Speaker 1: Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 2: It beats listening to nothing.
Speaker 3: My goodness, it's.
Speaker 1: Being Frank.
Speaker 4: Frank.
Speaker 3: We're the only way to be is Frank. Hello everyone,
Speaker 3: and welcome to being Frank. We're the only way to be,
Speaker 3: is Frank. I'm your host, Frankilborn, and I'd like to
Speaker 3: thank you for joining us on what we like to
Speaker 3: call the Intelligent Conversation Podcast, where no conversations out of bounds,
Speaker 3: in all points of view are welcome. Listeners are familiar
Speaker 3: that we record live to tape, and I give you
Speaker 3: the date so you have context and relevance. It is
Speaker 3: the twenty fourth of September. Authoritarian regimes, dictators despots are often,
Speaker 3: but not always fools, But none is foolish enough to
Speaker 3: give prospective dissident writers free range to publish their judgments
Speaker 3: or follow their creative instincts. They know they do so
Speaker 3: at their own peril. They are not stupid enough to
Speaker 3: abandon control, overt or insidious over the media. Their methods
Speaker 3: include surveillance, censorship, arrest, even slaughter of those writers informing
Speaker 3: and disturbing the public. Writers who are unsettling, calling into question,
Speaker 3: taking another deeper look, writers, journalists, essayists, bloggers, poets, playwrights
Speaker 3: can disturb the social oppression that functions like a coma
Speaker 3: on the population. A coma despots call peace, and they
Speaker 3: staunched the blood flow of war that hawks and profiteers
Speaker 3: thrilled to. That was peril Written by Tony Morrison, the
Speaker 3: Great Pulletzer Prize winner and Nobel Laureate, in two thousand
Speaker 3: and eight. It certainly could have been, or maybe even
Speaker 3: should have been written today. Her voice would join the
Speaker 3: chorus of thousands, if not millions, of others who are
Speaker 3: railing against the Trump administration's policies regarding free speed in
Speaker 3: the First Amendment. This is the most serious installed on
Speaker 3: that freedom that I have experienced in my lifetime. However,
Speaker 3: it is certainly not the only time in history that
Speaker 3: powerful men in government had made the effort to control
Speaker 3: the people by controlling their voices. And as for long
Speaker 3: has there been evil men trying to control our freedom
Speaker 3: of expression, there have been those who have been rising
Speaker 3: in opposition to them. A mere handful include authors like Morrison,
Speaker 3: who had just mentioned, Saint Clair Lewis, James Baldwin, but
Speaker 3: also politicians like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, comedians like
Speaker 3: Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, musicians like Pete Seeger and
Speaker 3: Bruce Springsteen, philosophers like Voltaire and Marshall mccluhan, educators like
Speaker 3: John Stuart Mill and Louis Brandeis, and even athletes my
Speaker 3: like Muhammad al Lee and Bill Russell. On this edition
Speaker 3: of Being Frank, we will once again dissect the real
Speaker 3: meaning of the First Amendment and what it means to
Speaker 3: a truly free society. We'll also have some intelligent conversation
Speaker 3: on the impact of those I just mentioned, as well
Speaker 3: as others, and the continuing efforts to maintain that freedom.
Speaker 3: Joining us once again frequent collaborator to Being Frank. I
Speaker 3: call him the renaissance Man because he's an author, composer, musician,
Speaker 3: businessman and full professor at Fordham School of Mass Media
Speaker 3: and Communication. A man I'm proud to call my friend,
Speaker 3: doctor Paul Levinson. Paul, thank you once again joining us
Speaker 3: on what is going to be a really important show.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm especially glad to be here today, Frank. First,
Speaker 4: I'm always glad to be on your show, because Being
Speaker 4: Frank is indeed the only way to be But on
Speaker 4: a slightly more serious note. Today is the day after
Speaker 4: Jimmy Kimmel came back online to do his late night
Speaker 4: comedic show, and he spent the first half hour of
Speaker 4: that show talking about the very things we're going to
Speaker 4: be talking about. And honestly, this is the first step,
Speaker 4: the first event in a long, long time that gives
Speaker 4: me a hope that we may be slowly beginning to
Speaker 4: turn around this almost sleep walk our country is doing
Speaker 4: down the road to fascism.
Speaker 3: Well, and if you want to talk about that in
Speaker 3: greater detail, obviously it's huge news and the implications are
Speaker 3: what you said that important. But again, even though we've
Speaker 3: spoken about it many times, I think people still can't
Speaker 3: wrap their mind around the First Amendment. Well, you know
Speaker 3: what it is, what it can do, and what it
Speaker 3: can't do. I mean, there's this tug of war even
Speaker 3: within this situation, private versus public, government versus private for example,
Speaker 3: And it came up, and I do want to talk
Speaker 3: about it in context. The whole late night scene, talk
Speaker 3: show scene is changing, and that was often used as
Speaker 3: a reason for these changes. I think that's a smoke screen,
Speaker 3: and we'll talk about that in more detail, but in order, Again,
Speaker 3: to put it in context. Let's talk a little bit
Speaker 3: more about the First Amendment. What are the most important
Speaker 3: things people should take from the First Amendment.
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, the First Amendment is the most
Speaker 4: crucial of all our amendments. That's why it's first.
Speaker 3: Yes, others wouldn't exist without.
Speaker 4: The first exactly right. It sets up everything else in
Speaker 4: our democratic society. But the First Amendment is packed with
Speaker 4: a lot of different overlapping points. For example, people have
Speaker 4: the right to peaceably assemble. That part has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with speech or press directly or and the First
Speaker 4: Amendment speaks about the government not establishing a religion, and
Speaker 4: that also, you know, ultimately relates to freedom of speech
Speaker 4: and freedom of the press. But it's a separate part
Speaker 4: of that First Amendment. So everyone, you know, if they
Speaker 4: haven't recently, you just sit down. You can get it online.
Speaker 4: Call up the First Amendment, in fact, call up the
Speaker 4: whole Bill of Rights. In fact, better yet, call up
Speaker 4: every amendment that has become part of our constitution, and
Speaker 4: that will give people a better idea of what the
Speaker 4: First Amendment does. As far as the part of the
Speaker 4: First Amendment that directly addresses communication, you know, I've always
Speaker 4: been surprised that so many people have such a problem
Speaker 4: understanding it. I mean, yes, the language is slightly our hayek,
Speaker 4: you know, but basically what it's saying is crystal clear.
