Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w BZY Boston's
Speaker 1: new video TikTok, TikTok, TikTok, TikTok.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Nicole, no pun intended. Right. The clock is
Speaker 2: ticking on TikTok. I know you've heard it before. Sorry,
Speaker 2: dad joke had to do it. This is quite a
Speaker 2: thing that the Supreme Court up held. We are going
Speaker 2: to talk about TikTok going away. The financial impact is
Speaker 2: staggering for some people. And I'm more concerned because my
Speaker 2: thirteen year old daughter is going to go out of
Speaker 2: her mind. And if she goes out of her mind,
Speaker 2: that goes That means I go out of my mind.
Speaker 2: So which am I more concerned with? National security or
Speaker 2: my teenage daughter not having a meltdown? I don't want
Speaker 2: to answer that. It ends with us terrific movie. A
Speaker 2: lot of controversy regarding the two stars. We're gonna get
Speaker 2: into it with Cooper Lawrence. She's our entertainment guru. That's
Speaker 2: coming up at nine o'clock. Taani Ray, Fox Football Expert,
Speaker 2: Fox Sports and FS one joins us at ten o'clock
Speaker 2: talking about Vrabel and the new look Patriots, plus your
Speaker 2: calls throughout the evening at six one, seven, two, five,
Speaker 2: four to ten thirty Gary Taguay and for Dan Ray.
Speaker 2: Tonight we kick things off with TikTok as I try
Speaker 2: to understand all of it. It's joining us right now,
Speaker 2: is Joe Lopino Esposito, the deputy Legal policy director at
Speaker 2: Federal Policy Chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation. You must
Speaker 2: have a card that's the size of a billboard, Joe,
Speaker 2: Welcome to night Side.
Speaker 3: I sometimes do yes, Thanks.
Speaker 2: So much for having things Okay, this seems so strange
Speaker 2: to me, And full disclosure, I don't do TikTok. This
Speaker 2: radio station with Matt Scherra has done very well on
Speaker 2: TikTok Okay, so TikTok is really not just for kids anymore.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of business people make a lot of
Speaker 2: money on it, and we'll get to that. But what
Speaker 2: is so strange for me as an American citizen, as
Speaker 2: someone who has always taken pride in the fact that
Speaker 2: this is a country of free speech, no matter how insulting,
Speaker 2: no matter how racist, no matter how homophobic, no matter
Speaker 2: how awful something may be spewed out of somebody's mouth,
Speaker 2: they can say it. But this thing is being shut down.
Speaker 2: It is so foreign to me that something within these
Speaker 2: forty eight states would be cut off. It's so weird
Speaker 2: to me. It's weird.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's a unique situation. You know, in
Speaker 3: this particular case where the US government really attacked TikTok,
Speaker 3: wasn't from the perspective of the First Amendment, because obviously
Speaker 3: that was their best defense, and that's what the court
Speaker 3: dealt with today when they they have their opinion, right,
Speaker 3: and in the unsigned opinion, what they said was, look,
Speaker 3: there is a compelling interest of regarding national security notwithstanding
Speaker 3: the First Amendment concerns. So, you know, there's the things
Speaker 3: that we talk about often you have these levels of
Speaker 3: scrutiny of scrutiny, So you have strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny,
Speaker 3: which is the two that we're talking about now, And
Speaker 3: when you can judge how closely, essentially, you need to
Speaker 3: look at other good reasons for the government's reduced for
Speaker 3: doing what they're doing. So in this case, they said, look,
Speaker 3: because this is a content neutral decision, right, it's not
Speaker 3: saying because of certain things on the app is why
Speaker 3: we're banning it. What they're saying is our concern is
Speaker 3: actually over national security, so it's a content neutral ruling,
Speaker 3: and therefore it comes under intermediate scrutiny, which is a
Speaker 3: much easier bar for the government to reach versus strict scrutiny.
Speaker 3: And that's why we have the band staying in effect.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and I understand that, and I get it,
Speaker 2: and I think we're just at the point now because
Speaker 2: of technology, is this is a reality we will probably
Speaker 2: see be implemented again, right exactly.
Speaker 3: And it's funny you mentioned with the changes in technology.
Speaker 3: The court actually starts its opinion by saying, look, we
Speaker 3: know things are going to change, but we're hopeing not
Speaker 3: to screw this one up too much in so many ways. Right,
Speaker 3: So that's what they say, kind of from the outset,
Speaker 3: knowing that they are going to be things that come
Speaker 3: along and that could be very different. And Justice Gore
Speaker 3: such it is conturned with the opinion said, look, there's
Speaker 3: a chance this will just get replaced with some other
Speaker 3: app that will be just as damaging according to the
Speaker 3: United States government, and then like guess won't cross that
Speaker 3: bridge when we get there. So they can't know everything,
Speaker 3: but they are looking at it here and you know,
Speaker 3: to his credit as well, and frankly that just thee
Speaker 3: so of my Earth's credit as well. They were pretty
Speaker 3: clear that they don't like that. The court overall said, look,
Speaker 3: we can't say for sure. We're just gonna assume that
Speaker 3: the First Amendment is involved here. We haven't really had
Speaker 3: time to look into that enough, just as so of
Speaker 3: my ars said, no, of course it does. Of course
Speaker 3: it implicates the First Amendment. That's not even let's get
Speaker 3: rid of the weasel words. Of course it does. But
Speaker 3: now that said, I still agree with the decision, and
Speaker 3: just this course that's said similar that, Look, you know,
Speaker 3: I don't really care for these levels of scrutiny. We
Speaker 3: spend a lot of time caring about exactly which level
Speaker 3: it should it ought to sit into to me, if
Speaker 3: there is a good enough compelling interest like this is,
Speaker 3: and really backing with the US government presented as evidence
Speaker 3: in their public evidence regarding all this, they said, look,
Speaker 3: this is enough, and therefore I agree with the judgment
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 2: How do you feel you agree? I understand what you're saying,
Speaker 2: But as a person, as a United States citizen, do
Speaker 2: you feel that our national security is threatened because of TikTok,
Speaker 2: give me a number seven eight, Because the way I
Speaker 2: look at it here is in order for the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court to do this, it's got to be pretty.
