Selects: How Free Speech Works

Freedom of speech and the press are values vital to American democracy. But the First Amendment doesn't really define free speech, and plenty of expressions are restricted. Learn all about the ins and outs of this cherished right in this classic episode.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, everybody, Happy Saturday. Good morning. I hope you've had
your breakfast cereal, and I hope you have had your cartoons.
And I hope you are ready to learn about free
speech here. That being thrown around a lot these days,
free speech, free speech, But free speech actually means something specific.
It's not just you can say anything you want, any

(00:21):
time you want and without any repercussions at all. That's
not free speech. We're here to tell you what it
really is. In the episode from February How Free Speech Works.
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of I
Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,

(00:48):
There's Charles w Chuck Bryant, there's Jerry. Papers have been shuffled.
Their plumb and true. It's time for Stuff you should
Know the podcast. You know it's not plumb and true.
My gut. Anything in my house I went to, Uh,
all of my house had those gross, cheap, hollow core

(01:09):
doors you know. Oh yeah, you know they're not doors.
I mean they function as doors, but if there's air
in your door, then there's not a door. So one
by one I've been replacing them with wood, solid doors.
And I went and did that for our bedroom. And man,
oh man, was it frustrating. Oh hanging them because they
didn't want to hang. It's the worst, like nothing straight, like, oh,

(01:33):
that looks good, and then it goes to shut and
it's like whack. Well I'm sure it was straight, you know,
a hundred years ago, you know, and then over time
the house settled in and now it's it's doing its
own thing. So I had to shave the door in
so many places it looks like a Doctor SEUs store.
Oh cool, you should plant one of those weird doctor
Seue's palm trees in your yard to really complete it.

(01:53):
It's called marijuana. So I'm glad you just said marijuana, chuck,
because you have every right to say the word marijuana
in this country. It's a free country. You can say
the name of a plant, you know, people people do
say and have long said. This is a free country.
I can say whatever I want. And free speech is

(02:16):
one of the basic hallmarks of what makes America free country.
Freedom of speech. Um, but America is not the only
country that enshrines a freedom of speech protection in its charter. Yeah,
there are varying degrees of it in many many countries.

(02:37):
In some countries there's not very much. In other countries
there's a lot. In the US is arguably one of
the leaders, although some people point to Europe's and we'll
talk about those later, but some people point to Europe's
free speech protections and saying they're those people know what
they're doing. Um. In the US, if you look at

(02:59):
free speech, you go to the Bill of Rights. Typically
it's a great place to start, and you will find
you will find in the First Amendment of the Constitution,
which is the first part of the Bill of Rights,
it says in there specifically that Congress will make no

(03:20):
law right abridging the freedom of speech. It's as simple
as that. It doesn't say unless speech says this, unless
somebody says that, unless you really don't like the guy,
there is no It's absolute. It's an absolute protection of
freedom of speech. Yeah, and that goes on. I think, uh,

(03:43):
it's pertinent to mention abridging the freedom of speech or
of the press, or the right of the people to
peaceably to assemble founding Father JFK and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. I'm sorry that I'm
take Kennedy one because we're all very important, you know,
sure they are. Oh yeah, the press right to a symbol,

(04:05):
it's a pretty important one. Well yeah, And because we
had just left the country uh one, independence from Britain,
who at the time was like, no, no, no, we
we very much want to squash any dissenting opinions about
the grown uh And people were getting thrown in jail

(04:25):
for that kind of stuff in the colonies. They were
trying to quash a rebellion. And that's a pretty important
part of it. If you're if you're a monarchy, an
absolute monarchy that wants to keep the rebels in check,
you just say you can't say certain things, and if
you do, we're going to throw you in jail. It

(04:45):
has a freezing effect, yeah, Or they're weird punishments, like
when they said stick a sock in it, they went yeah, okay,
and they went no, really, stick a sock in it
by law for eight months, governor, and tape it, tape
it shut. With my dirty sock in your mouth, my
dirty century sock, my wool sock from my wet boots.
Um quickly though, I think we should point out that

(05:08):
as we were going through this, like I realized you
could have an entire podcast called the Ins and Outs
of Free Speech. Yeah, like a series, a whole show.
You could have a whole show about it, not just
an episode. So this is you know, this is an
overview as we do that is going to pick and
you know, talk about various court cases over the years,

(05:29):
rulings and writings of judges, um, that are pertinent. But man,
it's deep and wide. Yeah, it is, especially considering that
again when you go to the Bill of Rights, it
just says Congress can't pass any laws that abridge the
freedom of speech. There they're like, why does he keep
writing right there? And chuck. Not only though, was it

(05:53):
this in retaliation reaction to um, the British monarchy. Yeah,
it was also a big part of Enlightenment thinking as well.
The protection of freedom of speech was a huge aspect
of the Enlightenment. And you know, obviously the United States
was founded during the Enlightenment and as part of the Enlightenment.

(06:14):
It was an Enlightenment experiment, right, Yeah, like we don't
want to restrict thought or expression, um. And you know,
some might say that if if the Britain hadn't been
so intent on squashing dissenting opinion, then we might not
have been so enlightenment aside. So uh, heck bent on

(06:36):
ensuring those rights. So maybe it all worked out for
the best. Yeah, I think so. And Britain came around. Right.
You can still get that sock thrown in your mouth,
can you? I don't know, man, it's on the book still.
I just don't know if they do it anymore. Is
the socks are much nicer now, that's right. They're all
happy socks. So since you have this very broad um

(06:56):
protection of freedom of speech, right, yeah, then there's nothing
more to be said about it. Anybody can say anything
they want. Not true, quite true. It isn't true because
we have three branches of government here in the US.
We do. Yeah, it turns out I thought that was
just one. You got the executive branch, which is the
one I think you're thinking. Uh. Then you have the

(07:19):
legislative branch Congress, okay, which is actually separate, and then
you have the third branch, the judicial branch. Yes, they
are equal and important branch. And with um the congressional
legislative branch. They pass laws, people go out and break laws,

(07:39):
people get convicted, people appeal their convictions, and in some cases,
those convictions and the laws are questionable enough or interesting
enough that it will eventually make it to a high
enough court that the court will rule on whether or
not that law holds to any constitutional standard. Yeah. Over time,

(08:04):
freedom of speech has been shaped and expanded and paired away,
um by the courts here in the United States. Yeah,
Like maybe more so than any other kind of segment
of law, or maybe not. But I'm gonna just as
as an complete, um armchair attorney, I'm gonna say that

