Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Channel nine says the following about the weather got to
mostly cloudy day to day highest seventy one, clouds over
night fifty six. Tomorrow's hight seventy five with sunny skies
until we get to the evening time agains clouds will
lends the possibility of rain overnight with a low of
fifty nine. Friday is going to be partly cloudy with
the highest sixty seven. It's right now sixty degrees in
time for chuck Ingram with traffic.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
From the uc Hel Tramphic Center. You see health. You'll
find comprehensive care that's so personal it makes your best
tomorrow possible. That's boundless care for better outcomes. Expect more
at ucehealth dot com. Stap found seventy five getting better
through Westchester. Still slows through Walkland, then no longer in
delay through northern Kentucky. The earlier accident at two seventy
five and Erwinger is clear. There's a new accident Westboud
(00:48):
two seventy five on the ramp ter Reed, Hartman and
step found seventy one continues slow to seventy five through
Blue Ash. It is National Hamburger Day, so why not
celebrate today, if I sitting back with a nice juicy burger,
add some cheese, some wet us, some onion, mayo and
(01:09):
ketchup and mustard classic. Oh and don't forget to listen
to the Judge. He's next on fifty five KRC, the
talk station, wondering where he was going with that one.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yeah, don't you let him have breakfast? Don't you feed
the man.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Someone? I think someone goes back there and checks on
him every twenty four hours just to make sure he's okay,
you're on or beyond that we leave him to his
own devices.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Anyways, Joe Strecker, bring him a cheeseburger, will you please?
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Exactly? Judge Endedopolitano every Wednesday at this time on the
fifty five k SEE Morning Show, which I love, love
talking to the Judge, and I always appreciate getting your column.
My apologies for not sending you an email in response,
your honor. I failed to check my personal email yesterday
evening when I was preparing for the show, so I
got your column this morning. But I'll tell you, always outstanding,
(02:04):
always a wonderful read, always profoundly in line with our
core principles and constitutional values, and well are god given
rights which you bring up all the time. But before
we get to that.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The column is about efforts by the and thank you
for your kind comments, Brian, and you needn't reply every
time you send it to you. You're the only one
who does well.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
I value our friendship and I think you know honestly,
when again I read it, I'm always impressed by I
just want to let you know. And sometimes I'll send
a warning shot over the value. You know, some of
my listeners are going to really take issue with this
or just give your heads up, but no, I.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Times sometimes missus Thomas takes issue with it.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
I don't know that she's ever been critical of your column.
She has chimed in and said she agrees with you wholeheartedly.
And I know you remembered that one before we dive
in real quick here though, because it's along I think
it's along the same lines. The Supreme Court the other
day declined to review a free speech case involving a
student who was kicked out of school for wearing a
(03:11):
T shirt that said there are only two genders. And
I was troubled by that because isn't it a scientific fact?
X X and Y and X and X in terms
of the constitution or the chromosomal reality, that there are
two genders and that they deemed it offensive in some way.
Did you get a chance to see what the lower
(03:32):
court said on that and the standard they apply to that.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Yes, yes, In fact, I discussed it this morning on NEWSMAXIM.
We'll be discussing it again in about an hour. It's
deeply disturbing. I would have joined the descent were I
there of justice as Satomas and Alito. I'm really surprised
at justice courts that truth the libertarian there. Now, this
(03:56):
was not an opinion by the court. It was just
a decision not to interfere with a lower court opinion.
But the lower court opinion really is grounded in another
opinion of the Supreme Court called Morse against Frederick, better
known by its absurd moniker Bong hits for Jesus. So
(04:19):
here's the history. In nineteen sixty nine, a young man
last named Tinker wore a belt buckle that was a
peace sign and the ward in des Moines, Iowa, and
the high school suspended him and his parents suit who
went to the Supreme Court very famous case Tinker versus
des Moines, and the Supreme Court ruled, once you reach
(04:41):
the age of reason, which is about age seven, you
have the freedom of speech and you can wear whatever
insignia you want unless it actually causes disruption. Okay, that
was the law until two thousand and twelve. Some crazy
kid at a parade, not in the school, but a
(05:04):
school parade across the street and up the block from
the school, held up a sign meaningless sign that said,
Bong hits.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
For Jesus, I remember that right.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
And he was suspended and he sued, and based on
Tinker versus des Moines, he prevailed, and the Board of
Education appealed, and he prevailed again. The Board of Education
appealed again, and the Supreme Court reversed.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Do we lose him? Judge? Are you there?
