All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 9, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
25:33
20240409_steven-crowder-on-americas-china-crisis
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Why Ban Big Tech 00:14:57
Steven Crowder, I want more big government laws.
I want more censorship.
I thought you were passed this.
You're talking about a foreign government, right?
The communist Chinese government, who clearly do not have the best interests of Americans at heart.
This is a government who has a vested interest in the destruction of Western civilization.
We know that they're spying on American citizens.
We know that they have their hands on the scales of democracy here in the United States.
I mean, I've been banned from TikTok for saying that Xi Jinping has a small penis.
TikTok.
The CEO of free speech to the CEO of censorship.
Do I think that the American government's passing up citizens?
Sure.
I also don't think that the communist Chinese government should be buying American farmland.
They own a lot of your ass, Mr. Crowder.
Stay Xi Jinping has a small penis.
See how far you get.
My next guest is a passionate defender of free speech and a ferocious critic of censorship.
Last time Stephen Crowder joined uncensored, we locked horns on the subject of Alex Jones, airing our conflicting views on whether everyone deserves a place on a privately held digital platform.
I don't think that people like Alex Jones should be allowed an unchallenged, unfettered public platform to spew lies, which are done deliberately, in my estimation.
Disputed challenge.
Are you out of your trees?
Now it's censorship of an entire platform that's up for debate.
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill requiring TikTok owner Byte Dance to sell the social media platform or face a total ban.
Critics say it's a Trojan horse for sweeping digital censorship.
One of them, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, told me the U.S. government is far more likely to spawn him than China.
Is he wrong?
Would you want me to discuss that and much more as the man himself?
Laudo with Crowder host Stephen Crowder.
Mr. Crowder, welcome back.
Thank you for having me.
I'm a little nervous because, you know, we had such a good interaction or first go around.
Sometimes I feel like the second one you want spicier.
No, not at all.
I enjoyed the last the last encounter.
I want real is what I want.
Let me start.
Last time, pretty much your position with me about Alex Jones was, don't be a free speech hypocrite, Piers.
This time, I'm going to start by throwing that allegation back at you and say, how can the king of free speech be wanting to censor Americans from an entire platform that they absolutely love?
Well, first off, let's not go straight to King.
I know that you're using your binacular.
We get CEO, president.
I'll accept.
I don't really see how it would be hypocritical.
You know, my issue is, well, we've talked about Section 230, right?
And this is where companies need to either be viewed as platforms, right, be viewed as public utilities.
They benefit from that.
They don't have the same legal liability that publishers like the New York Times or Sun News or CNN Fox News, whoever they are.
But then they have the ability to censor people based on viewpoint.
So that's my issue as it relates to big tech.
As it relates to TikTok, you're talking about a foreign government, right?
The communist Chinese government, who clearly do not have the best interests of Americans at heart.
And we know that they're selling information.
Well, selling.
They don't really need to sell it to themselves.
We know that they're spying on American citizens.
We know that they have their hands on the scales of democracy here in the United States.
That's a separate issue, right?
We're not really talking about private citizens having the right to speak freely on what are regulated effectively as public utilities.
We're talking about an antagonistic government with TikTok.
Well, to a point, Lord Copper, there's no actual evidence as things stand that Chinese authorities are collecting or sharing any data from Americans on TikTok, unless you've established any.
Sure, there's plenty.
I mean, there's plenty that have also been admitted when we were talking about these hearings, but I've experienced it personally as well.
I mean, I've been banned from TikTok for saying that she, I don't know what we're allowed to say on your program.
Oh, yeah.
We're uncensored.
All right, that Xi Jinping has a small penis.
We did a segment called Trash TikTok, where we weren't talking about LGBTQ issues like you would see on YouTube or for which is a bannable offense.
We weren't violating any laws.
We're just critical of the communist Chinese government.
It was kind of a dare, and they were not dumb enough to do it.
Banned us for that speech.
So I don't know what kind of an American enterprise would ban someone for criticizing a communist Chinese government.