Speaker 4: The government in this case, the federal government cannot should
Speaker 4: not prohibit freedom of speech or the press. You can't
Speaker 4: get much more direct than that. But unfortunately, as you
Speaker 4: and I have discussed many many times before, there are
Speaker 4: people who for reasons that I guess I can understand,
Speaker 4: But if you look at it another way, it's absurd
Speaker 4: to regulate radio, which is how the FCC came.
Speaker 3: That's on the list.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, okay, what does a late night comedian do,
Speaker 4: whether it's Jimmy Kimmel, whether it's Stephen Colbert, whether it
Speaker 4: was Johnny Carson, whether it was Jack Parr. What did
Speaker 4: they all do? They talked, so Congress shall make no
Speaker 4: law abridging freedom of speech. Well, these guys and women,
Speaker 4: they're talking online. And the other thing that they often
Speaker 4: do in a humorous way, but with a very serious undertone,
Speaker 4: is they give their commentary, their satirical commentary on political developments. Now,
Speaker 4: presenting opinions in the press has been a part of
Speaker 4: the press since the first sheets rolled off the first
Speaker 4: printing presses. The press doesn't just report the facts and
Speaker 4: the news. It does mainly do that, but there are
Speaker 4: op ed pages, as in the New York Times. There
Speaker 4: are editorials in newspapers which vastly predate the op ed page.
Speaker 4: So the other thing that the First Amendment says the
Speaker 4: federal government cannot interfere with, cannot obstruct in a crystal
Speaker 4: clear way. The other thing is the press, and in
Speaker 4: the pressure that the FCC put on in this case
Speaker 4: Disney ABC, and as we know this past summer we
Speaker 4: talked a little bit.
Speaker 3: About that with Colbert.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that basically was clearly an attempt to squelch speech
Speaker 4: and the press, crystal clear. The only question I have
Speaker 4: is why do so many people, and we should discuss this,
Speaker 4: have such a problem in understanding this. And I include
Speaker 4: among those many people Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed the
Speaker 4: Communications Act of nineteen thirty four into law which created
Speaker 4: the FCC. In the.
Speaker 3: Interesting I want a little bit more detail, but pull
Speaker 3: within that, And also there's a theme here to It's
Speaker 3: part of it is because people don't understand the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: And I've been exposed to it. And it's interesting now
Speaker 3: on social media on the internet, if you click on
Speaker 3: one video, then you know you get a hundred of them. Well,
Speaker 3: I saw interest. There's there's a group that they're provocative.
Speaker 3: They go out with a camera and they go on
Speaker 3: the sidewalk and they shoot video, just indiscriminately whatever, and
Speaker 3: almost invariably somebody comes up and has an issue with
Speaker 3: them doing it. I have not given you permission to
Speaker 3: do that, And then of course it spurs this debate.
Speaker 3: I don't need your permission, and they try to explain
Speaker 3: that this is it's done deliberately to highlight that you
Speaker 3: have rights. Okay, you have a right to do that basically,
Speaker 3: and I think we need to talk about it in
Speaker 3: some detail on a personal level and get to it
Speaker 3: on the broader sense. Also that the law is interpreted
Speaker 3: is that if I can see it from a public space,
Speaker 3: I can photograph it, or I can write about it,
Speaker 3: and it cannot be stopped. Yet there are others who feel, well,
Speaker 3: that's an invasion of privacy, and so why does your
Speaker 3: right rise above mind towards privacy? But I know the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court has supported the photographer in those cases. So twofold,
Speaker 3: it explained why it's important that they side on the side,
Speaker 3: if you will, of the photographer. And then also do
Speaker 3: why some people don't understand that these it's for their
Speaker 3: benefit as well, to promote freedom of expression, not only speech,
Speaker 3: and I think that's important, freedom of expression, which is
Speaker 3: a broader term. Your thoughts point well.
Speaker 4: First of all, on the photography question, if you think
Speaker 4: about the nature of truth, and you think about the
Speaker 4: interest that a democracy has to have in terms of
Speaker 4: what is really happening. For example, if there is a
Speaker 4: charge that the police in any given city or street
Speaker 4: are abusing their powers preventing people from standing up and talking,
Speaker 4: you know, preventing people from walking here or there, if
Speaker 4: there were no photographer. And by the way, there weren't
Speaker 4: any photographers back when the First Amendment was written. But
Speaker 4: the founding fathers in a way, we're looking towards the future,
Speaker 4: and they made this general statement and it pertains to
Speaker 4: all media. But nowadays and ever since there have been
Speaker 4: handy handheld cameras, the ability to photograph anything that's in
Speaker 4: the public has become really one of the bulworks basically
Speaker 4: our political system, one of the bulwarks of our democracy
Speaker 4: because it enables anyone not only to report what they're
Speaker 4: seeing visually, but to provide a record of it. And
Speaker 4: by the way, police don't like being photographed. They've been
Speaker 4: known to basically take people's cameras away and basically step
Speaker 4: on them.
Speaker 3: I'm amazed about how many private citizens do that as well.
Speaker 3: Paul I bet at times, Oh my god, for an
Speaker 3: innocent photo. I mean, why I was called a pedophile
Speaker 3: and all these horrible things for what, in my mind
Speaker 3: from the very beginning, was an innocent photograph and something
Speaker 3: that I was within my right to do. And I
Speaker 3: don't want to make this about me, but what I'm
Speaker 3: saying is I'm just so surprised that people just didn't
Speaker 3: get it. It's just an artistic expression.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, the problem, you know, in general, is one
Speaker 4: would think that everyone owns their own image, but because
Speaker 4: of what I just said, that really has never been
Speaker 4: the case and really shouldn't be the case. That's why
Speaker 4: the courts are found over and over and over again
Speaker 4: that if you are in a public place, anyone can
Speaker 4: take your photograph. And you know what, that anyone owns
Speaker 4: your photograph, you don't have the right to your own image.
Speaker 4: If you're in public, anyone who makes a recording of
Speaker 4: your image, they can do whatever they want with it.
Speaker 4: If you want to walk down the street start naked,
Speaker 4: and somebody takes your photograph and you're embarrassed by that,
Speaker 4: unfortunately you're in public, it's not considered an invasion of
Speaker 4: your privacy. If you want to be private and you
Speaker 4: don't want to wear any clothes, stay home, you.