(08:25):
perhaps free speeches has been challenge more and whittled down
and defined more than maybe any other aspect of law. Yeah,
because one of the big things that the courts did
with freedom of speech was to really expand the definition
of speech. Yeah, it's not just words that come out
of your mouth or even right. No, Like it can

(08:47):
be a T shirt that says f the police, or
could say um um uh yeah, hug the police. Sure
somebody might find that offensive. Who knows, thank you for
coming to my rescue. It could be a billboard, it
could be um, it could be a pamphlet you hand out.
It could be an act, symbolic act, flag burning. That

(09:09):
was a big one to remember that in the eighties
absolutely or or refusing to say the pledge allegiance that
was in the I think World War two, Yeah, which
is actually now protected as because free speech can also
mean the freedom to not speech. Yeah, because up until
I think in the Supreme Court ruled on it, kids
were being forced to say the pledge whether they wanted

(09:32):
to or not. In the Supreme quisite. Now we think
freedom of speech is really freedom of expression, and if
you don't feel like saying the pledge, you're free to
express yourself in that way. Yeah. And as you'll find,
um throughout the show, we'll kind of probably say this
over and over, freedom of speech doesn't have a lot

(09:52):
to do with something you might find offensive or repugnant. Um. Generally,
the U S decided on protecting that right regardless of
whether or not you're offended or you think it's awful.
And that's kind of what makes America great in a
lot of ways, is you know, what, who are we
to decide what you know, to legislate morality essentially, and

(10:16):
what we'll get into all this with obscenity and all
that stuff and pornography. But um, even when it comes
to like you know, I don't want to say the pledge.
Because of this reason, the courts have said, you know what,
that that you're right, this is America. We may not
like it, but that you're right. Yeah. And the whole
reason behind this too, it's it's easy to just take
it for granted, especially if you were raised in the

(10:37):
United States, that you have that right. Who cares what
the basis of it is. You can say basically whatever
you want, you know um. But when you really dig
into why the founders sought to protect this and why
it's been upheld and defended so much over the years,
is because the idea is that if you are free

(10:58):
to speak your mind without fear of being put in
jail or killed or beaten by a mob um, that
you are going to introduce new ideas to the marketplace
of ideas. And through this you're gonna have an exchange
with other people, and a lot of times it's going
to be contentious and it's going to be ugly, but
over time things can evolve and get better and change

(11:21):
for the better through this exchange of ideas. And to
ensure that the engine of cultural evolution continues unabated, you
have to have the free exchange of ideas. And to
have the free exchange of ideas, you have to have
protection of free speech. Yeah, because if not, you have
the government being the one saying, well, now here are

(11:41):
all the ideas, right exactly, and um, don't worry about
having any of your own. Yeah, these are these, these
are the ones. Yeah. And in a lot of cases,
those things can come across as really great ideas. Um.
Here in the US, up until the UH, I think
the mid fifties or early sixties, there were laws on

(12:02):
the books where it said you can't you can't speak
ill of groups, like you can't say anything about um,
Jewish people or Muslim people or any group. You can't
say these things. It was not protected, right. It was
called group libel. And that actually sounds pretty good in

(12:23):
a lot of in a lot of senses, like, yeah,
we shouldn't be talking trash about entire groups of people,
because it does it can lead to two problems. But
that same prohibition on speech came to be exploited by
white Southerners who were in power in the fifties, who said,
Martin Luther King, he's trying to incite violent social change

(12:45):
with his his radical ideas. Somebody needs to uh put
a duct tape over that guy's mouth. He doesn't have
the freedom to say this. And actually, our right to
say hateful things about other people was a direct result
in the United States of the civil rights movement UM

(13:05):
being protected by the courts against white Southerners who sought
to um to uh squash their their speech. So I
hate speech, Yeah, is due in part in part to
Dr Martin Luther King and and trying to advance civil
rights in a weird turn of events, Yeah, it really was. Uh.

(13:27):
And in Europe, and we'll talk about this a little more. UM,
Like you said, some people say they have nailed it.
They don't protect hate speech, and you can't be uh,
you can't deny the Holocaust publicly, and you can't um say,
you know Jewish people, you know x y Z or
this group of people are like this. Um. Some people

(13:50):
say that's you know, that's kind of right on the money.
We have taken a different tech here in the US.
Right in Europe does that because they have a pretty
recent example of what can happen if you do have
freedom of speech, and that totalitarian government can hijack that
freedom of speech and use it as propaganda to incite
hatred amongst an entire population. Um or even as as

(14:14):
um this this one author put it to prepare them
for extermination, just basically saying like, hey, everybody, get those guys.
They're the reasons you don't have jobs. They're the rapists.
They're the people who are who are going to kill
you and steal your your family's wealth and well being.
So get rid of them. Turn on them. And that's

(14:35):
the whole point of saying, nobody can incite hatred through
speech in these European democracies. Um, because the state has
done it before. Yeah, and we all see what happened there. Um.
Should we take a break? I feel like that's a
good intro, broad, all encompassing, passionate, all encompassingly. All right,

(14:58):
Well we'll come back here in a minute and get
down to the nitty gritty of some of these court cases. Okay, sorry, gee,
um large skid all right, trend um, So if you

(15:30):
want to go back a little bit to justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes Jr. Son of Sherlock, one of the famous
justice is the United States. Uh, in a lot of ways,
but very specifically because everyone has sort of heard the
the old thing that, Um, you can't yell fire in

(15:52):
a movie theater and say that's free speech because that
will In the case of in the nineteen nineteen case
Shink the United States, UM, Charles Schenk was arrested for
distributing material basically that said, hey, UM, don't the the
US draft military draft is bs um, don't do it.

(16:15):
Fight against it? Uh. And they said, you know what,
that's that's espionage actually, And that went all the way
to Supreme Court and they did not protect that right because,
in the words of Oliver Winto Holmes, they said, did
the words create a clear and present danger that they
will bring about substantive evils? Congress has a right to
prevent and that sort of in line. And later on

(16:37):
in that same ruling, he was talking about yelling fire
in a theater as an example, like, you know, you
can't do that because I will insight panic if people
will get stomped. Right, And in this case this kind
of set the precedent for or the tone for all
free speech cases to follow. UM. It's weighing the the
individual right versus the public good, yes, or in this case,

(16:58):
the individual right, says UM, creating some problem or evil
as he put it, that Congress has a right and
an interest to prevent a danger to the country, right. UM.
In this case, really what they were saying was they
were suppressing criticism of a government program, the Draft. UM.

