Is Censorship Ever Acceptable?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Six one seven two six eight six eight censorship? Is
it ever acceptable? Should fake news be censored? And what
about actions as opposed to speech. We've talked about flag burning.
You know, some feel very strongly that that should be censored.
Like President Trump, he's signed a law to that effect

(00:20):
or an executive order to make it available offense. But
what about actions not involving the flag. I want you
to look at the case of Elizabeth Baxter. She's a
paralegal at the Department of Justice. She was just fired
by Attorney General Pam Bondi after multiple incidents of inappropriate

(00:42):
conduct toward National Guard service members that have been stationed
in d C during President Trump's crime crackdown, and Pam
Bondi has said that she's removed Elizabeth Baxter, the paralegal.
She's a paralegal specialist and the DOJ's Environment and Natural

(01:02):
Resources Division. But Bondie said she removed Elizabeth Baxter after
an internal investigation into repeated actions directed at National Guard personnel.
According to the AG, Baxter first admitted in the middle
of August to a DOJ security guard that she had

(01:24):
made an obscene gesture toward a National Guard member at
the Metro Center station and verbally insulted him. That same day,
surveillance footage showed Baxter making the gesture again you can
imagine what gesture it is outside the DOJ's Forecon building
and shouting profanities at a guardsman. A week later, she

(01:47):
did the same thing, made the same remarks to a
DOJ security guard while entering the building, and witness statements
and security video were looked at in regard to the investigation.
After the investigation, Bondie filed a report saying that Baxter
was removed from the position of Paralegal Specialists, et cetera,

(02:10):
et cetera, and from the Federal Service effective immediately, citing
inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members. And she's got
a right of appeal that's you know, lasts for thirty days.
Bondi confirmed that firing in a social media post, and
she said today I took action to terminate a DOJ
employee for inappropriate conduct towards National Guard Service members in

(02:34):
DC at the Justice Department, and remains committed to defending
President Trump's agenda and fighting to make America safe again.
If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement, you
will no longer work at the DOJ. So hm, that's
that's Did Bondie do the right thing? Or was Elizabeth

(02:57):
Baxter just exercising free speech? Was what she did and
say protected by the First Amendment? Is she being censored
in firing her? You know, there was another case just
a few weeks ago at the DOJ. It's a little
bit different.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
You had.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
Another dog employee, Sean Charles Dunn. He was accused of
throwing a sandwich at a National Guard, a federal officer,
and shouting insults at law enforcement at the same time.
And he also was a paralegal. He was in the
DOJ's criminal division, and he has been charged with misdemeanor
assault after a grand jury declined to indict him on

(03:39):
felony counts. But was what he did free speech? I
think his case is different. It's assault and battery when
you throw something at somebody, even if it's just a sandwich,
and assault is not a constitutional freedom. But you know,
flipping some on the burg is not a form of speech.

(04:01):
It's offensive. But does that mean that it should be censored?
And you're paying a price there? You're losing your job
or does the job change your rights? The fact that
she works for the DOJ, does that she held to
a higher standard. Do you lose some of your free
speech rights if you are if you work for the
DOJ or the White House or or someplace else that's

(04:26):
that's on the public payroll and in high visibility. It's
an interesting question because I think that the guy who
threw the sandwich at the National Guard, that's a solid
battery that's not protected under any stretch of the imagination.
I don't think. But I'm thinking what Baxter did, well,

(04:47):
I find it distasteful and I find and I think
she's a little unhinged there by running around flipping the
bird to National guardsmen and insulting them when they're just
doing their duty. I think that it's different. I think
there is an issue there in regard to free speech.

(05:07):
I'm not sure. And I think maybe you holler in
and you say you don't don't do that. It's a
bad look for the d o J. But you don't
necessarily fire her out of the box, do you. I
mean she has a right to do that. She she
does not have. I will make it clear she does
not have a right to work for the d o J.
But I think you. She has the right to say

(05:28):
what she what she did, and she also has a
right to some coint of appeal, which she does for
thirty days. But I think they needed to suspend her
or tell her if you do this again, we're telling
you now it's a bad look for us. We don't
want it. We're going to fire you. I think they
were a little quick to pull the trigger there. Do
you think I'm wrong? Do you think that she that
she that Pam BONDI was within her rights to fire

(05:49):
Ms Baxter. Let's go to Anne in Cambridge and welcome
to w r KO. How are you.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
I'm good, thank you very much as my first time calling.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
Oh well, welcome.

