May 6, 2026 • 12 mins
Freedom of speech
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From the UCL Traffic Center. Get moving with Sincy.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Sweats powered by u sea Health one week of free
fitness classes at local studios. Find a class at Sincsweats
dot uc health dot com. Southbound seventy five continue slow
in and out of Lackland. Southbound seventy one's improving delayed
times have dropped under the ten minute mark inbound seventy four,
so a bit slow above Montana towards seventy five and
(00:25):
northbound seventy five better slow between Buttermilk and Kyle's Well.
Today is National Beverage Day, so why not just sit
back and relax with your cup of tea, your cup
of coffee, orange juice, maybe even something a little bit stronger.
The Judge is next, Chuck Ingram on fifty five KRST
(00:47):
the talk.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Station eight thirty two I fifty five KRCD talk Station
The Judge, of course, Judge Enna Paul Tyne, we are blessed.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
I feel I'm blessed.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
I know a listening audience is always interested in hearing
what Jude Jenna Paul has the Poultner has to say
about these legal issues that we encounter all the time.
Welcome back judging and a Polatana. Thanks for joining the
show again.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Thank you, Thank you, Brian. It's a pleasure to be here.
I'm not sure what Ingram was talking about neither mind.
I do have a friend. I won't tell you who
it is, a well known, well known public figure who
has sambuca with his espresso every morning. But he made
me promise not to say who it is, not me,
because I wouldn't drink at that hour of the day.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
No, no, no, I got to wait till at least
ten o'clock in the morning to start getting your drink on.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Judge in these trying.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Times about espresso in.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
My column, good for you and your column.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
I you know, you know what I wrote on the
top of your column, and I read it yesterday and
I think you made great points there. But for the
grace of God, go anybody that participates in social media
in any way, shape or form. If the government can
go after you for a free speech post, and it's
their decision about what constitutes I guess an actionable offense.
(02:00):
We've got a lot of people that are going to
be hauled in and be subject to criminal prosecution by
the FBI. This is talking about James Comey's I think
vile post about eighty six forty seven, which everyone interpreted,
as you point out in your column, eighty six referring
to basically killing something or not offering anymore, and forty seven,
of course a reference to President Trump. At least that's
(02:22):
how many interpreted it. Judge Jenna Paltano, this is square
in the wheelhouse a protected speech in this country.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Yeah, it absolutely is. When confronted with us on the
Sunday talk shows, Todd blanche, the Acting Attorney General of
the United States, said, well, we have more evidence that
we can't reveal. Well, what more evidence do you have
and why can't you reveal it? How serious a threat
did the government believe this was if they sat on
(02:52):
it for a year and a half before they decided
to do anything about it. This is little more than
the President using the Department of Justice to make life
miserable for a person who made life miserable for him. Yeah,
Jim Comey, and he was the head of the FBI.
I mean, under Jim Comey's stewardship. Mister Donald Trump, we're
(03:16):
back in twenty and fifteen now was surveilled by the government.
I mean, this is now a well established at the
time I made this allegation, I was excoriated at Fox.
But it's now well established that this happened. The President's
animosity board Comy is prof is palpable and understandable.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
As much as Comy's as much as Comy's for Trump,
I said, as much as Comy's animosity to Trump, They're on,
They're equal in their dislife.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
That does not give the DOJ cart blanche to prosecute
somebody for speech. Look, this was a stupid thing for
him to posted, but stupidity is not a felony.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Right.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
But where we couldn't build, we couldn't build enough jails.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Yeah, and that's I was thinking of literally almost every
Hollywood celebrity who came out with something far more vile
than what Cony Coney put up. You know, the severed
head of Donald Trump, you know, in in the in
in that one so called comedian's hand, and you know,
the the suggestions of violence towards Trump. All of every
single human being who did anything like that could be
subject to the same kind of prosecution.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Uh, you're exactly right. So that's why the whole purpose
of the first of the first Amendment is to keep
the government out of the business of speech. So if
I'm haranguing a crowd and Hillary Clinton walks by, and
I say to the crowd, there's Hillary, let's get her,
and the crowd descends on her, I have can be
(04:52):
prosecuted for incitement to violence. But if I'm haranguing a
crowd and I say I wish somebody would get Hillary
Clinton and nobody is around there, it is absolutely protected speech.
