A Defense Of Speech

.

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Time to bury the tired narrative,tired narrative and uncover stories not typically heard,
but stories that need to be heard, right or wrong, life or
death. This isn't your typical lawshow. This is Big Angry Law with

(00:23):
Charles Big Angry Atoms on KPRZ.Now, Charles Atoms. Well, good
evening, ladies and gentlemen. It'sTuesday night. Everything is all right.
Thank you for joining me right hereon nine fifty am, Real Texas,

(00:46):
real talk, right here in Houston, Texas. And let's jump right I
said Texas a bit, didn't Ithat's a third time. Let's jump right
into it. There is a clipof Justice Brown Jackson questioning attorneys during oral

(01:07):
argument in the appeal concerning the abilityto prosecute claims against the state for the
deplatforming and restriction of conservative voices duringthe twenty twenty presidential election by Silicon Valley

(01:29):
at the behest and pressure of thegovernment also subsequently. But let's just play
this clip and let's unpack it,and then I want to talk about its
equivalency to what is going on inTexas on the opposite side of the ideological

(01:52):
isle. And let let's just goand let it run distraction. So my
biggest concern is that your view hasthe First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant
ways in the most important time periods. Okay, let's pause her for a

(02:13):
second. When she talks about theFirst Amendment constraining the government in the most
important time periods. That is,in fact, exactly what the First Amendment
was designed to do. There aremany Americans across the ideological spectrum, but
many conservative Americans who seem to equatethe First Amendment right to free speech to

(02:38):
being a shield against private consequences forspeech, and in fact, it has
absolutely nothing to do with that.Now, there are times when you seem
to have a somewhat hybrid restriction thatinvolves governmental restriction and private restriction that can

(02:59):
be limited by the free speech clauseof the First Amendment. But the only
thing the First Amendment is designed todo is designed to protect speech from governmental
consequence. And there are things likethreats, terroristic threats, there are things
that are outside the parameters of protection. But absolutely it is designed to protect

(03:28):
much of the very worst speech.To ensure that we are protecting all speech
and don't slide down a slippery slopeof limiting political speech that has become unpopular,
to silence voices, which of coursedoes seem to be the goal of
the very markedly Unamerican. I've usedneo Marxist now twice this week, but

(03:57):
this new neo Marxism that seems tobe sweeping this country in some of the
most educated circles, the intelligencia ofIVY, and you would think they would
be the ones to see readily thatslippery slope or that consequence. But they're

(04:20):
also beholden to this idea that thereis right think and wrong think. And
I'm not talking right wing. I'mtalking about correct think and incorrect think.
That it must be by command ofthe government, and we must protect the
ears of other Americans from things thatmight be false, or in fact might

(04:46):
be correct but politically incorrect. Butlet's continue to listen to what I find
to be horrifying statements or questions byJustice Brown Jackson. I mean, what
would you have the government do.I've heard you say a couple of times
that the government can post its ownspeech. But in my hypothetical, you

(05:09):
know, kids, this is notsafe. Don't do it, is not
going to get it done. Andso I guess some might say that the
government actually has a duty to takesteps to protect the citizens of this country,
and you seem to be suggesting thatthat duty cannot manifest itself in the
government encouraging or even pressuring platforms totake down harmful information. Yeah, here's

(05:35):
a governments shouldn't encourage restrictions of speech, because then it no longer becomes a
decision by the oligarchical overlords of SiliconValley. It becomes a well, we
don't really want to piss off thegovernment. Let's just do what they're asking
us to do. And one thingthat Biden administration has made very clear,

(05:59):
and Trump and his rhetoric has madevery clear if he is elected, that
there is an intent to punish peopleusing our criminal justice system for their ideologies.
But let's listen to a little moreof Katanji Brown Jackson questioning an attorney
I believe from the state of Louisianaabout this effort to prevent the government,

(06:27):
the federal government from restricting speech onplatforms. I do think that at some
point we will see the Supreme Courtidentify social media spaces as the new public
forum of America. And as Ispoke earlier about hybrid public private restrictions,

(06:50):
but at a greater amount of protectionfor the speech of Americans, because we
are getting to the point where correctthink by mandate, both private and public,
is having a grave impact on freespeech in this country. But let's