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Somehow? I lost you?
Speaker 1 (05:41):
But you ended? The Supreme Court reverse.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
We have to be disruption, but a fear of disruption
is enough to suppress the speech of the student. On
that fear, that subjective perception of school authorities was to
the lower court rulings in this case involving the kid
stating a statement that is either a fact or an opinion,
(06:08):
but either way it's protected speech, but not not in
this Massachusetts Town.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Well, I found the First Circuit's language very troubling along
these lines, and I guess I'm paraphrase to a certain degree.
I'm just reading from the quotes in the Wall Street Journal.
Schools may ban passive speech message of the messages quote
reasonably interpret any close quote to demean anybody's characteristics of
personal identity, and if it's reasonably forecasted to poison the
(06:37):
educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact leading
to substantial disruption. His shirt said there are only two genders?
How could you come to that conclusion? My comment this
morning was along the lines of, you know, there are
idiots out in the world to believe the Earth is flat.
If I had at T shirt that said the Earth
(06:57):
is round, some unhinged, easily emotional flat earth out there
could maybe qualify under this language. It seems so crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
This is very, very dangerous to allow the government to
suppress speech on the basis of a subjective fear where
there's no objective harm. But you know, even hate speech
is protected. In my view, this statement is absolutely protected
speech on the shirt of a then sixteen year old boy.
(07:28):
I believe he's graduated by now, But This is what
happens when the court tinkers no pun intended from the
tinker vi.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Des Moines.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
This is what happens when the court tinkers with the
relationship between the government and the freedom of speech. This
first Circuit, which is basically New England First CERD Court
of Appeals opinion, is worse for a free speech than
the Bong Hits for Jesus case is because they extend
(08:00):
to the point of, well, if somebody reading your speech
could be offended, we can suppress the speech. Good God,
that could be offended. As you say, a flat Earth
person could be offended by the truthful statement that the
Earth is not flat. And I don't want to get
(08:21):
hung upon true. I want to get hung up on opinion.
Opinions don't have to be true, they just have to
be honestly held opinions to be protected.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Exactly, And turning over to your column which focuses on
the endeavors of the Trump administration to crack down on
free speech, there is I mean, if you want to
protest Israel, you can protest Israel. If you want to
say you're pro Hamas or pro Palestine, you can say
it out loud. This is how the we filter through
and determine the good guys and the bad guys based
(08:52):
up our own personal opinions and viewpoints of life. And
you know, thank god, we have the ability to do that.
So that way, when a Nazi stands up and says
I'm a Nazi, we at least notice who the state
of Hell away from fact, but.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
There's a Supreme Court opinion I'm forgetting the name of
it of relatively recent vintage, by which I mean post
World War two, which stands for that proposition it is
better to allow hatred out in the public. We know
who the haters are and we know what they're saying,
rather than if you suppress it, we don't know who
(09:25):
they are, what they're saying, or where it's coming from.
That's a practical reason. The philosophical and juridical reason is
Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech.
Doesn't no law mean no law. If it doesn't mean
no law, if it means something else, then there is
no freedom of speech. Then it's up to whatever the
(09:47):
personality of the justices want.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
But my understanding is somewhere there is a line that
can be cross, and I've been arguing that you know,
it's okay if you want to say pro power as
Indian things are, gathering a group on a college campus.
As long as you're following the legal rules that have
been established. You can't take over and occupy buildings and
prevent other students from the value of their tuition dollars correct,
(10:14):
and you can't harm them.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
You can't take over a building and guy disguise that
takeover as free expression, because that is trespassing. That's combining
a criminal act with a protected act. So when you
combine the criminal act trespassing, taking over a building, kicking
(10:36):
the dean out, disrupting a class, with the expressive act
free Palestine or get rid of Palestine, whatever your opinion exactly,
that does not remove the sting or the criminality from
the criminal Act. Now that's been the law of the
land for a long time. But without that criminal Act,
(10:57):
all speech is protected no matter who's a f In fact,
one could argue, if the speech doesn't offend, what good
is it?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
I love it? Welcome to the fifty five KRC Morning Show.
You're honor. Somebody's offended about what I say on a
daily basis, So anyway they fall into the category of
batcrap insane from my standpoint if they disagree with me.
