Diddy attorney Jesse Weber analyzes the sex trafficking trial, where pregnant accuser Cassie Ventura faces charges of racketeering amid conflicting testimony from Daniel Phillip regarding force versus coercion. The discussion pivots to free speech controversies involving Shiloh Hendrix's use of the N-word on a five-year-old and Ye's banned "Heil Hitler" single, sparking debates over incitement versus artistic expression. Panelists clash over Mark Lamont Hill's hypocrisy regarding racial slurs and the morality of white people using reclaimed language, ultimately concluding that moral clarity requires holding all parties accountable regardless of race or tribal affiliation. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Building Cassandra Ventura's Credibility00:11:33
Coming from a traditional Catholic perspective, I'm not going to go into the church and play a song that supports same-sex marriage or abortion or all of these things because we consider all of those activities to be sinful.
The question that I have is, where do we draw the line?
I want to live in a country where people are allowed to say what they want unashamedly.
And you can, you go.
Hold on and say, say the N-word.
Go on.
No, no, no.
She says it.
I'm the victim.
I think the biggest problem in that whole debate was Mark Lamont Hill.
He's an emasculated man.
If that white girl said the N-word on your show to me, I couldn't care less.
It's an ignorant person using an ignorant word.
When it's used with a soft A, it's often used as a term of camaraderie within the black community.
It's not the same thing as a hard R.
Those would be fighting words.
When it comes to white people, the hard R or the soft A is still the same.
It's unacceptable.
That to me is where it all gets very tricky.
Anybody who donates money to her is like donating money to the Ku Klux Klan.
She called a five-year-old child the N-word, and now she's being rewarded for it.
Well, later, we'll debate the outrage of a Yeh's new single, Heil Hitler, and the extraordinary fallout from our panel on Shiloh Hendrix.
But we begin with the remarkable and chaotic opening to Diddy's sex trafficking trial in Manhattan.
Jesse Weber is an attorney, an anchor at Law and Crime, and a News Nation contributor.
Jesse, great to have you on Uncensored.
Many thanks.
This is an extraordinary case.
Thank you so much for having me.
I'm a big fan of yours.
Oh, well, thank you.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
It's an amazing case in many ways, this.
We're now into day two, which may be a critical day in many ways, because Diddy's long-term ex-girlfriend, Cassandra Ventura, known as Cassie, who we all saw in that gruesome video in the hotel corridor where he attacked her, she'll be up on the stand.
And I would imagine that her testimony and the cross-examination could well end up being utterly pivotal.
I would say this case rises and falls with her testimony.
Remember, we wouldn't have criminal charges if it wasn't for Cassandra Ventura filing her lawsuit in November of 2023.
She was always victim number one in this case.
She made up 80% of the opening statement yesterday.
And if you're talking about a case of racketeering and you're talking about a case of sex trafficking and you're the prosecution and you are saying that all of these alleged victims were not willing participants, that they were coerced, it all comes down to her testimony.
And I will tell you, peers, it may be difficult.
It may be difficult because what did we hear yesterday?
We heard that she allegedly paid for sex work, that she was a part of it, that she dressed up, that she sent text messages.
She's going to have to explain that every one of those instances, she felt the threat of Sean Combs, that she did this against her will.
And will the jury believe it?
Now, she's in an interesting position.
She's what, eight and a half, nine months pregnant.
The defense cross-examining her, an alleged victim who's in this state.
It'll be interesting to say the least.
Yeah, I mean, the position from Diddy's defense seems to be, look, he behaved disgracefully.
He did some terrible things.
Obviously, everyone's seen the video of his attack on her when she was his girlfriend and so on.
But the bar to reach for the charges they've thrown at him, racketeering conspiracy, the sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, the transportation of Ventura and commercial sex workers with the intent they engage in prostitution.
Like you say, it's going to get a bit messy this because I imagine what the defense will say is, well, A, she was with him a long time, right?
If this was all coercion, if this was all against her wishes, why was she with him so long?
Why are these, you know, all the stuff you just detailed, which appears to suggest that she was going along with some of it at least.
It's going to get, I think, quite messy here, isn't it?
You hit the nail on the head.
I said this for the last 24 hours to me in the prosecution's opening statement.
It exposed a weakness in their case.
They spent so much time trying to tell this jury why this is a crime, why this is racketeering, why this is sex trafficking.
It's not a garden variety case like we've seen in the past.
And I think that becomes a difficulty for the prosecution trying to explain what Sean Combs allegedly did, how this was a criminal pattern, and who was working with him.
Remember, the prosecution said it's not that he just did it alone.
He had people who were helping him.
And Cassandra Ventura is in this position where she is going to have to say, you know, the video of her purportedly getting beaten up by Sean Combs, she was running away, not just because of a domestic spat, because she was running away from another sex worker, from a sex trafficking operation.
And it all comes down to her credibility.
And that's what makes this, as you said, a thorny issue, but a very legally tenuous issue because the defense said domestic violence, our client committed it.
Yep, he's not a great guy.
What he did in that video, indefensible, but it's not sex trafficking.
It's not racketeering.
And one of the things, by the way, for racketeering conspiracies, the prosecution has to prove at least two underlying crimes, kidnapping, arson, drug trafficking.
The defense yesterday went through each of them and said this was drugs for personal use.
This was not forced labor.
Everybody works hard.
This was not arson.
I will tell you, though, I will tell you, Piers, where I think the defense will have some trouble is the transportation to engage in prostitution.
It's in the name, transporting people for the purposes of sex work.
Yesterday in the opening, they said he was paying these individuals for their time and experience.
That one might be a little bit of a tough sell for a jury to believe.
Yeah, I think that's right.
Do we know yet if he's going to take the stand?
We don't.