(17:21):
And then but Holmes was fine with that. But within
a year I think he saw his UM, his test,
you know, does it present a clear and present danger
being used in a way to to squash descent when
a bunch of anarchists who were just generally advocating the
overthrow of the government. UM, rather than need to do

(17:43):
this on this date at this time, UM, they were used,
they were convicted under the test that Holmes created. So
he took what was called the Great Dissent and actually
dissented against his own former test and said, no, it
has to present a clear and present danger, present meaning
like it's about to happen or you know, the time

(18:04):
that it's going to happen, and it's a clear danger,
like this is what's going to happen. Because this person
said that, so that that ultimately became the format for
UM what we'll talk about in a little bit, which
is inciting violence. Yeah, and that's not to say that UM,
like The ruling there, like you said, was about a
clear and present danger, not necessarily the fact that Charles

(18:27):
Schenk was against the war, because we have a long
history in this country of being able to uh be
a wartime dissenter and talk about it and be protected. Um.
During Vietnam War, there was a man who had he
went through an l A courthouse and he had a
jacket that said, you know, F the draft, but it
was really spelled out. It's so ironic that we're censoring

(18:48):
ourselves in this one, but it's uh F the draft
and they um as you will always almost always see here.
These people are, like you said, usually arrested, convicted, and
then when they're well maybe hippies, you never know, and
then that's when the courts take it up and potentially
either a protect or don't protect the speech. In this case,

(19:10):
the court said no, you're within your right because someone
could see your jacket and then not look at it, right,
And that's a good point. Like you you can just
look away from the guy's jacket, right. You can also
not take the pamphlet that the guys handing you. You
can also you can also not rent the movie that
um that you find offensive. You can also turn the

(19:32):
TV station. You can also turn the radio down. You
can also not go to the website. You can turn
our podcast off. To me, well you shouldn't, so you could.
To me, the alternative of not not receiving some speech
that you find offensive like being able to get away
from it. That to me is the ultimate test for

(19:53):
for whether speech should be restricted or not. And since
you can in virtually any situation get away from speech
each except maybe skywriting, we should probably really regulate sky
riding pretty pretty toughly. Now you can look down on
the ground, but I guess you could. Yeah, So as
long as you can get away from it, or, more
to the point sheared, shield your children from it, I

(20:15):
don't think it should be I don't see any reason
for it to be um entailed. For skywriting. You would
have to argue in court that it is such a
delight to children that they can't help. But look like
you would have to physically restrain them and put blinders
on them, exactly, and that's unreasonable, your honor right. You
could write a curse word and then do a drawing

(20:36):
of Barney and that would satisfy that is Barney still
a thing. I think Barney will always be a thing.
I don't know. Uh So over the years have been,
like we said, a lot of court cases that have
kind of whittled away and defined not whittled away, you know,
because that molded shaped, molded and shaped. Uh So Marvin

(20:58):
Old Marv ran an adult book business, and he what
he did was he sent out mailers. He liked to
send out a mailer, right, and um, these mailers would
show up at houses where, you know, something my kid
might read it, or someone easily offended might read it,
or not so easily offended might read it. Uh. And
there was a mom who uh this was her adult son. Yeah,

(21:22):
it was a mom and her grown son who's the
manager of I guess the family restaurant. And they childlike
maybe he was his eyes were burning. Um, I don't know,
maybe his mom was just just treated him like a kid.
Who knows. But they said, you know what, you know,
this guy shouldn't be mailing these randomly to just whoever.

(21:42):
We certainly don't want it, so we're gonna call and complaint.
And Marvin Miller ended up getting arrested for um obscenity.
And this is a huge this turned out to be
a huge case. Yeah, and went all the way to
the Supreme Court, and um, yeah, it was. It was
what you call a um, what do you call that? Landmark? Well,

(22:03):
Landmark's waters watershed. I couldn't think of it. I was like,
we did a podcast on it recently. It's an Intego
Girls song. That's right. It was a watershed case. Miller v. California.
And I'm gonna say V instead of versus. I think
we've talked about that before, right, Um, it makes you
sound more legal easy, Yeah, and everyone likes being legal easy. Uh.

(22:25):
In three, like I said, the Supreme Court heard the
case and they found that his speech did not qualify
for for protection. Um. But here's the hitch. They didn't
rule on the obscenity. They ruled that, hey, we're protecting kids,
and you can't just mail this stuff to a house
because kids live in houses, and so it was inappropriate

(22:49):
content for children. Um. And what it did as well
is it is it specified a test for defining obscenity, which, boy,
over the years, this has been a really tough thing
and it seems like over the years of courts round
me don't want any part of that. Now. If There's
one thing too that as far as restricting free speech goes,
that drives me up the wall. It's obscenity. The Court

(23:12):
should not have anything to do with obscenity, and mostly
they don't wantling on it. Right, There's this great quote
from Hugo Black, who, as of this podcast has become
my favorite Supreme Court justice of all time. He said
in Michigan versus State of New York, Um, I wish
once more to express my this is my Hugo Black,

(23:32):
by the way, I wish once more to express my
objections to saddling this court with the irksome and an
inevitably unpopular and unwholesome task of finally deciding by a
case by case, site by site personal judgment of the
members of this court what pornography, whatever that means is
too hardcore for people to see or read. Basically, they

(23:55):
were tired of sitting in court and looking at like
pictures of a B. C. At the least, and ruling
on this stuff like what about this one? What about
this one? What about? The thing is they were looking
at like pulp pulp books Like Michigan was a guy
who had a publishing house of pulp books that showed
like B D S M or lesbianism or masturbation or

(24:17):
whatever on the cover. He's like, this is this is
actually pretty nice, right, They're like minutes a perk of
the job. But we shouldn't have to do it anyway.
And so the idea that that um, the court is
ruling what is obscene is and what is not is
it's legislating morality, clear and just clearly it's legislating morality.

(24:38):
And I don't think the court has any any right
to that at all, but they have. They have a
long tradition of it, and over time they've actually come
to protect pornography, um, with the exception of child pornography,
which you're not really gonna You're gonna be hard pressed
to find anybody who argues for freedom of speech as
far as child pornography goes UM. And then obscenity, which

(25:03):
is which came out of this through the three pronged
tests to determine what's obscene, came out of that Miller
the California case, and it says this, It says that
if the average person using contemporary community standards can look
at something and says that this arouses the prurient interest?