But that's that's a okay. We have different types in
this world.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Now.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I guess that the Trump administration, though, is saying that
they have failed to protect Jewish students. Now, if we
cross that line, occupy, prevent Jewish students from getting into class,
harass them, harm them in some physical way, then then
that line has been crossed. But can you, you know,
(11:54):
defund a school for their failure to act on these
independent actions of the students. I mean, how do we
how do we know?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
The defunding is very problematic under the law because the
vast majority of federal funding, let's take Harvard, doesn't go
to Harvard as an institution. It goes to the independent
researchers who work at Harvard. They're the ones who apply
for the grants, They're the ones who propose what the
(12:25):
money will be used for, and they're the ones whose
proposals have been approved. The cash does go to Harvard,
and then Harvard pays these researchers. The researchers are typically professors, researchers,
doctors working in labs. They have nothing whatsoever to do
what's happening in Harvard Yard or disciplining students. Yet they're
(12:47):
the ones being punished, and you could argue even though
I have a serious question with aid education because it's
not in the constitution, amen depriving all of us of
the fruits of their research. So this is a troublesome
area that the courts are going to have to unwind.
I think a federal judge did the right thing by
(13:08):
enjoining the President from suspending the aid until you can
figure all of it out. You know, this is vicarious liability.
You're going to punish doctor Jones because of the decision
of Administrator Smith making up these names obviously to show
there's two different people, two different lines of authority. The
(13:31):
researcher has nothing to do with the demonstrations on the campus,
but that's the person who's being denied a livelihood.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Fair enough and well explained. As always, Judge Ennenapaoulitano, can't
thank you enough for the time you smoke my listeners
to me on the program. I certainly value your time
and who you talking to today.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
I have the great Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock
and ex CIA official Phil Geraldi of.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Three Judging Freedom. Search for the podcast and hear what
the judge has to say when he's not on the
morning show until next week. My friend, it's always a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Thank you, Brian, all the best.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Please get Ingram a cheeseburger.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
We'll take care of that right after the show's over.
It's eight forty four at fifty five Karos DE talk station.
I'll be right back.
Channel nine says the following about the weather got to
mostly cloudy day to day highest seventy one, clouds over
night fifty six. Tomorrow's hight seventy five with sunny skies
until we get to the evening time agains clouds will
lends the possibility of rain overnight with a low of
fifty nine. Friday is going to be partly cloudy with
the highest sixty seven. It's right now sixty degrees in
time for chuck Ingram with traffic.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
From the uc Hel Tramphic Center. You see health. You'll
find comprehensive care that's so personal it makes your best
tomorrow possible. That's boundless care for better outcomes. Expect more
at ucehealth dot com. Stap found seventy five getting better
through Westchester. Still slows through Walkland, then no longer in
delay through northern Kentucky. The earlier accident at two seventy
five and Erwinger is clear. There's a new accident Westboud
(00:48):
two seventy five on the ramp ter Reed, Hartman and
step found seventy one continues slow to seventy five through
Blue Ash. It is National Hamburger Day, so why not
celebrate today, if I sitting back with a nice juicy burger,
add some cheese, some wet us, some onion, mayo and
(01:09):
ketchup and mustard classic. Oh and don't forget to listen
to the Judge. He's next on fifty five KRC, the
talk station, wondering where he was going with that one.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yeah, don't you let him have breakfast? Don't you feed
the man.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Someone? I think someone goes back there and checks on
him every twenty four hours just to make sure he's okay,
you're on or beyond that we leave him to his
own devices.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Anyways, Joe Strecker, bring him a cheeseburger, will you please?
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Exactly? Judge Endedopolitano every Wednesday at this time on the
fifty five k SEE Morning Show, which I love, love
talking to the Judge, and I always appreciate getting your column.
My apologies for not sending you an email in response,
your honor. I failed to check my personal email yesterday
evening when I was preparing for the show, so I
got your column this morning. But I'll tell you, always outstanding,
(02:04):
always a wonderful read, always profoundly in line with our
core principles and constitutional values, and well are god given
rights which you bring up all the time. But before
we get to that.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The column is about efforts by the and thank you
for your kind comments, Brian, and you needn't reply every
time you send it to you. You're the only one
who does well.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
I value our friendship and I think you know honestly,
when again I read it, I'm always impressed by I
just want to let you know. And sometimes I'll send
a warning shot over the value. You know, some of
my listeners are going to really take issue with this
or just give your heads up, but no, I.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Times sometimes missus Thomas takes issue with it.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
I don't know that she's ever been critical of your column.