Speaker 3: Know, close too, because sidewalk they can actually photograph in
Speaker 3: the house. It's an interesting and certainly an argument where
Speaker 3: you can see both sides where you know, who would
Speaker 3: want to quote unquote invade someone's privacy, But the point
Speaker 3: being that generally speaking, that's not really the case, that's
Speaker 3: not the motivation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, let me just say it's a complicated situation, and
Speaker 4: it doesn't have that much to do with Stephen Colbert
Speaker 4: basically being fired, you know, and it has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with Jimmy Kimmel being fired. And you know, it's
Speaker 4: a complicated situation. You know, some of our listeners may recall,
Speaker 4: and probably many people won't, that after John F. Kennedy
Speaker 4: was assassinated, Jackie O. Nassas married Aristotlenassis and she spent
Speaker 4: a lot of time on his island. Very rich guy,
Speaker 4: and there were people they didn't quite have drones back then,
Speaker 4: so talking about the late sixties, early seventies, but they
Speaker 4: had helicopters, you know. And there were photographers who would
Speaker 4: fly over the island and photographed Jackie when she was
Speaker 4: walking on the beach on what she thought was a
Speaker 4: private island, but in fact it was public and she
Speaker 4: wasn't wearing any clothes. And when those photographs were published,
Speaker 4: the photographers and the magazines that published those photos were sued.
Speaker 4: And despite what we just were talking about, the courts
Speaker 4: found in favor of Jackie because they understandably felt bad
Speaker 4: for her, you know, JFK's widow. So I mean, it
Speaker 4: is a significant part of this overall discussion, but it's
Speaker 4: certainly not the most significant part of how the First
Speaker 4: Amendment and the rights to privacy play out.
Speaker 3: Right again, I want to just bring it up in
Speaker 3: terms of context and the fact that it is such
Speaker 3: a broad thing and it is it's truly about expression,
Speaker 3: people finding the way to express themselves, and how important
Speaker 3: that is. So well, let's get back on the rail
Speaker 3: track here. We mentioned the SEC, the Federal Communications Commission,
Speaker 3: and its inception, Why was it conceived? Should it have
Speaker 3: been conceived? Do we still need it? Why do we
Speaker 3: need it?
Speaker 4: Okay, so let's go back to the nineteen twenties. That's
Speaker 4: when radio became a mass medium. It was invented in
Speaker 4: effect by Markconi some twenty years before that. And one
Speaker 4: of the problems that arose, especially in big cities, is
Speaker 4: everyone on their grandparent wanted I've created a radio station,
Speaker 4: and there's only so much space in the spectrum, you know. Eventually,
Speaker 4: obviously that AM was joined by FM under the number
Speaker 4: of stations that there could be, But back in the
Speaker 4: nineteen twenties, it was just AM radio and the radio
Speaker 4: stations themselves back in the nineteen twenties got concerned that
Speaker 4: there were so many radio stations broadcasting that their frequencies
Speaker 4: were so close together that if you tried to listen
Speaker 4: to a radio station, often you heard other stations coming in.
Speaker 4: And so you know, if you're driving out of New York,
Speaker 4: everyone's experienced this and you're still listening to an old
Speaker 4: fashioned radio AM or FM. You drive, It's great, you're
Speaker 4: enjoying it. I used to enjoy listening to WCBSFM rock
Speaker 4: and roll radio but if you know, fifty seventy five,
Speaker 4: one hundred miles away from New York City, suddenly WCBSFM
Speaker 4: begins to get weaky status.
Speaker 3: To hear that noise and crackling, and.
Speaker 4: Another stations coming in. So that really what happened to
Speaker 4: everyone much closer to New York in the nineteen twenties,
Speaker 4: scoose stations were broadcasting too close together. So the radio
Speaker 4: stations themselves petitioned the federal government to do something about that.
Speaker 4: That was their first mistake. Fortunately, for a couple of years,
Speaker 4: the president was Herbert Hoover, who I have almost nothing
Speaker 4: else good to say about his presidency.
Speaker 3: No one really seems to right.
Speaker 4: But he was a great believer in the federal government
Speaker 4: needs to be restricted, it has to keep his hands
Speaker 4: off business. And so he created this very weak agency,
Speaker 4: the Federal Radio Commission, to keep track of where stations
Speaker 4: were broadcasting, on what frequencies, and to try to make
Speaker 4: sure that stations didn't broadcast too close together. But it
Speaker 4: was such a weak agency, and the building cated it
Speaker 4: was so weak. It didn't have any way of punishing
Speaker 4: stations that violated this commandment, in effect, not to broadcast
Speaker 4: too close to another station. And so by the time
Speaker 4: Franklin Delano Roosevelt is elected president in nineteen thirty two,
Speaker 4: and he becomes the president in nineteen thirty three, the
Speaker 4: radio stations themselves are still clamoring, please do something about this.
Speaker 4: We still have too many radio stations. So it was
Speaker 4: in that context that the FCC was created as part
Speaker 4: of the Communications Act of nineteen thirty four. Now I'm
Speaker 4: speaking from the wisdom of hindsight. I wasn't alive as
Speaker 4: old as I might sing in the early nineteen thirties.