Speaker 3 (06:01):
So you've done a great job this week.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (06:04):
I just wanted to say I think she was Pam
was well within her rights because this woman, she's her boss,
and you have to act like your job description. She
didn't throw her in jail, so she didn't take away
her First Amendment rights. She has the right to do it,
but she doesn't have the right to work for her
and get away with what she wants to.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
Don't you think that maybe saying don't do this again
might have been a little less a draconian or was
Pam Bondy trying to prove a point that has nothing
really to do with miss Baxter.

Speaker 4 (06:37):
From what you said, and I didn't.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
I wasn't aware of this.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
She did it three different times.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yeah, so how many times?

Speaker 5 (06:43):
You're a grown up, you know that you're she's onhead?

Speaker 1 (06:46):
Yeah, she's a nut, without a doubt, she's a nut.
And you know, I don't think taxpayer dollars should go
to be paying in that salary. But I agree that
she's a nut. But if they spoke to her after
each time, I think, yeah, she's out of here. But
if they didn't know she was doing it till a
third time and then told her don't do it, would
that have been a better response?

Speaker 4 (07:08):
Subatable?

Speaker 1 (07:09):
Yeah, it's it's it's a fine line, isn't it. Censorship
is not an easy question. It's it can be a
very difficult question. Censorship. Is it ever? Okay? Have you
ever been censored? Censorship does not just invoke or does
not just attach when you're talking about social media posts
or TV editing. It can also happen with actions and gestures,

(07:34):
like the case of Elizabeth Baxter, a dog, a DOJ
paralegal who Attorney General Pambondi fired for flipping off and
verbally insulting National Guard that were stationed in d C
during President Crime, during President Crime, during President Trump's crime jihad.
She did this three times. Was Bondi right to fire her?

(07:57):
Or is this censorship? Or is it censorship? But that's
okay because some such or some censorship is allow. What
do you think Arthur and chessun Hill should be? Should
Bondi have fired Ms Baxter?

Speaker 2 (08:11):
Well, I'll tell you, Sandy, and you're doing a great job.
I hope Jeff gets better soon. Uh. She should have
fired him. She should have fired her the first time
and twice on Sunday. You can't have people like that
working for you. What kind of an example that it's
set for everybody else that works in the department, So

(08:34):
that so that if you don't fire that person, the
next one that does that, it's okay. And when you
say and when you and the guy who assaulted that
Nationals that you know, he's lucky you didn't get them
in the eye or something. You know, sometimes freak things

(08:55):
like that can cause bad problems. And people like that
make me sick because what's going on. Here is a
lack of respect for decent people, for people doing their
job and the only reason they're there is to protect
the people, to do them a favor, and instead this
is what they get. It's like the Vietnam the guys

(09:15):
that came home from the war called baby killers and
they were nothing, but you know, and they did what
they was, what they were told to do. And it's
a disgrace. We don't respect anything that what this country
used to be all about. We don't respect children, we
don't respect them is, we don't respect veterans, and we
don't respect authority. And you know what, this is the

(09:38):
greatest cabinet I have ever seen, and compared to the
last cabinet of the most functional people I've ever seen
in my life, you know, we're far advanced. And it
sickens to me what goes on in this country today.
And respect is something that doesn't exist anymore. And the

(10:00):
word pride has been taken away from the people that
belong to like the Marines, and when you did something
that you were proud to do, that word has been
taken away from us. They're things, things that were really
decent in this country. They're gone and you know what
we're paying the price for it, and and and the
most important thing, And I say this time and time again,