But if you also look at the regulations, what people are talking about in place here is protecting American citizens.
Do I think that the American government's boss citizens?
Sure.
Absolutely.
That doesn't change the fact that a foreign government, especially when we went through, gosh, how many years of the Russia collusion hoax, it's happening right in front of your eyes.
That's my issue with TikTok.
It's quite a bit different from, and by the way, I don't think that it goes far enough as far as demanding transparency.
I've understood the critics to say that, well, this is obviously something that would favor Facebook.
And I do think in practice, it could.
And I do think that Facebook obviously disproportionately censors conservative voices.
But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing going into an election.
I mean, we've had Mr. Epstein on this program.
Sorry, not pedophile Alan Epstein, the doctor who studies social media and online data.
And that one story of the Hunter Biden laptop, that one story changes the election according to the voters themselves who voted for Biden.
That one story that was not permitted anywhere, not on Facebook, not on Twitter.
Right afterwards, I said, okay, New York Post, you can get that story out there, but you have to remove your original post and upload a new one.
And you know, as people who swim in this space, you know exactly what that does.
You lose the interactions.
You don't have the same amount of momentum and that story might as well not exist.
That one story changes the face of the United States election, disregarding everything else, like the unconstitutionality of the mail-in voting and what they did in Pennsylvania, disregarding all of that, that one story, let alone an even playing field for different points of view.
That's the issue that we see with big tech in general.
But here's the thing.
On that, I completely agree with you.
In fact, I've not only written multiple columns saying exactly that about, because it was the New York Post, who I write columns for, who got so crudely censored.
They were kicked off social media for a couple of weeks at the crucial time of that election, literally in the last few weeks of the campaign.
And they reckon there could have been a swing of 10% at least, which would have been enough.
I've said to Donald Trump, if you stopped banging on about the Stolen election without producing the hard evidence required to convince people and focused exclusively on what happened with that New York Post exposure of Hunter Biden's laptop, I think you would have a lot more general support from the American people about that election being taken from you, because there's no doubt to me, it did have a genuinely material impact and it was down to big tech censorship.
But that's where, again, I put it to you that there's a slight double standard from you, Mr. Crowder.
And I say that with great respect, that the double standard is here you are, you're actually currently taking the government and big tech to court over their shadow banning of social media.
I've experienced that myself.
In fact, once Elon Musk bought Twitter, in the following few months, I gained or probably regained over half a million followers.
Whereas in the year before that, I'd basically battered a draw, right?
That's not a coincidence.
That is Elon Musk brilliantly getting under the bonnet of what was going on and realizing that people with any kind of contentious views, particularly if they were anti-woke, as I was being pretty strident about, they were getting shadow banned, right?
As were many conservative commentators like yourself.
But here's the thing.
I applaud you for the battle you're waging against government and big tech over the shadow banning.
And I think we broadly agree about things like the censorship of the New York Post and that election campaign.
I just find that inconsistent with you wanting to ban an entire social media platform that is American run.
That's American run in America, and which I think anyway, even if you managed to do it and win this battle, I think that the Chinese would very, very quickly get all that data anyway another way.
Well, that may be so, but to be clear, I don't want to ban TikTok.
That's not my position.
What do you want to do?
That's never been my position.
No, and I certainly don't want a content ban.
What we're talking about is a ban on ownership of foreign influence, right?
That's what that's effectively.
There should be no banning of TikTok.
Right, but that's burning it from America, isn't it?
No, it's not banning it from America.
It's putting it in the hands of American interests.
Look, I think there's a big difference between some, let's say, a Canadian company, although that remains to be seen now with Trudeau.
He's as bad as it possibly gets.
This guy didn't do blackface.
This guy did black arms and shin, and he did it like 19 times.
You know this, right?
He did it like 20 times.
I think, Trudeau, listen again, probably to your surprise, probably to your surprise, Stephen.
I completely concur about Trudeau.
He is the nearest thing to a woke fascist I've ever seen.
Yes, I agree.
It's this just, I just find it funny.