Speaker 3: Serious, right, And that's the thing, you know, I ultimately,
Speaker 3: you know, the blame if if somebody's uphosted this, the
Speaker 3: blame goes to Congress and as well as President Biden,
Speaker 3: although he also strangely has said he's not going to
Speaker 3: enforce the law when it goes into effect on Sunday,
Speaker 3: so I'm not quite sure why he would have signed
Speaker 3: the bill. But that's beside the point. The point is
Speaker 3: that Congress has done this and the President signed it,
Speaker 3: so now it's up to the Supreme Court really just
Speaker 3: make that call. So with the evidence presented to them
Speaker 3: and with the short time I may had, the decision
Speaker 3: does make some sense. That said, I think overall, the
Speaker 3: discussion that's in play is what is really the national
Speaker 3: security threat? Is it that you know, if they're stealing data?
Speaker 3: And one of the things that Justine Scoresu specifically points
Speaker 3: out as well is that, look, it gives them access
Speaker 3: to your contact list, so that includes third parties that
Speaker 3: did not consent to this. So you know, if I
Speaker 3: have TikTok and you're in my phone well, and you
Speaker 3: have your photo and your home address and everything on
Speaker 3: my contacts on my phone. You know, TikTok can now
Speaker 3: access that data. And because they refuse to divest from
Speaker 3: the Chinese government, they're saying, look, this seems to be
Speaker 3: what the Chinese government is after after this information. So
Speaker 3: if that's the case. Again, I don't know enough about
Speaker 3: national security to know what all the concerns are there,
Speaker 3: but they're talking about things like blackmail and who knows
Speaker 3: what else. If there's other information that could be found
Speaker 3: from other third parties on say my phone, and they're
Speaker 3: looking into you, right, So I understand where they're coming
Speaker 3: from there. So I don't think it's without cause. But
Speaker 3: it's tricky because they had such a tight deadline and frankly,
Speaker 3: it really wasn't enough to the Supreme courts at decide
Speaker 3: on this. It was that Congress made a determination and
Speaker 3: the evidence was frankly good enough.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Call me apathetic,
Speaker 2: I'm just lazy. I just feel that my information is
Speaker 2: out there. No matter what I mean. I do the
Speaker 2: best I can. I protect my social Security number I'm
Speaker 2: not stupid. I get a lot of phishing emails and
Speaker 2: texts all the time. I do the best I can.
Speaker 2: But I also realize that with the data flying through
Speaker 2: the air and how we're so addicted to technology, if
Speaker 2: somebody says to me, yeah, China can get Gary Tanger's
Speaker 2: home address, I'm like, what am I going to do
Speaker 2: about it? Like, I think they can get it, whether
Speaker 2: they use TikTok or not. See know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: You know, am I wrong in that? Is my attitude
Speaker 2: too leisurely?
Speaker 3: No? And I think what you're hitting on is actually
Speaker 3: sort of part of what the court said and what
Speaker 3: Justice Coursus said as well. It's like, look, you know
Speaker 3: what we consider a threat. They're not saying it directly
Speaker 3: like this, but the way I read it is, you
Speaker 3: know what we're seeing as a national security threat today?
Speaker 3: That may very well change for I think some of
Speaker 3: the reasons you're mentioning, right, it's so ubiquitous that we
Speaker 3: have this information. We have so many apps, and frankly,
Speaker 3: I'm sure I don't know all these and apps, of
Speaker 3: all the permissions of every app, but I'm sure plenty
Speaker 3: of popular apps that are in the us have the
Speaker 3: same types of permissions.
Speaker 2: There's no question, there's no doubt. I mean, you see it, Joe.
Speaker 2: It shows up in your feed. Like you if you
Speaker 2: look for a particular product, say I look for I
Speaker 2: don't know, a coffee maker, whatever, then I'm gonna get
Speaker 2: next thing. You know, on my Instagram feed, I got
Speaker 2: fifteen coffee companies sending me stuff. You know. So I'm
Speaker 2: kind of like, when I look at this, I go
Speaker 2: and we're so damn lazy. You know, we're just so spoiled.
Speaker 2: We go, eh, Okay, so you know, China knows where
Speaker 2: I live. Okay, I'll put up with it. You know.
Speaker 2: That's just the way I feel about this. I don't know.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's that's just the way I feel
Speaker 2: about it. But that's why I wonder. I wonder if
Speaker 2: there's something else we don't know, if there's something else
Speaker 2: larger at play. Yeah, somebody could you know, we could
Speaker 2: be in an episode of The Americans, you know, from Fox,
Speaker 2: where somebody could come to my door and say, okay, Tangue,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna you have to become a spy for Russia.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't think that's going to happen, but
Speaker 2: I don't know if they need TikTok to do that right.
Speaker 3: And actually, it's interesting you mentioned that one of the
Speaker 3: things that Justine Goresa was pleased with the court overall,
Speaker 3: and stacisfically called out that the Court did not do that.