(10:21):
and I hope I'm wondering if we don't get rid
of this media, then more they have more blood on
their hands. And I just can't to stand to watch
what they do day after day after day. Uh. You
know it's it's great for people like you and Jeff
who give us an opportunity to vent and to also

(10:45):
tell the truth about things. I wish you could get
a little further so that more people in this country, uh,
would understand what the truth is and and how and
how they're being played. But I just wish there was
respect to get in this country and and I wish
you know what, to be honest with you. For the
first time in my life and been a long life,

(11:05):
I never thought i'd see what's going on today. I'm
not proud of my country.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
I think you put your finger on it, Arthur, in
regard to lack of respect, there's a Texter who agrees
with you. I just wanted to read it to you.
The text line is seven zero for seven zero seven
eighty one, says Sandy. I think everyone that works in
the government is and should be held to a higher standard.
Government is supposed to set and lead by example. Clearly
that hasn't been happening because we often say no one

(11:31):
is above the law in regards to government employees or
elected officials. But here's my question for you, Arthur, and
for the texter. I completely understand what you're saying. You
want to hold them to a higher standard, and it's
one of the ways that we can bring back that
level of respect that you're talking about. But should somebody
just because they work for the government, should they have

(11:54):
even while they you're saying that they have more responsibility?
Should that also mean because this is going to go
hand in hand with that, So that does that also
mean that they have fewer rights? Because doesn't she have
a right to vent her political beliefs by doing something
as obnoxious and offensive as flipping off National Guard. I
agree that it's a horrible thing that she did, but

(12:17):
she has the right to do it, isn't isn't the
fact that she loses her job over that censorship? Does
that mean she has fewer rights because she has a
job in the government? Arthur?

Speaker 2 (12:28):
Well, you know what, we could use a lot of
censorship today, video games and gangst the rep and certain
stuff that that causes a lot of violence and influences
a lot of things in a negative way. I remember

(12:48):
the littlest things that were censored way back when, and
we thought it was really bad. But what's going on today?
But you know, we had role models, okay, and it
was important, as you know, growing up, your parents were
a role model, your teacher was a role model. People
that you saw in video and sports. Everybody was concerned

(13:10):
with good behavior because they always said, you know, you've
got to do this right because you know a lot
of people, you know, are watching what you're doing. And
everybody gets influenced easily. And everything we do today and
everything that gets reported, it causes another person to do
it if it's negative. And there's too many negatives being
reported that we have. That's why we have these things

(13:33):
over repeat it over and over again. And one of
the big biggest examples and and one of the most
you know, when I saw this happen, it was just
so awful to me because if you can't be an
eight year old and be safe in the Catholic school,
that that that's really something. And this trans person.

Speaker 6 (13:54):
You know, the media and everybody, Oh, trans trans that's
that's fine, you know, you know it. We're proud that
we support trans and I'm going to put trance people
here and there.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
But unfortunately a lot of plants. People have murdered children,
children in schools because they because what's happened is what
they thought was a good thing turned out to be
a bad thing, and because it's and they couldn't live
with it anymore, and they decided and they decided to
take other people with them, and the other people Unfortunately,

(14:26):
with children, everything that we tolerate today has given us
bad results.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
Well, I wouldn't say everything, Arthur. I understand why you're
saying that, but not everything. And I would say to
you that I don't think because people are overly influenced.
I think that's the result of everybody having a cell
phone and the ability to post on the Internet. I
don't think the answer to that is censorship, because who
decides where the line is drawn? You know, today it's here,

(14:53):
tomorrow it's there, the next day it's over here. One
day you're on one side of it, the next day
you're on the other side of it. You can't have
a fluid line like that or nobody has freedom of
speech anymore ever, and that is what happens. And you
see that in that first case I was talking about
in the United Kingdom, where a comedian is arrested by

(15:15):
armed police at the airport because he made social media
posts that people thought were obnoxious. That's what happened. And
who's to decide what obnoxious is this week he gets arrested.
Next week it's you that gets arrested, Arthur. So you
have to be very careful about just saying, yes, we
need censorship. I think there are instances when censorship is appropriate.