She has chimed in and said she agrees with you wholeheartedly.
And I know you remembered that one before we dive
in real quick here though, because it's along I think
it's along the same lines. The Supreme Court the other
day declined to review a free speech case involving a
student who was kicked out of school for wearing a
(03:11):
T shirt that said there are only two genders. And
I was troubled by that because isn't it a scientific fact?
X X and Y and X and X in terms
of the constitution or the chromosomal reality, that there are
two genders and that they deemed it offensive in some way.
Did you get a chance to see what the lower
(03:32):
court said on that and the standard they apply to that.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Yes, yes, In fact, I discussed it this morning on NEWSMAXIM.
We'll be discussing it again in about an hour. It's
deeply disturbing. I would have joined the descent were I
there of justice as Satomas and Alito. I'm really surprised
at justice courts that truth the libertarian there. Now, this
(03:56):
was not an opinion by the court. It was just
a decision not to interfere with a lower court opinion.
But the lower court opinion really is grounded in another
opinion of the Supreme Court called Morse against Frederick, better
known by its absurd moniker Bong hits for Jesus. So
(04:19):
here's the history. In nineteen sixty nine, a young man
last named Tinker wore a belt buckle that was a
peace sign and the ward in des Moines, Iowa, and
the high school suspended him and his parents suit who
went to the Supreme Court very famous case Tinker versus
des Moines, and the Supreme Court ruled, once you reach
(04:41):
the age of reason, which is about age seven, you
have the freedom of speech and you can wear whatever
insignia you want unless it actually causes disruption. Okay, that
was the law until two thousand and twelve. Some crazy
kid at a parade, not in the school, but a
(05:04):
school parade across the street and up the block from
the school, held up a sign meaningless sign that said,
Bong hits.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
For Jesus, I remember that right.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
And he was suspended and he sued, and based on
Tinker versus des Moines, he prevailed, and the Board of
Education appealed, and he prevailed again. The Board of Education
appealed again, and the Supreme Court reversed.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Do we lose him? Judge? Are you there?
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Somehow? I lost you?
Speaker 1 (05:41):
But you ended? The Supreme Court reverse.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
We have to be disruption, but a fear of disruption
is enough to suppress the speech of the student. On
that fear, that subjective perception of school authorities was to
the lower court rulings in this case involving the kid
stating a statement that is either a fact or an opinion,
(06:08):
but either way it's protected speech, but not not in
this Massachusetts Town.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Well, I found the First Circuit's language very troubling along
these lines, and I guess I'm paraphrase to a certain degree.
I'm just reading from the quotes in the Wall Street Journal.
Schools may ban passive speech message of the messages quote
reasonably interpret any close quote to demean anybody's characteristics of
personal identity, and if it's reasonably forecasted to poison the
(06:37):
educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact leading
to substantial disruption. His shirt said there are only two genders?
How could you come to that conclusion? My comment this
morning was along the lines of, you know, there are
idiots out in the world to believe the Earth is flat.
If I had at T shirt that said the Earth
(06:57):
is round, some unhinged, easily emotional flat earth out there
could maybe qualify under this language. It seems so crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
This is very, very dangerous to allow the government to
suppress speech on the basis of a subjective fear where
there's no objective harm. But you know, even hate speech
is protected. In my view, this statement is absolutely protected
speech on the shirt of a then sixteen year old boy.
(07:28):
I believe he's graduated by now, But This is what
happens when the court tinkers no pun intended from the
tinker vi.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Des Moines.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
This is what happens when the court tinkers with the
relationship between the government and the freedom of speech. This
first Circuit, which is basically New England First CERD Court
of Appeals opinion, is worse for a free speech than
the Bong Hits for Jesus case is because they extend
(08:00):
to the point of, well, if somebody reading your speech
could be offended, we can suppress the speech. Good God,
that could be offended. As you say, a flat Earth
person could be offended by the truthful statement that the
Earth is not flat. And I don't want to get
(08:21):
hung upon true. I want to get hung up on opinion.