(25:24):
Does it meaning sexy time? Yeah? Uh, that's that's the
wronged one. And you have to satisfy all three of them.
Is this patently offensive sexual content or patently either one?
I say patently And I got that from Mr Burns.
Oh well, I say, I say patently like Mr Burns does. Yeah.
And then the final one is a big one. Uh,

(25:45):
it's whether the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic,
or potentially or political or scientific value. Right. That's that's subjective,
extremely subjective, like who who it literally says if it's
our stick? Right? Who? Who says? What's art and what's not? Yeah?
And very famously, uh, Justice Potter Stewart the very very

(26:08):
famous line when asking about obscenity or pornography said I
know what when I see it? Right? But they they
have long said like we we One of them said,
we may be trying to define the indefinable. Yeah, it
is indefinable. You ask a hundred people what pornography is
and you'll get a hundred different answers. And so as
a result, some courts have said, uh, yeah, this community

(26:31):
the jurors decided that this is obscene, So people go
to jail for depicting sexual acts or something like that
that some jurors in that town found um distasteful because
America has has long had a very puritanical hang up
with sex and nudity. Uh, violence, bring it on, but

(26:54):
nude bodies shame, shame. I think that's probably my issue
with it too, is we're super like will expose kids
to violence, extreme violence at a very young age. But sexuality, Hey,
you wait until you're you wait until your parents are dead.
You understand. Wonders for the therapy industry though it's true,

(27:15):
So hold on checked. There's one other thing. The other
part that the other problem I have with the um
defining obscenity is that there's no national standard. The courts
even said it would be impossible to come up with
a national standard. So if Miller had been tried in
a community of swingers who are like into that stuff, um,
he probably would have gotten off right. But because he

(27:40):
was tried in a community that decided that no, this
is this is obscene, it was deemed obscene, whereas in
another community it may not have been deemed obscene. That's
no test. Well, yeah, and that that became a big
deal at one point because they basically, um, the law
said that community standards are like you can't have a
national stand or because what what the someone thinks in Skokie,

(28:03):
Illinois is not what in Sin City, Las Vegas. They
have an entirely different definition of obscenity and pornography, you know,
and they're right. Yeah, I guess they are right, which
is which is why I you I to me, it's
one or the other. Either get rid of anything that
could possibly be considered obscene or you allow it all.

(28:28):
So obscenity, it's obscene, it is. Well, we'll get more
into obscenity too, but um, there are a lot of
other facets of free speech that you might not really
think about. In two thousand thirteen, that was a case
Bland v. Roberts where there were these two dudes, um
that work for a sheriff department. You know sheriff's are elected.

(28:50):
They were running for office, and they were fired for
commenting and liking UM on an opponent's Facebook page, which
you know, this gets into in the digital age and
the Internet age, a whole different slew of questions to
be answered, And they appealed that case and then and
one actually, yeah, Bland v. Roberts. As a result, Facebook

(29:11):
likes are considered protective protected free speech under the First Amendment.
Now yeah, but ibronic, well maybe not ironically, but Facebook
and social media in general you can also, I mean,
it's at their discretion whether or not they take something down,
and you can't say, well, that's free speech, and it's like, no,
this is our our private room. Essentially is our home.
And inside a private home you can tell someone to

(29:34):
shut up. Private home, private companies, Yeah, social media platform
Like if you show up to work in uh F,
the police shirt, they can fire you or tell you
to change it. And if you say no, no, no,
like this is my free speech, I'll go no, this
is my business. This is not a free speech. So
like like the mall, remember yeah, oh yeah, that's right,

(29:55):
poor Victor Gruing. Uh And here's the thing too is
and this isn't really section in our notes. But I
get kind of a riffin here. I get kind of
bugged these days with I think a lot of people
have the notion that freedom of speech means also freedom
from consequence, and those are two different things. Like freedom
of speech means that you were not going to be well,

(30:16):
you might even be arrested and convicted, but eventually it
will be overturned. You'll be vindicated. But if a business
or a comedian or a TV show does something that
people find offensive or provocateur YouTube and someone wants to
pick at them and shut them down or boycott them,
and they cry free speech, it's like you know, you know,

(30:38):
you said that you got away with it. You're not
in jail. Doesn't mean it won't be consequences. Well, yeah,
the right to protest is enshrined in the same free speech.
But I think, yeah, I hear a lot. It seems
like more and more of these days where people, um,
people whine about the consequences of their own free speech
and that's not enshrined in the constitution. There there very

(31:00):
likely will be consequences, right, people will hate you maybe,
But it's like you said, though, you know the the
the it's there to protect the unpopular opinion. There's this
guy Um who's a an expert on free speech at
Penn State. I believe um. He said, we have a
First Amendment to protect unpopular expression or the minority viewpoint,

(31:23):
because we don't need a constitution to protect the majority,
what the majority thinks. The majority takes care of itself.
It's a good point. It's the people who everybody else
hates and what they have to say. Um, that is
protected by the Constitution. Yeah. And uh, Harvard law professor
Noah Feldman, in a very Unharvard law like way, said, uh,

(31:43):
if your feelings are hurt, then that's your problem, snowflake.
You didn't say Harvard like JFK. He didn't say snowflake.
I was kidding, no, but he he. What he was
pointing out was basically the sentiment behind free speech in
the United States that as long as you are not
physically harming somebody you like, emotional harm is whatever. We're

(32:06):
not even gonna it's not even in a register. Well,
although that one article you sent that op ed there
there was the guy that argued that emotional harm was
worse than physical harm and had a longer lasting impact. Um,
so you know there are two sides to every argument there. Well,
that's one of the reasons why Europe has said no
hate speech. It's harmful. Yeah. Yeah, Like, even if it

(32:29):
isn't physically harmful, it's emotionally it's an intellectually harmful it's
it's not good alright, So we've dabbled in an obscenity.
Uh one of the other and we'll talk a little
bit more about it. But one of the other things
that um, you can you can have insulting speech, but
there's something called fighting words, um that is not protected

(32:50):
and it's can be difficult to determine. And again over
the years the courts have tried to do so. But
in ninety nine that was kind of a landmark case
Brandon Burr v. Ohio, where Clarence Brandenburg was at a
clan rally in Ohio and said, we are we're not
a revengeent organization. But if our president, our Congress, our