In Comee's case, there is no incitement produced by it.
There For the speech is protected, and no matter how vile,
(05:16):
no matter how personal, no matter how off the wall
it may be. That's why we have a First Amendment
to protect the speech we hate. The speech we like
doesn't need any protection.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Yeah, and I think the worst example of you know,
hate speech we all can really point to and say,
no one agrees with that clown is that Brandenburg versus
Ohio case where the clan leader was encouraging violence against
blacks and Jewish people. That is protected. Nobody likes the klan,
nobody thinks we should. You know, well, I see nobody
with a broadbrush. But you get the point. If that's protected,
(05:48):
you got to take the good with the bad. That's
the point of the First Amendment.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Correct. Correct. The Brandenburg case, which took place not far
from where you are now, is the classic defense of
free speech. He's in Ohio, he encourages violence against blacks
and Jewish people in Washington, d C. No violence comes about.
The Supreme Court says, this speech was inoculus, and all
(06:13):
innocuous speech is protected, and all speeches innocuous when there
is time for more speech to rebt, reject and neutralize it,
which in the Brandenburg case there was. He was convicted
in an Ohio trial court. His conviction was upheld in
an Ohio appellate court. The Ohio Supreme Court refused to
(06:33):
hear his appeal. He filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which unanimously reversed his conviction.
End of story.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
End of story.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
It's on the books and it's been the law since
what nineteen sixty nine? So with that guy in mind,
I got to ask them goohead.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
I also found a case I didn't know existed when
doing my research of some kid he was a kid
at the time, might age now who when drafted in
nineteen sixty six that a Senate the government puts a
rifle on my hand LBJLB in my cross. Here he
was convicted for threatening to kill the president of the
(07:12):
United States, unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Of course, this isn't support for threatening to kill the
president of the United States of America, but it is
a reflection of how broad our free speech rights are protected.
Correct you don't want If you don't like that, then
go ahead and move to the United Kingdom, where you
have no free speech rights. Unfortunately, briefly though, because you
and I are speaking right now to a listening audience
that I'm sure is not comprised of a bunch of
(07:38):
James Comy fans, most notably given the Russia Gate and
all the links he has to that. Of course he's
subject to a DOJ subpoena in connection with that. All
of our popcorn out collectively waiting to find out what
that reveals. But pivoting back to your comment about other evidence, well,
you don't have all of the information in reference to
Comey's eighty six forty two post. Wouldn't that information be
in the the indictment or the criminal charge? What's missing
(08:04):
here on that?
Speaker 4 (08:06):
It's not, which is why those of us who monitor
it for a living, or questioning what the heck is
Todd Blinch talking about. If they have evidence that he
planned and plotted to harm the president or oblies to
lay that evidence out in the indictment and it's not there.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Well, I guess sounds me like a motion to dismiss.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
Well, emotion to dismiss is coming, probably on First Amendment grounds,
and that will force the government to cough up whatever
else it has. And then if it's anything substantial, and
I can't imagine what it could be, but if it's
something substantial and credible, then company's lawyers will have to
deal with it, and I'll have to reevaluate what I said.
Maybe this is not a First Amendment case, but on
(08:50):
the basis of the indictment, the charge inst him this
is pure speech and it's absolutely protected in his speech
and speak alone, unaccompanied by any other behavior alleged in
the indictment.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Well, I will note that even if it is not
a free speech case, ultimately your comments provide a wonderful
The indictment based upon your perception serves as a wonderful
springboard to remind us how broad our free speech rights are.
And again, thank God, for it real quick here, If
swirling in the background of all this is the burn
bag stuff, the Russia gate bag, that apparently on some
(09:25):
level may reveal that this was a concerted, coordinated plot
by folks in the Justice Department to go after Donald Trump.
If that is true, and maybe some of the subpoene
information and the research will will bear that out, is
that a prosecutable offense, the coordinated effort to undermine Donald Trump?