Let me pin you down then on what you're doing.
What is your exact position about TikTok in America?
It's communist Chinese ownership or influence.
So, for example, you asked for evidence, I believe it was in 2020, 2021.
You guys can look this up.
Don't quote my near.
It's one of those two years.
There was leaked audio from more than I think it was, it was 70, 80 internal TikTok meetings, right?
And it showed that the employees of Byte Dance repeatedly were accessing non-public data from American TikTok users.
They have actually said that everything is seen in China.
This is not a content ban.
It's not run in the United States of America.
This is a government who has a vested interest in the destruction of Western civilization.
It's just saying you cannot have that company.
You cannot have that communist government in charge of an application like this over giant swaths of American private data that they have admitted.
We've heard recorded it is used.
That's the issue is getting it into American ownerships.
I do not think you prohibit the Chinese from having ultimate ownership of TikTok, they'll simply remove it from the United States, as you know.
So effectively, you are calling for a ban because if you get the result that you want, the Chinese will pull the plug on TikTok in America.
But that is a ban.
No, they won't.
They won't.
They have plenty of ways of still running it in America and not having a golden share.
Well, they said they will.
I mean, I also don't think, I also don't think that, well, they can say whatever they want if they want to do that.
That's their choice.
I also don't think that the communist Chinese government should be buying American farmland at all.
I don't think it should be able to buy land near our ports.
This is not an issue of freedom of speech.
This isn't about property rights.
This is one of the few legitimate purviews.
And I know I'm very, I'm very conservative.
I'm very lazy fat government.
I'm a federalist, but I'm not a libertarian in the sense that I don't believe the federal government has a legitimate purview.
One of those few legitimate roles is to protect Americans from legitimate external and internal threats.
That's why we have child pornography laws, which we discussed in the show today and did a hidden camera investigation.
That's why we have a military.
There is a legitimate role of government.
And I think a foreign government that is diametrically opposed to our national interests and the interests of privacy and basic fundamental rights of Americans, that is one that would fall under the purview of, okay, look, this can run in the United States, but you'll have to pull a Budweiser Medela where you have different licensing and different ownership here.
So we have the data in the hands of people who we know won't sell it, use it within the world.
Does it not make you pause for thought, though, Stephen, that people like Vivek Ramaswamy, who I know you really like, Donald Trump, and others on the conservative right are vehemently in disagreement with you about this?
They are now.
And Biden says he'll sign it.
I mean, that's been a pause for thought, hasn't it?
It absolutely does give me pause for thought.
You're right.
You'd like to think, hold on a second.
It's kind of like I think the old Alice Cooper quote when it was John Kerry versus George Bush.
He said, if I wasn't a George Bush supporter, I would read the list of Kerry supporters and immediately switch because that included Osama bin Laden at the point in time.
However, I have to let logic prevail and say, hold on a second.
Why was Vivek?
Donald Trump had an almost identical law that he was about to put through.
Why are they now against it?
We can disagree on that.
However, looking at the limited purview of this kind of a bill, I believe that certainly getting the Communist Chinese Party out of dealing with Americans' private data is important.
Also, the fact that, look, they have tilted the skills.
We've seen it with Facebook.
We see it with Google, YouTube, and before Elon Purchase, sorry, it always screws me up.
X, such a silly name.
I want to say Twitter.
I get it.
It's X. You've been X.
It sounds like a reality show.
I think that's a legitimate role of the government.
I don't think that the government should, for example, Gin Saki calling for Spotify to ban Joe Rogan because he's critical of the mRNA injections.
That would be an illegitimate overreach of government.
We know that they do that.
We know that they've done that with COVID, Google, YouTube.
So I'm not defending the American government as though they are inherently altruistic, but we certainly know that the communist Chinese government doesn't have our interests at heart.
And that being said, I also understand DHS.
Let China buy up land, buy up land near our ports.
And then if it does come down to some sort of global conflict, just say, yeah, we're taking it.