(33:12):
Supreme Court continues to suppress the white Caucasian race, please,
it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
So they should have jailed him for grammar. Revengeance is,
of course not a real word, and make it neither
us revenge it. Although I think it's in a video
game now someone said, yeah, revengeance too, don't. I don't

(33:37):
think it's called that. Revengeance two called our parentheses s
I C right, what does that stand for? Again? Uh?
Sick I can't remember, Like, that's so sick they got
it wrong. I don't. I don't know remember now I think, yeah,
somebody else send it in people who tend to write
it after the stuff we write. We don't usually use

(34:00):
it ourselves. Yeah. It's funny, though. I have this thing,
you know, just the weird quirky things that everyone sort
of does in their head in life. Whenever I see
s I C written in an article, I always try
and think of what word either they got wrong or
were replacing in the article, you know, to make make
more sense. Well, no, they use it too, because well,

(34:23):
if it's a misspelling or if it's not a word,
it's basically the writer or the editor saying this guy
got it wrong, not me. Yeah, yeah, but am I
thinking of a different was it? What is it? When
they um, that's just when they put it in brackets
and they put like there or something like the person
lets it out. Sick also goes in brackets, but it's
basically saying I'm aware that this is misspelled. Yeahs to

(34:47):
show what a dummy this guy is. I think I
do it in both cases, Like if it's a made
up word, I'll try and think of what like they meant,
or like the other one where there's just a parentheses
and they just basically add something to make it more sense.
I try and think of, like, what did they say
to begin with? It's a weird thing. No, I know
to mean in my head right now I have for

(35:09):
your eyes only. I thought you go away. You're trying
to figure out what I'm thinking. The brains brain does
some terrible stuff. I had that in my head now too,
because you came in singing it for your only? Why
do you? Doesn't make any sense? It doesn't. I haven't
heard the song in decades. A week long ear worm
from a song you haven't heard in decades? Was it
in a dream? I don't think so. You're dreaming about

(35:31):
She and Easton again. That's a good movie though. Uh,
what's the Connery one on it? No? No, that was
Roger Moore? Are you sure? Yeah? You're sure? I think
it was Sean Connery's last time? No, all right, I
may be right here. Go to the map for that one.
All right, Um, all right, Getting back to Brandenburg, the

(35:54):
the clan member who who didn't know how to talk right? Um,
he didn't talk good. He was arrested for ad dedicating violence,
and he won. Supreme Court decided in his favor and
thus began the history, the long history of the United
States saying, you know what, the clan wants to have
a rally out in the public town square and they

(36:15):
apply for their permit, you gotta let him do it.
But again that actually that the clans hate speech being
protected was lumped together and came out of the civil
rights movements freedom of speech being protected as well, because
they were like, well, hey man, stokely Carmichael says that
you know, we gotta like take take the take control

(36:38):
from the white He's rise up and take control, like
that's hate speech, and the Supreme Court says, you know what,
you're right, and that's protected. So so it was what
the clan saying, or Illinois Nazis and Skokie right, second
time Skokie's made an appearance in this episode. Yeah, why
not a third um the usual. So yeah, anyway, I

(37:03):
think what you're you're saying is as a result, hate
speech is has a decades long tradition of being protected
at any and all costs unless you are using it
to incite violence, and that ties in to that original
prohibition on free speech that Oliver Wendell Holmes came up

(37:26):
with is that it presents a clear and present danger.
So rather than using that specifically to incite violence, you
basically have to be saying it's not enough to um
to say, uh, like, we black people need to rise
up and take control of the United States, and if
it has to be violent, it has to be violent.

(37:47):
But we can't live like this anymore. Right, If if
Stokely Carmichael saying something like that, or Malcolm X is
saying something like that, that is protected speech, even though
it makes a lot of people, or it made a
lot of people uneasy to hear that kind of thing
and they said, hey, they're trying to start a race war,
it's still protected speech. On the other hand, if you said,

(38:09):
or Stokely Carmichael said everybody needs to go get the
shotguns and we're all gonna beet here on Tuesday and
we're gonna take the streets Tuesday afternoon, that would not
be protected because he would be directly inciting violence. Yeah,
what what are the two things? That violence has to
be likely and uh, it has to the advocacy for
violence has to be um directed to inciting or producing

(38:33):
imminent lawless action, and then it has to be likely
to incite or produce such actions. So it's it has
to it has to be happening at some point that
you can point to next Tuesday. Something that's not vague
or indefinable, like we should do this in the future
if um, if we're not granted greater rights. So it

(38:53):
has to be something specific, and it has to be
likely to produce that effect. Right, So if somebody is
a great order and the people they're telling to get
their shotguns all own shotguns at home, that would probably
make it likely. And then a few years after um
that case. Another one has v Indiana from nineteen three
to find imminent a little further and it said an

(39:16):
advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time. That's protected, right,
so likely and eminent? Yes, interesting? All right, Well let's
take a likely and imminent break and we'll talk more,
even more about obscenity after this. George Large, I was skid,

(39:55):
all right, So did you see the movie Carneal Knowledge?
I didn't. I thought, um, for some reason, my I
was like body heats not that old that I thought
the movie was? Wasn't that a sexy one. Body heat
was quite sexy. I never saw that. One very good movie,
was it? Kathleen Turner, Kathleen Turner. That is correct? Uh,

(40:19):
Romancing the Stone Kathleen Turner Friends, Kathleen Turner, Romancing the Stones,
Kathleen Turner. It doesn't matter either way. She's a delight
body heat Kathleen Turner. Never saw it. It's good, very steamy.
That was going to Palmer, right, I think so? Yeah.
I think she's also the star of one of my
favorite all time movies, which is the War of the
roses Man. That is a great movie. I can watch

(40:42):
that movie a thousand times and not get sick of it.
That's on um alright. So Carnal Knowledge was the Mike
Nichols film with Jack Nicholson, Candice Bergen, and Art car Funkele.
Of all people, what is our gar Funkle doing in there?
He sings in a false that out throughout it's very nice.

