A huge injunction was put in place on July 4, 2023, limiting the Biden administration from working with social media companies.

We delve into the complex intersection of politics, social media, and the First Amendment.

The federal judge prohibits coordination with social media. This summary captures the main idea of the text, which is the decision made by a federal judge to grant injunctive relief against the Biden administration's coordination with social media companies to suppress the viewpoints of the American people.

The judge's injunction also prohibits the government from deputizing or causing a third party to suppress speech.

• Judge limits Biden administration in working with social media companies

Stephen Palmer is the Managing Partner for the law firm, Palmer Legal Defense. He has specialized almost exclusively in criminal defense for over 26 years. Steve is also a partner in Criminal Defense Consultants, a firm focused wholly on helping criminal defense attorneys design winning strategies for their clients.

Norm Murdock is an automobile racing driver and owner of a high-performance and restoration car parts company. He earned undergraduate degrees in literature and journalism and graduated with a Juris Doctor from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 1985. He worked in the IT industry for two years before launching a career in government relations in Columbus, Ohio. Norm has assisted clients in the Transportation, Education, Healthcare, and Public Infrastructure sectors.

Brett Johnson is an award-winning podcast consultant and small business owner for nearly 10 years, leaving a long career in radio. He is passionate about helping small businesses tell their story through podcasts, and he believes podcasting is a great opportunity for different voices to speak and be heard.

I gotta ask you, Brett Michaels. What a reference.

So we're doing rock and roll philosophy here. Yeah. And you know what? It was you know where it came from?

The the -- -- great white, great white album? Or -- When he was on the apprentice

with Donald Trump. Oh my god. They interviewed him. And he goes, I've always found that the harder I work the luckier I get. And, you know, I it's funny. I I I didn't even watch that show, but that one I'd happen to watch, Oh my god. And I remembered it. It stuck with me for a decade probably.

So wasn't he with a band called GreatWhite?

No. Poison. poison. Poison. Poison. He's actually a pretty interesting guy. He's got type 1 diabetes. You know, he's a he's a he's a good musician. He's a hard worker. I always found those bands. You know, they always seem to go off the rails with alcohol drugs or both -- Yeah. -- and all the above. But there's always 1 or 2 in any band that is a solid solid musician and a hard worker because you just you know, I don't care whether you like the music, whether it's bubble gummy or not. Those bands back in the seventies, sixties, seventies, and eighties. I mean, they were real bands. They weren't just electronically getting it done in the studio. They were actually writing music and And, you know, it's not that it was complex mozart stuff. But -- Right. -- you know, there he was churning out pop hits left and right. And it -- Yeah. I I took her in overnight or by mistake. I heard

I heard Billy Idol was on Trump's show too. Oh, right. I didn't I didn't know that. Yeah. He is. Yeah. So, you know, he probably I now unlike who who was the The lady with a single name, I can't think of her name, but she he appointed her to some White House office. He probably should have brought in Brett Michael and Billy Idol -- Yeah. -- into the Trump administration. I I what what was the other lady's name? Roseanne or I don't know. She had a she had she was like Madonna She didn't have a last name, just a single, you know, identifier.

Yeah. She was so famous. And she was on the apprentice?

Yeah. And she wrote a telltale book.

Well, there was a gal. Amarosa was that? Who's that? That was -- That's it. Yeah. That's it. Oh, okay. She wasn't a singer. But do you No. No. But she was on the apprentice, I believe. Yeah. She was. And, you know, she was she came out -- That's who. Against Trump later, I think. That that's how I already know that name. Well, a tell telltale book. Right? Yep. So

well, the most amazing thing to me, we could talk you know, I definitely wanna talk about this secret service. Oh, hey. A little baggy of cocaine. You know? And golly jeepers who's been living in the White House recently,

but a a coc addict. But, you know, but anyway You know, on the other hand, if you're a coke addict, you're probably not gonna misplace your coke.

I don't know. He misplaced the PC and his gun, didn't he? Yeah. Well, that's true. Hey. That's true.

High quality. High quality.

