1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:04,000
Speaker 1: You are listening to Carrie Letz's Financial Survival Network, where

2
00:00:04,040 --> 00:00:07,440
you get valuable information you just can't find anywhere else

3
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:11,599
to thrive in today's trying times. You need the Financial

4
00:00:11,679 --> 00:00:16,760
Survival Network now more than ever. Go to Financial Survivalnetwork

5
00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:20,519
dot com and get your free newsletter and gift. Financial

6
00:00:20,679 --> 00:00:24,120
Survival Network now more than ever.

7
00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:32,240
Speaker 2: Hey, Carrie, this is Robert Ian with conquer Change dot com.

8
00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:37,960
The late to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick moynihan famously said,

9
00:00:38,759 --> 00:00:42,039
you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not

10
00:00:42,479 --> 00:00:47,119
entitled to your own facts. The challenge in recent years

11
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:51,399
is that individual opinions have been drowned out and actual

12
00:00:51,679 --> 00:00:56,920
facts have been gaslighted in the constant disarray of confusion

13
00:00:57,640 --> 00:01:03,520
we refer to as mainstream media. Today, we'll discuss some

14
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:09,319
of what that gaslighting actually looks like, how it transcends

15
00:01:09,359 --> 00:01:15,959
into everyday media discord, and how otherwise intelligent and well

16
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:24,159
informed people seem to somehow know what isn't so. On

17
00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:29,599
April ninth, constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley posted on his

18
00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:37,599
website Jonathanturley dot Org a commentary titled NPR repeats false

19
00:01:37,719 --> 00:01:43,159
claim that the court rejected claims of government involvement in

20
00:01:43,239 --> 00:01:48,799
censorship efforts. Turley recounts a recent interview of his on

21
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:54,719
NPR to discuss free speech. His blog article addresses a

22
00:01:54,760 --> 00:02:00,000
statement made regarding his NPR interview that is not accurate

23
00:02:00,879 --> 00:02:04,719
but has been repeated like a mantra by many who

24
00:02:04,760 --> 00:02:09,560
are seeking to dismiss what he calls the censorship system

25
00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:15,199
under the Biden administration. The claim others are making and

26
00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:20,080
inferring is that the Supreme Court rejected the claim of

27
00:02:20,759 --> 00:02:27,560
coordination between the government and social media companies. Turley points

28
00:02:27,599 --> 00:02:33,080
out this is entirely untrue and urges readers not to

29
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:36,319
take his word for it, but rather to read the

30
00:02:36,319 --> 00:02:43,159
Supreme Court decision themselves, in which the Court expressly states otherwise.

31
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:48,199
To set the record straight, Turley cites and PR host

32
00:02:48,479 --> 00:02:53,360
Lyla Fedel, who quoted him as saying, you had a

33
00:02:53,439 --> 00:03:00,000
level of cooperation coordination between the government and these other entities,

34
00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:06,840
that the effect was that thousands were censored. The host

35
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:12,759
then immediately rebutted Turley's comment by stating that last year

36
00:03:13,479 --> 00:03:18,039
the Supreme Court rejected the claim the social media companies

37
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:22,840
were pressured to take down posts about CV nineteen and

38
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:28,159
the election from five years ago. Turley further clarifies that

39
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:32,960
this comment made by NPR is a reference to the

40
00:03:33,039 --> 00:03:38,400
Court's decision in which the states of Missouri and Louisiana

41
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:43,919
claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to

42
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:50,560
censor conservatives and critics. But the Court actually ruled, in

43
00:03:50,599 --> 00:03:55,280
a six to three ruling, is that those states, Missouri

44
00:03:55,319 --> 00:04:01,159
and Louisiana, lacked standing to bring the case. A critical

45
00:04:01,199 --> 00:04:05,240
point in the Court's opinion is that the justices went

46
00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:10,719
out of their way to expressly refute the notion that

47
00:04:10,759 --> 00:04:15,360
they were ruling on the merits of the coordination with

48
00:04:15,439 --> 00:04:20,800
the social media companies. To underscore this point, Turley cites

49
00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:25,839
footnote number three of the ruling, where the Court explicitly

50
00:04:26,000 --> 00:04:30,959
states that because we do not reach the merits, we

51
00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:35,920
express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly

52
00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:41,759
articulated the standard for when the government transforms private conduct

53
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:47,120
into state action. In other words, all the Supreme Court

54
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:52,079
decided is that the two states bringing the case lacked

55
00:04:52,199 --> 00:04:56,759
standing to do so. A decision on the case itself

56
00:04:56,839 --> 00:05:03,439
about whether coordination actually occurred or whether such coordination violated

57
00:05:03,480 --> 00:05:07,879
the First Amendment was never rendered by the Supreme Court.

58
00:05:08,680 --> 00:05:12,879
Let me repeat that a decision on the case itself

59
00:05:13,519 --> 00:05:18,120
was never rendered by the U. S. Supreme Court. Turly

60
00:05:18,279 --> 00:05:23,160
further articulated the clarification of his statement by saying it

61
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:28,399
is demonstrably untrue that the Supreme Court rejected the claim

62
00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:32,920
that social media companies were pressured to take down posts

63
00:05:33,399 --> 00:05:39,120
about CV nineteen and the election. He then recounts how

64
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:45,399
other anti free speech figures have repeated this bogus claim, namely,

65
00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:49,920
when he testified in the US Senate, a law professor

66
00:05:50,439 --> 00:05:55,199
Mary Anne Franks and a senator both repeated the claim.