(15:36):
I think they're far and few between, and I don't
think you want government deciding what humor is and I
don't think you want that's a form of censorship. And
that's what they were doing in the United Kingdom. And
I think one of the earlier callers made a very
good point. What happened in the UK is what's going
to happen here next week because they are they have
turned out to be kind of like the testing grounds

(15:59):
for a lot lot of cancel culture and socialist policies
in the past ten fifteen years. And so I think
when you see such draconian responses to social media posts there.
I think you're about to see them here unless you
start drawing the line and saying censorship is not appropriate.

(16:21):
Whenever you don't like something, and that's kind of what
you just said, Arthur. You don't like this, so it
should be censored. I don't think that's appropriate. I think
that you have to find other ways to deal with,
you know, horrific misinformation that goes around. I think that
censorship is not the way to do that, because don't
forget during COVID, look at the doctors who were censored,

(16:45):
and they had they had information in regard to how
to treat COVID, but it didn't work with what Big
Farmer wanted and they were supporting the Biden administration. So
the Biden administration got avoid and censored doctors because they
didn't want that information out. That's where censorship can lead,
and we were not the better for that. So I
think you've got to be very careful, even though you

(17:07):
have a level of frustration and heartbreak over some of
the things that you see misinformation doing. I think you
had to be very careful how you apply censorship doesn't
mean it's never good, But I don't think as useful
as people think it is censorship? Is it ever? Okay?
Are there times when it's appropriate to censor? We're talking

(17:29):
about the paralegal at the Department of Justice who was
fired because she repeatedly flipped off and insulted National Guard
stations in DC, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who's the
one who fired her or posted about it on X
I'm going to read that again. She said today, I
took action to terminate a DOJ employee for inappropriate conduct

(17:52):
towards National Guard service members in DC. The Justice Department
remains committed to defending President Trump's agenda and fighting to
make America safe again. If you oppose our mission and
disrespect law enforcement, you will no longer work at the DOJ.
And she doesn't. She was fired. She's got thirty days.
Two appeal was Pam Bondy right to fire her?

Speaker 2 (18:15):
Was?

Speaker 1 (18:15):
Did this woman have the right to flip off guard
if she wants to? I mean, that's her, that's I
don't agree with what she did. I find it pretty disgusting,
to be honest with you, But doesn't she have a
right to do it? The text line is seven zero
for seven zero seven eight one says she doesn't lose
her rights, but if working for the DOJ, there's probably

(18:36):
something she signs saying she would behave in a way
to not to reflect ill repute on the department. Yeah,
she probably did. As a matter of fact. I think
as a matter of fact, I think that's probably true
that she did. So you know that that's a good point,
and that would obviously trigger her dismissal. And she's got
a right of appeal, which means she probably did. She's

(18:58):
part of the government employee is union is what I
would take that as. Let's see nine seven eight SYS
Sandy Freedmo's speech is protected, but there are codes of conduct.
I can't walk into work and flip off the receptionist
and burate her every day just because I don't like
her because she doesn't have my political views. I would

(19:18):
be fired immediately. Hey, you probably would, and you would,
and there'd be hostile work environment issues and all the rest.
But we're not talking about her flipping off somebody in
her office. She was slipping off National Guard stationed at
Union Station and around the city, and she was caught
doing it and they didn't know she did it. The
first couple of times, but she was admitting that she

(19:39):
did it, she was proud of it. I guess she's
not exactly the brightest ballb I've ever seen running around
in the Justice apartment, given the fact that she's admitted
she was bragging about doing it, and there's video over
doing it. So she was looking for trouble and she
found it. I don't think she expected to get fired.
Should she have been fired? Is that a right? This

(20:01):
one of those moments when censorship is appropriate, because that's
what this was. It was, in fact censorship. Let's go
to Mark and Lowell. Welcome to w RKO. How are
you Mark?

Speaker 4 (20:12):
And going good?

Speaker 7 (20:13):
How are you doing?

Speaker 1 (20:14):
I'm doing fine with Pam Bondy Wright in firing this
this paralegal.