Yeah. Couple things to unpack there. Let's just start the procedure. What this was was an injunction? Injection is where somebody says, we want a court order preventing somebody from doing something. Or I guess in in some rare situations, actually specifically ordering somebody to do something. But most of the time, it's like preventing the enforcement of a law, preventing the enforcement of some action. Now here, the injunction was targeted at the federal government, the Biden administration, the executive branch of government from They were seeking an order preventing the government from intervening and ordering or orchestrating censorship out of the social media platforms. So that's the procedure. Now an injunction is not a win. A an injunction just means until the case is decided, we're not the the federal government or the Biden administration cannot do this. However, like, I've talked about this in the context of other sort of significant supreme court cases recently. a lot of times an injunction is tantamount to winning the case because one of the there's a bunch of factors that the judge will consider in issuing an injunction. 1 is whether there's going to be a reparable harm. Another big one that we always look for is gonna be the likelihood of success on the it. So the judge here is not deciding on the merits that Biden can or can't do this. But what he is gonna do is is comment on the likelihood of success should the case ever proceed to full litigation in in a trial. And here, what the judge has basically said in a scathing insightful 155 page monster opinion that this is Orwellian First Amendment This is an Orwellian first amendment nightmare. Those are my words. But the the judge says this the the he's concluded that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, and that's telling the Biden administration, you can't do this. This is a smackdown. And that that I I think ironically and interestingly, the Biden administration has appealed, which which to me is so abhorrent. But, you know, the procedure was an injunction, not a flat out win yet, but it's typically tantamount to a win. You know, that that's generally what happens. I think the other thing we need to consider here is what is the first amendment? What is it prohibitive? And, you know, in the context of freedom speech and really any freedom that the first amendment has, which is speech, religion, and it also has something called the entanglement clause that the government can't get entangled into religious endeavors. But in a freedom of speech opinion or in a freedom of speech decision, first thing the court has to look for is whether there's something called government or state action. We talked a little bit about this last week where, you know, I can discriminate again your speech norm. In other words, a a social media platform can decide on its own to say, Norm, you know, this common sense, Ohio nonsense, we're not gonna let you we're not gonna let you spew that dangerous awful stuff anymore on our social media platform And as long as that doesn't have any hand of the government behind it, they they can do that. Now there might be another there might be other ways or other reasons why you would challenge that decision and go after the social media platform, and this may be a Rob Mews question up in Michigan. Anybody who remembers Rob, we interviewed him on some free speech stuff But, you know, it's not government action when a private entity does it, and therefore, it doesn't violate the first amendment. So when the NFL says you can you have to stand or you have to kneel or you have to do this or that or the other at in an NFL contest. As long as the government's not acting, it's not a first amendment problem. Here, however and what you pointed out, Norm, is that the arm of the government was behind it. This was an agency relationship between the government and the social media platforms. The government just because the government can't do it or because the government can't do it, they can't also suggest, and I put that word in quote. that a private entity do it. Now this happens all the time. Like, go look at banking regulations. Like, people say, well, the banks are private. It's like a horse hogwash. Oh, no. No. -- hogwash because the governmental regulatory scheme is so onerous that banks know that even like, if they're gonna even break ground on a new branch. They gotta get government approval and there's gonna be all sorts of regulatory crap they gotta go through. And, you know, it's like when when I was in a fraternity in in college, we tried to use this argument. Well, they just suggested that we do this, and we were hazing on our own. That was always the the argument of the fraternities. that, no, we just were doing it on our own. Yeah. In nonsense, you know, you can't make that argument when it's pretty clear what the consequences are if you don't comply. This was even more direct than that. The it's it's almost like the Biden administration, the executive branch of government. And by Biden administration, it's not like Joe Biden's getting on the phone, although he might have. People have to understand the entire administrative state of government sits under the executive branch. So CDC and Treasury and ATF, all those agencies that you'd love in a door and hate and like I do. all sit at the behest of the of the of the executive of of Biden. So when we're saying Biden, we're sort of using that as the executive branch. But know, people in the executive branch of government were picking up the phone literally and getting to their emails and saying, look. You have to deplatform or suppress certain messages of speech and, you know, the the big word or the big phrase that we all learned in law school norm and that we all sort of The buzzwords for 1st amendment is something called content based regulation. The government can't intervene and tell you what you can say and not say based on the content. Now they can they can invoke something called time place and manner restrictions. So if you wanna go have a protest at rush hour in the middle of the city and take over this the main drag of the city, Well, the government can say no to that. And as long as they're saying no to that to everybody equally and not giving you a permit to do it, that's not gonna be a content based regulation. That's a time place and manner restriction. Here, it is unquestionably content based. We don't like your messages or we don't like these messages Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram. So therefore, please suppress them. And now they are acting as a arm of the administrative branch of government, the executive branch, and it's the same as the government doing it. And, you know, you would always wonder if the social media platform said no, what would happen to them. And, you know, that's that's where the regulatory threat takes over because they're worried that the government's gonna step in and pass some regulatory scheme that's gonna make their lives miserable, and so they're gonna comply. And the you know, this is, like, FTC stuff. You know, Brett, I know that you wouldn't or not FTC. FCFC. FCC stuff. You know, this is the old George Carlin, the 7 dirty words or whatever. It's like the government the the the radio stations are definitely afraid of the government cracking down on them because that's how they earn their living. You know? Right. When when you sit at the behest of the government, and under the threat of regulatory,

basically crushing regulatory schemes, you're gonna do what they ask. Yeah. And and I guess I was under the impression that the social media platforms are are basically not under the thumb of the government. You know, they have their terms of service that they they're just a they're a beacon of sending the signal out. Let's put it that way. Put it in TV and radio Yeah. That it's part of the terms of service. We're just we're just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. We're we we just rebroadcast this stuff. We're not making it up. We're not a news source. Yeah. So you can't control us. So but but you're right. Something in the administration, they got the thumb on them. Yeah. They they scared

Something. Because they have an exemption. Yeah. They have an exemption. They're like a bulletin board right now. Mhmm. They have an exemption. So if it's just a bulletin board in and They're doing nothing to regulate the content, well, then they can keep operating. But as soon as they start regulating content, now they can be sued and it for things like slander or or other private actions, and they've got an exemption from that right now. And I think all just deathly afraid of losing at exemption. So they're gonna do what the government says. Yep. And and I think also, ideologically,

they fall in line with it. So that helps. I think for the most part, you're seeing that. Yes. Correct. Correct. So the

the attorney generals of the 2 states that brought this case. Hey, Dave Yoast. Where the hell were you? Quote, unquote.

I I could I could tell you. He's too busy worrying about constitutional law here in Ohio.

Well, he's

he he's he's MIA on this. Yeah. He is on this account. -- interesting because it's you know, Yoast is usually front and center on this kind of stuff. So, you know, you you wonder, like, click, we can draw an adverse inference about Yoast on this or we could we could ask a I'd like to know you know, I'd like to know -- Sure. -- how it was decided, who was gonna bring the suit, how it was gonna how it was decided where the suit would be brought. And -- Yeah. -- you know, because

I can't just say out of hand that Yoast wouldn't be interested in this. I'm sure he was. Well -- And and -- -- where's his where's his Amicus brief. Right? So, Lattic, I would just like, you know, there there's a way for him to jump in. But at any rate And maybe he did file 1. I don't know. No. No. He didn't file. He didn't? Okay. I no. I checked. So -- The roaming reporter. And he he found out. Yeah. There you go. Well, if there you know, we are in a higher based podcast. So I I the the the 2 attorney generals, one of one from the state of Louisiana, and one from the state of Missouri where the state of misery as I call it. The these 2 AGs brought this case The one attorney general from Louisiana is now a US senator. His name is Eric Schmidt, And Eric Schmidt, now that he's in the Senate, right, wants to follow through with some on you know, the the way this is portending as Steve just described is it it's telegraphing probably I I have to believe that the Supreme Court, whether it's 63 or whether it's a 9 o opinion, which the Supreme Court did on that US postal worker in his religious beliefs. That was a 9 o decision. I I don't know how our Skotis would handle this case, but it it very well might come down to something more than 63, maybe 82 or, you you know, I'm 81 or or 72 or or whatever. But He's now a US senator, and he said a couple of things about pending legislation in the wake of this injunction that they're starting to maul over in the senate. 1 is, as Steve alluded to, this protective envelope that the social media exists in called section 230, where they cannot be held liable for content that is just up, so to speak, using Steve's analogy on the bulletin board. Right? But it is it now there is evidence on the record, 155 page injunctive decision there is evidence on the record from all these depositions that they, in fact, do twiddle the knobs and and and the dials, and they do regulate content. And they do it at the behest of FBI agents like Elvis Chan, who went out for monthly get togethers with social media, and and he's just one person. This this went throughout the federal government. So at any rate, he's talking about in the future if social media companies are found to have shadow banned, deplatformed, etcetera, that there will be a a a US regulation that they lose their 230 protections.