And it's his decision, his decision alone.
It worked for him quite well over 20 years ago when he was in the nightclub shooting case.
This is a remarkably different case.
Every legal analyst will tell you, particularly in this kind of case, he shouldn't take the stand because he will be cross-examined about so many different details.
And by the way, he got himself in his own legal trouble when he spoke out.
He released that Instagram video apologizing for the 2016 videotape.
He essentially not only admitted it was him, but he forfeited any opportunity to say the tape was altered or it's not him or it doesn't purport to be what it is.
So his own words got him in trouble and painted him in a corner.
I can only imagine what would happen if he takes the stand.
But then again, he may feel he's the only one who can properly tell his story.
Right.
And, you know, when it's a jury and it's a big celebrity, you just never know, right?
You never know quite which way a jury will go.
What's interesting is the jury has split eight men and four women.
All we know about them is that they're in their from their 30s to their 70s.
They won't be sequestered to have to shield themselves from media coverage about the case.
But any significance to you in the fact there are going to be twice as many men as there are women there?
It's hard to gauge in and of itself.
I mean, you have people from all walks of life.
I think we can all say it's a good cross-section of New York.
I think that's a benefit potentially for the defense.
On its surface, you could say, well, more men.
Maybe that's more people who understand Sean Combs, but not quite.
You know, I'll tell you, Piers, I was in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard courtroom for six weeks.
And, you know, we made our own conclusions about what the jury was thinking and what they were seeing and what the makeup was.
You talk about celebrity testimony.
That case was won by Johnny Depp because of how he did on the stand.
So you wonder if during the course of this trial, Sean Combs is keeping a very careful eye on that jury, what they may be responding to, and he may make a game-time decision to take the stand and feel he has an opportunity to speak to them.
I mean, because during eight weeks, you're getting a sense of the jury in a way.
But at this point, too early to tell what they might be thinking or might be citing.
Yesterday was testimony from a male stripper, Daniel Phillip.
He testified that he would repeatedly meet the couple, that's Cassie Ventura and Diddy, and that he would have sex with Cassie while Diddy watched in a corner of the room and masturbated.
Again, what is the significance of that, do you think, to a jury's ear?
So he is actually a pivotal witness because if he's saying I witnessed Sean Combs directing these sexual episodes, he testified he thought he heard Sean Combs slapping Cassandra Ventura.
He testified that he saw him, her drag him.
He saw Combs dragging her.
That all goes to force, fraud, coercion, elements you need for sex trafficking.
And sex trafficking, by the way, is one of the underlying crimes of racketeering.
Now, on the other hand, what did he also testify to?
He was paid by Cassandra Ventura.
She was texting him.
There was cross-examination about whether or not she enjoyed the experiences and how much did she take the lead in these experiences?
Because it becomes a question whether or not Cassandra Ventura, and I hate to put it this way, but it's the only way I can put it, was she a victim or was she a partner in what was going on?
This may be very odd sexual escapades, but was it a crime becomes the question for the jury that they have to consider?
Yeah, really interesting.
It's going to take about eight weeks, we think.
Is that right?
Eight weeks.
Look, it's a long trial.
There could always be delays.
You don't have six alternates, six alternate jurors for a reason.
I mean, there's always something that could happen.
There could be illnesses.
I mean, look, I'll tell you right now, Cassandra Ventura, eight and a half, nine weeks pregnant.
You wonder, is that one of the reasons why they're having her testify so early?
They can't find victim, alleged victim number three in this case.
So if you don't have alleged victim number three in this case, and there's a problem with Cassandra Ventura because of her pregnancy, the prosecution's case will change dramatically.
Now, I will tell you what I think the prosecution did brilliantly is they didn't begin with Cassandra Ventura.
They actually began with the hotel footage.
They began with that security officer.
They began with Daniel Phillip.
They are building up her credibility.
So when she takes the stand, the jury is in a much different position to evaluate her than they would before.
Because remember, when she filed her lawsuit in November of 2023, a lot of people will say, are these allegations true or not?
As soon as that video came out, not only did it corroborate one of the biggest accounts in her complaint, it arguably corroborated everything she had to say.
So she is in a prime position to testify for this jury right now.
Tax day has passed, but for millions of Americans, that's where the trouble begins.
The IRS is now ramping up enforcement for those who missed the April deadline or still owe back taxes.
Well, today's sponsor, Tax Network USA, can still help.
If your books are a mess, if you're self-employed, or if you're a business owner, Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly.
They say the IRS is applying enforcement pressure at levels they've never seen before.
But even after the deadline, it's not too late to take control.
The consultation is completely free.
Acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate.
Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash peers.
That's tnusa.com slash peers.
Let Tax Network USA make the next move, not the IRS.
Propagating Anti-Semitism Deliberately00:15:03
Final question, Jesse.
I want you to put your soothsayer hat on.
Does he walk or does he go down for the rest of his life?
It's, I would say that he's probably going to be convicted of transportation to engage in prostitution.
I think it's a very difficult charge for him to avoid, which carries up to 10 years in prison.
When you deal with racketeering or sex trafficking, that's a more difficult argument.
You may see a conviction if the prosecution really presents a thorough and a thorough case that the jury would understand.
They may be hung.
You know, one juror, that's a hung jury.
So it's difficult to say, but I think the last charge of the two charges, transportation to engage or prostitution, it would be likely he will be convicted of that.
Fascinating stuff.
Jesse Weber, great to have you on our sensor.
Thank you very much.
A slew of stories in the past week have rekindled some important debates about the state of discourse and the limits of free speech.
First of all, there was a heated racism debate on this show, sparked by the rival outpourings of public support for alleged black killer Carmelo Anthony and for racist white mother Shiloh Hendrix.
