July 17, 2021 - Viva & Barnes
16:00
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| That was a half a second early. | |
| I actually think that was a half second early, if not utter perfection. | |
| And I said utter, not utter perfection. | |
| That's what you find on a dairy farm. | |
| Good evening, everybody. | |
| Let us wait for the standard Fs. | |
| I'm not late. | |
| I am very, very rarely late. | |
| I have a pet peeve about being late. | |
| And I'm on time. | |
| And it's going to be... | |
| Look, Robert gave me so much frickin' homework. | |
| I have spent the better part of the day trying to be a present parent while reading off my iPhone and reading 50-page either lawsuits or decisions off an iPhone. | |
| It's not the easiest thing in the world, but I got her done. | |
| Get her done. | |
| Okay, we got a full menu tonight, and it's gonna range from everything. | |
| You can all tell there's a COVID banner, apparently, on this stream. | |
| There will be no medical advice. | |
| There will be no contradicting established science. | |
| There will be no scientific advice or anything. | |
| We talk the law. | |
| But sometimes there's a crossover between the law, politics, and everything else in this world. | |
| We're going to be talking about some of these lawsuits. | |
| We're going to be talking about critical race theory lawsuits. | |
| I don't want to set this one up too much. | |
| The critical race theory lawsuit. | |
| I'm reading it, and I feel like I'm losing my mind that this allegedly, what is being alleged in this lawsuit, is actually happening in this world. | |
| And it doesn't shock people's consciences. | |
| Conscience? | |
| It doesn't shock the conscience of everyone. | |
| And I'm convinced it would shock the conscience of 90% of the world, or 90% of America, if only 90% of America knew. | |
| What is going on? | |
| And I include Canada in that because Canada is in North America. | |
| All right, let's see what we got here. | |
| The John Beck says, if you think Viva is late, watch Gary from Nerdrotic. | |
| I don't know about that, but no, I'm compulsively on time to the extent possible. | |
| All right, let's just get one more super chat before I get into my rant, disclaimers, live stream. | |
| In that order, rant, disclaimers, live stream. | |
| I loved your earlier post about Legal Eagle and Tim Pool's case. | |
| I hadn't thought about Legal Eagle since it's TDS. | |
| I've got to share that on Twitter and tag Legal Eagle because it was kind of funny. | |
| And good-natured humor. | |
| Not any mean-spirited humor because even Legal Eagle has to own up to that Captain Marvel debacle of a legal breakdown where everything is self-defense. | |
| Viva, give me some hope for the future. | |
| Jessica Cora, when I start going hog-wild on the PPC candidacy, there will be hope or there will not be hope. | |
| Actually, I guess I'm not giving you hope. | |
| I'm giving you... | |
| Uncertainty. | |
| Hope for the future is that on a Sunday night, we have close to 10,000 people who have taken a keen interest in learning about the law, which is nowhere I'd ever thought I'd be in my life. | |
| I remember in the early days of the vlog, someone said, Dave, you should do more of the law videos. | |
| And I said, it's tedious. | |
| I want to get away from law. | |
| This is my ikigai, which is... | |
| Bringing the law... | |
| First of all, I would be doing this on my own, even if it weren't for YouTube, but bringing some interest and some insight and some sanity to the world of law. | |
| Okay, let's see. | |
| We got Thomas Caldwell, 7. Copenhagen, 10,000. | |
| Hey, I actually got the notification in the Arizona audit on for tonight. | |
| Yes, well, I got my own questions for Robert because I'm seeing Nate Brody tweet about it. | |
| I'm seeing Nick Rickey to talk about it. | |
| I'm seeing some media cover it and some media not cover it. | |
| And I'm seeing some... | |
| Twitter handles freaking out about it. | |
| So it's on. | |
| We're going to talk about the legal status of those audits with no undermining or questioning the elections because that's a no-no unless you're President Biden questioning the year 2000 elections. | |
| The best part of watching Viva is watching him slowly become more red-pilled on what's going on in the world. | |
| I have either put on those goggles or taken them off. | |
| I cannot see the world any differently. | |
| Then I see it now, and I will never be able to see it the way I saw it back. | |
| Let's just take 2001, for example. | |
| I will never be able to see the world the way I once saw it. | |
| It's a blessing and a curse, and it might account for some of the gray hairs that people were noticing from today's vlog. | |
| I know Barnes isn't a big fan, but can you try to get Ben Shapiro on? | |
| I think he'll be very interesting with the two perspectives that they have on law and current events. | |
| I think we could do it, because in as much as Barnes is hard on Ben Shapiro, Ben's got to be used to it, and he dishes it out. | |
| So, if Ben cannot deal with Barnes' critique and jabbing and needling, then Ben has no business dishing it out on others. | |
| So, there's that. | |
| Okay, standard disclaimers. | |
| No legal advice. | |
| No legal advice. | |
| This is for educational purposes only, and possible entertainment, but mostly education. | |
| But no specific legal advice. | |
| Superchats. | |
| YouTube takes 30% if that bothers you, and I know it bothers some. | |
| If you want to support us, you can support us on Locals. | |
| You can support me on Patreon and Subscribestar, but don't waste your time there. | |
| Locals is where the party is at. | |
| Tons of exclusive content. | |
| Art of the day. | |