(41:04):
All lines are in sing song. Um no, he he
was he acted in it was good? Was he good? Yeah? Yeah?
It was great movie. He like Paul Simon good, well,
he's acted too here and there. Really good movie though,
I mean, like I said, it was Mike Nichols. It
was not like porn, but it was just a very
frank movie about sex and relationships. Um, Like Nicholson plays

(41:27):
sort of a you know what you would think kind
of a womanizer, and Art gar Funkle a little more
uh tinder and um not as big of a womanizer,
trying to decide how to put all this, and it
kind of just follows him in three points of their
life from like college to middle age and their sexual exploits. Anyway,

(41:49):
it sounds kind of boring. Just really good movie, Yeah,
and very famously in nineteen seventy four. I think it
might have started in seventy three. And right here in
All Beneath Georgia, that was a theater manager that was
arrested for showing that movie in a theater. Oh is
that where this case comes from. Yeah, and he was
arrested and convicted of distributing obscene material. It's Jenkins v. Georgia, right.

(42:11):
Jenkins v. Georgia was a court case, and of course
the Supreme Court ruled, um that Colonel Knowledge was not obscene,
and I think in the ruling they said, it's Mike Nichols,
for God's sake, He's like, what are you thinking, precious treasure? Uh?
And um, well, they said that it basically your your
opposition to a state of Georgia making us so proud

(42:33):
is that there's nudity in it. And it's not a
lot of nudity. They were like, that's not enough. That
doesn't it's not patently offensive sexual, sexually explicit material that
has no artistic value. Yes, it fails the Miller test
is what it's called. Yeah, it passes. I guess it
would fail the Miller test because if you pass the

(42:55):
Miller tests, could be it would be obscene. Right, It's
a weird way to look at it. I guess. Uh.
Here in the modern age, like I said, with the
Internet opened up a whole host of issues with free speech,
and notably the Child Online Protection Act COPA. Yeah, that
was a big deal, very big deal. COPA was legislation
that was introduced to, you know, protect kids from online smut. Right.

(43:20):
But on the other hand, uh, freedom of speech, I
have a kids said, no, they're gonna this is the
start of regulating the internet. The Internet is a free,
open wild West and it should not be regulated, So
don't try to regulate it. And again, everybody said except
for child pornography, and the person talking said, well, yeah,
except of course child preno. If you don't be stupid. Well,

(43:41):
COPA never actually went into effect. It went through three
rounds of litigation over the years, and um, you know,
basically one of the big things that the court would
say back was there are protections that parents can put
in to restrict their kids from this stuff, and that's enough. Yeah,
that's a huge thing. Like the court really tends to
to not like government overreach and tends to restrict it

(44:05):
whenever it comes about, right. Yeah, and this was really
tricky because what they were trying to do is apply
a federal law to community standards for a global product.
And that's just I mean, talk about complicated law. That's tricky.
It's very very tricky. Yeah. So, um, the court struck
it down in part because they thought it was overly broad.

(44:26):
They said that the what the government was considering offensive
material would not would not pass the Miller test, so
that was overly broad. And then they also said, yeah,
there's alternatives like parental controls that are widely available are
can solve the problem that the government's looking to solve,

(44:46):
which is restrict kids from pornography, um, but without restricting
anyone else's individual liberty right, so they said, see around copa.
Uh and justice Even Bryer wrote in a concurring opinion,
this is a good quote too, to read the statute
as adopting the community standards of every locality in the

(45:08):
United States would provide the most puritan of communities with
a Heckler's veto affecting the rest of the nation, basically
saying what many have said was, this is an impossible task,
so don't even try. I wish they'd take that that
idea with obscenity as well. Well. And here's the other
thing when they struck down cope. And this is another

(45:29):
really good quote, and this this one from U. S.
District Judge Lowell read Jr. Not lou read, but Lowell read.
Lou Reid said, take a walk on the wild side.
Lowell said, maybe after a nap. Lowell said, uh. And
this kind of sums up for me. I think he said,
perhaps we do the miners of this country harm if

(45:51):
First Amendment protections which they uh will with age inherit
fully are chipped away in the name of their protection right.
So basically like in trying to protect these kids, we
have restricted their free speech when they become adults. Very interesting, Yeah,
it's true, you know. Yeah, Um, the the courts, do

(46:14):
you go with obscenity, I'm great with it with the
courts have also kind of shaped um freedom of speech
or protective freedom of speech by saying yes, certain types
of speech are not protected. Obscenity, child pornography, fighting words,

(46:34):
fighting words, and then libel is another one. But one
of the ways they further protected even when they're restricting
it is to say, not everything that you say is
liabel is actually liable. It's print right. It's very I
think it more has to do with slanders words that
it is okay, so with libel laws, and I would

(46:57):
guess slander falls under the same laws, right, don't so,
But with libel laws, um, it's really difficult to prove
liabel right because the person printing the libelous um information,
which is basically you're defaming someone's character, and that's a
really old, longstanding prohibition. I think even back in ancient

(47:18):
Greece they had a certain amount of freedom of speech
in Athens classical athens Um, but even even that was
restricted as far as talking trash about someone's character. Right,
So that's a that's a really old idea that you
shouldn't You shouldn't put fake stuff about someone's character reputation
out there. And if you do, then they have recourse.

(47:41):
But to prove that that person said something libelous, they
have to have had malice of forethought. They had to
have um known that what they were printing was wrong
or untrue. Yeah, that's the key. It has to be untrue.
You can express an opinion about something and say someone's

(48:01):
a big poopy pants, but you can't say someone's big
poopy pants. Who did X, Y and z if that
isn't true, right, exactly? Um, And so it's really tough
to to prove to prove libel right. So it is
unprotected speech, but it's also protected in that it's not
very broad, it's very narrow. And then part and parcel
with that is um, satire and parody are also very

(48:24):
much protected in the United States, thankfully, and we have
Larry Flint Hustler publisher to thank for that. Yeah, every
I mean, people versus Larry Flint is a very good
job of that spelling out that case. But very famously
he went to war with the Reverend Jerry Fallwell because
he had a cartoon and his Hustler magazine that was

(48:46):
an unflattering, uh sexual depiction of Jerry Fallwell. It was No,
it was a fake campari ad. It was a spoof
campari ad. But it was a cartoon though, No, not
the one I saw. Really, I saw like a I'm
sure he han drawn. I'm sure he had that too.
But this what the court case was. It was like
a campari and there was like a campari um ad

(49:07):
campaign where people talked about their first time they had
campari or whatever, and Jerry fall Wells was, uh, he
and his mother got drunk on campari and had sex
in the outhouse and that was actually how he lost
his virginity. Jerry Falwell didn't like that, of course, so
he sued um. He sued Larry Flint, and Larry Flint
won that case. It went all the way up to

(49:28):
the Supreme Court. Yeah, it was a case and they said, Nope,
this is parody. There's a satire. It's protected. If any
reasonable person um sees it and would know that it's
not true, it's protected. And and Larry Flint said, or
no reasonable person, right, pervert frack. That was yours is

(49:49):
better than mine? That was good? Oh yeah, what was
that going? Yeah? He sounded like what he Harrelson doing
Larry Flint, which is right on the money. In my head,
I sound like a muppety tenor doing what do he
Harrelson do? Great movie The Muppets people versus um. Yeah.