(07:10):
listen to a bit more. So, can you help me, because I'm
really worried about that, because you'vegot the First Amendment operating in an environment
of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying threatening from the government's
perspective, What a terrifying thought?What is it threatening? Is it threatening

(07:33):
the stranglehold of power that the DemocraticParty is seeking to achieve? Is it
threatening the government's stranglehold on conversations thatit seems to be seeking to achieve?
I just this is this is what'staught at Harvard right, running out of

(07:57):
time, We'll be back in justone second. Right here on nine fifty
am. You're listening or listening toBig Angry Law on kp r C.
Long time forgotten years to just fellby a good life. We promised.

(08:18):
Hey once she's living today, goodtrust. He complaints of the bad time,
of the bad things he's done.The law She just talks about good
times, if all the good timesto come. She's a good hard wman.

(08:46):
Love is a good time and shesmspired the news ways she don't go
to spend. I was inspired toplay good hearted woman in love with a

(09:16):
loving a good time and by ReasonMagazine's analysis. And I think Reason Magazine
is one of the most important sourcesof journalism in this country. And I
think that even though I don't alwaysagree with it, which is a problem

(09:37):
in America where people are just seekingconfirmation bias constantly. But their take on
Katajie Brown Jackson's questioning during the appealoral argument appellate oral argument that I spoke
about in the first segment was thatshe was merely suggesting that her mindset was

(10:01):
that the government does have the abilityto attempt to persuade platforms and actors private
actors to take down harmful speech andan effort to protect America. The problem
is that we saw and that everyone'strying to ignore. We saw this in

(10:26):
real time when an tremendous amount ofpressure was exerted on media platforms and social
media to restrict news about Hunter Biden'sThe content of Hunter Biden's laptop, while
we also saw the intersection of theintelligence committee community with our public electoral process

(10:52):
by a widespread misinformation attempt that wasforwarded by Brennan and other members of the
global intelligence community that was in conjunctionwith efforts to silence discussion about it on
every level in America. This happened, and this was not about protecting America.

(11:16):
It was about protecting the outcome ofthe twenty twenty election. That I
mean, it's it's absolutely horrified.And when we went to break, I
was talking about how intelligentsia and especiallyelite academic communities that used to be the

(11:39):
protectorate of the importance of free speech. Now I believe Harvard is actually ranked
as the the most restrictive of speechcampus in America. And it is because
of this neo Marxist belief I keepyou using that word that I hate,

(12:01):
that the social, collective public goodis more important than protecting voices of Americans
in the hallet halls of Harvard.Over the last two decades and other elite
academic institutions, there has been thisgrowing cacophony of voices that I have won

(12:26):
the day and it is now moreimportant that the message is pushed than the
desire to protect voices and viewpoints thatare contrarian. Now, Reason Magazine their

(12:52):
take was, no, no,no, it's not governmental restriction when when
the government says, hey, we'dreally like it if you did this,
that's just a suggestion. Now,mind you, conservative news spaces are up
in arms, up in arms aboutthe horrifying rhetoric, our questioning evidencing her

(13:18):
viewpoint of Brown Jackson. There's pearlclutching. But let's remember that this is
the same arguments being pushed by thesame part. Well, let's listen to
some of the criticisms. It comesdown to, as Justice Toledo suggested at

(13:39):
one point, actually there's an ensuingargument that was on the same subject that
as long as the government is reallysubtle about coercing, it might be able
to do that, or the courseSupreme Court might not be able to interfere
with it. So that would leavethe FBI to embed itself with social media
companies, take down the Hunter Bidenlaptop, and election after election after election,
if that's the way that turns outout, what do you make of

(14:01):
that, Congressman Jordan, Well,that's what happened. You did have the
FBI doing that. But the bigtakeaway today was Katanji Brown Jackson when she
said to the Solicitor General from Louisiana, she said, you've got the First
Amendment hamstringing the government. Well,that's what it's supposed to do. For
goodness, it was literally one ofthe craziest things I've ever seen. That
you could have a justice on theUnited States Supreme Court say that in the

(14:24):
oral it made no sense to me. That is frightening because she really believes
that. That is scary. Wherewe're head to understand what took place here.
This was censorship by surrogate. Thiswas big government telling big tech to
take down speech they disagreed with.And it was the most fundamental kind of
speech. It was political speech,the kind is supposed to have the most
heightened scrutiny you can have before youcan take that down. But that's what

(14:48):
took place. And then to havea justice on the Supreme Court say what
she said, that is frightening.Yeah. And some of the things that
the government was coercing Facebook and Twitterand others to take down now turn to
be the conventional wisdom, such aswhat was the origin of COVID as true.
As we pointed out, some ofthe plaintiffs in this case are physicians.