67
00:05:56,199 --> 00:06:00,319
He quotes Professor Frank's comments to the committee where she

68
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:06,199
said for Republicans to call yet another congressional hearing to

69
00:06:06,319 --> 00:06:13,839
investigate the so called censorship industrial complex of the Biden administration, officials,

70
00:06:14,519 --> 00:06:21,560
nonprofit organizations, and big tech companies allegedly collaborating to censor

71
00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:29,040
conservative speech, a conspiracy theory so ludicrous. And here's where

72
00:06:29,079 --> 00:06:33,399
she repeats the bogus claim when she says that even

73
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:38,360
the current Supreme Court, stacked with a super majority of

74
00:06:38,639 --> 00:06:43,800
far right conservative judges, dismissed it out of hand last

75
00:06:43,959 --> 00:06:49,920
year in Murthy v. Missouri, while ignoring the current wholesale

76
00:06:50,079 --> 00:06:56,560
assault on the First Amendment by the Trump administration. Turley's

77
00:06:56,600 --> 00:06:59,720
blog links to the full transcripts so you can read

78
00:06:59,720 --> 00:07:02,879
it in if you like. The bottom line is that

79
00:07:03,319 --> 00:07:08,079
this often repeated false claim that continues to be made

80
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:12,079
at Senate hearings and on major news shows by people

81
00:07:12,199 --> 00:07:17,720
who should know better and probably do, this false claim

82
00:07:17,800 --> 00:07:21,519
is in conflict with the express words of the court.

83
00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:25,879
In other words, this claim that the US Supreme Court

84
00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:31,959
rendered a decision on this case is a lie. I

85
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:36,959
have followed Jonathan Turley's analysis of major issues for three decades,

86
00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:42,279
ever since the Bill Clinton administration, where I recall his

87
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:47,279
position was that Clinton should be impeached but not removed.

88
00:07:48,279 --> 00:07:52,360
Now fast forward to today, Turley is no fan of

89
00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:56,800
President Trump. What he is a fan of, though, is

90
00:07:56,879 --> 00:08:03,360
the Constitution he always has. What became painfully obvious as

91
00:08:03,399 --> 00:08:07,879
I read this article is the realization that in the

92
00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:13,079
mainstream media we seem to have fewer and fewer credible

93
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:18,639
and articulate defenders of the US Constitution and the principle

94
00:08:19,160 --> 00:08:24,199
of free speech. Jonathan Turley is one of those defenders.

95
00:08:25,360 --> 00:08:30,959
He says, the effort to portray evidence of collaboration between

96
00:08:31,199 --> 00:08:36,360
the government and social media companies as a quote, conspiracy

97
00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:41,919
theory or a myth is all too familiar. He says,

98
00:08:42,039 --> 00:08:46,600
it attempts to portray free speech advocates as unhinged or

99
00:08:47,240 --> 00:08:52,600
fringe figures in order to avoid answering the troubling questions

100
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:57,399
raised by things like the Twitter files, the Facebook files,

101
00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:02,879
and thousands of pages of document produced in both litigation

102
00:09:03,679 --> 00:09:09,159
and in Congress. He says, some apologists for the censorship

103
00:09:09,279 --> 00:09:15,399
system have even attacked journalists as fans of Putin, which

104
00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:19,960
is why when media outlets like NPR compare the Trump

105
00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:26,039
administration to the McCarthyism of the nineteen fifties that resulted

106
00:09:26,200 --> 00:09:32,200
in persecution of academics and leftists, they neglect to mention

107
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:36,159
that today it is the left who has been using

108
00:09:36,279 --> 00:09:42,559
the very same tactics against free speech advocates. Turley points

109
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:50,279
out that Hillary Clinton has called Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Apparently,

110
00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:56,080
those who support restrictions on free speech do not want

111
00:09:56,120 --> 00:10:02,120
to address specific statements from social media executives that the

112
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:09,120
government pressured them to censor critics and target individuals, which

113
00:10:09,159 --> 00:10:14,919
represents a clear and present danger that lurks within our

114
00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:21,679
social media backdrop and out of control mainstream media, where

115
00:10:21,919 --> 00:10:27,679
free speech, or more accurately, what remains of free speech,

116
00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:34,279
has been weaponized against ordinary people. The bottom line is

117
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:43,519
that censorship is the antithesis of freedom and cannot be tolerated.

118
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:48,960
And until next time, this is Robert Ian with conquer

119
00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:56,320
Change dot com. Thanks Carrie, thanks.

120
00:10:56,080 --> 00:11:00,840
Speaker 1: For listening to carry Less's Financial Survival Network solution to

121
00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:05,720
today's trying times. For the latest, go to Financial Survivalnetwork

122
00:11:05,759 --> 00:11:10,200
dot com. Financial Survival Network now more than ever,