A contributor on this show launched a shocking defense of the N-word.
So you're just an unashamed racist.
Correct.
Well, do you understand that makes you a despicable human being?
I guess so.
I don't really care.
On some platforms, incredibly, there's now been a massive outpouring of support for her for what she said.
My point, which I stand by, is that we've all gone completely nuts.
You can oppose cancelled culture and argue that the post-BLM reckoning was divisive, but also agree that outright blatant racism is wrong.
You can argue against double standards and in favor of free speech, but also accept that free speech can have consequences.
The First Amendment may give Shiloh Hendrix the right to use the N-word at a five-year-old, but it isn't canceled culture just because most people think it's outrageous and unpleasant and frankly disgusting.
And then we have Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West.
And woe betide anyone who doesn't get his new name right.
He used his free speech right to insult me and walk out of our interview after three minutes because I had the audacity to call him Ye West, even though his X handle name is at Kanye West.
This is what you give for now.
We can circle back when you can count.
Okay.
Now I get accused of hypocrisy for calling on Elon Musk, who owns X, to ban Ye from X over his anti-Semitic tirades, which he posts under the handle, as I say, at Kanye West.
But the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to offend millions of people on a private social media platform.
That is a matter of choice for the platform.
And I choose to argue that people shouldn't have to see it.
Many people have the same view of his new single.
It's currently doing a roaring trade on X, but has been swiftly banned by major platforms like Spotify and Apple.
This is the new song, which is entitled Heil Hitler.
And at various points of the song, he chants Heil Hitler.
Now, some who rush to defend everything he does say that, you know, Ye, he's making a really arch, clever point.
And I'll come to Michael Knowles, a familiar friend of this show, who makes that point in a moment.
I've got to say that before I get to what Michael said, my own view is that he's doing this deliberately to propagate anti-Semitism.
He for many, many months now, if not several years, has to his 33 million followers, as he proudly boasted on this show on X, he uses it to air what are blatantly pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, anti-Jew sentiments.
And that breaks every rule that X has, for example, on its own platform, which is why millions of accounts get suspended every year for far less in many cases than what Ye has been doing.
And I don't think you should be allowed to amplify these hateful, often violent in their rhetoric, abusive terms towards particularly Jewish people, where he talks about them, the need to make them slaves, the need to whip them and so on.
It's outrageous.
It shouldn't be happening.
And when you do a song that goes along with all that as the background called Heil Hitler, I don't care how arch you think you're being or what smart ass point you think you're making.
The truth is you are being anti-Semitic and you know it.
And you just want a bunch of people running around chanting Heil Hitler.
Well, my panel includes the host of the Officer Tatum channel, Brandon Tatum, the host of Human Events, Jack Pasebik, the cultural commentator, Kaiser Nesidu, and the host of Pushing the Limits, Brian Shapiro.
Well, welcome to all of you.
I just want to play what Michael Knowles said, because I really respect Michael Knowles.
And he had a very nuanced take on this, which I think is quite interesting.
Seems to me that the introduction to the song actually sets that up.
He's saying, I'm not in my right mind.
I'm not thinking logically.
I'm just full of anger and wrath and sin and vice.
And I'm the villain.
So Heil Hitler, I'm a Nazi.
I became a Nazi.
I'm the villain.
Right there off the top.
He's not saying Hitler is good.
That's how this is going to be reported in the press.
That is how Nazis are going to take it.
And that is how the Kanye haters are going to take it.
But it's not what he's saying.
Right there off the top.
He's saying, I'm bad.
I'm doing bad things.
I'm not being smart.
I'm not being logical.
I'm not making any sense.
I'm bad.
I'm a villain.
That's why I'm a Nazi.
In other words, the Nazis are the bad guys.
And Hitler's the bad guy.
And I'm the bad guy.
Okay.
So, Brandon Taylor, welcome back to Uncensored.
I get the point that Michael's making, but I think he's being way too generous and probably a little bit wrong, I think, in the context of the chronology here, because one of the reasons that he's not allowed to see his kids so much is precisely because of all the anti-Semitic bullshit he was spewing before Kim Kardashian, the mother of his kids, decided it was just crossing a line which made it unsafe for his kid for the kids to be around him.
So there's a chronology issue there, never mind nothing else.
But I also don't think that is really what Ye's motivation is.
But what do you think?
Well, I'll say this.
I don't think Ye's motivation is to be anti-Semitic Semitic.
I think he's a mentally ill individual.
And when somebody's mentally ill, you don't listen to what they say.
He's trying to do anything that he can to get attention.
And I agree with Michael Knowles that he's trying to articulate his frustration, which I don't agree with his frustration.
I think he shouldn't see his kids.
I think he's absolutely out of his mind.
I think he says hurtful and evil things that can make people believe that he's anti-Semitic.
Maybe he is, but I don't think this song specifically is alluding to the fact that he wants to support Hitler.
I do think he's artistically explaining his frustration, which I don't agree with, but that's just what it is.
I think that we're blasting this anti-Semitism out of control to a certain degree.
Everything that is negative towards Jews isn't always in some way.
Come on, come on, come on.
Sorry, Brandon.
Hang on.
Hang on.
I don't disagree with you about people often go from, you know, naught to 100 very quickly and branding people racist and so on and anti-Semitic and so on.
That's not what we're dealing with here.
This guy has spent sometimes, you know, 10 hours on X spewing anti-Jewish sentiment.
I see it all the time.
Pierce, you could be, that could also be true.
Like, I don't follow some of the things he, no, I'm saying, some of the things he can say can be anti-Semitic.
I'm talking specifically about this song.
I don't think the intention of this song is specifically.
No, but I don't think, yeah, but I don't think you can divorce.
Let me go to Brian now.