Speaker 4: To me, the first I ever heard about the FC
Speaker 4: See what. I was a kid in the late nineteen
Speaker 4: fifties and I heard that, I don't know, the FCC
Speaker 4: was investigating Alan Freed because he was taking payola. My
Speaker 4: initiative response was, I knew about the First Amendment. My
Speaker 4: initial response is, what the hell is you know the
Speaker 4: government doing in any way trying to regulate radio? You know,
Speaker 4: I understood the First Amendment, And so as soon as
Speaker 4: I found out, well, the government has a right to
Speaker 4: because of the Communications Act, the FCC was created. I
Speaker 4: came to the conclusion that the FCC is obviously blatantly
Speaker 4: an unconstitutional violation or the First Amendment. I'll just say
Speaker 4: one more quick thing here, the idea that the FCC
Speaker 4: was unconstitutional. People in the nineteen thirties taught that, and
Speaker 4: a case eventually got to the Supreme Court, and a
Speaker 4: Supreme Court justice with a ridiculous name, Felix Frankfurter, wasn't
Speaker 4: exactly a hot dog in the decision that he basically
Speaker 4: wrote the majority opinion for and convinced the majority of
Speaker 4: Supreme Court justices then, because in this case, which was
Speaker 4: NBC versus the United States, where NBC was saying to
Speaker 4: the FCC, get off our back, We're not interested in
Speaker 4: what you want to do. By the way, the FCC
Speaker 4: forced NBC to split in two. They originally had a
Speaker 4: Blue network and a Red network. One of them remained NBC,
Speaker 4: the other created Guests what ABC. So this AEC who
Speaker 4: fired Kimmel. That's how they came to be. Anyway, this
Speaker 4: case before the Supreme Court, in a decision written by
Speaker 4: Felix frankfort Ever, one of the justices wasn't even chief justice,
Speaker 4: he was an associate justice, but he felt so strongly
Speaker 4: about this he wrote the opinion said, in effect, not
Speaker 4: with standing the first Amendment, since the founding fathers could
Speaker 4: not have had any idea that there would be such
Speaker 4: a thing as radio, which is broadcast you know, throughout
Speaker 4: the country. The information travels at the speed of light.
Speaker 4: The government has to be able to regulate radio. And
Speaker 4: so what that decision in nineteen forty three did is
Speaker 4: it put the FCC into the same position of power
Speaker 4: which it still has now.
Speaker 3: Well, and that's what was going to say. And it's
Speaker 3: unfortunate that the term gets used so often. People don't
Speaker 3: really grasp the importance, the significance of it. It's been weaponized,
Speaker 3: and we see that very clearly with the first with
Speaker 3: Colbert and then again with Kimmel where the network, the
Speaker 3: home network of Colbert CBS parent company, Paramount, needed to
Speaker 3: merge while multi six.
Speaker 4: Billion dollar deal.
Speaker 3: Just to give a little synopsis, but those deals have
Speaker 3: to be approved by the FCC, and the SEC only
Speaker 3: answers to whom.
Speaker 4: Well, exactly, the FCC doesn't answer to anyone. Now, It's
Speaker 4: interesting in the Communications Act of nineteen thirty four, it
Speaker 4: says two contradictory things. It says, in a very prominent way,
Speaker 4: the SCC shall in no way censor radio stations or
Speaker 4: past judgment on the content of radio stations, So because
Speaker 4: people back then were aware of the danger of doing that.
Speaker 4: By the way, this was exactly at the same time
Speaker 4: that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Gerbels were cleverly using radio
Speaker 4: to enslave the German people in their Nazi regime. So
Speaker 4: people in the United States were aware of the danger
Speaker 4: of radio. That's why that was put into the Communications
Speaker 4: Act that created the FCC. They were aware that radio,
Speaker 4: if it became a vehicle of the government, was a
Speaker 4: dagger pointed at the heart of democracy. And in fact,
Speaker 4: in Germany, the Weimar Republic was within a year or
Speaker 4: two of the creation of the FCC, here became Adolf
Speaker 4: Hitler's Nazi Germany. So the fact of the matter is,
Speaker 4: even back then in the nineteen thirties, people were concerned
Speaker 4: about that, and in Nazi Germany, Hitler made it impossible
Speaker 4: for people to do anything. Here in the United States,
Speaker 4: although there were a lot of people concerned about that,
Speaker 4: that decision of nineteen forty three ratified the FCC's position.
Speaker 4: And even though the FCC he was not supposed to censor.
Speaker 4: In that same Communications Act, you had the contradictory part
Speaker 4: of the Act that said the FCC is responsible for
Speaker 4: granting and renewing licenses to broadcast, and in doing so,
Speaker 4: and here's reached the censorship. In doing so, the FCC
Speaker 4: needs to consider, and this is the crucial wording, whether
Speaker 4: the station is broadcasting in quote, the public interest. Now,
Speaker 4: if that's not familiar to any of our listeners, that's
Speaker 4: just what Trump and the current chair of the FCC
Speaker 4: have been babbling about about what they did and what
Speaker 4: they intend to do. More of Trump, I've just heard
Speaker 4: him say like three or four times in three or
Speaker 4: four different places in the last week. He thinks it's
Speaker 4: appropriate to the FCC to examine any brought cast medium,
Speaker 4: any actually mode of communication whatsoever in the United States,
Speaker 4: with an eye towards whether or not it's broadcasting in
Speaker 4: the public interest. Now, of course, Trump thinks what's in
Speaker 4: the public interest is agreeing with all of the fascistic
Speaker 4: things that the Trump administration is doing. And that's why
Speaker 4: this is so dangerous. And this goes back again to
Speaker 4: this contradictory wording in that Communications Act of nineteen thirty four.
Speaker 4: The SEC is not supposed to censor, but it is
Speaker 4: supposed to grant and renew licenses based on whether, in
Speaker 4: it's the SEC's judgment, the station is broadcasting in the
Speaker 4: public interest. That phrase in the public interest is catnip
Speaker 4: to someone like Trump, because he said, I'll tell you
Speaker 4: what the public interest is agreeing with me and my insanity, and.
Speaker 3: It's perfect segue to Kimmel. You know, the whole situation
Speaker 3: there because they used it. He made in my opinion,
Speaker 3: and everybody can have their own opinion. I thought it
Speaker 3: was a very innocuous, banal comment about the whole Charlie
Speaker 3: Kirk situation, and we didn't even actually speak about Kirk.
Speaker 3: It was more about the the people who were supporting
Speaker 3: the idea that it was done by a left. Whatever
Speaker 3: the case, maybe none of it proved that. I think
Speaker 3: in a certain way, he was as much trying to
Speaker 3: diffuse the situation as anything. Certainly banal comments, but again
Speaker 3: used by the SEC chairman Brendan Carr. I'm sure under
Speaker 3: the direction of President Trump that that didn't serve in
Speaker 3: the public interest, and so he was suspended, not for
Speaker 3: a long time. He came back, but interestingly, and as
Speaker 3: we were coming to record, Paul I was watching CNN
Speaker 3: in the background, and Sinclair are the stations associated with
Speaker 3: ABC hedged, but only a little. They want to make
Speaker 3: sure that mister Kimmel's monologues are said, again within their scope,
Speaker 3: their sphere of balance in what they want to present
Speaker 3: to their public. So again there's that caveat. And again
Speaker 3: let me let me play the devil's advocate. They're their
Speaker 3: own radio station. They're entitled to present people that they
Speaker 3: want to represent, their image that they want to represent.