Speaker 3: The US government was trying to offer confidential information and
Speaker 3: evidence to the court as well and say like, we
Speaker 3: would love you for you to view this, and by
Speaker 3: the way, TikTok can't even view it, but we would
Speaker 3: like the court to view it. And they rejected that
Speaker 3: and said, look, we don't know what's going on here,
Speaker 3: so to your point, there may be something else to play,
Speaker 3: but that was not part of their decision today. So
Speaker 3: they were able to do it without that information. The
Speaker 3: US government was saying, well, the additional information that they
Speaker 3: have would have been even more convincing.
Speaker 2: Why did the court reject it? I think it when
Speaker 2: they want to look at it.
Speaker 3: So the court didn't like the idea that they were
Speaker 3: protecting it from the plaintiffs as well, So I think
Speaker 3: it Delvin Dow again with the short timeline. They didn't
Speaker 3: do a full analysis of it, but because of the
Speaker 3: fact that they said, look, we have this evidence on TikTok,
Speaker 3: and by the way, TikTok can't even see it. You know,
Speaker 3: it's not a criminal proceeding, but it doesn't feel quite right.
Speaker 3: So that I think is one of the issues that
Speaker 3: was to play there. But I think very much to
Speaker 3: your points, there could be something else, but the court
Speaker 3: got to the conclusion without that.
Speaker 2: Okay, Joe, we got to take a break. Can you
Speaker 2: hang out for another segment? I want to I have
Speaker 2: some more questions about the Trump administration in this coming up.
Speaker 2: Absolutely okay, Absolutely, okay, Joe. The pino Esposito was with
Speaker 2: US Deputy Legal Policy Director in Federal Policy chief for
Speaker 2: the Pacific Legal Foundation. Also knows a lot about the
Speaker 2: big time court. That's all coming up next to WBZ.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Speaker 1: Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: Harry Tangway, but dare tonight welcome back Night's side. W
Speaker 2: see joining us right now. He's doing the pino Esposito
Speaker 2: from the Pacific Legal Foundation. We're talking about the banning
Speaker 2: of TikTok, which is going to begin on Sunday. Of course,
Speaker 2: it's going to happen over time and when the app
Speaker 2: doesn't get updated, eventually everyone will lose the power to
Speaker 2: use TikTok.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: But this is what I find so interesting, Joe, is
Speaker 2: the criticism of Trump or the Trump administration was, you
Speaker 2: know he had the Supreme Court in his back pocket, right,
Speaker 2: Like okay. This guy has even said one of the
Speaker 2: reasons he may have been elected was because of TikTok Right,
Speaker 2: And he doesn't he doesn't want it to go away.
Speaker 2: So does he when he takes office, does he have
Speaker 2: any recourse?
Speaker 3: So this is where, of course they can't make it easy.
Speaker 3: So because of the fact there would have been a
Speaker 3: way to do this, so they set the deadline for
Speaker 3: this for the nineteenth, right, so it's before he takes office,
Speaker 3: and there is a provision in the law that the
Speaker 3: president can extend it by ninety days if there's significant progress.
Speaker 3: I believe it's the phrase they use towards a sale
Speaker 3: of the company. So the problem is it's unclear if
Speaker 3: it means on the day of like on the nineteenth,
Speaker 3: or if when he comes in at noon on the
Speaker 3: twentieth he says, I think they're really trying. We're going
Speaker 3: to give them another ninety days. So that may be
Speaker 3: the first challenge that he faces when it comes to
Speaker 3: this is can he if he wants to delay it,
Speaker 3: can he even validly delay it? Or is that up
Speaker 3: the President Biden to do it, which again he has
Speaker 3: said that he doesn't plan to enforce the law, in
Speaker 3: which case I think he'd be within his rights, according
Speaker 3: to the law, to certified and give them another ninety days.
Speaker 3: But the whole thing is very odd. I mean, I
Speaker 3: think you could have solved this by making it the twentieth,
Speaker 3: allowing either president to do it, because you would have
Speaker 3: been talking about noon when the changeover happens, so they're
Speaker 3: both president on the twentieth. So to me, that's sort
Speaker 3: of the fix that you would have given the option. Obviously,
Speaker 3: when they passed that, they didn't know who the next
Speaker 3: president would be. But you know, even if it was
Speaker 3: going from Biden to Harris, you would have had two
Speaker 3: different people there having the chance to make a decision.
Speaker 3: So it's I don't think it was the best choice
Speaker 3: to make it on the nineteenth because now you have
Speaker 3: this additional problem where it may not be in the
Speaker 3: hands of the incoming president.
Speaker 2: Well as far as Trump is concerned, I'm not so
Speaker 2: sure it would be a priority for him because this
Speaker 2: is his second term. I mean, I don't know if
Speaker 2: that's a hill he would die on, do.
Speaker 3: You, Yeah, exactly. But you know, I think, and he
Speaker 3: said this recently, is that he knows there's going to
Speaker 3: be a lot of things he's going to go after
Speaker 3: try to overturn, you know, specifically go We do a
Speaker 3: lot of work in like property rights and environmental law,
Speaker 3: and there's a lot of things that President Biden has
Speaker 3: done in the last couple of weeks that he's claiming
Speaker 3: sort of you know, lock off certain areas from oil
Speaker 3: and gas exploration, things like that. So there are some
Speaker 3: provisions where he can President Trump could outright just reverse it,
Speaker 3: and other ones that they're going to go to court.
