And so here you got a guy, John Walker, watches his best friend, a black man, murdered by this open borders lunatic from a group of people who are killing the innocent.
He chases one of them down and he beats him to death with the shield.
He shouldn't have, because heroes shouldn't do that.
That makes John Walker an anti-hero, not a villain.
He was trying to do good, he was trying to stop terrorists, he's a decorated war hero, and he goes overboard, almost like the Punisher does.
It's not necessarily a redeemable quality.
The heroes we look to are the ones who won't cross that line.
Batman, Superman, and most Marvel characters.
They try to subdue the villain.
And it causes problems when Loki, for instance, escapes.
John Walker is more of an anti-hero, but I love how they're like, he's a villain, he shouldn't be redeemed.
Look at this.
With a truck full of innocent people at risk, Walker sacrifices his revenge against Carly Morgenthau to save the individuals in harm's way.
It's a selfless moment, sure, but it's just one moment.
It's also a powerful demonstration of the MCU using typical superhero story beats to whitewash Walker of his very clearly defined poor moral character.
In passing, Walker's selflessness redeems him from his past actions, but upon wearing the black suit of U.S.
Agent, he seems more dangerous than ever.
I love it.
They can't handle the fact that there's nuance to this story, and simply by virtue of being a white man, they are not villainizing him.
There's a scene, I love it.
It's Isaiah Bradley.
He was a super soldier, they experimented on him, put him in prison.
He tells Sam Wilson, you think you can tell me to come out with my story because you have that white man's shield?
And Sam says, Steve Rogers didn't put you in jail!
It's an amazing point.
That was deliciously anti-woke.
You have this one guy who's holding on to this racial anger, saying it's a white man's shield, and Sam says it's Steve Rogers' shield.
It doesn't matter that he's white.
It doesn't matter that Falcon is black.
They're people.
That's anti-wokeness.
There's a scene where the falcon's walking down the street and a little kid says, hey, it's a black falcon.
And he goes, nah, I'm just the falcon.
And the kid goes, my dad says you're black falcon.
Nah, kid, it's just the falcon.
That's right, it is just the falcon.
And at the end, there's a great moment where some guy sees him, you know, falcon's wearing the American flag suit with the shield, and this black guy goes, man, that's the black falcon.
And the guy goes, nah, that's Captain America.
And I'm like, yes!
That is Captain America!
Because in America, you can be black, white, Asian, Latino, you can speak a different language, and you can fight for the flag of this country and what this country stands for.
Now that is awesome.
I love how it's, like, nationalistic, too.
I'm not a staunch nationalist.
I'm fairly pro-America, but I'm very much in favor of international trade and, you know, agreements.
So I'm pretty middle-of-the-road.
I take the test.
It's like, eh, it's kind of a mix.
But this show was, like, very, very nationalistic.
They say then there's the Flag Smashers, the weakest element of the show.
Another example of MCU's antagonists, who would be heroes if not for their bloodlust, Open borders are the heroes, but the MCU gave them a bloodlust.
It's almost like the Antifa people who go around smashing up buildings for their cause would be heroes if they weren't going around smashing buildings and, you know, beating people and engaging in riots that result in a couple dozen dead over the past year.
Maybe they wouldn't be heroes.
If people come out and they're open borders communists or whatever, I wouldn't call that heroic.
They say the Flag Smashers carried- Look at this!
They even say it!
They carried with them the aesthetics and evocation of Antifa!
Oh, it's so delicious watching woke entertainment go, no!
Why are we the bad guys?
Never mind that Antifa and the Flag Smashers have little in common outside of preference for black clothing and open borders and, you know, hurting the innocent.
In Falcon and the Winter Soldier, they looked and behaved exactly like the kind of imaginary anarchists Fox News uses to scare racist geriatrics.
My friends, this is the opposite of Get Woke, Go Broke.
You gotta watch the show.
I thought it was fantastic.
It was fairly centrist.
I mean, people were even saying like, yeah, Disney's like trying to run the middle of the, you know.
Maybe they realized that Captain Marvel was trash and nobody liked it.
Maybe they realized, maybe we just play this one closer to the middle and we'll do better.
And here's the story you get.
A black man, a veteran, Sam Wilson, is reconciling with the idea of wearing the American flag and what that means.
He meets other people in the black community, people who he respects, who tell him he shouldn't wear that flag, and it gives him pause.
But he thinks about it, and he thinks about what the flag represents, and he thinks about his friend, Steve Rogers, who is white, and he says, that doesn't matter, I can fight for this country.
And he even helps change the minds of some of these people who are holding onto that racial anger.
while still recognizing it.
Now that is great.
You know, I talk to these conservatives and I mention this stuff and they're cheering for it because the left has this caricature of conservatives that they're all like racists who hate, you know, who hate discussing anything having to do with racism.