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Not anymore because the statummentations this five years than it's.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Past missed opportunity.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
Yes, yes, it would have to have been done in
the Biden administration or in the first year of the
Trump administration. But it's more than five years since all
this happened.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Yeah, why why the.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Trump DOJ sat on it? It tells me either they
had other priorities or there's no there there.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Yeah, and this burn Bag, with all this juicy information,
it sounds like it's a brand new breaking story now.
They found this last year. Even Caspi tell even said
an interview last year that you're going to see everything
we found in that room one way or another. But
as of at least the time of our current conversation,
Judge of Platano. I haven't seen any documents, and I
don't believe that any documents have been released from that
(10:37):
burn bag hm.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
You know, mate, worse than making a promise and not
keeping it, it is making a promise that cannot be kept.
I don't know why they keep boasting about what's going
to come out, just like with Epstein, Yes, and then
nothing is there.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
I know I wrote at the top of the article
about that Epstein files. Question mark, Judge.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Edited, did you know that the government released jfk assassination
files there was nothing there, meaning the CIA or somebody
denuded the files before they were released.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yep. Well maybe there's a room.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
It's not on any any blueprint where those documents are
being held currently. Judgment Poulatan like this burn bag room.
Judge of Paulaitano, it's Judging Freedom the Man's podcast. You
got to check it out throughout the week, Judge of Pultana,
who are you going to speaking with today?
Speaker 4 (11:25):
I have a professor Muhammad Mirandi born in Alexandria, Virginia,
now professor of literature at the University of Tehran, who
comes on with me nest Wednesday to tell me about
life in Iran. To the professor Glenn Dieson from Norway
who fills us in on the European reaction to the
(11:46):
war in Iran and the war in Ukraine. Pepe esco
bar from Beijing. And Phil Geraldi, the CIA agent whom
was kicked out of his office when he told him
what we now well, No, that Saddam Lussein did not
have weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, another regular guest on a Wednesdays on your show.
As I've come to understand, we'll check it out. Judging Freedom,
Judge of Politano. Tune in every Wednesday at a thirty
for the legal analysis from our dear friend, the Judge
of Polaitano. Have a great week, my friend. We'll talk
again next week.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Back at you, Brian, Thank you all, thanks, thank you,
From the UCL Traffic Center. Get moving with Sincy.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Sweats powered by u sea Health one week of free
fitness classes at local studios. Find a class at Sincsweats
dot uc health dot com. Southbound seventy five continue slow
in and out of Lackland. Southbound seventy one's improving delayed
times have dropped under the ten minute mark inbound seventy four,
so a bit slow above Montana towards seventy five and
(00:25):
northbound seventy five better slow between Buttermilk and Kyle's Well.
Today is National Beverage Day, so why not just sit
back and relax with your cup of tea, your cup
of coffee, orange juice, maybe even something a little bit stronger.
The Judge is next, Chuck Ingram on fifty five KRST
(00:47):
the talk.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Station eight thirty two I fifty five KRCD talk Station
The Judge, of course, Judge Enna Paul Tyne, we are blessed.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
I feel I'm blessed.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
I know a listening audience is always interested in hearing
what Jude Jenna Paul has the Poultner has to say
about these legal issues that we encounter all the time.
Welcome back judging and a Polatana. Thanks for joining the
show again.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
Thank you, Thank you, Brian. It's a pleasure to be here.
I'm not sure what Ingram was talking about neither mind.
I do have a friend. I won't tell you who
it is, a well known, well known public figure who
has sambuca with his espresso every morning. But he made
me promise not to say who it is, not me,
because I wouldn't drink at that hour of the day.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
No, no, no, I got to wait till at least
ten o'clock in the morning to start getting your drink on.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Judge in these trying.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Times about espresso in.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
My column, good for you and your column.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
I you know, you know what I wrote on the
top of your column, and I read it yesterday and
I think you made great points there. But for the
grace of God, go anybody that participates in social media
in any way, shape or form. If the government can
go after you for a free speech post, and it's
their decision about what constitutes I guess an actionable offense.