Speaker 3: So I mean, I I think at this point we'll
Speaker 3: start looking at to how many people they hire at
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice to go after these issues, and
Speaker 3: that may determine how higher a priority some of these
Speaker 3: issues are, particularly this one, because this is such an oddball,
Speaker 3: you know, dating issue where they could have just be
Speaker 3: give him the power or perhaps he's you know, not
Speaker 3: going to be able to do that, and we'll see
Speaker 3: where it goes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just doesn't seem that high on the list
Speaker 2: for me. But what floored me. And we have a
Speaker 2: guest coming up at ten o'clock time to Array Fox
Speaker 2: of Fox Sports. She's a terrific sports personality in California.
Speaker 2: She makes money on TikTok. She you know, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't want to quote what she makes, but I
Speaker 2: was floored that the average income on TikTok is one
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty one thousand dollars a year. Now, I
Speaker 2: don't know how many people that. I don't know what
Speaker 2: the quantity is, right, I don't know if that's one
Speaker 2: hundred people. I don't know if that's two hundred people.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. But I know people supplement their income
Speaker 2: five hundred bucks here or three under books here, six
Speaker 2: hundred bucks, shit, whatever. I mean, this is a big deal.
Speaker 2: This is going to hurt some people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, And you know it's you know, the analogy
Speaker 3: would be that some other businesses or other outlets where
Speaker 3: they suddenly they're legal and now they're not. We've had
Speaker 3: that over the years. You know, certain businesses have determined
Speaker 3: our violation, say the FTC right. You had companies a
Speaker 3: number of years ago that had, you know, little miniature
Speaker 3: antennas and you can get your local networks from a
Speaker 3: miniature antenna at their server. The Supreme Court said, guess
Speaker 3: what that's not. That's not allowed to violate the airways
Speaker 3: laws and therefore that's the end of that, and that
Speaker 3: def holds the business. So unfortunately, we do see that
Speaker 3: a lot throughout the law. And yeah, this is one
Speaker 3: in particular where I think it implicates a lot of
Speaker 3: the rights of the individuals on there, which you know,
Speaker 3: the court did try to tackle, but they said, look,
Speaker 3: this is sort of an issue separate and apart from that.
Speaker 3: But you're absolutely right, it is going to affect a
Speaker 3: number of people in the pocketbook as well.
Speaker 2: Have you heard, because I have not, you know, looking
Speaker 2: over the web in different news sources. But there must
Speaker 2: be an entity ready to take over TikTok or take
Speaker 2: its place. There's got to be somebody, I mean, Bezos
Speaker 2: has to have somebody, or Apple has to have somebody
Speaker 2: in the basement with a product ready to go saying
Speaker 2: you've lost TikTok. But here's your here's the solution.
Speaker 3: Right, you know. And there's been a number of rumors.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think I saw yesterday that you know,
Speaker 3: the YouTube personality mister Beast was going to make a
Speaker 3: play for it. So, I mean, I think we've we've
Speaker 3: seen everyone who could possibly get engaged on this. We
Speaker 3: saw some action for more Trump Cabinet secretaries. I think
Speaker 3: we're engaged in a possible sale earlier in the or
Speaker 3: I guess last year when we saw that in some
Speaker 3: of the headlines. So yeah, I mean I wouldn't be
Speaker 3: surprised if it's possible. But what being reported is that,
Speaker 3: you know, the Chinese government is not allowing them to
Speaker 3: divest from the parent company Bye Dance, which you know
Speaker 3: to some people. You saw Senator Tom Cotton was out
Speaker 3: there today saying, look this, here's the proof. Here's all
Speaker 3: the proof we needed. They want to allow them to
Speaker 3: dive back. If they're a successful business, I should just
Speaker 3: let them go. Well look there you go. It's the
Speaker 3: spy app. And I proved my point. So, I mean
Speaker 3: it's not I don't know for sure, but it's not
Speaker 3: a bad argument.
Speaker 2: Well what about just starting new I mean just saying
Speaker 2: I'm going to start the tangwe app.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, yeah, So somebody else could come along and
Speaker 3: do a version of this and if you look. I
Speaker 3: mean a lot of the other social networking sites has
Speaker 3: tried to do versions of this, right, Like, you know
Speaker 3: that they all kind of steal from each other and
Speaker 3: take good ideas, sure, and bad ideas. So I wouldn't
Speaker 3: be surprised if you suddenly saw a new feature more
Speaker 3: prominently on Facebook that looked a lot like TikTok. They
Speaker 3: seem to be the ones who moved pretty quickly in
Speaker 3: that regard, so there's definitely a chance that will happen.
Speaker 3: And I guess we'll just see if the innovation takes
Speaker 3: over and who really picks it up. You know, obviously
Speaker 3: they were the leader in the market, but if they
Speaker 3: do go away, it does open up the opportunity for
Speaker 3: someone else to take the rings.
Speaker 2: Well, the new Secretary of Entrepreneurship, but whatever his title is.
Speaker 2: I'm surprised Musk doesn't have like a ready to go
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, like boom, here it is you.
Speaker 2: This is the replacement for TikTok. Just go we do
Speaker 2: exactly what TikTok. Did you pick up right where you
Speaker 2: left off? I really do. I mean, I'm really surprised
Speaker 2: that that's not out there. I think people are missing
Speaker 2: the boat on that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, good point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know that really with all of the technology,
Speaker 2: with Apple and Facebook and you know, all of these guys,
Speaker 2: you think they'd be ready to swoop in on it
Speaker 2: because where we are a country of convenience and that
Speaker 2: if the China, China does not want to divest, TikTok
Speaker 2: goes away, you know, we'll just come on. We're technical,
Speaker 2: we're digital whores, man. You know, we're not loyal. We're
Speaker 2: not loyal to anyone. Somebody comes in and gives us
Speaker 2: as our digital fix, we'll just go to them. We'll
Speaker 2: just go to that digital pusher, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: That's what we are as a society.