Speaker 3: So are they entirely wrong?
Speaker 4: Well, in this case, they are because what they are
Speaker 4: doing what Sinclair, what's the other station has?
Speaker 3: It's next door, I believe.
Speaker 4: Just to be clear, they're not stations. They conglomerates, and
Speaker 4: each of them control a whole bunch of stations for
Speaker 4: some reason, like most of them are in the Midwest,
Speaker 4: thank god, none of them are here in the New
Speaker 4: York area. And yeah, they own those stations. They have
Speaker 4: a right to control those stations. But by putting pressure
Speaker 4: on Kimmel to do what they think Kimmel should be
Speaker 4: saying and doing and not doing what they think he
Speaker 4: shouldn't be doing, and by in effect supporting car and
Speaker 4: the FCC in putting that pressure on Kimmel and therefore
Speaker 4: on ABC and Disney. And you know the result of
Speaker 4: that is, as Kimmel mentioned, and what I thought was
Speaker 4: his brillant both emotionally.
Speaker 3: And they asked you what you thought of last night?
Speaker 4: Yeah, last night. Look, he was moved to tears. I
Speaker 4: was moved to tears.
Speaker 3: They were genuine. I really I believe they were very genuine.
Speaker 4: Yes, So you know what is what's going on there
Speaker 4: is those two stations are two conglomates, Next Star and
Speaker 4: Sinclair account for twenty percent, one out of five of
Speaker 4: all the ABC television affiliates around the country. So as
Speaker 4: a result of what they did, they and in fact,
Speaker 4: they did not broadcast Kimmel's monologue last night, which was
Speaker 4: I thought a wonderful monologue. Basically, they deprived one out
Speaker 4: of every five stations and therefore millions of people in
Speaker 4: this country from hearing Kimmel's monologue. And I think they
Speaker 4: have every right to do that, that's up to them,
Speaker 4: but we all know they're doing that because they are
Speaker 4: supporters of Trump, they are supporters of what Brendan Carr
Speaker 4: is doing. And so as far as I'm concerned, I'm
Speaker 4: happy to publicly say this both Next Star and Sinclair
Speaker 4: are just two fascist enablers in the same way that
Speaker 4: Brendan Carr is. And to give Ted Cruz credit, and
Speaker 4: I'm not the first one to give him credit. I
Speaker 4: disagree with everything else that has ever come out of
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz's mouth. I disagree with every vote the man
Speaker 4: ever made in the Senate. If I was in Texas,
Speaker 4: he'd be the last person I'd vote for. But I
Speaker 4: have to publicly give him credit, as Kimmel did last night,
Speaker 4: for coming out and making the point. And on the
Speaker 4: one end, you can laugh about it, but on the
Speaker 4: other thing, that's serious consequences that what Brendan Carr the
Speaker 4: SEC was saying sounded like something Vito Corleone could have
Speaker 4: been easily saying. And again, for those who haven't seen
Speaker 4: the monologue that Kimmel gave last night, it's on YouTube.
Speaker 4: I highly recommend it. I'll give just one spoiler. Robert
Speaker 4: de Niro comes on from major role that he's brand
Speaker 4: But there is an important point in having de Niro,
Speaker 4: you know, play in effect a godfather a type. Yeah,
Speaker 4: because that is exactly what's going on. And I don't
Speaker 4: use the term fascist or fascist enabler lightly, But I
Speaker 4: don't think I'm exaggerating in the slightest that that's what
Speaker 4: those two operations Sinclair Next Star are doing. And clearly
Speaker 4: that's what Trump is doing. And I don't care how
Speaker 4: much he says other people are fascist. I don't care
Speaker 4: what other name anyone gives to it. What the nineteenth
Speaker 4: thirties in Germany has taught us is this is exactly
Speaker 4: the way the sleep walk into a fascist state both
Speaker 4: begins and proceeds until it gets to a point where
Speaker 4: there's no one left to object to them. You one
Speaker 4: by one. You start with Colbert, you go to Kimmel.
Speaker 4: Then okay, Jimmy found get rid of him. Okay, seth minds.
Speaker 4: I don't like him either. You know what saying that life?
Speaker 4: You know, who are they to make those points? So
Speaker 4: let's shut down that show. It's e et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: And eventually all you have are these dummies on Fox
Speaker 4: mouthing you know, Trump's points and that kind of country.
Speaker 4: It's not yet, you know, like Nazi Germany. No one
Speaker 4: has been rounded up and killed as far as I know, uh,
Speaker 4: you know, as part of that fascist march. But it's
Speaker 4: certainly something that's getting closer and closer to that. And
Speaker 4: when I'm talking about getting rounded, rounded up and killed,
Speaker 4: of course, what I'm talking about us getting very close
Speaker 4: to that is what Ice is doing to immigrants here
Speaker 4: in the United States. And so what's happening and what happened,
Speaker 4: you know, to Kimmel And you know, it's really something
Speaker 4: that has like an octopus, but even more than just
Speaker 4: eight tentacles, you know, fifty one hundred different fascistic tentacles
Speaker 4: that are out there gradually choking off, trying to choke
Speaker 4: off various parts of our democracy.
Speaker 3: Well, you know that's important because we talked about the
Speaker 3: big guys, Paul, But but what about the little guys?
Speaker 3: If you will like us, like this program and the
Speaker 3: writing that I do, you know, speaking personally, I'm feeling it.
Speaker 3: I mean, someone gave me a warning, for example, and said, hey,
Speaker 3: you know, if you write anything about Charlie Kirk anything,
Speaker 3: there's a group out there that's that's scouring the Internet
Speaker 3: for any mention and if it's it's disagreeable, you are
Speaker 3: attacked online, et cetera. So there is some intimidation going
Speaker 3: on out there. I'm aware of it. I certainly won't
Speaker 3: let it stop me. But I'm aware of it. Is
Speaker 3: that your experience at all and writing community. Are people
Speaker 3: aware that your big brother is watching?