| I got the Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday shift. | |
| Robert's got the other day shift. | |
| Exclusive content. | |
| Exclusive live streams on Locals. | |
| Thus far, it's only one of us at a time, but it's a great place for support. | |
| All of the content is going to be on YouTube and Rumble. | |
| We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble. | |
| Everybody should know that. | |
| So that's that. | |
| Super chat. | |
| I'll do my best to get to them. | |
| If I don't get to them and you'll be miffed, do not give the super chat. | |
| I don't like people feeling miffed, feeling rooked, feeling... | |
| What's the word? | |
| Shilled. | |
| Or no, what's the word? | |
| Grifted is the word I'm looking for. | |
| I don't like people feeling grifted because I am not a grifter. | |
| I love the support. | |
| I appreciate it. | |
| But it's all voluntary. | |
| If I don't get your super chat, don't be miffed. | |
| If you will be, don't give it. | |
| Okay. | |
| With that said, Arizona audit is being done freaking perfectly. | |
| Just look at how the ballots just look. | |
| They just looking at... | |
| The ballot's not looking at who voted for whom. | |
| We're going to get there. | |
| We're going to get there. | |
| Please check out the civil rights lawyer on YouTube. | |
| He's doing great work. | |
| I do not attest or deny this. | |
| I am reading it. | |
| Civil rights lawyer. | |
| Civil rights lawyer on YouTube. | |
| Long time support of locals. | |
| Thank you, guys. | |
| Wait, we got new members? | |
| Oh, no, I brought that up before. | |
| Okay. | |
| Let me start with a little bit of a rant from our dear Minister of Heritage. | |
| Guilbeau. | |
| What's his name? | |
| What's his first name? | |
| Oh, Tabarnouche. | |
| What's Gilbo's... | |
| Anybody who knows in the chat? | |
| Michel Gilbo? | |
| It's Stephen Gilbo. | |
| Stephen Gilbo, our Minister of Heritage, is now on a kick about how, in order to preserve democracy, you have to censor online discourse. | |
| Censor for hate speech. | |
| And I'm saying hate speech not because I tolerate or approve of hate speech. | |
| To illustrate that the concept of hate speech has become so vague. | |
| And nebulous that if we're going to apply the level of hate speech that I know Michel Guilbeault wants to impose, we're going to have comedians like Mike Ward censored off YouTube because some of their humor is deemed to be hate speech. | |
| You're not going to foment any discourse by censoring hate speech. | |
| What you are going to do is stifle political opposition who you have branded as Hate speech. | |
| Extremism. | |
| If you speak out against wearing a face mask, you're a selfish, extreme right-winger, unless you're Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the NDP, who's doing it on his own because he had a moment of weakness. | |
| And I feel like I'm going to fly away like Chris Farley in that skit. | |
| There is a concerted effort from the Liberal government in Canada, in conjunction with the NDP, with opposition. | |
| Let me get another one of these butterflies. | |
| Opposition from the Conservatives. | |
| With opposition like that, who needs opposition? | |
| That's as good as support. | |
| My brother is a major supporter of the PPC, People's Party of Canada. | |
| He asked Bernier about American-style rights for Canadians and was buffed off. | |
| There is far too much cowardice in politics. | |
| We must have human rights in Canada. | |
| Oh, we have human rights. | |
| With a but. | |
| And it's a big but. | |
| And it's not the kind of big buts that people like. | |
| It is, you have rights. | |
| But you have the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution basically saying we can enact laws that violate your constitutional rights if we specifically provide in that law that we're violating your constitutional rights. | |
| And then it's only good for five years or for a maximum five years or as long as that government decreed it less than five years. | |
| The theory being, if you don't like having your constitutional rights violated by the government, vote them out the next election, which typically comes every five years. | |
| We have a notwithstanding clause in our Constitution. | |
| You have constitutional rights. | |
| But we can take them away if we specifically provide for it in a law. | |
| Certain constitutional rights cannot be taken away, like the right to vote. | |
| But it seems that anybody's rights, for anybody who's been following, we have no rights. | |
| They can be taken away overnight by mere health measures acts without going through the legislative process. | |
| And, hey, if people think that it's for their own good, some of them don't bat an eye. | |
| All right, there was that. | |
| So that's where things are at in Canada. | |
| And we're going to have a fun discussion. | |
| When the election is called, and I am formally a PPC candidate, I've created a second channel. | |
| I'm not turning this one into politics, but it's going to be a fun discussion. | |
| Now, with that said, it was a great sidebar with Jones. | |
| It was great. | |
| And I say it was great. | |
| Someone told me I was, you know, they saw Alex Jones responding like... | |
| I was surprised by some of the questions I was asking because they were not, what's the word I'm looking for, confrontational, but they were more direct. | |
| I don't know if that person was projecting, but I genuinely think that I understand Alex Jones better and as a human now. | |
| And it's going to be up to the world as to whether or not anyone can ever be forgiven for certain wrongs that they've ever committed and what they have to do in order to repent and obtain forgiveness if they ever get it. | |