Speaker 3: We don't care, right, and that seems the case that
Speaker 3: we are willing to jump. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: we saw, you know, some on the last and a
Speaker 3: number of people just said, look they were going to
Speaker 3: move away from Twitter, and they try Blue Sky, and
Speaker 3: they tried threads through Facebook, through Instagram and they haven't
Speaker 3: gone very far.
Speaker 2: But you could still get it, is my point. I mean,
Speaker 2: you're not gonna be able to get it. So yeah,
Speaker 2: oh I agree with that. Like I'm still on X.
Speaker 2: You know, I think he's crazy. I mean, I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't believe anybody anymore. I'm an isolationist. I just
Speaker 2: hide in my house. I just don't want to know,
Speaker 2: you know, when the world's coming to an end. Don't
Speaker 2: tell me, don't text me, don't tweet me, don't let
Speaker 2: me know. But and I think everybody's crazy on both
Speaker 2: sides of the aisle right now. So you know, I'm
Speaker 2: not I'm not in favor of anyone, but you know
Speaker 2: it when it comes to musking these guys, I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm surprised. He's just just not ready to go. So
Speaker 2: my point was, I'm too lazy to get off X
Speaker 2: because it's still there. But if TikTok's not there, you know,
Speaker 2: and you have a chance to make money. If you
Speaker 2: provide an alternative, I think you I would think somebody
Speaker 2: would jump on it. I have to ask you a
Speaker 2: question before you go, And I may be putting in
Speaker 2: a bad spot, but you know, I just think all
Speaker 2: lawyers are kind of the same, and you guys just
Speaker 2: know everything. Do you have an opinion, because what I'm
Speaker 2: fascinated to see is what happens with the border?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Do you have any Yeah?
Speaker 3: So yeah, you know, it'll be interesting. I think you
Speaker 3: have a number of issues at play, right. You have
Speaker 3: that the president is more than likely going to declare
Speaker 3: a national emergency regarding the border, so that automatically gives
Speaker 3: them a lot more power to do things. It's still
Speaker 3: you know, it's not absolute, but it's it gives them
Speaker 3: a little bit more leeway to take some actions that
Speaker 3: he may want to do about actually physically securing the
Speaker 3: border or otherwise. And then there's going to be sort
Speaker 3: of the the enforcement within the border now. Right, so
Speaker 3: everyone who's already here what happens next and what they've
Speaker 3: been said, and I think where they think they will
Speaker 3: certainly have the easiest time will be going after people
Speaker 3: who are here illegally and have committed crimes. Right, so
Speaker 3: that that will be the easiest one. Anybody has a
Speaker 3: ICE detainer, on an immigration and customs detainer, that should
Speaker 3: be relatively easy to you. You know, finding everybody is
Speaker 3: not an easy job, certainly, but for the legal aspect,
Speaker 3: that's the easiest one to do. So it's after that
Speaker 3: and seeing how long that takes to see what happens next.
Speaker 3: So does it mean that they eventually come to some
Speaker 3: sort of deal or agreement in Congress that has some
Speaker 3: sort of pathiwlay of citizenship. It's possible, but it's so
Speaker 3: hard to predict at this point, just not knowing what
Speaker 3: those first steps are going to take and if that's
Speaker 3: really going to be seen as enough by not only
Speaker 3: by Trump officials who have been wanting to get back
Speaker 3: at this and sort of fix the problem, but also
Speaker 3: by the American people who certainly voted to take action
Speaker 3: on these issues. And again we're seeing that red blue
Speaker 3: and otherwise that there's some general agreement on what should
Speaker 3: be done here. So at that point, once you hit
Speaker 3: the things that are generally agreed upon, your sort of
Speaker 3: eighty percent issues, to what degree does the president want
Speaker 3: to go further and saying, look, I want to do
Speaker 3: more here, because there will always equal people calling for more, right,
Speaker 3: So it's a matter of a political calculation and certainly
Speaker 3: a legal calculation. Well, it's how far you want to go.
Speaker 3: So at this point I think it's a bit of
Speaker 3: a wait and see and see what happens when I
Speaker 3: do their initial enforcement issues and see if there's any
Speaker 3: problems in the courts or otherwise. But after that we
Speaker 3: should get some more evidence of stuff where we're headed.
Speaker 2: Well, I think anybody with a reasonable attitude, we'll say
Speaker 2: we got to do something. Yeah, I mean when when
Speaker 2: when I hear an argument like well, in the nineteen
Speaker 2: hundreds we welcomed all on our show, I go, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's not nineteen o one anymore, and people are coming
Speaker 2: from Europe on a steamer. You know, it's a different
Speaker 2: it's a completely different ballgame. So there has to be
Speaker 2: some order to the chaos. And I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I think both sides of the eye wants it. So
Speaker 2: if they can get eighty percent there, that's a good thing.
Speaker 2: What about the birthright thing? Do you think that'll actually
Speaker 2: go away?
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't seem like it. And frankly, I haven't
Speaker 3: looked at that closely to the arguments there.
Speaker 2: Seems really to me. I mean I'm not attorney, but
Speaker 2: I mean I don't know if that's a hill they
Speaker 2: die on, you know what I mean exactly.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing. I mean, we're going to start
Speaker 3: looking back at the original intention of why was written,
Speaker 3: and it's hard to put into the same contact in
Speaker 3: the same way. Like you mentioned, you know, immigration in
Speaker 3: the early nineteen hundreds is radically different than immigration now
Speaker 3: just because of the just the means of how people
Speaker 3: did it. Frankly as part of the issue that you
Speaker 3: had an actual checkpoint that had to go through. I mean,
Speaker 3: you certainly had people that could jump off the vote
Speaker 3: in New York Harver. But outside of that, you were
Speaker 3: coming through Ellis Island, You're going through other gateways, so
Speaker 3: there were mechanisms and really the issue on all this
Speaker 3: comes down to what is the overarching immigration policy. I
Speaker 3: think if we don't look at it as a whole system,
Speaker 3: that's when you run into problems. If you just look
Speaker 3: at that, well, here's this spot on the border where
Speaker 3: everon's running across, Well, sure put up what you need
Speaker 3: to do there. But the point is are there more
Speaker 3: people that we want to take in or do we
Speaker 3: not want to take people? And that really needs to
Speaker 3: be the conversation in Congress to say, look, this is
Speaker 3: within Congress's power to deal with the immigration laws. What
Speaker 3: do we want to do? So if we want to
Speaker 3: argue between a couple of weeks ago we had the
Speaker 3: argument over H one B visus and all their types
Speaker 3: of work visas, that's those are a louch of people
Speaker 3: that like seeing all the back and forth on that.
Speaker 3: Perhaps that's a useful debate to have, and that's really
Speaker 3: where the issue is, is that Congress should be deciding
Speaker 3: what is our actual immigration policy, not just sort of
Speaker 3: the obvious things that everyone agrees on, Because, like you said,
Speaker 3: if everyone sort of thinks something should happen about securing
Speaker 3: the border itself, fine, but then what is the policy
Speaker 3: past that the security of the border seems like the
Speaker 3: bare minimum? And of course we haven't had that. But
Speaker 3: once that is done, then what do we do? And
Speaker 3: we're back to the same question we've had for as
Speaker 3: long as I can remember, is that we don't really
Speaker 3: have a policy.
Speaker 2: Joe, you're a terrific guest. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2: We appreciate and you have a good weekend.
Speaker 3: Thank you you too, all.
Speaker 2: Right, Joe DiPino Esposito joining us from the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Speaker 2: We appreciate the time. Six one seven two five. The
Speaker 2: telephone number, Gary Tagway here for Dan Rang on WBC's
Speaker 2: Night Side. If you guys do TikTok, if you make
Speaker 2: money on TikTok, give me a call, tell me about it,
Speaker 2: and what are you going to do when it goes away?
Speaker 2: Six one seven two four ten thirty. This is WBC.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: All right, tagway for Ray tonight six one seven two,
Speaker 2: four to ten thirty is the telephone number. And I
Speaker 2: have friends that make money on TikTok. Make a couple
Speaker 2: grand a month, make five hundred a month, make a
Speaker 2: thousand a month. I mean, this is no joke. This
Speaker 2: is gonna get this. This is going to cost people.
Speaker 2: I feel bad about that. That really bothers me. I
Speaker 2: feel terrible about that. It must be serious for the
Speaker 2: government to go to this level. I mean, here, the
Speaker 2: thing that, as I mentioned in the previous conversation, is
Speaker 2: even Trump wants TikTok to stick around because it works
Speaker 2: for him. Now, this is a guy who doesn't want
Speaker 2: to deal with anyone internationally, who wants to put a
Speaker 2: twenty five percent tariff on China and all other imports.
Speaker 2: But TikTok, he feels got him elected. So it's like, oh, okay,
Speaker 2: we'll keep TikTok around because it was good for me.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to necessarily do anything for
Speaker 2: him now, obviously, because this is it for him. I
Speaker 2: just laugh at that. It's just so funny, and the
Speaker 2: politicians are all the same. You know, how is it
Speaker 2: going to benefit me at this particular time, How is
Speaker 2: it going to benefit my reelection, how is it going
Speaker 2: to benefit my future as opposed to looking at the
Speaker 2: big picture, and how does it benefit the constituents. Now
Speaker 2: for the federal government to go to the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: and say, we have more information damning information on China,
Speaker 2: which owns the parent company of TikTok, on why it
Speaker 2: shouldn't be allowed in the US, and the Court said, no,
Speaker 2: we don't need to see that, which I that's odd
Speaker 2: to me. I would think they would want that information.
Speaker 2: But as Joe pointed out previous guests, she was terrific
Speaker 2: by the way. They would want both sides of the
Speaker 2: aisle to see that, or they would want the people
Speaker 2: arguing to keep TikTok to have that availability too, And
Speaker 2: from what I understand, the court just felt that that
Speaker 2: would well, for lack of a better term, muck up
Speaker 2: the situation and they were going to uphold Congress's ban
Speaker 2: on it no matter. They didn't need that. That wasn't
Speaker 2: going to make a difference. They were already going to
Speaker 2: ban TikTok, and this is a country where, man, you
Speaker 2: could say anything, you can watch anything, you could say anything.
Speaker 2: It still is so weird to me that we are
Speaker 2: banning a media channel. That's what's happening. We are banning
Speaker 2: a media channel, and that stuff happens in Russia, happens
Speaker 2: in China, happens in North Korea, where I've talked to
Speaker 2: friends of mine who do business in Russia or Russia
Speaker 2: not so much anymore obviously. But while with Putin that said,
Speaker 2: that's a different animal. But you know, with China, if
Speaker 2: you go to China and you talk to citizens, they
Speaker 2: have no idea what's going on in the outside world
Speaker 2: because the government only wants them to know so much.
Speaker 2: Now that's not really the case with TikTok. Look, if
Speaker 2: TikTok goes away, we're still going to be informed, We're
Speaker 2: still going to know what's going on. But again, in
Speaker 2: this country, to ban a media channel is so quite Frankly,
Speaker 2: I'm American, but I guess it just goes to the show.
Speaker 2: It just reveals the depths of the dangers of technology.
Speaker 2: Let's go to andrewid Hero. Andrew, you're up on WBZ.
Speaker 4: What do you have to say, Hey, I just wanted
Speaker 4: to say that Trump was originally for banning tick Tar.
Speaker 2: But he's not. But he's not, but he's not now
Speaker 2: because it got him elected, right, Well that's what he
Speaker 2: says anyway. I mean, so, I mean, that's the thing
Speaker 2: that's that's funny, Like he should have just kept his.
Speaker 4: Mouth shut, you know, yeah, pretty much.
Speaker 2: What do you think about the whole thing?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 4: Like, like before you know, there must be something really
Speaker 4: stressful going on that involves that, and it's probably not
Speaker 4: something that we know about or nobody is telling us.
Speaker 2: You know, well, it has to involve national security, one
Speaker 2: would think, because the federal government generally doesn't get involved
Speaker 2: in oh god, I just generally doesn't get involved in
Speaker 2: preventing freedom of speech, if you will. That's not really
Speaker 2: what we do here. So there must be something pretty
Speaker 2: serious going on. That's what I want to believe that
Speaker 2: TikTok and it us China to get in and learn
Speaker 2: some very serious things about the United States government that
Speaker 2: we don't want them to know. But thanks Andrew, I
Speaker 2: appreciate the call. But unfortunately it's going to cost people
Speaker 2: a lot of money. All right, let's go to more
Speaker 2: on the Cave Mara. You're up on WBZ, Hey.
Speaker 5: Gary, Yeah, I'm listening to your conversation. And I have
Speaker 5: to admit when I initially heard the talk about trying
Speaker 5: to ban TikTok, I uh, I was all in favor
Speaker 5: of it. Yeah, I don't I want to give the Chinese,
Speaker 5: you know, into all of our private, h private information.
Speaker 5: But once once I.
Speaker 6: Heard that, you know, Biden and Pelosi and Schumer and
Speaker 6: they were all against that move, I was thinking, oh,
Speaker 6: all right, well, maybe I need to read this. So
Speaker 6: I don't know. I don't like the idea of banning
Speaker 6: the free speech.
Speaker 5: I also don't like the idea of the Chinese having
Speaker 5: the ability to get access to all of our information.
Speaker 5: I'm a little bit conflicted.
Speaker 2: Well, this is I agree with you one hundred percent,
Speaker 2: and I have gone back and forth on it because
Speaker 2: I'm in the media. Obviously, I believe in freedom of speech.
Speaker 2: I believe that's why this country has been able to exist,
Speaker 2: and that's why I know everyone in the world wants
Speaker 2: to live here. They do. Yep, it's a great place
Speaker 2: to live. What now, I have friends, I have friends
Speaker 2: that have moved to Europe and it's a laid back lifestyle.
Speaker 2: I get it. But look look London and France, that's terrific.
Speaker 2: You can look, you can have a great time there too.
Speaker 2: But the United States it's a great place to live
Speaker 2: because we let you say what you want. I mean absolutely,
Speaker 2: there are some there are some crazy, disgusting things that
Speaker 2: if you want to watch them you can so I
Speaker 2: hear right, I mean really absolutely. I mean the ku
Speaker 2: Klux Klan freeom of speech. You want to talk about hate,
Speaker 2: you want to talk about the fact that you don't
Speaker 2: like Catholics and you don't like African Americans, Well you
Speaker 2: can say that and we go okay, okay. So it's
Speaker 2: got to be so bad that it does infiltrate national security.
Speaker 2: And I think that one of the things that we
Speaker 2: have to realize now in this day and age of technology,
Speaker 2: we have to be prepared for that because with AI
Speaker 2: and technology we can't control it. We have to be prepared.
Speaker 2: You know that if the government says that's going to go,
Speaker 2: because it puts you at risk, we have to believe them.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm at.
Speaker 5: You know, well, I'd like to be able to truly
Speaker 5: believe them. I'm so a little bit skeptical, but I do.
Speaker 5: I worry there are downsides to the technology that's available
Speaker 5: to us today, and I don't know everybody uses it,
Speaker 5: you know, properly or for the right reasons, and so
Speaker 5: that does concern me. I also think, you know, in
Speaker 5: Trump saying, oh, you know, they helped me get elected.
Speaker 5: You know, that's great. I also think that's him saying.
Speaker 5: I don't know that he's making that comment solely for
Speaker 5: his own personal benefit. I think he's also shining light
Speaker 5: on the fact that this is something that can benefit
Speaker 5: you know, it does benefit people's businesses, and it does
Speaker 5: benefit their livelihood and there could be some some good
Speaker 5: in there. We just need to figure out where that
Speaker 5: happy medium is.
Speaker 2: You know what we have to find out more. We
Speaker 2: have to find out if Donald Trump Junior has a
Speaker 2: TikTok account and how much money he makes, because that
Speaker 2: could be it. Thank you for the phone call, KT,
Speaker 2: I appreciate it, Paula Plymouth. You're coming up next on
Speaker 2: w b Z Quick Quick Break that we're back on
Speaker 2: the Dan Ratio. Now Dan Way live from the Window World.