Well, they don't even have to lose it because they're just not complying. You know? It's like as long as -- They're not Yeah. It's it's like nothing really would have to change. Somebody I I Well, he wants it it's Steve. He wants it to be a penalty.

He wants that company when they make that decision. Right? He wants that company to be off the 230 protective.

Well, I guess what I'm saying is I think they are I so here's what's gonna happen. Here here's the best way I think to test this. Somebody's gonna have to sue social media. Sue one of the Sue Facebook or one of these other platforms and say, I was slandered on your platform and the the the social media company is then going to assert a defense. the section 230 defense that we're you know, we have exemption from such lawsuits because we are we are we're just a bulletin board, and we don't like you said, twiddle the knobs norm and and and and regulate what's going in and out and and tweak it here there. And, you know, there's gonna be eventually a judicial decision that says, now you have lost your exemption under this section. because you are engaged in content based tweaking And -- Yeah. -- and and now that could also happen another way, and I'm no expert on this stuff. I'm just sort of issue spotting. That could also happen another way. Like you're saying, Norm, there could be some legislative change that just eliminate that exemption altogether. I I think the better way to handle it would be assuming the regulation I haven't read it. I mean, or at least I when I read it, it was a summary and it Usually, you pull you open up those books, and they're like paragraphs and paragraphs without -- Oh. -- you know, it's it's awful. With references to different sections and parts, But -- Yeah. -- you know, it may be that you have to have a change in the regulatory scheme in order to permit lawsuits. But it'll might be written in such a way that a lawsuit itself could bust through it because it might be a condition precedent that they are not that these companies are not engaging in this kind of in this kind of censorship. And if they are, well, they lose the condition precedent, and now a lawsuit can be had. So It'll be interesting in you know, some of this is table pounding in the senate and the house or whatever, but some of it actually, I think, like like anything. And I think we've seen this in the last 2 or 3 weeks, A lot of stuff just has to take the time to meander through the court system in order to shake out. Another one like this Norman's probably a good shift is the student loan debt forgiveness. And, you know, Biden, how many months ago said I'm gonna just issue this executive order for giving all student loan debt, not all, but for giving student loan debt. even Pelosi at the time was saying, well, we don't have authority to do it. Everybody knew that Biden didn't have authority to do it, but he did it anyway as political theater. And now they're acting like they're they're outraged because the courts struck down that action. You know, they're using and and maybe this is what upsets me about all this crap is that it shows it's like the old Jackie Gleeson. What we're or what we're dealing with here is a complete lack of a back for the long. And and it is. I think that's smoking to me. Because what it it like, Biden knows. He did this on a couple of things. He did it with benefits to farmers. He did it with student loan forgiveness and all these executive orders that he absolutely freaking knew. were unconstitutional in violation of equal protection and violation of his authority under the ministry of procedure, whatever it would be. He knew he didn't have the authority, and he's like, I'm gonna do it anyway and let the courts strike it down. So it it makes you wonder, you know, as a practical matter. Where are we as a society? when our our president literally, our president says, I don't care what the law says. I'm doing it anyway. In you know, everybody would say, well, I don't care because I agree with the action or not everybody. A lot of people will say that. Well, it's worth it because we should have our debt forgiven. Well, what about when the man or the gal that you don't want in the office takes over and has the same power of the pen to do it the other way? You know, this is the seesaw that that nobody ever fruit that often the left doesn't see as a reality. You know, we're gonna we're gonna get rid of the short term regulatory problem just so we can get done get this done because it's worth it. But then they lose sight of the fact that every time you you you disrespect the legal standards that are in place, the fundamental standards of play, the rules, then you ruin the game for everybody, and and that's what's going on. So when Biden does this when Biden says, I'm gonna just forgive student loans anyway even though I know I don't have the power to do it. And then they're gonna use that now as a platform to pack the court because it's so unfair. Yeah. It's like it it's These are -- Yeah. -- these are dangerous plays, folks. These are really dangerous plays. You can't change the rules of the game to fit what you want in the short term. because sooner or later, the devil turns back on you, and then you'll it'll all be gone. And, you know, it it just because Biden doesn't wear jack boots and march around. It's the it doesn't mean it's not the same conduct as this other authoritarian authoritarian crap. You know, doing what you want just because you're president and you think if the law doesn't you don't like the law, so you're just not gonna follow it. I mean, that's what's happening here. Yeah. I don't like the law. I'm not gonna follow it. So I wanna do it. And I think it speaks to we've talked about executive orders in the past too.

I think this is a nice blow against them. Absolutely. Maybe it starts I don't care what political party the president is in at the time. Think twice about doing executive order because they're they may not stand. It may not stand.

So quit pulling this pen out of your pocket and just do an executive order, executive order, executive order, and think you're skirt and stuff. And and the bullwork against it right now happens to be the supreme court. And if you change that fundamentally and they're going to, they're going to try. This is coming. It it I have a hunch that's coming that They're gonna be there's gonna be threats to either limit terms, put restrictions, pack the court, add justices because you don't like what's happening here. the last bullwork against this crap will be gone. Yeah. They'll be gone because the other side's gonna do the same damn thing. Yeah.

Right? And and and and as we discussed last week on the affirmative action, epic affirmative affirmative action on college admissions case that the supreme court came out with. that, again, to me and and I think to people who construe supreme court decisions, like this that are principled. It was an originalist decision. It was not a conservative versus liberal. Although that is the way it's being marketed, right, in the in the in the dominant media. Correct. The dominant media would look at this and say, oh, well, this Louisiana US district court judge that wrote this 155 page injunction decision that this fellow, because he was a trumpet appointee, that this guy, you know, is acting out some kind of conservative agenda? Well, no. He's not. Because this decision protects liberal views conservative views, communist views, socialist views, any freaking kind of, you know, any view. Correct. So

you know, a a conservative social media platform to the extent such I think exists also cannot do this. Right? Then so now now if DeSantis is elected president, or Trump is reelected as president or whoever a Republican conservative is elected. They can't call up the social media platforms on the other side and do the same thing. They can't do it either. And the same is true at affirmative action. Right? You can't Like, affirmative what what the court is saying is you can't discriminate based on race, and you can't let white people in and not let black people in. You can't let you know, it works in the reverse as well. but nobody ever sees it that way. They only see the immediate problem in front of them. It's a very short sighted viewpoint on this stuff. And we don't need to open up the debate on on affirmative action again. But, you know, I I think you're right, Norm. What the court is saying is, look. Here's the platform of the institution. Here's what is permitted. Here's what's not permitted. Go forth and write laws and do whatever you want and come back if some if you have run afoul again, we're gonna slap it down again. And and this is what's gonna happen. And I'm I'm actually okay with it. You're you're reading all these things on affirmative action how court or how universities are you're gonna develop policies to get around it. fine. Do it. Because what's gonna happen is somebody is gonna bring another lawsuit and we're gonna sort it out through the common law process. It's going to take years it's gonna take years, friends, and folks, it's gonna take a long time to to to figure it all out. But this is how the system works. It's not designed for immediate action. It's not. Yeah. It's it's meant to evolve with society. And our constitution provides a basic foundational framework. It's like when you see the pictures of them building the Empire State Building. It starts with steel girders. That's what the constitution is. The Ginger bread you hang on top of it, that can change. but the girders have to stay the same. Otherwise, the building falls. And I think Skotis has an opportunity too to lay out, okay. If we do this,

in my ruling, this is going to happen, potentially. Think about the future. Yes. And and Skoda says that pretty well, you know, whether it's a minority minority opinion or a majority that they lay out the groundwork going, we thought about this, and we thought of all the scenarios that's gonna happen after our ruling. Whether I agree with it or not, And the minority that minority, you know, opinions are actually pretty interesting to read about what they project will happen. Yeah. If you're if you really want to be a constitutional

dollar on you have to read all the opinions. Mhmm. And there's so many decisions I can't think of off top man, but there's so many decisions that are called plurality. where there isn't really a consensus on there might be a consensus on which direction the case is decided, but not on why. And, you know, you'll get different reasoning from 4 different judges. and you'll be like, what the hell does this mean? Right. And and then you read the defense. And that's why, you know, that that's where the That's where the true scholars exist. They read all those decisions and they get to know the justices and what the influences are and where the trends are. But, you know, I don't have any problem with universities trying to skirt the constitutional decision here. Have at it. Have at it because the lawyers will come in, and the litigants will come in, and they're gonna challenge it. And if it's on institutional. It'll be ruled unconstitutional. If it's not -- Yeah. -- then you've you've found a way around it. You can't legislate human nature from the congress. You can't legislate human nature from the executive branch, and you can't do it from the US supreme court. You cannot do it.