Opinions don't have to be true, they just have to
be honestly held opinions to be protected.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Exactly, And turning over to your column which focuses on
the endeavors of the Trump administration to crack down on
free speech, there is I mean, if you want to
protest Israel, you can protest Israel. If you want to
say you're pro Hamas or pro Palestine, you can say
it out loud. This is how the we filter through
and determine the good guys and the bad guys based
(08:52):
up our own personal opinions and viewpoints of life. And
you know, thank god, we have the ability to do that.
So that way, when a Nazi stands up and says
I'm a Nazi, we at least notice who the state
of Hell away from fact, but.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
There's a Supreme Court opinion I'm forgetting the name of
it of relatively recent vintage, by which I mean post
World War two, which stands for that proposition it is
better to allow hatred out in the public. We know
who the haters are and we know what they're saying,
rather than if you suppress it, we don't know who
(09:25):
they are, what they're saying, or where it's coming from.
That's a practical reason. The philosophical and juridical reason is
Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech.
Doesn't no law mean no law. If it doesn't mean
no law, if it means something else, then there is
no freedom of speech. Then it's up to whatever the
(09:47):
personality of the justices want.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
But my understanding is somewhere there is a line that
can be cross, and I've been arguing that you know,
it's okay if you want to say pro power as
Indian things are, gathering a group on a college campus.
As long as you're following the legal rules that have
been established. You can't take over and occupy buildings and
prevent other students from the value of their tuition dollars correct,
(10:14):
and you can't harm them.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
You can't take over a building and guy disguise that
takeover as free expression, because that is trespassing. That's combining
a criminal act with a protected act. So when you
combine the criminal act trespassing, taking over a building, kicking
(10:36):
the dean out, disrupting a class, with the expressive act
free Palestine or get rid of Palestine, whatever your opinion exactly,
that does not remove the sting or the criminality from
the criminal Act. Now that's been the law of the
land for a long time. But without that criminal Act,
(10:57):
all speech is protected no matter who's a f In fact,
one could argue, if the speech doesn't offend, what good
is it?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
I love it? Welcome to the fifty five KRC Morning Show.
You're honor. Somebody's offended about what I say on a
daily basis, So anyway they fall into the category of
batcrap insane from my standpoint if they disagree with me.
But that's that's a okay. We have different types in
this world.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Now.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
I guess that the Trump administration, though, is saying that
they have failed to protect Jewish students. Now, if we
cross that line, occupy, prevent Jewish students from getting into class,
harass them, harm them in some physical way, then then
that line has been crossed. But can you, you know,
(11:54):
defund a school for their failure to act on these
independent actions of the students. I mean, how do we
how do we know?
Speaker 3 (12:02):
The defunding is very problematic under the law because the
vast majority of federal funding, let's take Harvard, doesn't go
to Harvard as an institution. It goes to the independent
researchers who work at Harvard. They're the ones who apply
for the grants, They're the ones who propose what the
(12:25):
money will be used for, and they're the ones whose
proposals have been approved. The cash does go to Harvard,
and then Harvard pays these researchers. The researchers are typically professors, researchers,
doctors working in labs. They have nothing whatsoever to do
what's happening in Harvard Yard or disciplining students. Yet they're
(12:47):
the ones being punished, and you could argue even though
I have a serious question with aid education because it's
not in the constitution, amen depriving all of us of
the fruits of their research. So this is a troublesome
area that the courts are going to have to unwind.
I think a federal judge did the right thing by
(13:08):
enjoining the President from suspending the aid until you can
figure all of it out. You know, this is vicarious liability.
You're going to punish doctor Jones because of the decision
of Administrator Smith making up these names obviously to show
there's two different people, two different lines of authority. The
(13:31):
researcher has nothing to do with the demonstrations on the campus,
but that's the person who's being denied a livelihood.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Fair enough and well explained. As always, Judge Ennenapaoulitano, can't
thank you enough for the time you smoke my listeners
to me on the program. I certainly value your time
and who you talking to today.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
I have the great Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock
and ex CIA official Phil Geraldi of.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Three Judging Freedom. Search for the podcast and hear what
the judge has to say when he's not on the
morning show until next week. My friend, it's always a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Thank you, Brian, all the best.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Please get Ingram a cheeseburger.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
We'll take care of that right after the show's over.
It's eight forty four at fifty five Karos DE talk station.
I'll be right back.
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.