Speaker 4: I'm definitely aware of it, you know. As you may know,
Speaker 4: I appeared on The ot Riley Factor back like two
Speaker 4: thousand and four, two thousand and five, two thousand and six,
Speaker 4: and on other Fox shows. I guess about a half
Speaker 4: a dozen or maybe even eight or nine times and
Speaker 4: different shows. And I have to tell you, after every
Speaker 4: single appearance on any of the Fox shows, which of
Speaker 4: course even back then, we're watched by people who today
Speaker 4: we'd say they're maga Americans. I would get I don't
Speaker 4: even know how they found my email. I would get flooded.
Speaker 5: You know, by emails, you know, saying I can't believe
Speaker 5: that form university you know, would hire you know, such
Speaker 5: a communist like you, you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: I'm going to write to the president of the university.
Speaker 4: And I said, by what means right to it?
Speaker 3: I got that said the same thing. I'm pretty sure
Speaker 3: I'll be supported and I work exactly.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to have a conversation with me, he said,
Speaker 4: Great guy, I just saw a come be my guest
Speaker 4: right to make sure you see, see me and listen.
Speaker 4: In the first Trump campaign in twenty sixteen, a on Facebook,
Speaker 4: a former student of mine. You know, I was politically
Speaker 4: talkative back then as I am now, and I was,
Speaker 4: you know, basically talking about, you know, all the problems
Speaker 4: with Trump, and you know why I thought it made
Speaker 4: sense for people to vote for Hillary. So I got
Speaker 4: a former student of mine basically wrote a vehement response
Speaker 4: to one of my posts, using language that I won't
Speaker 4: use here on your podcast, because since being frank is
Speaker 4: the only way to be we don't want anyone to
Speaker 4: get offended. But the post had absolutely upsecene language if
Speaker 4: you think about George Carlin. Seven thirty words exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 4: So I wrote them, and I was saying, look, I'm
Speaker 4: really very disappointed in your former student of mine, but
Speaker 4: I'm going to block you from now on. I'm not
Speaker 4: going to let you, you know, respond to my comments
Speaker 4: since that's the way you're talking. So, I mean, this
Speaker 4: is something that's been going on for a long time,
Speaker 4: and we've talked about this as well. I think social
Speaker 4: media buy and launch initially, but also in the long
Speaker 4: run odd democratizing forces because they do let anyone express themselves.
Speaker 4: I think that's good. But when you have a system
Speaker 4: in which anyone can express themselves, you have to be
Speaker 4: prepared for getting some very severe criticism. And in general,
Speaker 4: you know, I'm a great believer in Carl Popper's point
Speaker 4: that criticisms should always be welcome. It's the way we learn.
Speaker 4: But you know, sometimes the criticism is so virulent that
Speaker 4: it goes way way beyond being welcome as criticism. So hey,
Speaker 4: you know, as a professor, you're a professor too. If
Speaker 4: we didn't enjoy talking in public, we wouldn't become professors
Speaker 4: in the first place. And to me, it's the same
Speaker 4: thing whether I'm teaching a class, whether I'm here talking
Speaker 4: to you on being frank, whether I'm writing a blog post,
Speaker 4: whether I'm writing a book, all of that is the same.
Speaker 4: And I think we all have a responsibility to muster
Speaker 4: everything that we have to stand up against this march
Speaker 4: towards fascism, because it's very dangerous. It happened before in
Speaker 4: a democracy. It's not as if, you know, Hitler overthrew
Speaker 4: a king and replaced one kind of dictator ship with another.
Speaker 4: The Weimar public was an excellent democracy. They didn't have
Speaker 4: a First Amendment per se, but they had a strong
Speaker 4: part of their laws talked about freedom of press and
Speaker 4: freedom of speech and so on. That didn't stop Hitler
Speaker 4: in the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 3: You know, before we take the break, and I kind
Speaker 3: of teased it in my opening as well. You know,
Speaker 3: there have been champions of free speech. And you know,
Speaker 3: some of them are the obvious, that Ben Franklins and
Speaker 3: the Thomas Jeffersons, but others, and you mentioned, for example,
Speaker 3: George Carlin. Some of his stuff, if you listen to
Speaker 3: it today, is perfect, perfect for today, and championed the
Speaker 3: whole idea of free speech. Lenny Bruce, who was hounded
Speaker 3: for obscenity, but again under the guise of free speech.
Speaker 3: So and then I may also mentioned athletes, and there's
Speaker 3: a thing today and you mentioned also and de Niro
Speaker 3: has heard it. Entertainers should entertain, okay, athletes should perform.
Speaker 3: And I mentioned Muhammad Ali, Bill Russell, some of the
Speaker 3: great more outspoken helped to move civil rights, the needle forward,
Speaker 3: et cetera. You know, so what do you say to people,
Speaker 3: stay in your lane?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 3: Then you know, you know, we don't belong with that
Speaker 3: just just your thoughts on that I think might be interesting.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm glad you mentioned that, because this whole thing
Speaker 4: of staying in your lane has always rubbed me the
Speaker 4: wrong way, mainly because I think I have a lot
Speaker 4: of lanes. Right. I sing, I make records, I write poetry,
Speaker 4: I write songs. I'm a professor. I write science fiction.
Speaker 4: I write serious books about the media. Hey, I shuttle snow, Okay,
Speaker 4: I don't get prayed for that. I do that nothing.
Speaker 4: But the point is, human beings are inherently multi dimensional.
Speaker 4: And Robert Hinline, a great science fiction writer, once famously said,
Speaker 4: you know, I write different kinds of novels and stories.
Speaker 4: Don't tell me I have to stay in my lane.
Speaker 4: You know. The only living things that only do one thing.
Speaker 4: I guess he studied insects, he said, our insects. We
Speaker 4: human beings are not insects. We can do many different things.
Speaker 4: I think that's one of the reasons why we've been
Speaker 4: so successful as a species. Right, we've gotten off this planet,
Speaker 4: we've basically tamped down epidemics, We've done all kinds of
Speaker 4: amazing things, and that didn't come from people staying in
Speaker 4: their own lanes and Frankly, I think anyone whoever urges
Speaker 4: anyone else to stay in their own lane, you know
Speaker 4: what they should do. They should just shut up completely
Speaker 4: and not even stay in their lane. Just get out
Speaker 4: of all the lanes. Stay home exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Paul, we're gonna take a little bit of a break.
Speaker 3: We need to talk a little bit about Charlie Kirk
Speaker 3: for better or worse. Well, we'll stay in and we'll
Speaker 3: take the heat, but I want to talk about him
Speaker 3: on balance and if he was truly a champions as
Speaker 3: a free speech as some people are making out to be.