Now the The one really, really, really, although not surprising, but really, really disappointing reaction. to this Missouri versus Biden first amendment case where as Steve said, it's not final, but it You know? It's pretty clear to me at any rate that further litigation in front of this particular judge by the Biden administration is It's a foregone conclusion how he's gonna how he's eventually gonna gonna roll because he take he goes through the evidence And and then he and then he, you know, tells you in the injunction order, you know, how if if proven that this is so prejudicial and so contra to the first amendment, you know, that it's outrageous. And probably, I think his words were this is probably the most egregious federal stopping of the 1st amendment rights ever in US history. Yeah. I mean, it it's it's it's an unbelievable

It it is it is an intentional content based government action against speech. So it is, like, the are saying, you can say this, but you can't say that. And -- -- you know, how -- And if you say that, we will shut you down. We will shut you down. I mean, that extra sentence there. Yes. Which which is which is like, you know, as as, you know, bench of barrel always says this. All this kind of regulation comes at the end of a gun barrel. You know, you've got because there is the power of the government behind it. They can pull a gun on you and arrest you. Mhmm. But the the the What's so offensive about this to me is that somehow the left Biden and his folks, they're actually appealing this, which is, you know, it's all for show, but they're peeling it. Somehow, they think it's okay because the ends justify the means. And, you know, this is where it gets really scary. This is exactly what the first amendment says you can't do. The ends don't justify the means. They do not. You can't suspend the first amendment because you think your agenda is just so true that you have the right to tamp out anything that's against it. It's like and that's what they're doing. That this is them saying We are right. You are wrong. We are the arbiters. We being the government. This branch of government, this political party We are the arbiters of what's true. And if you disagree, not only is it untrue, we're not gonna let you talk. The the I mean, how does that not how does that not hit Larian?

Right. Oh, completely. It's tyrannical. This this this show, gentlemen, is called common sense. Right? It is common sense, Ohio, but we got the name from a pamphlet, right, published by Thomas Payne during the pre revolutionary buildup to our declaration of independence as a country. This judge issued this order on July 4th It is no it is no, like it it -- Yeah. That's not a representative. No. Yeah. No. This federal courthouse is closed on July 4th, Tuesday. And he issued he issued this injunctive relief on that day. And It Thomas Payne, Ben Franklin, you know, John Hancock, the people who signed the declaration and independence. They knew I mean, they actually said in the document that they're putting their lives on the line using the speech and and and promoting separation from Great Britain well, from England at the time. and and and so, you know, they were facing death for using words. And so Nothing could be more dear to them than placing the right of free speech and assembly as first amongst the bill of right. It is the most like, you have no luck. The other 9 bill the other 9 bills of rights and the and and and success of amendments. None of them have any effective protection for the citizens if if you don't have your basic right to speak, to right, to create art, to assemble, to do all it to go to go to the church of your choosing or not have a church, None of that is none of the other rights exist if you don't have the 1st amendment right Well They have your own opinion.

And look, there was another case. I think it was called Pointer versus Texas where and this is back in the eighties. I have to look it up. Back in the year, I forget this data decision. But Point of Versus Texas says you can burn a flag or or better put. The government can't prevent you from burning a flag. The government can't pass a law that says you're not allowed to burn a flag. So think about that for a second. Our supreme court said, A law that prohibits me from burning the United States flag is unconstitutional. That and and they were burning the flag in direct protest to the United States government in sedition, right, in saying -- Yeah. -- we don't like the US government. We're gonna burn a flag. you know, these are or what if the government what if the United States government passed a law that says you are not allowed to kneel during the national anthem? You have to stand and salute the flag. This is what we're talking about. That is that this is the other side of that coin. If if the government can't say you're not allowed to burn the flag, then they also can't suppress other types of speech even if you agree or disagree with it. So when, you know, when when the patriots had the helm to to sort of take up the cause of of the left. They would have gone bananas. If the left would have gone bananas, if they passed a law that says you're prohibited from fly because that's alright if free speech, we should challenge these things. Or you're not allowed to protest black lives matter. You can't do that or you're not allowed to challenge Donald Trump because he happens to be the president. You would go ballistic if that's the situation. You can't have it both ways, folks. You cannot have it both ways and expect the safeguards to be there when you get the power back. You can't do it. And and Here, this is what the supreme court or this is what this judge said with resounding pump and circumstance releasing a 155 opinion on July 4th. You know, like you said, that that is no coincidence. He did that to make a point. He did that to say, look, folks. This is why our country exists, and this is why we're still better than all the other countries. Nobody has this like we have it and you are tinkering with the steel girders that are holding up the Empire State Building.