(02:00):
We've got a lot of people that are going to
be hauled in and be subject to criminal prosecution by
the FBI. This is talking about James Comey's I think
vile post about eighty six forty seven, which everyone interpreted,
as you point out in your column, eighty six referring
to basically killing something or not offering anymore, and forty seven,
of course a reference to President Trump. At least that's
(02:22):
how many interpreted it. Judge Jenna Paltano, this is square
in the wheelhouse a protected speech in this country.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Yeah, it absolutely is. When confronted with us on the
Sunday talk shows, Todd blanche, the Acting Attorney General of
the United States, said, well, we have more evidence that
we can't reveal. Well, what more evidence do you have
and why can't you reveal it? How serious a threat
did the government believe this was if they sat on
(02:52):
it for a year and a half before they decided
to do anything about it. This is little more than
the President using the Department of Justice to make life
miserable for a person who made life miserable for him. Yeah,
Jim Comey, and he was the head of the FBI.
I mean, under Jim Comey's stewardship. Mister Donald Trump, we're
(03:16):
back in twenty and fifteen now was surveilled by the government.
I mean, this is now a well established at the
time I made this allegation, I was excoriated at Fox.
But it's now well established that this happened. The President's
animosity board Comy is prof is palpable and understandable.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
As much as Comy's as much as Comy's for Trump,
I said, as much as Comy's animosity to Trump, They're on,
They're equal in their dislife.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
That does not give the DOJ cart blanche to prosecute
somebody for speech. Look, this was a stupid thing for
him to posted, but stupidity is not a felony.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Right.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
But where we couldn't build, we couldn't build enough jails.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Yeah, and that's I was thinking of literally almost every
Hollywood celebrity who came out with something far more vile
than what Cony Coney put up. You know, the severed
head of Donald Trump, you know, in in the in
in that one so called comedian's hand, and you know,
the the suggestions of violence towards Trump. All of every
single human being who did anything like that could be
subject to the same kind of prosecution.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Uh, you're exactly right. So that's why the whole purpose
of the first of the first Amendment is to keep
the government out of the business of speech. So if
I'm haranguing a crowd and Hillary Clinton walks by, and
I say to the crowd, there's Hillary, let's get her,
and the crowd descends on her, I have can be
(04:52):
prosecuted for incitement to violence. But if I'm haranguing a
crowd and I say I wish somebody would get Hillary
Clinton and nobody is around there, it is absolutely protected speech.
In Comee's case, there is no incitement produced by it.
There For the speech is protected, and no matter how vile,
(05:16):
no matter how personal, no matter how off the wall
it may be. That's why we have a First Amendment
to protect the speech we hate. The speech we like
doesn't need any protection.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Yeah, and I think the worst example of you know,
hate speech we all can really point to and say,
no one agrees with that clown is that Brandenburg versus
Ohio case where the clan leader was encouraging violence against
blacks and Jewish people. That is protected. Nobody likes the klan,
nobody thinks we should. You know, well, I see nobody
with a broadbrush. But you get the point. If that's protected,
(05:48):
you got to take the good with the bad. That's
the point of the First Amendment.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Correct. Correct. The Brandenburg case, which took place not far
from where you are now, is the classic defense of
free speech. He's in Ohio, he encourages violence against blacks
and Jewish people in Washington, d C. No violence comes about.
The Supreme Court says, this speech was inoculus, and all
(06:13):
innocuous speech is protected, and all speeches innocuous when there
is time for more speech to rebt, reject and neutralize it,
which in the Brandenburg case there was. He was convicted
in an Ohio trial court. His conviction was upheld in
an Ohio appellate court. The Ohio Supreme Court refused to
(06:33):
hear his appeal. He filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which unanimously reversed his conviction.
End of story.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
End of story.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
It's on the books and it's been the law since
what nineteen sixty nine? So with that guy in mind,
I got to ask them goohead.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
I also found a case I didn't know existed when
doing my research of some kid he was a kid
at the time, might age now who when drafted in
nineteen sixty six that a Senate the government puts a
rifle on my hand LBJLB in my cross. Here he
was convicted for threatening to kill the president of the
(07:12):
United States, unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
Of course, this isn't support for threatening to kill the
president of the United States of America, but it is
a reflection of how broad our free speech rights are protected.