(50:10):
In any way, thankfully satire and is protected here in
the US because we have a long, rich history of
political cartoons and rich satire that can really make a difference.
Like you see what's going on with Saturday out Live
right now. It's like they've had a long, long tradition

(50:31):
of political satire and and most times that opening bit
they do is political in nature. Uh, And then you
know it's nothing new. They've been doing it forever. So
I don't know. I just think it's it's when you
start like poking at that and the onion and you

(50:51):
know some of the great satirical publications that's that goes
down a bad road, you know. So took One of
the things that's coming up now that we're connected globally
is this idea that what we talked about at the beginning,
the US has very broad free speech protections some other
countries don't. There's like the the U N Universal Declaration

(51:15):
of Human Rights, right, some of that has has some
free speech protection in it. Not everybody signed on to it,
and a lot of people think there will never be
any way to to protect freedom of speech worldwide. Normally,
up to say the nineties, that wasn't that big of
an issue unless like Salman Rushdie published a book or

(51:38):
something like that, UM, because each country had its own standards,
and what what's said in one country typically stayed in
that country, even if it was offensive to another country.
Right the the the the two didn't collide. Now that
the internet's here, what's said in one country can be
carried immediately to another country, and the offense can be taken.

(52:02):
And this went out of hypotheticals and into real world,
well into the real world. UM. Back in two thousand twelve,
when a guy named Nakula Baseli Nakula released a fourteen
minute video called The Innocence of Muslims. Do you remember that?
I don't. It was extremely incendiary. If you, um were

(52:26):
a Muslim, you were going to be offended by this
because it basically said the prophet Mohammed was a fraud. Uh.
It had him as a flander, a womanizer, I think,
a pedophile. It was like, and the people who were
in it were scared to death because of the reaction.
There were riots around the world once it was translated

(52:47):
into Arabic and released. What they think was going to happen,
I don't, I don't know, like I don't, I don't
remember if the person was a provocateur on purpose or
if these were their real beliefs son Islam. Regardless, they
were um Egyptian American, so the video was protected, even
though elsewhere in the world they were literally rioting the

(53:08):
streets and people were dying because this video existed. They
were so upset by it. But in the US t
s and as far as I know, it's still up
on YouTube right because it's protected by free speech. Well,
that's a that's a great example of should the US
have the freedom of speech that is going to cause

(53:32):
harm in another country now that those two countries are
connected via the Internet. There's no easy answer to that.
That was basically a rhetorical question at this point, but
it's one that I think is going to have to
be decided more and more and what goes to the
heart of his blasphemy in this case. Yeah, blasphemy specifically
means insulting God or any religious or holy person or thing. Uh,

(53:56):
it means different things in different religions. Um, it's actually
still illegal in some states in the US. Um. Oh is,
I thought the last one was struck down in two
thousand seven. H okay, well but two thousands up until
two thousand seven. Um, yeah, yeah, had laws until two
thousand seven. That's right again two thousand seven. Yeah. Uh.

(54:20):
But the last conviction for blasphemy in the US was
in night. So because these were laws that were sort
of on the books that no one did much about. Well,
there's a dude. It was in Little Rock, Arkansas, and
he was an anti religious atheist, this white supremacist who
um had an office and in the office there was
a sign out front I guess it was a storefront office,

(54:43):
and it said, um, evolution is true, the Bible is
a lie. God is a ghost. And he got arrested
and convicted for blasphemy. So again, this is night and
there were blasphemy laws on the books until two thousand seven,
and yeah, is it's it's really surprising to think that
the United States ever had blasphemy laws, but they were

(55:07):
fairly recent. Yeah, and you know when it comes to religion,
like the United States protects Westboro Baptist Church and they
say you can go out and you can have uh,
offensive messages on signs at military funerals if you want um,
because as the United States and we allow that. Yeah.
And so I think that kind of brings up that
one op ed you're talking about from the Atlantic, that um,

(55:32):
free speech isn't free. What's the title of it, Yeah,
what's the what's the guy who wrote its name? Garrett
Epps wrote it? Yeah, and he makes really great He
didn't even make a case, he just kind of presented
both sides well, and what he did was he was
a quote. And I think you're right on the money
with that um, with that summation, because he said, Um,

(55:56):
repressing speech has costs, but so it does allowing it.
And the only mature way to the system is to
look at both sides of the ledger. Right. That really
kind of says it all. Yeah, And he's basically saying
like it's not enough to be to say freedom of
speech exists because we have free speech in the U.
S America is a free country. You have to examine
why and you have to defend it or else it's

(56:16):
just a privilege, and privileges are always subject to attack,
but actual freedom is should be defensible, and so he
says we need to defend it, especially based on another
op ed that he was actually talking about by a
law professor from fordom Thane Rosenbaum said, Um, no, there

(56:37):
are actual harms to speech. It does cause physical or
it does cause emotional harm that can in some cases
exceed physical harm. It can be longer lasting, it can
have a greater impact on more people at once. Um.
And so why do we allow hate speech in the
United States? And Garrett Ups doesn't have the answer, He

(57:00):
just examines the whole question. I think really well, yeah,
I thought it was interesting. I mean, you know, he
makes a point that the same laws that allow for
strides of civil rights and feminism and gay rights groups
over the years are the same laws that protect the
people that have done them such harm over the years. Um.