Well, it's actually, I mean, the question I would have for you, I said, look, your concern for China getting its fingerprints into American real estate or property or land or whatever is fine.
What about the fact they own so much of American debt?
I mean, if China wanted to turn the tap off tomorrow of America's economy, it actually could.
I mean, that would concern me a lot more, frankly, than kids watching dancing videos on TikTok.
I'm surprised it's the hill you want to die on when it comes to Chinese interference in America.
They own a lot of your ass, Mr. Crowder.
First off, I do not want to die on this hill.
You said I want to die on this hill.
Second, I agree with their tiny fingerprints all over our crap.
I completely agree.
And I also have a problem with the fact that we spend more on the interest on our debt than we do on the military.
People do not realize that the spending is out of control.
However, when it comes to setting a budget, all of a sudden we get a little bit murky on the rule book.
So I've been remarkably consistent.
Yep, we need to reduce our deficit.
We need to do something about the debt.
We also need to protect our elections from foreign interference.
We need to protect our American, our constitutional republic from bad actors.
That would be pretty consistent across the board.
Needs to be done in a way that is consistent with our First Amendment rights here in the United States.
And obviously, the only thing consistent with big tech is that they've been remarkably inconsistent.
They're not acting actually.
They're not following the laws.
Let me give you an example here.
Like, this is an issue that we run into.
You're very familiar with this, having worked in journalism, single-party consent laws.
This is how investigative journalism operates.
Without this, there can be no Watergate, for example.
This means that you can record a conversation if you are the only party who decides to record the conversation, as long as you are taking place in this conversation, meaning it's you, someone else, you can record it.
That's the law.
I think there are 11 states that are dual party consent.
YouTube doesn't honor that law.
In other words, if you record someone well within your legal bounds in a single party consent state, YouTube has come to us and they do it with investigative journalists.
They say, hold on a second, the person who was being recorded didn't want to be recorded, so we're removing it.
So how could investigative journalism exist at all?
How can you at all speak truth to power?
How can you catch those in power if they're corrupt, if you have big tech running interference for them?
So I've been remarkably consistent and just, and if people disagree, that's fine.
Playing By The Rules 00:02:00
I don't want anyone banned, to be clear.
And if they want to be private platforms, they want to be publishers, they can do that too.
The only issue that I have is they need to decide, do they benefit from the protections of 230, where they are treated as utilities, meaning Verizon, or God forbid, you're using Vonich for long distance calls, like one of my grandparents.
If they're using one of these services, even if they're openly talking about how they support Adolf Hitler, again, Hitler bad, anyone tuning in, you can't remove them from this telephone service because they're treated like a utility.
These luxuries, these protections from legal liabilities, these are afforded to big tech platforms, but they will remove people simply because of a point of view.
My point, and the only issue that I've been championing here is if you want to be a private platform like the New York Times, like CNN, go ahead.
If you want to be treated as a public platform, as a utility that Section 230 allows, then you can't censor based on political point of view because that's when we end up with the Hunter Biden laptop story.
That's when we end up with the Ashley Biden diary.
Okay, but would you be comfortable?
My final point on this, my final point on this on TikTok.
Would you be comfortable, you Stephen Crowder, with all the reputation you've built up for certain points of view, would you be comfortable if ultimately the government, the United States government, takes action in the way that you would like it to.
And as a consequence, China pulls a plug on TikTok and tens, maybe hundreds of millions of Americans who thoroughly enjoy TikTok look at Stephen Crowder and go, wow, that guy called for more big government laws to censor my free speech right to enjoy TikTok, which is run in America by an American company separate from the parent company in China.
Would you be comfortable with that scenario playing out?
Well, first off, that is such a loaded scenario that it would be tough to say which part with which part of the world.
It's the inevitable consequence of what you're planning.
The Communist Chinese Party cannot have a golden share interest in TikTok because you have misused it.
Would You Be Comfortable 00:08:35
We already know you've misused it.
So you've got to start playing by the rules.
And they say that we're going to take our tiny little ball back to our house and go home.
Yeah, I would be fine with that.
I just think we need to play by the rules.
Stephen Crowder, I want more big government laws.
I want more censorship.
I thought you were past this.
Aren't you starting your own platform?
Come on, don't worry about it.
Are you not uneasy about the way this is going?
What was that?
You're not uneasy about this potential headline.
I'm not.
I stand by a complaint.
But that's not what I said.
From the king of free speech or whatever you want to call yourself, the CEO of free speech to the CEO of censorship.
You are Mr. You are into the royalty, aren't you?
Get over it.
I think you'd make a good prince, actually.
You would make a good king.
Kings are reserved for people like me.
With my relatives?
No, it's actually your name.
It's not very kingly.
It would have to be someone like Piers.
Piers is old English.
It's not very kingly.
And my blood is still red.
I don't have the blue.
I don't think I do.
There's a reason we've never had a king, Steve.
It's just not, it's not going to happen.
That's fair.
We could agree on that.
Can we agree about this?
We talked about Alex Jones last time in the last few weeks alone since he was restored to X.
And my criticism of Elon Musk led to him canceling an interview with me before it even happened because he objected to mild criticism of him doing a U-turn on that decision to bring back Alex Jones.
But I think I've been vindicated by some of the insanity that Jones has been posting on X in the last few weeks.
He posted a video of the terror attack in Moscow with the words NATO strikes.
Another headline based on one of his posts.
Globalist Macron plans Ukrainian false flag to launch World War III.
Another video entitled World Population Declines for the First Time in Centuries as Globalist Culling Operation Continues to Accelerate.
I mean, all of this, as you know, and as I know, and as Alex Jones knows, and this is the pertinent point, is complete and utter invented baloney and not based on anything even close to resembling fact.
Is it right?
I mean, you want to protect American interests.
Is it right that you have somebody like Jones with the massive platform that he has, which you know he abused so badly with Sandy Hook families, he was ordered to pay a billion dollars?
I don't know that.
What?
That he abused Sandy Hook family?
I will go with you on everything, except I don't know that Alex Jones knows, and I don't know that he horrendously abused his platform.
I just want to make sure that I'm clear as to what I mean by that.
I don't agree with what he said.
Okay, let me clarify.
I would say that by the way he went about targeting the families of the Sandy Hook victims, in my view, is one of the most despicable, deliberate defamations I've ever seen.
Hence the billion dollar plus payout, which he's so far failed to, I think, even pay a dollar.
But the consequences of what he did there to generate vast personal wealth by pouring misery of fuel onto the misery of those families, I think was unconscionable and should have been why Elon Musk, when he originally was asked about it and said he wouldn't let people who stood on the graves of dead children be on the platform.
I thought he was right the first time.
Anyway, we won't get into that particular debate again, but given that you just did it.
You just did it for a minute.
I'm talking about why I had the falling out with Elon about it, but in terms of the recent headlines based on his post, have you revised your opinion at all about whether it is right that people like Alex Jones are allowed to do this to big audiences on things like X, given they're spouting what I think is complete deliberate nonsense designed to make money.
Ah, ah, see, there's the word right there, deliberate.
And you and I both know that you're familiar with defamation laws, libel, and slander.
And someone can say whatever they want if they believe it to be true.
Now, I don't know.
That's the one thing that I said.
I don't know that Alex Jones would know this to be untrue.
I disagree with what you've just, of course, I can't see what it is that you brought up.
I've never maintained a position that I agree with Alex Jones on everything.
I don't.
But here's the beauty.
First off, deliberate is key.
If he's deliberately lying, that's different.
And there's a law against that, right?
If he's deliberately defaming an individual.
You think he genuinely thinks that NATO launched that terror attack on Moscow?
I know Alex Jones, and I believe it's very likely.
He didn't even need to lead his company.
This is clearly as the marks from NATO all over.
This is what's happening.
And they're putting chemicals in the water.
They're turning amphibians into asexual anamorphic beings.
I've seen the papers.
I believe that he probably believes it.