No, they hate it when you spit in their faces and tell them they're evil for being white male Christians.
They clearly agree that racism is bad because the country itself has almost entirely moved towards agreeing with racism being bad and passing the Civil Rights Act.
We're at a point now where you talk to any conservative and they'll tell you racism is bad.
What is this caricature the left likes to have?
Look at this.
The flag smashers never made sense to me.
I'm not alone.
Maybe it's because you don't actually follow the news and don't understand the points being made.
That hurting the innocent for political goals is wrong.
That the people who want blind open borders ...often do so with violence.
Not all of them.
There's libertarian right, but these are the collectivist left.
I love how they even say it's Antifa.
It's right there in your face.
So look.
Watch the show.
You'll probably be like, oh, that's pretty good.
You know, there's something about a veteran, a black veteran, taking a shield styled for the American flag, and then just like, you know, beating up Antifa with it.
Right?
Now we can see from this interview with James Carville, I'm not going to read the whole thing, but he basically says, wokeness is a problem and we all know it.
Man, is this, are we winning?
Can we get back to arguing about tax policy?
So I can like sit down with Ben Shapiro and be like, America is great, we agree, that's wonderful, now tax policy!
It's like, okay, I think we need a progressive text for these reasons.
And then Ben can be like, no, no, no, that's wrong.
And then afterwards we'll, you know, crack a beer and we'll shake hands.
I mean, we already mostly do that, right?
The disaffected liberals, the ones who are paying attention, those not in the woke cult.
We're more than happy to have conversations and talk about where we disagree.
I've had numerous people on my show, Tim Castanero, where I'm like, I don't like the anti-riot bill in Florida.
And then, you know, Will, who's conservative, is like, I think it's right.
And I'm like, I think it's wrong.
And afterwards, smile, handshake, you know, crack a beer, figuratively.
And it's like, hey, I'll see you next time, man.
Thanks for coming over.
We have to disagree.
Disagreeing is fun.
And then work out the ideas and then try to convince people to vote.
I think that's the way things should be.
It's great.
I disagree.
I disagree.
Okay, well, what do you guys think?
Go vote.
Turns out most people disagreed with me in the superchats.
Or at least the ones superchatting disagreed with me.
They thought it should be a felony to block a roadway.
I don't think so.
In, I think it's Oklahoma, they're making it a high-level misdemeanor.
I'm like, that makes sense.
Don't block streets.
But come on, a felony?
You can't vote and buy guns anymore because you blocked a street during a protest?
I get it's bad, but a felony is a little much, isn't it?
It's just my opinion.
I think we're winning.
And there's another story that shows I think we're winning as well.
There's still areas, the fight's not over, this is just one battle in the greater culture war.
There's a story, though, coming out of Texas and Florida where legislation to protect social media users from censorship is moving through the legislature.
In Florida, SB 7072 would protect a user from censorship.
Now, if you're listening on the audio version of the podcast, you probably have heard this before, but I'm going to be doing this in the next segment over at youtube.com slash timcast talking about what this is.
This is huge.
I might have to move to Florida.
This is amazing stuff.
Look, I was watching Falcon and Winter Soldier.
It got to the woke point, and I'm kind of like, I don't know, man.
But I'm going to keep watching it.
Why not?
I was excited to see what happens.
And I saw all these people complaining about it.
Now you can see the left media sitting there, like, confused.
Like, wait a minute.
Why is Antifa the bad guy?
He's a jingoist.
Why is he wearing the American flag now?
Oh, no.
Yeah, well, now they know how everyone else feels when they do this woke, garbage media no one wants to watch.
Here's what needs to happen.
Watch The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
If you agree with me, then support the show.
We need to prove to these corporations, when we vote with our dollars, it's good.
We need to prove that when you make good content, that speaks a message.
Antifa, bad.
Hurting the innocent, bad.
America, good.
That we support that.
Now, I don't like that Disney Plus supported the, you know, what's it called, the XPCC or whatever, the group running the concentration camps in China.
That's a bad thing.
We must condemn that.
For the Falcon and Winter Soldier, though, I'm gonna say, please, Disney, do more.
5 out of 5, 10 out of 10, whatever.
I thought it was fantastic.
Seeing Sam Wilson in that suit, like the American flag with the shield, I was like, that is awesome.
Soldier, fighting for his country, and the open borders leftists losing.
It was great!
It was nuanced.
Not completely one-sided, but I thought it was a good message about the virtues of America, and, you know, showing that some of these leftist extremists, they came from Europe, they came to the US, were wrong.
They were extremists, and they were wrong, and they had to be stopped.
And even the guy you thought was supposed to be the bad guy turns out to be a good guy.