(57:21):
And you know, like you said, you gotta look at
both sides of the ledger. It might cause harm and
there is a cost to it, but ultimately the freedom, well,
in my opinion least outweighs those harms. So there's this
guy named Jonathan Rausch who UM Garrett ups quotes, but
he wrote another OpEd that I read, and his idea

(57:41):
of why freedom of speech, including hate speech, is important
is because he says that if you suppress speech, you're
suppressing thoughts. Right, So if you suppress hate speech, it's
still gonna be there, It's still gonna be boiling under
the surface. People are still gonna quietly, subtly trade in it,
but you can't refute it. If you allow hate speech,

(58:03):
it can be refuted loudly, publicly. And then from that
and he makes the case that this is why gays
in America have made such strides in the last few years,
because of the vicious homophobia that was publicly hurled at them,
that they stood up and said, you know what, this
isn't true. You know what, we deserve this right. You

(58:24):
know what, we're not pedophiles, you know what, we should
be able to adopt everything, and shot down all this
stuff systematically. And America was watching this back and forth
and um, gay people one public sentiment just through logic,
he was saying, if you didn't allow that hate speech
in the first place, there wouldn't have been that position
to address, um that hate speech. Improve it wrong because

(58:48):
you can't suppress hateful ideology. It's going to exist, So
allow the speech so it can be publicly refuted and
just smacked down. Yeah, yeah, I thought. I think that's
probably the asked explanation for freedom of speech. I've ever
heard a good way to close to huh Man, Thanks
a lot, Jonathan rosh Ah, You got anything else? No,

(59:09):
I don't, but a little tease before listener mail, We're
gonna have a couple of very intriguing follow ups to
recent questions. Okay, all right, well, if you want to
know more about free speech, uh to start talking. And
since I said that, it's time for whatever Chuck's got
up his sleeve. Yeah. Before I read the listener mail, UM,

(59:31):
two things were on a recent show. We asked about
our old buddy Sarah the Amazing fan and then our
old buddy Sam, the summer of Sam. Weirdly enough, we
come into the office and Sam's parents dropped off a
letter to us. Sam wants to be an intern here.

(59:52):
So he's around. He's in college, yeah, doing great, and
wants to intern and wrote us a letter and we're
gonna try and get him in here. Oh yeah. And
he wouldn't be our intern specifically'd be for how stuff works.
But um, we're going to burn a lot of currency
to make sure he gets this job. Yeah. I hope
it happens. It'd be great. It was good to hear
from him and sounds like college is going great. His
resume was stacked, buddy. Uh. And the other thing is,

(01:00:15):
I don't know if you saw this because I did
the Facebook, but um, Katherine Mary Stewart of Night of
the Comet played the older sister Reggie. Uh and was
also in the Last Starfighter and we kened to Bernie's
and you know it was, you know, sort of the
darling in the nineteen eighties and nineties. Uh. And it's
still an actor today, does theater, working stuff and movies

(01:00:39):
and TV and radio. She does it all. Uh. She
got in touch with us. She listened to the Malls
podcast posted on Facebook that we shouted her out and
also her hometown Edmonton Mall and I was just knocked
out and told her to email us. She email that
thinks she lives in New York, and I said, hey,
listen next time. We do a show at the Bell House.

(01:01:01):
I want to act out week end up, Bernie, I'll
play I'll play the dead guy, and you and Josh
can just pup it me around. Uh Now. It was like,
you know, come and bring your family. We'd love the
guest list you. Maybe you can hop up on stage
and we can chit chat for a minute. Nice. I
took the liberty of doing that. It was very nice.
You're like, no, she can't get on stage. We need
to edit that part out. I just thought that was

(01:01:23):
very cool. Yes, very cool. Thanks for writing in Katherine
Mary Stewart. Yes, and boys, she's found the fountain of youth.
She looks exactly the same. Oh yeah, yes, uh and
Sam too, he looks exactly the same. It's like twenty
looked like he did when he was seventeen. Well, thanks, dudes. Oh,
we haven't even done listener mail yet. No, so listener mail. Um, well,

(01:01:46):
I'm just gonna read it. It's called would you rather?
I feel bad for Jerry. She's not gonna know where
to put the listener mail China. That's all right. Hey, guys,
just finishing listening to soil It And uh, I thought
I had a surefire argument starter for you guys. Josh's
rant about the pros and cons of cooking and sharing meals.
I don't rain reinforce my position on the subject. I'd

(01:02:09):
like to know what you think about it. Here's how
you play would you rather and it's not the sexy one? Okay,
you get to forego one thing that humans need to
do in order to live, either eating, sleeping, or breathing.
You can do the thing that you choose to forego,
of course, you just don't need to in order to live,
and you remain neutral in terms of pleasure or discomfort

(01:02:29):
caused by the lack of the necessity. So you don't
feel hungry, you don't feel sleepy, you don't feel affixiated.
Stop out to me. So he wants to know what
would we rather do without? Um mine is easy. I
would easily read not breathe question who would want? Who

(01:02:53):
would say, like, I don't want to eat. I get
a lot out of breathing. I'd have trouble giving that
one up. Well, Andrew said he would need that's the
answer to that question. He said, I would always forego
eating because of the money it takes to feed myself.
And uh, the waking hours I would save. Yeah, I
mean people's that's the two things with food, time and money. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

(01:03:16):
but you get so much pleasure of it. Breathing. Sure
it's free, but who cares, especially if you're not going
to die from not breathing. And this situation is weird
fantasy world of his. I say, anyone who chooses, and
this is Andrew talking, I say, anyone who chooses to
forego sleep as a dummy, because not only are you
not saving on food, you have to entertain yourself for

(01:03:36):
an additional five hours a day. You argument there, though,
is you could get more done. Sure, sometimes I do
wish that you don't have to sleep enough to sleep.
Sometimes I also enjoy sleep too, he says. Plus, I
could eat socially every now and then under these terms
if I wanted to. But who would just take a
nap if you don't feel refreshed afterward? Yeah, well I would.

(01:03:56):
I love to sleep. And then the non breather are
just like deep sea diving and exploring volcanoes and stuff.
I guess, oh, what do you think about that perk? Yeah,
you just go swimming all the way at the bottom forever. Yeah,
so it's clearly breathing is the answer. It's not even
a subjective question at this point that we've proven it. Yeah,

(01:04:19):
all right, keep up the good work. That's from Andrew.
Thanks Andrew, you keep thinking work too. Yeah. Nice, I
just want to see you're a sucker for not eating though. Yeah. Uh.
If you want to try to stump us but fail
at it like Andrew did, you can tweet to us
at s y s K podcast. You can join us
on Facebook dot com. You can or slash Stuff you

(01:04:39):
Should Know. You can send us an email to stuff
Podcast at how Stuff Works dot com and it's always
joined us at at home on the web. Stuff you
Should Know dot Com. Stuff you Should Know is a
production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,
visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows.