Speaker 1: Channel nine says the following about the weather got to
Speaker 1: mostly cloudy day to day highest seventy one, clouds over
Speaker 1: night fifty six. Tomorrow's hight seventy five with sunny skies
Speaker 1: until we get to the evening time agains clouds will
Speaker 1: lends the possibility of rain overnight with a low of
Speaker 1: fifty nine. Friday is going to be partly cloudy with
Speaker 1: the highest sixty seven. It's right now sixty degrees in
Speaker 1: time for chuck Ingram with traffic.
Speaker 2: From the uc Hel Tramphic Center. You see health. You'll
Speaker 2: find comprehensive care that's so personal it makes your best
Speaker 2: tomorrow possible. That's boundless care for better outcomes. Expect more
Speaker 2: at ucehealth dot com. Stap found seventy five getting better
Speaker 2: through Westchester. Still slows through Walkland, then no longer in
Speaker 2: delay through northern Kentucky. The earlier accident at two seventy
Speaker 2: five and Erwinger is clear. There's a new accident Westboud
Speaker 2: two seventy five on the ramp ter Reed, Hartman and
Speaker 2: step found seventy one continues slow to seventy five through
Speaker 2: Blue Ash. It is National Hamburger Day, so why not
Speaker 2: celebrate today, if I sitting back with a nice juicy burger,
Speaker 2: add some cheese, some wet us, some onion, mayo and
Speaker 2: ketchup and mustard classic. Oh and don't forget to listen
Speaker 2: to the Judge. He's next on fifty five KRC, the
Speaker 2: talk station, wondering where he was going with that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, don't you let him have breakfast? Don't you feed
Speaker 3: the man.
Speaker 1: Someone? I think someone goes back there and checks on
Speaker 1: him every twenty four hours just to make sure he's okay,
Speaker 1: you're on or beyond that we leave him to his
Speaker 1: own devices.
Speaker 3: Anyways, Joe Strecker, bring him a cheeseburger, will you please?
Speaker 1: Exactly? Judge Endedopolitano every Wednesday at this time on the
Speaker 1: fifty five k SEE Morning Show, which I love, love
Speaker 1: talking to the Judge, and I always appreciate getting your column.
Speaker 1: My apologies for not sending you an email in response,
Speaker 1: your honor. I failed to check my personal email yesterday
Speaker 1: evening when I was preparing for the show, so I
Speaker 1: got your column this morning. But I'll tell you, always outstanding,
Speaker 1: always a wonderful read, always profoundly in line with our
Speaker 1: core principles and constitutional values, and well are god given
Speaker 1: rights which you bring up all the time. But before
Speaker 1: we get to that.
Speaker 3: The column is about efforts by the and thank you
Speaker 3: for your kind comments, Brian, and you needn't reply every
Speaker 3: time you send it to you. You're the only one
Speaker 3: who does well.
Speaker 1: I value our friendship and I think you know honestly,
Speaker 1: when again I read it, I'm always impressed by I
Speaker 1: just want to let you know. And sometimes I'll send
Speaker 1: a warning shot over the value. You know, some of
Speaker 1: my listeners are going to really take issue with this
Speaker 1: or just give your heads up, but no, I.
Speaker 3: Times sometimes missus Thomas takes issue with it.
Speaker 1: I don't know that she's ever been critical of your column.
Speaker 1: She has chimed in and said she agrees with you wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1: And I know you remembered that one before we dive
Speaker 1: in real quick here though, because it's along I think
Speaker 1: it's along the same lines. The Supreme Court the other
Speaker 1: day declined to review a free speech case involving a
Speaker 1: student who was kicked out of school for wearing a
Speaker 1: T shirt that said there are only two genders. And
Speaker 1: I was troubled by that because isn't it a scientific fact?
Speaker 1: X X and Y and X and X in terms
Speaker 1: of the constitution or the chromosomal reality, that there are
Speaker 1: two genders and that they deemed it offensive in some way.
Speaker 1: Did you get a chance to see what the lower
Speaker 1: court said on that and the standard they apply to that.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, In fact, I discussed it this morning on NEWSMAXIM.
Speaker 3: We'll be discussing it again in about an hour. It's
Speaker 3: deeply disturbing. I would have joined the descent were I
Speaker 3: there of justice as Satomas and Alito. I'm really surprised
Speaker 3: at justice courts that truth the libertarian there. Now, this
Speaker 3: was not an opinion by the court. It was just
Speaker 3: a decision not to interfere with a lower court opinion.
Speaker 3: But the lower court opinion really is grounded in another
Speaker 3: opinion of the Supreme Court called Morse against Frederick, better
Speaker 3: known by its absurd moniker Bong hits for Jesus. So
Speaker 3: here's the history. In nineteen sixty nine, a young man
Speaker 3: last named Tinker wore a belt buckle that was a
Speaker 3: peace sign and the ward in des Moines, Iowa, and
Speaker 3: the high school suspended him and his parents suit who
Speaker 3: went to the Supreme Court very famous case Tinker versus
Speaker 3: des Moines, and the Supreme Court ruled, once you reach
Speaker 3: the age of reason, which is about age seven, you
Speaker 3: have the freedom of speech and you can wear whatever
Speaker 3: insignia you want unless it actually causes disruption. Okay, that
Speaker 3: was the law until two thousand and twelve. Some crazy
Speaker 3: kid at a parade, not in the school, but a
Speaker 3: school parade across the street and up the block from
Speaker 3: the school, held up a sign meaningless sign that said,
Speaker 3: Bong hits.
Speaker 2: For Jesus, I remember that right.
Speaker 3: And he was suspended and he sued, and based on
Speaker 3: Tinker versus des Moines, he prevailed, and the Board of
Speaker 3: Education appealed, and he prevailed again. The Board of Education
Speaker 3: appealed again, and the Supreme Court reversed.
Speaker 1: Do we lose him? Judge? Are you there?
Speaker 3: Somehow? I lost you?
Speaker 1: But you ended? The Supreme Court reverse.
Speaker 3: We have to be disruption, but a fear of disruption
Speaker 3: is enough to suppress the speech of the student. On
Speaker 3: that fear, that subjective perception of school authorities was to
Speaker 3: the lower court rulings in this case involving the kid
Speaker 3: stating a statement that is either a fact or an opinion,
Speaker 3: but either way it's protected speech, but not not in
Speaker 3: this Massachusetts Town.
Speaker 1: Well, I found the First Circuit's language very troubling along
Speaker 1: these lines, and I guess I'm paraphrase to a certain degree.
Speaker 1: I'm just reading from the quotes in the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: Schools may ban passive speech message of the messages quote
Speaker 1: reasonably interpret any close quote to demean anybody's characteristics of
Speaker 1: personal identity, and if it's reasonably forecasted to poison the
Speaker 1: educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact leading
Speaker 1: to substantial disruption. His shirt said there are only two genders?
Speaker 1: How could you come to that conclusion? My comment this
Speaker 1: morning was along the lines of, you know, there are
Speaker 1: idiots out in the world to believe the Earth is flat.
Speaker 1: If I had at T shirt that said the Earth
Speaker 1: is round, some unhinged, easily emotional flat earth out there
Speaker 1: could maybe qualify under this language. It seems so crazy.
Speaker 3: This is very, very dangerous to allow the government to
Speaker 3: suppress speech on the basis of a subjective fear where
Speaker 3: there's no objective harm. But you know, even hate speech
Speaker 3: is protected. In my view, this statement is absolutely protected
Speaker 3: speech on the shirt of a then sixteen year old boy.
Speaker 3: I believe he's graduated by now, But This is what
Speaker 3: happens when the court tinkers no pun intended from the
Speaker 3: tinker vi.
Speaker 1: Des Moines.
Speaker 3: This is what happens when the court tinkers with the
Speaker 3: relationship between the government and the freedom of speech. This
Speaker 3: first Circuit, which is basically New England First CERD Court
Speaker 3: of Appeals opinion, is worse for a free speech than
Speaker 3: the Bong Hits for Jesus case is because they extend
Speaker 3: to the point of, well, if somebody reading your speech
Speaker 3: could be offended, we can suppress the speech. Good God,
Speaker 3: that could be offended. As you say, a flat Earth
Speaker 3: person could be offended by the truthful statement that the
Speaker 3: Earth is not flat. And I don't want to get
Speaker 3: hung upon true. I want to get hung up on opinion.
Speaker 3: Opinions don't have to be true, they just have to
Speaker 3: be honestly held opinions to be protected.
Speaker 1: Exactly, And turning over to your column which focuses on
Speaker 1: the endeavors of the Trump administration to crack down on
Speaker 1: free speech, there is I mean, if you want to
Speaker 1: protest Israel, you can protest Israel. If you want to
Speaker 1: say you're pro Hamas or pro Palestine, you can say
Speaker 1: it out loud. This is how the we filter through
Speaker 1: and determine the good guys and the bad guys based
Speaker 1: up our own personal opinions and viewpoints of life. And
Speaker 1: you know, thank god, we have the ability to do that.
Speaker 1: So that way, when a Nazi stands up and says
Speaker 1: I'm a Nazi, we at least notice who the state
Speaker 1: of Hell away from fact, but.
Speaker 3: There's a Supreme Court opinion I'm forgetting the name of
Speaker 3: it of relatively recent vintage, by which I mean post
Speaker 3: World War two, which stands for that proposition it is
Speaker 3: better to allow hatred out in the public. We know
Speaker 3: who the haters are and we know what they're saying,
Speaker 3: rather than if you suppress it, we don't know who
Speaker 3: they are, what they're saying, or where it's coming from.
Speaker 3: That's a practical reason. The philosophical and juridical reason is
Speaker 3: Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech.
Speaker 3: Doesn't no law mean no law. If it doesn't mean
Speaker 3: no law, if it means something else, then there is
Speaker 3: no freedom of speech. Then it's up to whatever the
Speaker 3: personality of the justices want.
Speaker 1: But my understanding is somewhere there is a line that
Speaker 1: can be cross, and I've been arguing that you know,
Speaker 1: it's okay if you want to say pro power as
Speaker 1: Indian things are, gathering a group on a college campus.
Speaker 1: As long as you're following the legal rules that have
Speaker 1: been established. You can't take over and occupy buildings and
Speaker 1: prevent other students from the value of their tuition dollars correct,
Speaker 1: and you can't harm them.
Speaker 3: You can't take over a building and guy disguise that
Speaker 3: takeover as free expression, because that is trespassing. That's combining
Speaker 3: a criminal act with a protected act. So when you
Speaker 3: combine the criminal act trespassing, taking over a building, kicking
Speaker 3: the dean out, disrupting a class, with the expressive act
Speaker 3: free Palestine or get rid of Palestine, whatever your opinion exactly,
Speaker 3: that does not remove the sting or the criminality from
Speaker 3: the criminal Act. Now that's been the law of the
Speaker 3: land for a long time. But without that criminal Act,
Speaker 3: all speech is protected no matter who's a f In fact,
Speaker 3: one could argue, if the speech doesn't offend, what good
Speaker 3: is it?
Speaker 1: I love it? Welcome to the fifty five KRC Morning Show.
Speaker 1: You're honor. Somebody's offended about what I say on a
Speaker 1: daily basis, So anyway they fall into the category of
Speaker 1: batcrap insane from my standpoint if they disagree with me.
Speaker 1: But that's that's a okay. We have different types in
Speaker 1: this world.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I guess that the Trump administration, though, is saying that
Speaker 1: they have failed to protect Jewish students. Now, if we
Speaker 1: cross that line, occupy, prevent Jewish students from getting into class,
Speaker 1: harass them, harm them in some physical way, then then
Speaker 1: that line has been crossed. But can you, you know,
Speaker 1: defund a school for their failure to act on these
Speaker 1: independent actions of the students. I mean, how do we
Speaker 1: how do we know?
Speaker 3: The defunding is very problematic under the law because the
Speaker 3: vast majority of federal funding, let's take Harvard, doesn't go
Speaker 3: to Harvard as an institution. It goes to the independent
Speaker 3: researchers who work at Harvard. They're the ones who apply
Speaker 3: for the grants, They're the ones who propose what the
Speaker 3: money will be used for, and they're the ones whose
Speaker 3: proposals have been approved. The cash does go to Harvard,
Speaker 3: and then Harvard pays these researchers. The researchers are typically professors, researchers,
Speaker 3: doctors working in labs. They have nothing whatsoever to do
Speaker 3: what's happening in Harvard Yard or disciplining students. Yet they're
Speaker 3: the ones being punished, and you could argue even though
Speaker 3: I have a serious question with aid education because it's
Speaker 3: not in the constitution, amen depriving all of us of
Speaker 3: the fruits of their research. So this is a troublesome
Speaker 3: area that the courts are going to have to unwind.
Speaker 3: I think a federal judge did the right thing by
Speaker 3: enjoining the President from suspending the aid until you can
Speaker 3: figure all of it out. You know, this is vicarious liability.
Speaker 3: You're going to punish doctor Jones because of the decision
Speaker 3: of Administrator Smith making up these names obviously to show
Speaker 3: there's two different people, two different lines of authority. The
Speaker 3: researcher has nothing to do with the demonstrations on the campus,
Speaker 3: but that's the person who's being denied a livelihood.
Speaker 1: Fair enough and well explained. As always, Judge Ennenapaoulitano, can't
Speaker 1: thank you enough for the time you smoke my listeners
Speaker 1: to me on the program. I certainly value your time
Speaker 1: and who you talking to today.
Speaker 3: I have the great Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock
Speaker 3: and ex CIA official Phil Geraldi of.
Speaker 1: Three Judging Freedom. Search for the podcast and hear what
Speaker 1: the judge has to say when he's not on the
Speaker 1: morning show until next week. My friend, it's always a pleasure.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Brian, all the best.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3: Please get Ingram a cheeseburger.
Speaker 1: We'll take care of that right after the show's over.
Speaker 1: It's eight forty four at fifty five Karos DE talk station.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back.