Speaker 4 (20:21):
Yes, of course, and more than likely he even had
to raise their hand to whear to the United States Constitution.
But you know, neither here nor there. What I wanted
to say in general about censorship is even the lowest

(20:41):
class of people, like let's say, murderers are being censored
from murdering because they they like doing it. So we
have censorship everywhere, and we have to just decide what
is good.

Speaker 1 (20:58):
Well, I think there's a differ difference between, don't you
think between between censorship and other other actions. For instance,
the guy who threw the sandwich at the at the
National Guard, at the federal officer, he's being brought up
on assault. I don't view that as censorship. That was assault.

(21:20):
There's a censorship usually involves things that don't actually impact
other people, either physically or otherwise. It may hurt their feelings,
but it doesn't It doesn't involve an assault and battery
or an injury of some way. It's it's it's purely demonstrative.
So don't you don't see a line there?

Speaker 4 (21:44):
I actually, I mean I see a line every where.
I also believe in no flag burning. But what I
see is that everyone's forgotten what it takes to be
a citizen of the United States. All US people born
in the USA and parents of US citizens, we all

(22:05):
don't know what the what the oath is, except if
you go into the military. You get refreshed at that
time of what the oath to the United States is.
In a couple of last week, sometimes you had someone
talk about the word allegiance. Allegiance is a highly prestigious word. Yeah,

(22:26):
it might mean something different today, but you know it's
still you know, people or that's another form of censorship.

Speaker 1 (22:34):
To me, how is that a former censorship.

Speaker 4 (22:38):
Because it's being taken the way people wanted to it
to mean today versus what it meant the day it
was put into the into the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker 1 (22:55):
Okay, I'm a little bit confused. I don't really understand
what that has to do with censorship.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Ship.

Speaker 4 (23:01):
Well, censorship is putting, as you said, is basically putting
boundaries on what we as people are allowed to do
and not to do. And speech is one of them.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
Yeap.

Speaker 4 (23:22):
And basically, let's just take I'll go to another area.
Let's take the N word. That word is being censored
right now because one group is allowed to say it
whenever they want to and another group isn't.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
That's a really good example.

Speaker 4 (23:41):
And I'm saying the same thing about the US, you know,
a Pledge of Allegiance, I'm saying the same thing about.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
Well, I don't say. That's where you're losing me. I
don't understand what the Pledge of Allegiance is the equivalent
of the N word.

Speaker 4 (23:53):
Oh no, no, I'm not saying that it is there
there's a ton of people. It's every single instance in
the world of censorship is different. Yeah, right now we
have censorship. Is it a censorship of firing someone for
depating improperly at their job or going home from their

(24:15):
job or whatever. Is that considered censorship or not? That's
one question you asked, yep, And and.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
What I guess my my confusion is, I don't understand
what your point was about allegiance and the pledge of
allegiance and how that was censorship.

Speaker 4 (24:33):
Well, because the word allegiance is being picked out of
the phrase, just like the word God was back in the.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
City, I see, okay.

Speaker 4 (24:45):
And saying that it's so censoring.

Speaker 1 (24:48):
You're saying they literally censoring the word allegiance out of
of of what you would do with the flag when
we were growing up with a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
And you're saying they find the word allegiance is now
has a pejorative connotation to it, so they're leaving out
the word allegiance. So that's being censored in the.

Speaker 4 (25:09):
Day they did the word God. Censorship is being used
for it's some places they're being smart about it, and
they're doing little pieces at a time, Yeah, taking it away.

Speaker 1 (25:22):
Yeah, and it's insidious. It's insidious what they're doing. That
type of censorship is horrific to me because people it's
like a lobster. In turning the heat up on a
boiling lobster, it doesn't know it's boiled, you know, until
it's dead, because it doesn't feel the water rise and
or the water heat up. And it's the same thing here.