Brian, I don't think you can divorce the history of what he's been spewing publicly to 32, 33 million people on an almost minute-by-minute basis, which has contained absolutely shocking abuse of Jewish people and perpetuating every stereotype imaginable that you'd associate with anti-Semitism.
I don't think you can just say, well, none of that really matters.
We should judge Heil Hitler on its own.
The whole point is this is a natural extension of everything he's doing is to do a song called Heil Hitler.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
Right.
I can't believe what I'm hearing, Pierce, from Brandon, that somehow Heil Hitler in a song is an anti-Semitic.
By the way, this is the same guy who sold swastika t-shirts the week his album came out.
Is he mentally disturbed?
Yes.
I totally disagree with Michael Knowles.
Just because somebody thinks they're the villain or they're doing bad doesn't make it okay.
And by the way, this is about money, okay?
He gets in the news and he says ridiculous things, anti-Semitic or otherwise, to try to sell albums and be in the news.
Yes, is he mentally ill sure?
But here's what makes him even more dangerous.
He has one of the biggest platforms on the planet, millions of followers.
When he says anti-Semitic things, and that's exactly what they are, it's dangerous because everyday people that are cult followers that follow him will start to buy into it.
I had a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be African-American a few weeks ago.
He has become anti-Semitic because he's a huge Kanye West fan.
Now, I'm talking with him.
I'm trying to work with him.
But because some people in society are huge Kanye West fans, they listen to his music, but they also buy his swastika t-shirts.
That can also incite violence.
This is absolutely anti-Semitic, Brandon, and you can't deny that.
You know what?
I'll go back to Brandon quickly for response.
But honestly, I don't know if he quacks like an anti-Semite, he walks like an anti-Semite, and he spends all day, every day spewing hateful abuse like an anti-Semite, he probably is an anti-Semite.
Well, Pierce, and I'll say this again, maybe what I said was misconstrued.
I don't deny that he's anti-Semitic.
I don't deny that he said hurtful and evil things about the Jews, which I disagree.
I'm probably the biggest Jewish supporter on this panel.
But what I'm saying is that when you look at the song, I'm articulating clearly that I don't think that was his intent initially by saying hell Hitler.
He did have an articulable point of why he was upset.
He was comparing himself to Hitler.
I don't think it was a direct connection, but I do think it's wrong.
I do think it's dumb.
I do think it's stupid to make a song like that.
That's like saying that you're going to make a song to put it in the middle of the hierarchy.
But I mean, it's supporting a pedophile.
Right, but I'm going to bring it.
At some point, you're not going to get your point across.
Okay, I'm going to bring Kaisen in here.
You see, I don't just think it's wrong or dumb or any of those things.
I think it's absolutely dangerous in the way that Brian just articulated.
We saw Dave Portnoy come out and say that he'd been in, I think, some restaurant and people had put some, it was a bar, I think, some vile stuff on there attacking Jews.
And he said he'd worked out it was a direct result of stuff that Kanye West had been saying.
There's a direct correlation there, direct pathway between a very, very, very popular, very famous rap superstar, iconic person with 33 million followers, one of the biggest followings in the world.
If you keep spewing this hateful stuff at Jewish people long enough, some of your supporters are going to take it on board and do stuff.
It is dangerous.
You are inciting racial hatred.
And I can't think of a purer personification of anti-Semitism.
Can you?
Well, it's clear that what Kanye is doing is anti-Semitic, right?
Because anti-Semitism is literally hatred directed toward Jews, and that's what's being done, whether that's his intention or not.
But I think the more interesting question is, where is this anti-Semitism coming from more generally?
And why is the stuff that he's saying resonating at all?
Because if we don't address that higher level question, then Jewish people are not going to be helped by us just wagging our finger.
We need to actually figure out what is the root cause of this and like, how do we nip this at the bud?
Now, I think that what's happening in this country with anti-Semitism is a lot of the time it's getting conflated with criticism of the actions of the Israeli government, which is not fair.
I think what would be more accurate to say is there is a subset of people who are critical of the Israeli government who are genuine anti-Semites.
There's also a subset of that audience who is not anti-Semitic and just has concerns about how the Israeli government is prosecuting their actions in Gaza.
So what's happening is in an effort to quell anti-Semitism, there's actually recasting the entire group as anti-Semitic, which I don't think is accurate or fair.
And I think Kanye, yes, there are some influential, well, easily influence young minds who hear Kanye and are becoming anti-Semites, but I think he's also revealing some rot in the culture that needs to be addressed.
Well, well, he is in a way that's not.
Listen, okay, I don't disagree with you that there is that danger that people conflate different things.
And that, you know, you should obviously be able to criticize the Israeli government, not least right now.
No one's been more critical of them recently than me.
I think they're going way too far.
There's no end game in sight.
They haven't got all the hostages back.
They haven't defeated Hamas.
I don't know what the hell they're doing there, but I just feel like it's absolutely not just right.
It's the duty of people to hold the Israeli government to account for what's happening there now.
And that's not anti-Semitic to say that.
It is if you preface your criticism by saying, I really hate the Jews and this is why, right?
So it's how you do that criticism.
It's how you frame criticism.
Yes.
But let me bring in, let me bring in Jack here.
You know, just flipping slightly to one of the other big stories, which is this Shiloh Hendrix thing.
You know, I had this woman who came on as a guest on the show last week.
And I was genuinely shocked that she just brazenly said she uses the N-word all the time.
She was a young white woman.
I want to use the N-word whenever I feel like it.
And that was absolutely fine.
And no, it didn't make her a racist.
And, you know, I just, I find that mindset just so extraordinarily alarming.
Freedom of Speech vs Incitement00:17:03
Of course, that makes you a racist.
I don't care what double standards you want to use about black rappers using the N-word ending in A or whatever it may be.
There is nothing that's defensible.
Is there?
I mean, explain to me if she's right and I'm wrong about this, but there is nothing that means you're not a racist if you keep using the N-word as a young white person to black people.
Is there?
Well, yeah, Piers, thanks again for having me on.
And, you know, I saw the interview in question, and obviously that's her opinion.
She's entitled to her opinion.
And, you know, that's, look, for me, that's not a word that I use.
That's not a word that I teach my kids to use.
In fact, I teach my kids to be Catholic.
So we not big, not big players of the Heil Hitler song in our household seeing as we're Polish, actually.
I don't think that song is going to get too much play in Poland either.
But yeah, words like that and phrases like that, you know, it's just not something that we use because we're coming from a Christian perspective.
But at the same token, what I do have an issue with is the issue of censorship and the issue of banning.
Because like, for example, when I went to go and prepare for this, I said, all right, let me just look up the lyrics to the song because I haven't even looked at the lyrics of the song yet.
I think I heard it like once, but I wanted to actually read the lyrics.
I couldn't find the lyrics anywhere.
I go to like the main song websites.
I couldn't find the lyrics.
They went to Grock and Grock said, I've never seen Grok say this before.
These lyrics cannot be displayed.
And we, you know, it was like a block in Grok, if you will, that these lyrics cannot be displayed.
So I don't even know what I'm responding to if I can't even look up the lyrics.
And so when you talk about this being shut down on Apple and Spotify, it's like, I do generally support the freedom of speech.
I support the freedom of speech for people to come on this program, which of course will be on Spotify later, even if they disagree with me or even say things that I disagree with, because I do think that that adds more to society.
And even if it's stuff that I personally disagree with, as I've said, that doesn't mean that I would support censoring it.
Yeah, but Joe, okay, but listen, I've thought about this a lot.
Well, hang on a second.
Hang on a second, Brennan.
Jack, what I would say to that is there are limits to freedom of speech.
I mean, the First Amendment is one of the most ferocious defenders of free speech in the world, but there are a number of limits built into the First Amendment, things you can't do where you are afforded protection by the First Amendment.
And similarly, Elon Musk, who's a brilliant ferocious defender of free speech, has made, I think, X a much fairer platform by undeplatforming a lot of conservative voices and so on.
But I found out in his first year, they suspended 5 million accounts for breaches of their own rules.
And then I worked out that Yay West, or whatever he wants to call himself, had breached multiple times on a daily basis exactly the same rules, but the rules weren't being applied to him.
And what's dangerous about that is that he's not just saying he doesn't like Jewish people.
He's actively encouraging 33 million people to treat Jewish people like slaves, his quote, to whip them, his quote, and so on.
And never mind all the disgusting stuff he's been saying about his ex-wife or about Paris Hilton or about whoever it may be.
He spews abusive stuff all day long.
But the specific direction to his followers to treat Jewish people like slaves or to whip them, that surely is not an issue of free speech, but it's a clear example of incitement to racial hatred.
And he should be removed from the ability to amplify that to 33 million people, shouldn't he?
Well, if that's the case, I guess I would say, you know, you can go on Spotify right now and type in any sorts of topics and find all sorts of horrific things.
You can see incitement to violence against women across all sorts of songs on Spotify.
You can find anti-Semitism all over Spotify.
You can find things where, you know, kill the police and F the police and all this stuff all over the place when it's law enforcement, et cetera, et cetera.
So the question that I have is, where do we draw the line?
Now, for myself, by the way, again, coming from a traditional Catholic perspective, we have issues.
For example, I'm not going to go into the church and play a song that supports same-sex marriage or the LGBT community or abortion or all of these things because that would be proscribed in the Catholic faith.
We consider all of those activities to be sinful.
So the question is, whose morality, I guess, are we actually using this?
Yeah, but what if somebody tweets?
Yeah, but Jack, what if somebody posted?
What if somebody posted?
I think everyone should go out and whip Catholics.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the world, politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
What would you feel about that?
It's a direct incitement to violence against Catholics.
What would you feel about that?
Well, I'd probably start whipping him right back.
Right, okay.
But flippancy apart, if you've got 33 million people getting a direction from somebody they idolize in many cases to go and commit an act of violence, that to me is not a free speech issue.
It is not.
It is crossing a line into an incitement.
If you're talking about Twitter, for example, which I am much more familiar with the Twitter rules just because I'm on there every day at X, as opposed to the Spotify rules, direct incitements to violence have always been against the rules on.
So why is Ye allowed to get away with it?
However, we, well, it's not just Ye who's allowed to get away with it because you can go up right now.
I found John Cleese just yesterday said that Stephen Miller should be aware of that.
Yeah, I saw you should be hung.
No, he deleted it himself.
That was not taken down.
Luigi Maggioni, someone who, by the way, is writing an entire musical that's being written about him.
Those are left up.
Yeah, but I agree with you.
But listen, the John Cleese thing was a direct incitement to hang Stephen Miller.
I read it.
I think we put it on his substat, right?
Absolutely.
We should not be allowed.
Brandon, you want to come in here?
Yeah, just real quick.
Can we differentiate between a private platform and a person's freedom to speak?
Yes.
Because a private platform can have whatever rules they want to have.
And I think that if Kanye West violates, which I think he has plenty of times, the private platform has a right to kick them off.
However, in your own public life or whatever you want to say in your own, you know, the privacy of your own home is you can say whatever you want to say.
It's a free country.
Let me point real quick.
I find it very ridiculous to a certain degree.
I think Kanye, if he's violating the rules of engagement, he should be kicked off.
But why do they let so many rappers and drill music thugs talking about murdering other black people every single day?
They talk about selling drugs in the community.