(15:09):
One of them, Aaron Curioity,spoke with our camera right after the
arguments. Listen to what he said. The government's job is not to decide
what is true and what is false, and what can be said publicly and
what cannot be said publicly. Itsonly job is to draw the line between
illegal and legal speech. So whatdo you say to that Congressman Bishop that

(15:31):
the government crossed the line from whereit does actually have jurisdiction into a wholly
different area where it doesn't. Ithink that's exactly the issue for determination by
the Supreme Court is do we wantto have a situation which the government,
the FBI, other agencies are tryingto constantly walk along. How far can
they go to keep perfectly legal,protected speech off of public platforms. I

(15:58):
just don't think the government ever hasa valid interest in doing that. It
can, okay, So that's whatI wanted to pause there or stop there.
That was Dan Bishop from North Carolinaand Jim Jordan from Ohio to Republican
congressmen clutching their pearls. Very upsetabout the tone and tenor of Justice Brown

(16:18):
Jackson's line of questioning of this listenerGeneral of Louisiana. And they talked both
about the laptop but also about theefforts to restrict conversations about COVID. And
we'll all remember that the lab Leaguetheory, the communicability of the virus early

(16:41):
on versus the efficacy of the vaccinelater on, and the need for everyone
to be mandated to take it wereall things that the government pressured social media
to go along with. And it'sit's it's a bit in But here's the

(17:03):
thing. Republicans are not libertarians either, and many of the people that consider
themselves conservative in America and we lastweek I had made some posts about the
decision of you Porn and other verylarge pornographic websites to restrict their availability in
Texas because of the inflemmation of anew law that is allegedly designed to limit

(17:30):
children's ability to look at porn.And of course, if you object to
it, well why the question,well, why do you want kids to
have access to porn? Of courseI don't want that, nobody should want
that, But we also shouldn't wantto create a paradigm where speech is restricted

(17:56):
for fear of running a foul ofNew Orld's way back to discuss this dick
angry law with Charles Adams continues,they'd brother give you a song and diamonds
or gold long star bell buckles andold faded levies. Each night begins a

(18:22):
new day. If you don't understandhim, he don't die you. You'll
probably just ride away. Don't letyour baby grown to be Calbo. Don't
let him pick guitars and the oldtrips. Don't be doctors and lollis and

(18:48):
set Stone. Let your baby screwup to be Calibo. Say so,
we're talking free speech. And lastweek I had tweeted, and I think
I spoke about in the radio.I don't remember because I seem to always

(19:11):
forget, but I had tweeted aboutporn hubs and a couple of other large
pornographic websites that are restricting the availabilityfor Texans because of a loss at the
Fifth Circuit and a legal challenge toa state statute. Suggested the challenge was

(19:32):
that violated the First Amendment to requireage verification for consumers of online pornography.
That's very easy to defend that positionbecause it's been established that exposure to pornography
has had some detrimental effects to theyouth of America. My thought is parents
should do their damn job and thatI have other problems with porn hub in

(19:57):
these larger websites because they don't doenough to restrict and promptly respond and remove
to incidents of unauthorized pornography, revengepornography, and child pornography. I just
don't think they do nearly enough.And there are real consequences for some of
that, the child pornography, butvery toothless consequences as long as they have

(20:21):
some protocols in place. And itamazes me how quickly social media can eliminate
so many things, but they don'tseem to be able, and websites that
have a social nature but don't seemto be able to attack the old child
pornography problem. But the age restrictionand Texas has done it in a very
unique way. It's up to aten thousand dollars fine for a day for

(20:45):
not having the restrictions appropriate restriction inplace, which aren't merely just clicking a
box saying yes, I'm eighteen.That's not enough. But while they're going
to require a more formal system ofage verification. They also require are these
websites not to maintain the user data, which just suggests to me that the

(21:07):
consumers of porn at the Capitol don'twant to be put on a watch list
for their weird pornography. But yetthey also want to be able to pain
their ad virtue signal to the moralmajority, the Christian right of the Great
State of Taxes, who are alsohuge consumers of porn. And it sounds

(21:29):
good, right, it sounds good. Hey, I just want to protect
kids. But the truth is thatthere's also another two hundred and fifty thousand
up to a two hundred fifty thousandfine per incident of kids getting access to
pornography for failures to have the appropriatein kN Paxton or Whoever's vision barriers,

(21:52):
instead of, of course, justexpecting parents to parent their children's use of
the Internet. But there's also theslippery and difficult answer question, well,
what is art and what is porn? And what responsibilities to artists to filmmakers?
Do photographers do artists have to limitthe accessibility to children to their publications

(22:22):
online And there's absolutely no doubt thatthis will allow our Attorney general to pick
and choose who he wants to financiallydestroy based on his opinion of the character
of the content. And then itwould be a far more appropriate mechanism.
And there are like only fans becauseI researched this. I'm not a consumer

(22:45):
of either, you know, I'mjust not you know I'm old right,
but only fans because it generates contentsas well as as consumers of content.
It has a formalized age fair actionprocess that involves a driver's license or some
sort of identification, but that mostcertainly is erecting a barrier for many to

(23:10):
participation for a variety of reasons.And when you create these walls to accessing
speech, you run a foul ofthe First Amendment. And these so you
know, I expressed my opinion inkind of a jocular but serious man.

(23:30):
Are a couple of posts. Onewas crime and Texas out of control.
It is pote Christian moral misogyny definingwomen's health policy, and Texas it does
healthcare for most is inaccessible, verytrue, cost of living spiraling out of
control also true. But let's shutdown porn hob Great job, abbot,

(23:51):
the idiot's cheer. Now. Republicansread that Conservatives on Twitter, and they
just had an app fit, right, because of course they saw me as
the enemy, give it fifteen minutes. I'm much like the Texas weather.
Each political party will see me asthe enemy at any given moment. And

(24:11):
man, people had some really uglystuff to say. L Poppy Dell two
ten said, cost of living seemsfine to me. You sound like a
little B word. Don't like it? Get the f out of Texas.
Yeah, that was probably the nicestresponse, And I mean there was a

(24:33):
whole lot of false equivalency, right, There were a whole lot of people
who wanted to link it to well, who's responsible for making sure those being
served alcohol are not underage? Andof course that's a perfectly civil response to
me, right, And I justpointed out that speech rare regulation is not
analogous to alcohol regulation because it's not. He responded with, porn is regular,

(25:00):
though capitalized, and I respond,I did not say it was regulated.
I said it was a regulation.Is regulation is not analogous to alcohol
regulation because speech is protected by theFirst Amendment. And I mean that's all
very true, right, and allthat I'm perfectly okay with other stuff like

(25:22):
when morality is no longer self evident. And there was one guy, there
was this great guy that kept callingme a child predator. I think it
was Baseball Berry two. I shouldfind it before I maligned the wrong person,
right, But there was a littleblip of Astro's Twitter that decided I

(25:44):
was that was funny because one ofthe line leader on that retweeted me in
a positive way today. But Imean, just a just an incredible number
of people that had decided that.I mean, here's quit being a baby
in fire another porn site. Thereare dozens of them. Well that was
that was M D. Brown tenseventy, who is apparently too stupid to

(26:07):
see the slippery slope. I hopehe's not an actual MD because he doesn't
seem very bright. But and I'mjust scrolling because there was just so many
Charles is angry that kids can't watchpornhime in Texas, crime in Texas,
biggest cities out of control. Whoruns those cities? Of course, I'm
always upset when I think the governmentis trampling free speech. And I mean,

(26:32):
well, I was talking about thedamage to women done by pornh is
unbeknownst again this here it is it'sbaseball Berry too. That's nice, child
predator. And before that, andI I was just I wasn't even talking
to him. I was talking tothis other guy. I'm sorry, I'm
not a follow will agree to disagree, and I will think of you as

(26:53):
a child predator. That's okay withyou. Me. You. What's funny
about this guy, right is afterhe called me a child predator a couple
of times, I looked at hisprofile, which isn't that old. That
looks like he must have gutten bannedand came back a few months ago.
But you know, you call someonea child predator, that's defamatory, even

(27:14):
when you're a public figure like myself. So I, well, there's this
guy worth suing just for giggles,right, because I can do it.
And he posts that he lives inBassouri County, obviously a county where I'm
at the courthouse every week, andI've been practicing for a couple of decades
and know a lot of people,and to have a former assistant district attorney
in my employed. But he hasall these pictures of his growhouse operation,

(27:37):
his marijuana growing operation, and firearmsand zealously defends the Second Amendment in the
same manner that I defend the Firstand the Second Amendment. But he's growing
illegal drugs with guns in a countythat's still very much fighting the war on
drugs, and defaming an attorney,calling him ugly names, calling him a

(27:57):
child predator. Because of course,I believe EVE in free speech, which
does not include children's access to porn, right, that's not the concern.
The concern is the impact this lawhas on adults access to all types of
content that could possibly be called pornography, just movies with nudity in it art,

(28:19):
but anyhow, But this guy picturesof it looks like some sort of
grow operation indoor grow operation firearms,lives in Brazoria County, which a county
is still very much fighting the drugwar, especially when you see the interaction
intersection of guns and drugs. Andit would be very easy for me to

(28:41):
call because it was very easy tofigure out as I did any post selfies
to older white guy bald like me. But it'd be very easy to talk
to the head of narcotics for thecounty and talk to the DA and make
his life. But that would makeme the same kind of horrible person he
is. So I didn't do itanyway, Big angry law with Charles Adams

(29:07):
continues, I've held it on.God knows, I tried, but it's
an awful way in two boys mindlooking the mirror, totally surprise, pet

(29:30):
the hair on my shoulder agent myeyes, love did of my mind.
We should have made a gentle aman the side of my eyes. They

(30:00):
should have So when to break.I was talking about this idiot that was
calling me a child predator on Twitterlast week because he doesn't seem to get
the concept of restriction of speech.Even if the government pretends that it's designed

(30:21):
to protect children, that it hasmassive consequences on those creating content, and
it's not simply pornography, which isvery easily to justify restriction of pornography.
But then the question becomes, well, what is pornography? What is pornographic?
What is offensive? What do weneed to be protected, and what

(30:42):
the mechanism is right? And thetruth is, the way Paxton is enforcing
this law is going to have significantconsequences for the availability of all types of
content here in Texas, and it'santithetic to the concept of free speech.

(31:03):
But when you have these conversations,you know, and I'm just me.
I just stated my opinion on anapp design to state your opinion. But
then when people on the right orpeople on the left get mad, they
tend to pile on right. Andthis was like adjacent to a lot of
very There's a lot of people thatparticipate in Astros Twitter that are just just
angry, empty souls, right,not bright people. And I say this

(31:26):
as an incredible Astros fan, right, I'm just the Twitter's a bit toxic.
I do think that you have aright to be toxic free of governmental
restriction, but you there are consequenceswhen you say untrue things about ugly people
and an opinion. Like the firstthing he had said that I'm going to
consider you a child pred and that'spart of my fine. That's his opinion,
right, because I want to protectspeech, and he's stupid and he

(31:48):
equates it. But then he wenton to it next week to actually say
that I was a child predator,which of course, when I was a
policeman, I investigated those type ofcrime, and I, you know,
I what a stupid thing to say, but you know, I decide to
let me look at who this guyis saying the cucly things about man.
It's he posts that he lives inBrassouri County and he posts a cooperation.

(32:13):
You have pictures of his it lookedhydroponic, but his indoor marijuana growing operation
and very very aggressive defense of theSecond Amendment, which is unique because his
defense of the Second Amendment and theleft decrying of the Second Amendment, Oh,

(32:34):
we have to protect the kids,so we have to trample this amendment,
and his rejoinder to that mirrored myposition on both right that both the
First Amendment, the free speech causedof the First Amendment, and the Second
Amendment both need to be stridently defendedin America to protect freedoms, thus leaving

(33:00):
the burden on others to the governmentto enforce consequences for people illegally using early
illegally possessing firearms, and for thegovernment to impost consequences on child pornography or
on parents who fail to protect theirchildren or parent them appropriately. But what

(33:23):
we don't need is the government restrictingadults access to content, or the government
restricting those that can lawfully own firearmsaccess to firearms. But stupid people don't
see the equivalency there. They justdraw false equivalents. But I am a
petty person, So I thought,for a second while I should call it

(33:45):
day. I talk to them allthe time, friend of mine, a
good friend of mine. Un Ishould tell them where this guy lives.
And then he's boasting pictures of gunsand grow operations because they're kind of I
should call the lieutenant over the DrugTask Force. Right, I should just
be a petty, awful person.But I didn't not because that's comeback doesn't

(34:07):
deserve it, because it does seemlike his Twitter tact is to be aggressive
and ugly to strangers. We hadnever interacted before, and it was my
post, right, and apparently I'mnot supposed to rejoinder, But that would
make me the same kind of awful, And that's what you can't do.
You can't allow people to lower youto their level. Because one, I

(34:29):
support people growing marijuana. You know, the part of my practice that is
is criminal defense, was built uponmy belief that we shouldn't be putting people
in prisons for possession of usable amountsof drugs or for anything within the scope
of marijuana other than narco terrorism.Right, And I'm a big end you

(34:53):
know, I'm anti prohibition. I'malso a big believer in the Second Amendment,
as I just stated, And ofcourse there's much more significant consequences for
people that are growing drugs or creatingdrugs and have firearms, and it would
probably ruin his life. And Ididn't want to do that because then it

(35:13):
would make me probably worse than thekind of scumbag that calls strangers child predators
because you're unable to grasp their stridentdefense of the First Amendment. But it's
not just in this situation. Acrossthe board. If you look at the
justifications for this Texas law restricting accessto porn of adults allegedly for children,

(35:37):
that the justifications mirror, I meanidentically mirror the justification of today. There
was an elected official in Colorado tweetingabout the need to restrict assault weapons,
and I asked her, of courseyou ignored it. Hey what in Colorado,
right? And what tourn of weaponsdo you mean to restrict by calling

(36:00):
them assault weapons? Because that's thequestion. Do you just mean scary looking
rifles? Do you mean semi automaticrifles? Do you mean semi automatic rifles
with the magazines of of you know, larger than ten do you mean any
semi automatic firearms? Like what wheredoes the concept of assault weapons stop?

(36:22):
Of course, I didn't get ananswer. And that's the thing that I
also think Reason missed in their articleabout the you know, they were critical
of the Republican pearl clutching over Katanjior Justice Brown Jackson's question line of questioning
of the Solicitor General of Louisiana.And I think at all everyone is missing

(36:46):
the point that we have to defendthings like the first in the Second Amendment
to protect American freedoms, and thenif we're going to abandon those freedoms,
that has to be by an amendmentto the Constantstitution that goes through the very
almost impossible process of getting the Constitutionamended. But there has been an embrace

(37:10):
on the left, in a longembrace on the right, of the need
to restrict speech in America. Andthe right does it for morality reasons and
the left does wants to do itfor ideological reasons. Both suggest it's public
safety. Both suggest that people thatare antagonistic to those restrictions are trying to

(37:36):
harm America or America's children, which, No, that sounds like you're anti
American. Oh, I'm very veryAmerican. I love this country. I
love the foundation that this country wasbuilt on, which is the United States
Constitution. You know, there's alot of speech on platforms that I find

(37:58):
reprehensible, horrible, but I stillbelieve that it should be protected from governmental
restriction period. I think there isa lot of harm caused by the flooding
of firearms, in low cost firearms, in the crime ridden communities of America.

(38:27):
But I think we solve that byaggressively going after those committing violent crimes
and those illegally dealing firearms as opposedto going after the lawbody was like the
guy that was arrested on the subwayfor his tools going to work. I'll
play that video tomorrow. It's disgusting. Don't arrest the criminals, NYPD,

(38:51):
We're go don't arrest the guy commutingto work because he's got tools at are
sharp. Anyhow, We'll always beprotecting freedom here. Thank you for listening.