| But I don't think anybody who watched that Does not think that they understand Alex Jones better now, for good or for bad. | |
| I think the biggest problem is the powers that be just don't want people understanding the likes of Alex Jones and others, which is why they de-platform them in order to demonize them, in order to control the discussion around them, so that good, educated people hate someone and they don't even know why they hate them. | |
| From Alex Jones to Robert F. Kennedy, and that's coming up tonight in the discussion. | |
| With that said, I see Robert is in the house. | |
| Looking good, dapper, and Robert, how's everything going? | |
| Good, good. | |
| Okay, so we've got, you gave me so much homework. | |
| I got through a lot of it. | |
| Some of it I didn't get through, but my goodness, some of it I'm sitting there reading, and I don't believe what I'm reading. | |
| It's like being in a Kafka novel, or, I don't know, worse. | |
| But I guess I set out something of a, what's the word, an outline for the evening. | |
| And I figure we should just start with the most pressing one that I know everybody's talking about. | |
| Jen, and I'm going to say Pisaki. | |
| It's Pisaki for the rest of my life on the internet. | |
| It's Jen Psaki. | |
| Apparently it's a silent P, but I like Pisaki better. | |
| Jen Pisaki's press conference and some of the... | |
| I'm calling them admissions because there's no way to downplay the degree. | |
| Some are going to call it cooperation, collaboration. | |
| I'm going to go one step further, and I'm going to say control or coercion. | |
| Coercion or control, because it sounds like they are effectively imposing control over certain aspects of Facebook. | |
| I did a vlog on it. | |
| Everybody saw what Psaki said. | |
| They are working with Facebook, doctors, federal officials, meeting with them, discussing what information to promote, trusted news sources to promote, flagging posts. | |
| For Facebook, not on Facebook, and some people think that's semantics. | |
| I think that is an admission of the level of control that they are exercising over Facebook. | |
| The question now becomes, are these admissions enough to cause Facebook, at least in certain circumstances, to be deemed to be state actors? | |
| Yes or no? | |
| And then we're going to get into the other criteria that might flow from this. | |
| Not by itself, no. | |
| I mean, it's helpful evidence. | |
| It doesn't hurt, that's for sure, because as you highlighted, her use of the word for rather than the other word term she could have chosen. | |
| And they're kind of bragging about it. | |
| They're kind of open and public about it. | |
| So I think that helps anyone bringing litigation related to it. | |
| Including, you know, you have Trump's case, but obviously Bobby Kennedy's case that's going up on appeal, and Harvey Dillon's case, which is still the strongest in California against Twitter. | |
| So, I mean, to be a state actor, a full state actor under our current case law, they make it really hard. | |
| You basically have to look at agency law. | |
| Are they acting as an agent of the state? | |
| And if they're not acting as an agent of the state... | |
| If this was, say, Facebook, say John Johnson said that he wanted Facebook to do something, does that make Facebook, if they later do it, an agent of John Johnson? | |
| Generally, under agency law, it does not. | |
| There needs to be more than that. | |
| It's helpful evidence for those people bringing it, but to really bring a robust state actor challenge, what you need to allege is that they did it at the direction. | |
| At the behest and behalf of that group, or that they're occupying a traditional public field, but that's really an alternative argument. | |
| That's the pruneyard doctrine I've talked about that requires challenging existing federal law. | |
| State law in California supports it, but the courts have been very reluctant to apply it to big tech. | |
| So it helps, but it's not determinative. | |
| In the minimal amount that I've looked into U.S. case law, I saw that it's virtually not impossible, but the bar has been set extremely high for state actors. | |
| It's a public function test in that Edmondson-Lugar lawsuit where they have to be exercising what is typically a role reserved exclusively for the government. | |
| So one case was a private election where they were deemed to be state actors, but utilities, no. | |
| So providing utilities to people was not deemed to be a state actor where cutting it off could violate constitutional rights. | |
| So the bar is high, but there's a state actor argument Am I wrong? | |
| The other arguments, entanglement, coercion, are those different facets of the state actor argument or are those separate legal criteria whereby a private actor can be deemed to be a state actor for the purposes of specific conduct? | |
| There's multiple means by which they can be considered a state actor, or another way of thinking of it, simply subject to the Constitutional's restrictions. | |
| Because, for example, in Marsh v. | |
| Alabama, which is the predecessor to the Pruniar Doctrine, there was no dispute that those were private actors who were not acting at the behest of the state, so they weren't state actors in a literal sense. | |
| But they were considered bound by the First Amendment anyway because they were occupying a public function. | |
| Same with the Democratic Party cases. | |
| Originally, the Democratic Party got away with racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination because they said they were a private party. | |
| They were not a public state actor, though they determined who got on the ballot and who didn't. | |
| And finally, it took the court a while. |
Export Selection