Speaker 3: I want your thoughts on that. But we're gonna take
Speaker 3: a little break first, and we'll come back with more
Speaker 3: of that. This is Being Frank. I'm your host, Frank Lebono.
Speaker 3: My very special guest is doctor Paul Levinson. We're talking
Speaker 3: the First Amendment, the f he Seed, so much more.
Speaker 3: We'll be back in just a few minutes. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 6: Hudson River Radio dot com. Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 2: Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 6: This is Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Being Frank, the Intelligent Conversation Podcast. Thanks
Speaker 3: for sticking with us. I'm your host, Frank Buono, and
Speaker 3: as always, our engineer is the legendary mailman mister Neil Richter.
Speaker 3: A very special guest is doctor Paul Evanson, and we
Speaker 3: continue our discussion of the First Amendment. Charlie kirkis next
Speaker 3: on the list. We've talked about Jimmy Kimmel, but I
Speaker 3: think it's important, Paul, especially within the broader context of
Speaker 3: our conversation of the First Amendment free speech, because certainly
Speaker 3: Charlie Kirk is labeled as a conservative activist, so he
Speaker 3: approached things from a conservative.
Speaker 4: Point of view.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, as in the broader context of things, but
Speaker 3: also he would do these one on one debate things.
Speaker 3: That was whole part of his mo He would go
Speaker 3: on college campuses and set up and proved me wrong
Speaker 3: type things, and that was used laud him, if you will,
Speaker 3: as a great proponent of free speech. He was opening
Speaker 3: up dialogue. But sometimes if I look and I read
Speaker 3: between the lines, I'm not so sure about that as
Speaker 3: his ultimate goal, that's really what he was looking to accomplish,
Speaker 3: to really establish true discourse rather than just hang his
Speaker 3: label on the conversation.
Speaker 4: Your thoughts, Well, first, let me say that I think
Speaker 4: bullets are absolutely the worst thing for democracy, in addition
Speaker 4: to the damage to wounding people and killing people. Anytime
Speaker 4: a political argument, for that matter, any argument, but since
Speaker 4: we're talking about politics here, anytime a political dispute is
Speaker 4: settled by a bullet, that's the death of deocracy in
Speaker 4: that situation. So I don't care who the person is,
Speaker 4: how strongly I might disagree with their politics. There never
Speaker 4: is any good that comes from even threatening a person
Speaker 4: with being shot, let alone violence, and I think that
Speaker 4: has to be made absolutely clear.
Speaker 3: I agree with you. It's almost trying to have to
Speaker 3: say that any human being. I'm again just but it
Speaker 3: is important to say it's never acceptable on any level.
Speaker 3: But please continue.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just want to get back to this second,
Speaker 4: just to be clear. If you're talking about someone like
Speaker 4: Adolf Hitler, who basically commanded, you know, setting up concentration
Speaker 4: camps that killed millions of people, and and by the way,
Speaker 4: not just Jewish people who were put into those camps,
Speaker 4: but as they were called then gypsies were rounded up,
Speaker 4: disabled people round up and so on, and so that
Speaker 4: is a different situation. Hitler wasn't just someone promoting certain
Speaker 4: ideas that people strongly disagree with. Hitler is responsible for
Speaker 4: the death of maions of people. So you know, there
Speaker 4: are certain occasions such as that, when some kind of
Speaker 4: monster takes over a country that unfortunately violence might be
Speaker 4: the only possible thing we could do. And to be
Speaker 4: crystal clear, I don't think for a moment that Trump
Speaker 4: is Hitler. If you want someone who's closer to Hitler
Speaker 4: would probably be in power today, would probably be Vladimir Putin,
Speaker 4: and even he is further down the road towards that,
Speaker 4: but he also is not like Hitler. As far as
Speaker 4: I know, there's no one in power no country today
Speaker 4: that was as horrible as Nazi Germany in the thirties.
Speaker 4: So I just wanted to make you know that clear.
Speaker 4: As far as Charlie Kirk's political point of views, you know,
Speaker 4: it's obvious that I disagree very strongly with Trump with
Speaker 4: mag Americans, and therefore I disagree with anyone who basically
Speaker 4: agrees with that. But people are complex and they have
Speaker 4: different facets to what they think, and it's always a mistake,
Speaker 4: I think, to lump everyone in to like the same
Speaker 4: bag or in the same genre, you know, because in
Speaker 4: fact human beings are more complicated and so Ted Cruz
Speaker 4: would be an excellent example. We have to cite Ted
Speaker 4: Cruz as deserving our thanks for standing up for freedom
Speaker 4: of speech and freedom of press and the First Amendment
Speaker 4: and attacking the firing of Jimmy Kimmel and what the
Speaker 4: the FCC was doing. So although I disagreed with Charlie
Speaker 4: Kirk's politics, I do think he was trying to do
Speaker 4: some good, you know, going on college campuses, opening up discussions, debates.
Speaker 4: That's good. You know, I regret that, you know, I
Speaker 4: never had a chance to sit down and have a
Speaker 4: debate with him. I think it would have been a
Speaker 4: lot of fun. He was a very skilled debater, very
Speaker 4: very eloquent, compassionate speaker. He probably would have gotten the
Speaker 4: best of me, you know, in certain points. I like
Speaker 4: to think maybe I would have gotten a point to
Speaker 4: across myself. But the point is, if we're talking about
Speaker 4: someone like Charlie Kirk, who was trying to get younger
Speaker 4: people involved in the discussion, did go around to college campuses,
Speaker 4: I think that's a good thing, even though at the
Speaker 4: same time I disagree with what his political point of
Speaker 4: view was.
Speaker 3: You've really kind of addressed it, but just to kind
Speaker 3: of wrap it up. You know, it's a challenge where
Speaker 3: you have compassion for this young man while at the
Speaker 3: same time disagreeing about him politically. So when you are
Speaker 3: with someone who was a more conservative bent, how do
Speaker 3: you approach that, you know, where again you show a
Speaker 3: level of compassion for the loss of a young man,
Speaker 3: but yeah, at the same time firming your beliefs that
Speaker 3: he was on the wrong track at least politically.