Correct you don't want If you don't like that, then
go ahead and move to the United Kingdom, where you
have no free speech rights. Unfortunately, briefly though, because you
and I are speaking right now to a listening audience
that I'm sure is not comprised of a bunch of
(07:38):
James Comy fans, most notably given the Russia Gate and
all the links he has to that. Of course he's
subject to a DOJ subpoena in connection with that. All
of our popcorn out collectively waiting to find out what
that reveals. But pivoting back to your comment about other evidence, well,
you don't have all of the information in reference to
Comey's eighty six forty two post. Wouldn't that information be
in the the indictment or the criminal charge? What's missing
(08:04):
here on that?
Speaker 4 (08:06):
It's not, which is why those of us who monitor
it for a living, or questioning what the heck is
Todd Blinch talking about. If they have evidence that he
planned and plotted to harm the president or oblies to
lay that evidence out in the indictment and it's not there.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Well, I guess sounds me like a motion to dismiss.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
Well, emotion to dismiss is coming, probably on First Amendment grounds,
and that will force the government to cough up whatever
else it has. And then if it's anything substantial, and
I can't imagine what it could be, but if it's
something substantial and credible, then company's lawyers will have to
deal with it, and I'll have to reevaluate what I said.
Maybe this is not a First Amendment case, but on
(08:50):
the basis of the indictment, the charge inst him this
is pure speech and it's absolutely protected in his speech
and speak alone, unaccompanied by any other behavior alleged in
the indictment.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Well, I will note that even if it is not
a free speech case, ultimately your comments provide a wonderful
The indictment based upon your perception serves as a wonderful
springboard to remind us how broad our free speech rights are.
And again, thank God, for it real quick here, If
swirling in the background of all this is the burn
bag stuff, the Russia gate bag, that apparently on some
(09:25):
level may reveal that this was a concerted, coordinated plot
by folks in the Justice Department to go after Donald Trump.
If that is true, and maybe some of the subpoene
information and the research will will bear that out, is
that a prosecutable offense, the coordinated effort to undermine Donald Trump?
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Not anymore because the statummentations this five years than it's.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Past missed opportunity.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
Yes, yes, it would have to have been done in
the Biden administration or in the first year of the
Trump administration. But it's more than five years since all
this happened.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Yeah, why why the.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Trump DOJ sat on it? It tells me either they
had other priorities or there's no there there.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Yeah, and this burn Bag, with all this juicy information,
it sounds like it's a brand new breaking story now.
They found this last year. Even Caspi tell even said
an interview last year that you're going to see everything
we found in that room one way or another. But
as of at least the time of our current conversation,
Judge of Platano. I haven't seen any documents, and I
don't believe that any documents have been released from that
(10:37):
burn bag hm.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
You know, mate, worse than making a promise and not
keeping it, it is making a promise that cannot be kept.
I don't know why they keep boasting about what's going
to come out, just like with Epstein, Yes, and then
nothing is there.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
I know I wrote at the top of the article
about that Epstein files. Question mark, Judge.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Edited, did you know that the government released jfk assassination
files there was nothing there, meaning the CIA or somebody
denuded the files before they were released.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yep. Well maybe there's a room.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
It's not on any any blueprint where those documents are
being held currently. Judgment Poulatan like this burn bag room.
Judge of Paulaitano, it's Judging Freedom the Man's podcast. You
got to check it out throughout the week, Judge of Pultana,
who are you going to speaking with today?
Speaker 4 (11:25):
I have a professor Muhammad Mirandi born in Alexandria, Virginia,
now professor of literature at the University of Tehran, who
comes on with me nest Wednesday to tell me about
life in Iran. To the professor Glenn Dieson from Norway
who fills us in on the European reaction to the
(11:46):
war in Iran and the war in Ukraine. Pepe esco
bar from Beijing. And Phil Geraldi, the CIA agent whom
was kicked out of his office when he told him
what we now well, No, that Saddam Lussein did not
have weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, another regular guest on a Wednesdays on your show.
As I've come to understand, we'll check it out. Judging Freedom,
Judge of Politano. Tune in every Wednesday at a thirty
for the legal analysis from our dear friend, the Judge
of Polaitano. Have a great week, my friend. We'll talk
again next week.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Back at you, Brian, Thank you all, thanks, thank you,
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
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.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.