(25:42):
People don't realize they're being censored until all of a
sudden you're arrested at the airport with armed guards. So
I understand exactly what you're saying, and I agree with you.
Thank you so much for the call, Mark. I appreciate
it very much. Yeah, there is some censorship that is
really insidious. You don't even know. It's just the little
things here and there, I think, which is one of

(26:03):
the points that Mark was making. You have you know,
we'll take this word out here, that word out there,
and then before you know it, you can't say anything.
I think, you know, that's the long range strategic censorship
that occurs. But then we also have the in your
face censorship that happened, for instance, during the election, the

(26:31):
twenty twenty election, where anybody who brought up the laptop
hunter Biden's laptop was cut dead in their tracks, and
so much so that do you remember the New York Post,
you know, found the guy who had the laptop and
did this story, and they were censored. They couldn't go

(26:51):
on social media. And Senator Ted Cruz brought up the story,
he was censored, he couldn't go on social media because
it did not fit the narrative. That was fake news,
that that was that was Russian interference, and so therefore
they were all censored. That was in your face censorship.
But the stuff that Mark is talking about is the

(27:13):
stuff there, well, you don't don't use this word. Don't
use that word just a word. You know, that word
is a little offensive. We saw it to the nth
degree what he's talking about in the last administration, with
things like they wanted to change the word mother to
birthing person. I mean, that's the change of a word.
It was ludicrous. We all agree it was ludacris. But

(27:35):
that's you know, where one word is changed. And now
all of a sudden, we're moving into a whole different
environment where you know, women are not are not easily
identifiable people don't know what the definition of a woman is.
I mean, that's where that leads to, and it's it's
frightening to me that level of censorship. Let's go to

(28:00):
David and Ashland. David, welcome to w r KO. How
are you, good morning, Good morning. Have you ever been censored?

Speaker 2 (28:07):
David?

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Uh No, I never have, Lucky guy, do you think
that Pam BONDI was right to fire this paralegal the
d O J.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
Yes.

Speaker 7 (28:18):
I think that any company that you work for, whether
it's federal government, whatever, I think that uh, you know,
they do have uh you know, policies and whatever. And
I think that if the person overstepped the line, like
I know, I worked in I worked in the medical field,
and we have we have, you know, something in there

(28:39):
written that you cannot talk to like the media. If
something happens, you can't talk to anyone, and you have
to be you know, you have to be careful with
your patients with hipah.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
You know. So, I mean a.

Speaker 7 (28:51):
Lot of a lot of that is there in the system,
built into the system. I think all corporations have that.
You know, probably a lot of people don't you know,
look at it. But I think the individual I'm sure
there was something that was written up that they you know,
their behavior, you know, for working for a federal government.

(29:11):
You know that means inside and outside when you're walking around.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
Well, David, but doesn't it make a difference that one
she wasn't talking to the press, she wasn't doing something
in regard to any kind of public statement representing the DJ.
Nobody on the street would know that she works the DJ,
and she wasn't in her workplace. She's walking home or
doing her grocery shopping whatever, and chows to be abusive
to National Guard, which I find appalling. But is that

(29:36):
a fireable offense when she wasn't in her job and
not identifiable as a DJ employee?

Speaker 2 (29:42):
It is?

Speaker 7 (29:43):
I think that her behavior on the outside is kind
of an indicator of what kind of place that she
works for.

Speaker 1 (29:51):
Now, I mean, how is how is how is that true?

Speaker 2 (29:55):
Well?

Speaker 7 (29:56):
It would be like you, Sandy, if you you know,
you work for a media corporation. What if you went
outside and you were acting out and uh, you know,
doing bazarre, sing and squaring.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
But nobody knows what I look like. Nobody knows that
that's me, Nobody knows who I work for if I'm
at the grocery store and have a hissy fit for
whatever reason, God forbid that I ever do something like
that and and decide to make a public scene. There's
no way anybody would know that I work for iHeart.
I don't wear an iHeart badge around my neck. I'm
not recognizable. My face is. My voice may be recognizable,

(30:29):
but my face certainly isn't. And she was not a
public a public figure. She she doesn't. She wasn't doing
stuff for the for press, for the DOJ. She's a
paralegal who works in a back office on environmental issues.
And she was not. She was the only reason why
they know she did this was because she's stupid. She basically,
you know, bragged about doing it to a security guard