Speaker 4: Well, look, it's not easy. And I mentioned that I
Speaker 4: was on the O'Reilly factor, I don't know three or
Speaker 4: four times, you know, back in the early twenty oughts,
Speaker 4: and Bill O'Reilly is someone else who's political views even
Speaker 4: now I completely disagree with. But I think there is
Speaker 4: a way to have a civil conversation with someone. And
Speaker 4: you know, the case of my being on O'Reilly, my
Speaker 4: only frustration was I didn't get to make as many
Speaker 4: of the points that I wanted to make because I
Speaker 4: was only you know, talking to him for five or
Speaker 4: ten minutes then he went on to something else. But
Speaker 4: I always welcomed the fact, you know, people, you know,
Speaker 4: people friends of mine would say, may, what are you
Speaker 4: doing going on Fox? What are you doing talking to
Speaker 4: a Riley, and I would try to explain to him
Speaker 4: those people, because I think it's good to talk to
Speaker 4: people that you disagree with. That again, is what democracy
Speaker 4: is all about. So and you know, that's why, you know,
Speaker 4: it's never a good thing ever to have any political voice,
Speaker 4: as long as that person is not violent like Adolf
Speaker 4: Hitler was, you know, directly promoting and you know, killing
Speaker 4: so many people indirectly. It doesn't matter what their politics
Speaker 4: or point of view is. It's always helpful to have
Speaker 4: a dialogue. And I think that's how we learn, that's
Speaker 4: how we grow. Every once in a while we were
Speaker 4: able to change on one's opinion. Sometimes they might change
Speaker 4: our opinion. So I'm always open to talking to a conservative.
Speaker 4: Look over the years at Fornham, I've had students, you know,
Speaker 4: who basically disagree with a lot of what I say.
Speaker 4: Just last year, I had a student in one of
Speaker 4: my classes. I was going on about the need to
Speaker 4: basically have much stronger gun control than we currently have
Speaker 4: now and obvious for all two obvious reasons. And you know,
Speaker 4: he was arguing quite eloquently, I think incorrectly that but
Speaker 4: nonetheless he thought it was unfair to penalize people who
Speaker 4: weren't doing horrible things with their weapons if they get
Speaker 4: enjoyment from their weapons, and there's no reason to think
Speaker 4: that they're going to do anything other than I don't know,
Speaker 4: target practice. I mean, then there's a separate issue. How
Speaker 4: do you feel about somebody who kills animals with weapons?
Speaker 4: But the point is he was a student in my class.
Speaker 4: I was professor. I let him talk. You know. I
Speaker 4: didn't say okay, no, I'm sorry, you're wrong and go
Speaker 4: on to the next. Thing. I always welcome discussion in
Speaker 4: my class is because I think again, that's the way
Speaker 4: we grow, that's the way we learn. That is the
Speaker 4: truest vehicle of democracy. Dialogue.
Speaker 3: Well, you know you can come on being Frank. I
Speaker 3: give you the whole hour, and so glad to have you.
Speaker 3: It's always always intelligent conversation, Doctor Paul Levitson, Thank you
Speaker 3: so much.
Speaker 4: My pleasure anytime. You know.
Speaker 3: Of course, we offer special thanks to our listeners who
Speaker 3: take time to give us a voice in their lives.
Speaker 3: Remember you offer a fresh topic just about every week.
Speaker 3: You can catch us wherever and whenever you get your
Speaker 3: favorite podcasts like Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio and all the rest.
Speaker 3: You can check us out on the Hudson River Radio
Speaker 3: Facebook page. Leave us a comment too. You know I
Speaker 3: always leave you with two last little nuggets.
Speaker 4: I called them.
Speaker 3: One a slogan that's relative to our conversation, and then
Speaker 3: some music. First, it was very interesting. We mentioned John
Speaker 3: Stuart Mill as one of the great champions of free speech,
Speaker 3: and he is the one who said and she used
Speaker 3: quite often these days bad men need nothing more to
Speaker 3: compass their ends than the good men should look on
Speaker 3: and do nothing, Okay, And that was during a inaugural
Speaker 3: address delivered at the University of Saint Andrew. And of
Speaker 3: course closing music. One of the reasons I like to
Speaker 3: invite Paul because he always brings his own music with him.
Speaker 3: What are we going to hear now, Paul, Well.
Speaker 4: This is a song I wrote back in nineteen sixty six.
Speaker 4: I was in a group called the New Outlook. We were,
Speaker 4: like I sort of folk rock group, and you know,
Speaker 4: we love the Loving Spoonful and you know, and some
Speaker 4: of the early bea stuff that was available then. So
Speaker 4: this song is entitled Sunshines Mine, and I thought it
Speaker 4: would be a good song to conclude this episode of
Speaker 4: being Frank with because it's a happy song. It's an
Speaker 4: upbeat song. We've been talking about some pretty grave, serious things.
Speaker 4: And I'm also happy about the fact that I wrote
Speaker 4: both the lyrics and music to the song, and it's
Speaker 4: me singing lead to the song as well. So what
Speaker 4: more can you ask for?
Speaker 3: It's all Paul Evans and all the time good stuff,
Speaker 3: you know. I just want to remind folks too that
Speaker 3: they could read my writing. I also write as well.
Speaker 3: It's the Nayak News and Views. I've published something fresh
Speaker 3: every Friday. You can catch them online Niack News and
Speaker 3: Views for our engineer The Mailman with Neil rick Or.
Speaker 3: I'm your host, Frank Wilbono, and we hope to have
Speaker 3: you join us for the next being. Frank, We're the
Speaker 3: only way to be is Frank.
Speaker 7: Thanks everyone, wind Or Winter Chilli starting from start everywhere
Speaker 7: further Bad.
Speaker 8: Sunshine girl, you make my world a good their place
Speaker 8: to living when you shine.
Speaker 2: You made mama.
Speaker 9: Make my lave good living.
Speaker 4: S shin.
Speaker 1: Big Blad rain Brod, build this guy, London claps, made
Speaker 1: this grid only kincert a.
Speaker 2: Sun John girl, you make my world for bad place
Speaker 2: to live when you shine. You been Mama made Mama.
Speaker 9: Butlan aside shot.
Speaker 2: Sunshine Girl. You make my world for you read place.
Speaker 7: To live.
Speaker 2: When you shine. You been Mama made Mama.
Speaker 9: Bolan side shot my sh Shoes
Speaker 6: Hudson River Radio dot com