They speak against women.
I think all of it should be taken off.
If Kanye should be taken off, which to Jack's point, I couldn't even find the lyrics.
I had to go and find it somewhere because I didn't even know what the song said because I don't listen to crap like that.
But if you're going to take that off, let's do it.
But you also need to take off drill music and all this crazy music that's inciting violence in the inner cities of America.
Young men are killing each other, listening to this vile, hateful, deceitful music.
And I think it needs to stop, Pierce.
I think we're all on the same page.
Anti-Semitism is wrong.
If you're calling for the death of Jews, you are wrong.
If I own the platform, that's a rule that I will not accept for people to do that.
Or I wouldn't also accept for you to be calling for violence in the inner city, calling for violence against women, you know, calling for violence against the president, calling for violence against police.
If we're going to be consistent on saying we should ban people on private platforms for saying these things, it needs to be consistent across the board.
Yeah, Brian, it's a so many MAGA Republicans like Jack seem to struggle with what freedom of speech actually is.
If I want to go on a public sidewalk, which I never would, and say, I hate white people or I hate black people, I would never do that.
But the government can't get involved there.
But private businesses, as Brandon said, I agree with him.
Private businesses have the right to do what they want for the most part.
And if they want to take Kanye West off a platform, they have the right to do that.
And your response to it is, well, I'll go right back at them.
No, that's not the way it should be.
And that's not the way it works.
Businesses and private businesses have the right to take people off their platforms, just like if you wore a swastika shirt into a restaurant, the owner would have the right to say, I don't want to provide service to you.
Why is it people like Jack always struggle with what censorship and freedom of speech is?
They're very, very different.
And private businesses have the right to do that, Jack.
I love, I love that it's the liberal who's speaking up on behalf of big business.
Please think of the billionaires.
Someone, please think of the corporations.
Who's going to help the corporations?
These mega Republicans just consider their interest.
Jack, what I'm talking about.
Can I just correct Jack?
That is the idea of a Bill of Rights online, an online or digital bill of rights, which is something that I've championed for absolute years regarding viewpoint discrimination because I believe that the internet has become the new public square.
And because it's become the new public square, yes, I obviously agree and acknowledge that it is not illegal for, nor have I said that it's illegal for Spotify or anyone to censor.
What I'm arguing about, Jack.
Okay, so Jack, let me just correct you.
First of all, just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a liberal.
I'm a registered independent who did not vote for Barack Obama, and I did not vote for Hillary Clinton.
So you guys, every time somebody disagrees with you, you want to let I'm anti-Trump.
I'm anti-Trump, but I did not vote for Hillary and I'm a registered independent.
Pierce, this is my issue with people like Jack.
When they disagree with him, he automatically goes to, oh, you're a liberal.
By the way, Jack is the guy that blocked me on Twitter for doing the same stuff that I'm doing on this show.
I didn't swear at him.
I didn't threaten him.
He's the guy who wants to talk about censorship, but yet he blocks people on Twitter who disagree with him.
Jack, I'm a registered independent.
I disagree with you.
Your go-to point is always to attack people for being far lefties or liberals.
Freedom of speech is very different than a private business taking somebody off their platform, whether you like it or not.
Freedom of speech is not, you're conflating things now.
Freedom of speech is different than just the First Amendment.
I'm not.
The First Amendment is constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of speech is an ideal of the Enlightenment.
So if we're going to take that ideal and enshrine it in law, as the founders intended to in the First Amendment, then the question is, how should that be applied throughout society?
And do we have a new type of society now where freedom of speech extends beyond just Congress?
Jack, Jack, you can't do things that incite violence.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
That was actually over time.
You can't say things that can, okay, you can't say things that can incite violence.
And if you do that, that could be against the law and you could be liable for that.
So I want to bring social media.
All right, let me bring in Kaiser.
Go ahead and put his hand up.
Kaiser.
Okay, so I think, first of all, we're having the discussion at the wrong level of resolution because we keep on talking about whether free speech is allowed.
And I think we all agree there's a degree of free speech that is always permissible.
And there's also concerns about gray areas where someone isn't necessarily violating free speech principles, but they are being hateful.
So just to be clear, some of the things that Kanye is saying are outright hateful, but they don't violate free speech.
The thing that Shiloh said is outright hateful, but it doesn't violate free speech.
So the real question is, how do we get people to use their right to free speech responsibly?
Because silencing people is not going to solve the problem of hatred.
It's not going to solve anti-Semitism.
It's not going to solve anti-whate, white hatred.
It's not going to solve racism against black people.
So if we look at the Shiloh case, for instance, we should examine, well, why is this woman saying this kind of hateful thing to a little five-year-old kid?
And why are people rallying behind her?
And I think it's because on both sides, we're seeing tribalism.
We're seeing black people hold Carmelo to a double standard where he gets protected because he's black, even though he killed someone.
On Shiloh's side, obviously what Shiloh did is not nearly as bad as murdering someone, but the same idea of a double standard is being applied.
There's white people on Shiloh's side saying, well, black people did this to us, so we're going to rally behind this.
And both sides are rallying to the lowest common denominator.
So rather than talking about what are people allowed to say, let's speak normatively about what should people be saying.
Because I think black people would agree that if it had been a white kid who had killed a black kid, they would not be sending him money.
I think white people would agree if it had been a black woman who called a little white kid a racial epithet, they would not be sending her money.
So the real question is, how do we solve this racial animus and division and make both sides feel heard?
Because I think what's going on is both sides are expressing pain.
Black people are feeling discriminated against and they're acting tribally.
White people are feeling discriminated against and they're acting tribally.
Both sides have legitimate grievances that are not being heard.
And instead, we're making the conversation about free speech when it's not about that.
You know what?
You know what?