(30:53):
who was like, oh my god, and and so then
and no Oni wants but multiple times bragged about doing it.
So now they can go and look at the CCTV cameras,
and now they can ask people, the guards and questions,
did this happen? And yes it did, Yes it did,
Yes it did, And they have a body of evidence
to say, what the hell's wrong with you? But she
she wasn't identifiable as a d jan play. She's not

(31:15):
talking to the press, and she certainly has nothing, and
she's not a public she's not a public member of
the djson. Nobody knows who she works for. So given
all of that, is it right that she lose her
job for what she did? Is that censorship of her
freedom of speech and freedom of action?

Speaker 2 (31:33):
Well?

Speaker 7 (31:34):
I think, I mean, nowadays, we don't have any privacy.
I mean, everyone's got their phones out, everyone's pointing, and
you know, people like that guy that was at the concert,
you know, oh yeah, you know safe anymore. So it
means that individuals that go and act out like that,

(31:58):
you know.

Speaker 2 (31:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:58):
But he was the head of his EO. He was
the public face of a company, and he embarrassed himself.
He didn't you know, he did what he did in public,
got caught at it, and and he was the public
face of that. Everybody knew who he was. He was identifiable.
She wasn't identifiable. Nobody knew who she was. You know, Yes,

(32:21):
I think that was one of the funnier stories I
have to say, David. I mean, honestly, you know so,
but it's and and he was furious that everybody around him,
and I wouldn't want him as my CEO either, but
he he You know, yes, I see that. The I
see where you know you're talking about people behaving stupidly
and paying the cost, which I agree with. But the

(32:43):
difference between them is he resigned. He didn't. He wasn't fired.
He resigned one and two. He was the public face
of that company. He was the people knew who he
was immediately when they saw him. You saw her picture
in a video around, but you would have no idea
who she was or who she worked for. So I
think that maybe that has something to do with with well,

(33:07):
I guess my question is does that have something to
do with censorship? I mean, in regard to her, does
she have does she have more rights basically because she's unidentifiable?
Was she is she being held to a higher standard
there because because she works for the DOJ? And did
she lose her rights by by agreed to work for
the DOJ because they're now holding her accountable for something that.

(33:27):
To be honest with you, I think she's a piece
of you know what. I don't like her at all
and I would not hire her, and I'm pretty sure
that she's going to find it difficult to get another job,
unless you know, some liberal think tank thinks she should
get kudos for flipping off the National Guard. But I,
you know, doing it as long as she's not identifiable
with with my with my department, as long as nobody

(33:49):
knows who she is, I don't see that I have
a right to tell her what she can do or
say I can tell her. I think it's reprehensible and
you know, and she's not going to get promoted. But
does she get suspended as opposed to fired?

Speaker 7 (34:00):
Maybe I think that it doesn't really matter. I mean,
if she was my employee and I found out that
she did that, I wouldn't want it working for me
because I want people to represent, you know, especially in
the federal government. I want someone that represents my values.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree. I
don't disagree with If I were hiring people and I
knew and I could identify her as the person did that,
I would not be hiring her without a doubt. But
I think once she's got the job and she's in there,
and I think you have to give her more than
and if they if they spoke to her after each
time she didn't said don't do that, please, and she
still did it, then you have an issue on your hand.

(34:41):
But I don't think they knew until you know after
the fact, and I think I think just firing her
might be an issue. I'm not sure they did the
right thing, and I want and I appreciate the fact
you're trying to convince me that she did it, and
I would like other people to convince me that Pam
BONDI did the right thing. Thank you for the call, David.
I appreciate it very much. We're gonna get right back
to the calls, but before we do, I overshot and

(35:03):
I criticized Jeff for doing this all the time, and
so nobody can tell him that I did it. That
we were supposed to do Cooner's Call Loogue at eight am,
and I let it go buy a few minutes. So
we're going to stop right for just a couple of minutes,
and we're going to do Cooner's Call loogu, which where
we highlight a call from the week that stood out.

(35:24):
Doesn't have to be the best or the funniest, or
the worst, or the saddest or whatever. It's just something
that really stood out. And Michael is Mike is the
arbiter of who the caller of the week is.

Speaker 8 (35:35):
Take it away, Mike, It's time for Cooner's call Log,
where we showcase our favorite caller from the week.

Speaker 4 (35:47):
I can hear you.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Can you hear me?

Speaker 5 (35:50):
If you ask the people of the Webside and South
Side of Chicago, they're begging for Trump to come in.
They're going to the city council meeting arguing with Johnson,
plead with him. He's just so stubborn and his ego
is more important than the people of Chicago. That's the
sad thing. We moved here seven years ago. We kept

(36:11):
our house in Chicago because the plan was we were
going to move back. I'm born and raised in Chicago.
I loved my city, and because of the crime and
the way things have changed and escalated, we sold the
house in Chicago. I was going out there last year
and a friend of mine said, oh, by the way,
we were told if you want to get gas in Chicago,

(36:33):
do it before six am because there's been a lot
of carjacking. And I don't live on the West Side Chicago,
so you know, things have drastically changed. Something needs to
be done. This is ridiculous. You're offered, help take it.
I think that people want that, especially the people on
the West Side and South Side where most of these

(36:54):
crimes are committed. They want it. They can't live like
this any longer.

Speaker 7 (37:00):
The time, the time of the life.

Speaker 6 (37:02):
I saw man any dance when why mis Chicago?

Speaker 1 (37:08):
Chicago? Chicago my home time.

Speaker 8 (37:23):
Be here every weekday on the Cooner Report between six
and ten am and next week it could be you
on Cooner's call log.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
Please don't be a stranger call again. Yeah, that was
that was an eye opening call. That was one of
our call We're talking about President Trump invading Chicago, and
that's one former Chicago and who said yes please, who
had to sell her house because she can't go back there.
I've been to Chicago. I love Chicago. I did love Chicago.
You couldn't pay me to go there right now, not

(37:51):
even a little bit. Thanks Mike. That was a very
nicely done done job. Gone to the days of Frank
Sinatra in Chicago, right it's a little bit different now.
Six one seven two six six sixty eight sixty eight
is the number here is six one seven two sixty
six six eight six eight. The text number is seven
zero four seven zero. We're talking about the case of
Elizabeth Baxter, the paralegal the DOJ who was fired for

(38:14):
flipping off National Guard and for swearing at them. And
we have two I'm saying, is this censorship? Doesn't she
have a right to do what she wants to do
on the street. She's not identifiable as a DOJ employee,
and they didn't know she did it the first few times,
and when they found out, they said, no, you're you're
out of here, you're fired, and Pam Bondi fired her.
Is that censorship? Did she have freedom of expression that

(38:38):
she should be able to follow or agreed? Everybody can
agree that it was reprehensible actions, But doesn't she have
a right to do it even if you dislike it,
even if you just like it intensely? And I have
two different points of view of that on the text
number and the text line on let's see nine seven

(38:58):
eight says Sandy. You should be able to do as
you wish on your own time, unless you hurt the
company or in this case, the Department of Justice. That's
kind of how I uh I feel about it. But
then six oh three says Sandy Cot of Ethics and Morals, apply.
Most importantly, it is harassment discrimination with proof, you're fired,
it's not censorship. Yeah, so there's another another viewpoint heard from.

(39:26):
So it's really going right down the line here as
to whether Elizabeth Baxter should have been fired or not.
And I want to know which side you were on.
Let's go with Jan in New Hampshire. Jan, welcome to
w RKO.

Speaker 5 (39:39):
How are you so I think she should be fired
for sexual harassment?

Speaker 1 (39:48):
Fired for sexual harassment? Why how does sexual harassment come
into this?

Speaker 7 (39:53):
Well, because if the gesture is what I think it is.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
She was a little bit on the bird. The one
fingered salute is another way to put it. Hang on, Jan,
don't don't hang up, Hang on the line.