And I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.
I'm not sure.
If he did believe it.
Here's one thing that I'm in the business of doing.
Let me finish.
If he didn't believe it, what would you think?
It's very important that you and I are able to discuss it.
What happened before is what I believe to be completely unacceptable, where Alex Jones, because of 10 people on one conference call, said his point of view will not be permitted.
And so we can misrepresent it for him.
You disagree with what he said based on what you're telling me.
I disagree with his position.
But the fact that we are able to combat it with better ideas or better information is far better for society.
And by the way, the alternative is far more dangerous.
We've seen it at work.
If these people, and by these people, I mean the progressive left, would have their way.
Not only Alex Jones, yours truly, you eventually, Joe Rogan would be gone.
When you have members of the administration deliberately calling for censorship of individual programs on this platforms, that is far more terrifying.
What about saying something like that?
The same Alex Jones, the same Alex Jones in 2012 launched a petition on a White House petition website page to have me deported from the United States because I was criticizing the Second Amendment.
Now, where do you sit with that, Mr. Crowder?
Because it wasn't that an appalling attempt to censor my right to free speech, which, by the way, Barack Obama, who was president, eventually did announce because he had to, because it reached a certain threshold on that website, on the White House website, that I was allowed to stay in the country because I was entitled to my First Amendment rights to comment even adversely on the Second Amendment.
What did you think of Alex Jones' attempt to censor me by actually removing me from the United States?
I think it's funny.
And I don't think it was meant to be taken very seriously.
If you were actually going to immigration ice and have you removed, then of course I would disagree with that.
But I'm not going to lie.
I think that is hilarious as all get out.
You being deported, what you said.
I was saved by Obama.
That's why I'll always have a sense of humor about it.
I will always have a soft spot for Barack Obama because he literally saved me for the American people.
And my God, you've shown a lack of gratitude ever since.
Well, he's not acted on behalf of the American people when he was president or his post-presidency.
So it wouldn't surprise me.
But I don't think that you should be removed just because you're wrong about the Second Amendment, Pierce.
And I know that you've reviewed your points of view on that.
And I think that you've clarified your positions.
They're far more reasonable these days from what I understand.
And I think that's, hey, that's the beauty of having a dialogue.
I agree.
I think that we are able to discuss these different ideas.
That is very, very different from a foreign actor, a communist government, who, by the way, it also wouldn't make sense at all if they didn't have any ownership why it would be removed.
Right?
This is kind of one of those circular logic issues.
Well, if China said they're going to remove it, if they can't be under the interest of bite dance, right?
If the Chinese communist government can't have a golden share in it, then they'll remove it.
Well, hold on a second.
I thought they said that they were saying they have no ownership in it.
There's a huge difference, by the way.
There's a huge difference, for example, between American citizens having the right to own and bear arms and non-citizens.
And that's something really, if I can just touch on this for a second, we do have a constitution here in the United States.
And how it is fundamentally different is the First Amendment second.
You go through all of them, right?
We don't believe that our government, certainly not the Founding Fathers, grant rights.
They don't create rights.
They simply recognize God-given inalienable rights and they serve to protect them.
Now, because other countries don't share that point of view, it is the duty of our government to recognize the God-given birthrights, fundamental human rights founded and natural rights to its citizens, because citizens of the world who are not citizens of the United States, they do not have the same skin in the game.
They don't have a vested interest.
They want the opposite of what the American view of foundational rights are.
There's a huge difference, and I have no problem delineating between American citizens benefiting from the constitutional protection endowed by our creator and members of a communist Chinese government.
It's a conversation we can have, but that delineation is one that I don't shy away from.
And Stephen Crowder, what I will tell you is I intend to go away from this interview and immediately post the highlights to TikTok where we'll get millions of views.
So thank you very much.
Stay Xi Jinping as a small penis.
See how far you get.
Always good to have you on uncensored.
And that's why we're uncensored because you can say things like that.
Steven Crowder, thank you.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, brother.
B.
Well.
Export Selection