Speaker 1: Night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: Welcome back, Gary Tank waiting for Dan Ray six one
Speaker 2: seven ten thirty nine o'clock, We're going to talk to
Speaker 2: our buddy Cooper Lawrence from CBS Entertainment discussing about all
Speaker 2: the legal action that's going on in the very sad
Speaker 2: indisturbment situation with the film. It ends with us Paul
Speaker 2: in Plymouth on TikTok, which is going away or we'll
Speaker 2: start to go away on Sunday. Paul, you're on Nightside
Speaker 2: on WBZ. What do you got? Hi?
Speaker 7: How you doing?
Speaker 2: Gary?
Speaker 7: Listen? I'll tell you what I think. You know, let's
Speaker 7: go back, you know, thirty forty years Radio Moscow and
Speaker 7: you know you could pick it up on short way
Speaker 7: if you imagine if radio yeah, Radio Moscow, if they
Speaker 7: took over CBS and they're broadcasting in the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's a fair point. I mean, what's
Speaker 2: Woar two, Tokyo Rowse, Tokyo Rose.
Speaker 7: Yes, yeah, sure, right, yeah. And and this is you know,
Speaker 7: this is a media that's controlled by an adversary of
Speaker 7: the United States. So and you know, I don't think
Speaker 7: people realize that, you know, I, for one, would you
Speaker 7: know I get all these spam advertisements from TikTok trying
Speaker 7: to get me to sign up, and it's like, no,
Speaker 7: damn way am I going to sign up for that, Because,
Speaker 7: as far as I'm concerned, if you sign up for
Speaker 7: something like that, you're signing up for something that enemy
Speaker 7: of the United States could be looking into your into
Speaker 7: your computer. They're going to they're going to keep pushing
Speaker 7: their story and it's nothing but a big prop again,
Speaker 7: the machine, and it's a state run propagain, the machine
Speaker 7: run by the Chinese government.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a fair point by you, and it's obviously
Speaker 2: a concern in the United States. Excuse me as far
Speaker 2: as it being a propaganda machine. Of just likes to
Speaker 2: look on it and make funny videos with their friends,
Speaker 2: you know. That's that's the innocence of it. That's the
Speaker 2: innocence of it. But there is definitely a dark side
Speaker 2: to it that the United States government feels China is
Speaker 2: using to their benefit, which does not benefit us. Bill
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania, you're up on WBZ, Yeah, Gary.
Speaker 8: Thanks for taking my calls, and that they use it
Speaker 8: for tracking and uh, and.
Speaker 7: I don't know.
Speaker 8: There was hardly any any conversation over the last month
Speaker 8: or two months about fault Typhoon. Salt Typhoon has been
Speaker 8: scarfing up every text that you and I have been
Speaker 8: sending over the last year, and it's you know, when
Speaker 8: you find something like this out, you gotta you gotta
Speaker 8: shut it down. Hell, they had what they had a
Speaker 8: balloon that that the Chinese flew a balloon completely across
Speaker 8: a lot of our military. I mean, it's just what
Speaker 8: the hell are we all this?
Speaker 2: Billions and billions, bill bill You're not wrong, but but
Speaker 2: I have been doing. I've been been told with people
Speaker 2: in the government, the defense sector, the balloon thing that's
Speaker 2: been going on for years. And we have balloons on
Speaker 2: other countries. Countries have balloons on us. That's nothing new.
Speaker 2: But what is different here with this is the fact
Speaker 2: that China's dangling a carrot for us to use, and
Speaker 2: if we nibble on that carrot, it benefits them to
Speaker 2: what degree I don't know. But it was so severe
Speaker 2: the government went to the Supreme Court and said, we
Speaker 2: got to shut this thing.
Speaker 8: Down, you know, yeah, and then we get we get
Speaker 8: you're right, you're right.
Speaker 2: There, and then we yet But I'm also built it's
Speaker 2: like what do they get, Like, what do they learn?
Speaker 2: That's the thing, like for me or for you, Like,
Speaker 2: what do they learn from us what they I don't
Speaker 2: know they get my identity. Hell, somebody in a basement
Speaker 2: in New York City could get my identity. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'm so apathetic. I guess they would
Speaker 2: get things from not necessarily me or you, but governmental
Speaker 2: information that's damaging. I guess, you know, I would love
Speaker 2: to know. I would love to know what exactly it is.
Speaker 2: I would you know what exactly getting nuclear codes.
Speaker 8: They're not. They're not getting it for you and me, Gary,
Speaker 8: but they're getting it from people like Hillary Clinton running
Speaker 8: around with four different uh when she was when she
Speaker 8: was going overseas, and she was using four different servers,
Speaker 8: and that's where they're getting the stuff.
Speaker 2: It could be, Bill, I mean, what hell, what the hell,
Speaker 2: what the hell?
Speaker 8: What the hell is she in jail? Tell me that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, I mean, look, generally politicians will go to jail. Hey,
Speaker 2: on the other side of things, to be fair, there
Speaker 2: are people who think Trump should be in jail. So
Speaker 2: I think there are criminals on both sides of the aisle. Bill,
Speaker 2: thanks for the phone call. We appreciate it. All right.
Speaker 2: Coming up next, good discussion, folks on the TikTok thing.
Speaker 2: It's nuts. My concern is when it goes away, my
Speaker 2: daughter is going to go bananas. Help Cooper Lawrence on
Speaker 2: a terrific movie. It ends with Us Would, which has
Speaker 2: a terrible, terrible story behind it. That's next wdbs