It's really interesting.
I think you're really onto something there.
And I blame social media completely for fueling this tribalism where people feel like it doesn't matter whether facts should steer them a different direction or should change their opinion or make them to see common sense.
If your side is taking a kicking over something, the instinctive reaction of so many people on social media now is to jump in and blindly support the indefensible if it comes to it, if it, in their eyes, somehow redresses the banners.
So we had a very big fallout to the interview I did with Lily Gaddis, this, in my view, young white racist.
I want to play a mashup of some of the reaction because at the end, I challenged her to say the N-word, really trying to force her to actually come to terms with what she was boasting about doing.
And it was only when Mark Lamont Hill, who was the only African-American on the panel, said to me, please don't do that.
I thought he's got a point.
He's right.
And I decided to leave it there.
But the reaction was quite interesting.
Let's take a look.
But in the process of screaming about how she can't say the word, he himself says the word.
It's bleeped out, so he may have missed it.
And then to cap things off, he calls the other black panelists, Myron, an uncle Tom, which is also a racial slur.
So if you're keeping track of home, Mark said two racial slurs while shrieking about how he doesn't want to hear any racial slurs.
It's like a psychotic spectacle.
It's just a word.
But Pierce, you invited her to say the word.
I don't even.
What's the difference between inviting her to say it and then him making a joke about it?
And because he doesn't think with his skin color, Myron, he's an Uncle Tom.
I'm a proud Uncle Tom over here.
I was frustrated with Pierce for trying to create a space to invite someone or dare someone to use that word because he shouldn't be able to do that.
You talk, I see what the Pierce play looked like.
It could be.
But what it ended up being has no place in 2025 also.
Yeah, you know what?
I kind of thought, I mean, Brandon, I'm interested in what you think.
I mean, I thought they slightly misinterpreted my intention.
It was purely to expose her cowardice, which I felt would be she wouldn't say it.
And I wanted to say, you want to brazenly boast that you would say this to people.
Actually, when it comes to it, I bet you don't.
But I did get their point.
And I do think it's a very delicate area, that kind of thing.
But it wasn't done just for clickbait, as some people thought.
But Brandon, I mean, what did you make of the fallout to that debate?
I think the biggest problem in that whole debate was Mark Lamont Hill.
He's an emasculated man that literally cried and called, said the N-word and called another black man an Uncle Tom.
Do you know, that's the craziest thing ever.
You could say the young lady saying the N-word is bad.
Of course, I don't use the N-word.
I don't compel my children to use the N-word.
And I think every black person in America should stop using that word.
We didn't used to use that word.
It's a horrific word.
It's bad when black people say it.
It's bad when white people say it.
We need to stop using that doggone word.
But for Mark Lamont Hill to scream at you and cry on the panel, and he's using the word every day.
They listen to the word.
They say it when they're mad at a black person.
They call white people the word.
The word is the problem if you allow it to affect you.
If that white girl said the N-word on your show to me, I couldn't care less.
She's an ignorant fool if she says the N-word.
The Danger of the N-Word00:09:15
It doesn't bother me.
It doesn't change my bank account.
It doesn't make me not be a good father to my children.
It's an ignorant person using the ignorant word.
It has no bearing on my life.
Mark Lamont Hill is the epitome. of the problem with young black men who are so hyper-emotional and they create these scenarios and this activism and false sense of caring about the word when it's not even really true in themselves.
They are hypocrites.
And that's the biggest problem that I saw on that show.
Okay.
Kaisen, I know you want to say something.
Just before you say something, I remember a Washington Post survey, I think it was, that revealed that the N-word is used 500,000 times a day on social media almost exclusively by young African-American men who have, in their eyes, reclaimed that word and now using it in an empowering manner themselves.
The problem with it is I remember also around that time, a story about a young teenage woman, a girl, probably late teens, who was at college and was dancing around to a rap record, which had the N-word in it and was caught on a cell phone video using the N-word in the chorus to this massively big selling record.
And she got suspended.
And I thought, that's ridiculous, right?
She wasn't using it in a racially incendiary manner or to be racist.
She was singing along to a very popular record.
But it showed me the danger of if you put out the N-word all day long in rap music and on social media and so on, if black people do that, then you're going to end up with it just, in my opinion, I agree with Brandon, but it's not for me to say as a white guy, but just for what it's worth, my opinion is it just leads to that kind of problem.
It doesn't make the word go away.
If anything, it fuels its use.
I disagree.
And I think it's time for a little the more you know corner on the difference between a hard R and a soft A when it comes to the N-word because there is a difference.
And when we say it's saying it's being said half a million times a day, yeah, well, when it's used with a soft A, it's often used as a term of camaraderie within the black community.
And I see Brandon shaking his head.
You can argue it's not healthy, but it's not the same thing as a hard R. Because I think we would all agree that even if a black person said the hard R to another black person, those would be fighting words.
It's very different than a soft A.
Now, you might think that we shouldn't be using either of them, but I want to make a difference, this distinction clear, because we should at least be accurate about what we're even talking about.
Because I don't think it's a fair characterization.
I agree with Brandon.
Let me say that I'm not done and I haven't interrupted you.
So please let me finish my point.
I respect that.
So Mark, I think the gentleman's name was.
I agree with Brandon.
His reaction was entirely hyperbolic and it's actually not helpful because I think regardless of your thoughts on hard R versus soft A, if you allow any word to have that much power over your emotions, you are giving more fuel to the word.
And as someone who's online and I commentate online, sometimes people call me hard R and I just ignore them.
I don't give them more.
I don't like it, obviously, but I'm not going to feed someone's racial or hateful enemies toward me by giving them the light of day.
So again, we can have disagreements on how the term is used, but it is not accurate to say that black people are calling each other hard R all the time.
You can disagree with the use of a soft A. They're not the same.
And I think Mark is actually giving more fuel to the fire than is needed.
Jack.
Yeah, I love, hey, can I say something real quick?
It's going to take like two seconds.
I love the gentleman over there, man.
You probably one of the smartest guys I ever met.
I love your takes.
However, I think it's slightly off just a little bit with the A.
No white person can use the soft A. Can we admit if I had a friend that was a white person that was my friend and they said, what's up, Mike?
No black person will accept that.
So I think that when it comes to white people, the hard R or the soft A is still the same.
It's unacceptable.
If I'm brain drive at his 3 point event and was like, what's up?
I don't think it would go down too well.
No, nothing.
The sonority girl I was talking about who was caught singing, I think it was a Kanye West song, actually.
But I think, you know, no one drew that distinction about soft or hockey.
Is it okay for a white person to sing the song?
Is it okay?
But here's the thing.
If black people are taking the word back or whatever, which I think is ridiculous, is it okay for a white person to at least sing the song that they paid money for and they pay for it?
Well, that is an interesting question, isn't it?
If it's number one in the charts, should a white person be able to sing it, even if it includes the N-word with a soft A at the end?
I mean, you know, that to me is where it all gets very tricky.
You're going to take the money from, can't say it.
White people should be able to say it if they sing in a song.
Well, Brian, what's your view?
Okay.
Makes me uncomfortable.
The word makes me uncomfortable.
You're allowed to say it.
I would never say it.
It's completely different context when a black person says it to a black person.
Do I think the word should be used in any situation?
Absolutely not.
Can I just go back to Shiloh really quickly if I can?
I'm going to say this right now on this show.
Anybody who has donated money to her is despicable.
Okay.
She claims that she has been threatened, that she's had, I've had death threats as well.
I'm not asking people for money because of death threats.
Okay.
I don't condone any of those threats if that happened.
But anybody who donates money to hers, to me, it's like donating money to the Ku Klux Klan.
She called a five-year-old child the N-word, and now she's being rewarded for it.
Those are despicable people that are donating money to her.
And I'm going to leave it there.
And if anyone on this panel disagrees with me, I'd love to hear your argument.
Jack, she disagrees with a five-year-old the N-word, so she should be rewarded for that?
Jack?
Well, I guess my question is, do you have the same view over people donating to Carmelo Anthony?
Sure.
I'll answer that question.
I love your whataboutism, but I'll still answer your question.
There's a fine-line difference between people who, I'm answering your question.
There's a fine-line difference between people who are giving money for a legal fund so he can defend himself and people that are donating money to a woman that calls somebody the N-word.
You're cool with that?
Of course I'm not cool with that.
Why would you think I'd be okay with that?
Listen, we will find out what happens with Carmelo Anthony in a courtroom.
No, I did not.
I'm answering your question.
You're not listening to me.
No, if you're donating money to help somebody defend themselves in a courtroom, now listen, if he's found guilty, then I'll feel differently about it.
I want to wait and see.
He is facing legal challenges, but I'm sure you have the same concern with all the legal challenges that Donald Trump was facing, right?
I'm sure you did.
I'm sure you had the same problem with Donald Trump when they donated money to him for his legal fund with the 34-count felonies.
You have Trump fellatio syndrome, okay?
It's called TFS.
Don't say I have Trump derangement syndrome.
Here you go.
We just have to live.
Hey, Pierce, just like you exposed that white girl.
Let's talk about Trump.
Hold on.
You just said I have Trump derangement syndrome.
Okay.
Look at you.
You just said I have Trump derangement syndrome.
I responded.
You didn't, actually.
And I don't wear the Donald Trump knee pads 24-7 like you do, Jack.
Well, I'm a Trump supporter, too.
So do I wear the knee pads?
I think that's ridiculous.
All right, let me give it.
You know what?
Let me give the last word to Kaiser because he'd be waiting patiently.
And unlike the others, you put your hand up so gracefully when you want to speak.
I do like this new mark of respect, and things are deteriorating a little to your left and right.
So final word to you.
Okay, cool.
So quick note, if a white kid at a Travis Scott concert uses the N-word with a soft A, I don't care.
I think it just looks awkward, but you know, they're excited.
We don't have to get offended about every single thing.
But to the more important point about the Shiloh versus Carmelo cases, I want to make it very clear: what Shiloh did and what Carmelo did are not at all equivalents.
One person murdered someone and another person used a really vulgar word.
But what is equivalent is the double standard that the supporters on both sides are applying.
And they're getting tribal and they're giving money simply because they're engaging in a digital race war.
And that race war is to the bottom.
So in my opinion, giving money to Carmelo Anthony because you want to right some sort of historical injustice is actually self-sabotaging because it's just igniting racial animus among white people.
And I think white people who are supporting Shiloh or anyone else for that color who are supporting Shiloh doing what she did are also self-sabotaging.
Because as you can see from the conversation we've just had today, neither of this is getting rid of the discrimination or hatred that both sides feel like they're being subjected to.
You know, if we want to move past all of that, let me just finish this one real quick.
I think what black people need to be doing is holding Carmelo to account and saying it doesn't matter what color you are.
You don't stab people at a track meet because they told you to move.
And I think white people on Shiloh's side say it doesn't matter what color you are.
You don't get to use a racial slur on any color child who's five years old just because you're frustrated because they went in your diaper bag.
That's ridiculous.
And we just need moral clarity.
Holding Carmelo to Account00:00:35
Rather than tribal.
I've got to leave it there.
And actually, I quite like leaving it there because I think that was brilliantly articulated.
So thank you, Kaiser, and thank you to the rest of my panel.
A really lively and interesting debate.
I appreciate it.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
To enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.