my mind. Yeah. I I think the legacy media, I I guess I'm not that surprised. honestly, because social media has dethroned legacy media -- Yeah. -- as as king of the the megaphone. Yeah. It it really has. It really has. And I think it's a jealousy thing. But you're right. I think legacy media is is not looking too far into the future where they could come back and bite them in the butt if they don't. It it, you know Donald Trump, what did they say? You know, legacy media is already a filter -- Yes. -- for for voices. You know, if you put in a an opinion piece into the Columbus dispatch, there's no guarantee you'll be printed up even in the print the digital side. Yeah. They filter this stuff. So don't don't you you know, listener don't even think twice about that leg you know, social media is the only one that's filtering and and dirt screening people.

Legacy media is too. Can you imagine if Trump gets reelected? and issues in executive order saying to the New York Times. You can't print anything or we're gonna suppress from you printing anything that is contrary to my agenda. Like like -- Unreal. -- that's what we're talking about here. It it is. That is what we're talking about here. And and norm your point is so good is that it's almost like their fish swimming in the water and they don't know they're in water. You know, they don't realize that the water that's creating the buoyancy for them to exist actually is the first amendment, and they are willing to look out to to look at everybody else and say, we're so right. We're not worried that we'll ever be wrong. You know, it it it just is like it's so insane to me. But, you know, the this is why the founders, you know, everybody's gonna say, well, they had slaves and they had this and they had that part right. They did, and there are a lot of flawed guys that back in those days. But at the same time, they realize the danger of this stuff. Right? I mean, they realized how important it was to have these protections. They realized how important it was to make sure the government couldn't stop the presses.

And also debunking, they were a bunch of old white guys. Yeah. The average age I looked this up last week, saw that we might go there. The average age on the most was, like, 35. Most of them are in their forties, but 35. Now at that time, that's kind of old. It's older. Yeah. It's older. Maybe maybe it's 50 today. But but but but let's think. There's still 35 -- Yeah. -- for the most part. And some much older, some much younger, but 30 is the the forties. Think about what you were doing listener as a thirty to forty year old person, if you are right now, would you have to wear with all the think of about the future like this? Right. You know? And and It's mind boggling if you think about it. And to create a government

that would prevent you from doing what you're doing, you you know, it's like or that that would permit contrary voices -- Correct. -- to what you've just established. Like, think about that for a second. We created a government that permits its own citizens from talking against the government or that that permits our own citizens to talk against the government. Now we created a government that allows dissent. We created a government that allows us the people to say, we don't agree with you. We don't agree with our country. You're allowed to have a hashtag on your on your car truck hashtag f j b. Yes. You're not gonna have it. Yes. You you you can you can say Or or or DJT.

Either way. Correct. Yes. Either way. And and and Right. And, obviously, you're signaling

and going, well, I'm probably not gonna have a great conversation with that person. Yeah. Now so if you're making a point, you are expressing your opinion. Yeah. And if you're not allowed to do that or if if the federal government, if the United States government specifically the executive, specifically the president of the United States says you can't do that. How's that gonna make you feel? Where does that leave us as a country? I think it destroys our country. It destroys it from within. it's over. The girders are gone. Yeah. You know, it just it it doesn't exist. You know, we're we're getting so dramatic about this, but I think it's important that we do. Well, but it's a soft spot for us because of podcast.

Alright. We're doing it. We're engaged in what this freedom is. Right. You know? And this may be the last vestige of freedom of speech is podcast.

I you know, it's funny. I think there are 2. I think it's podcasting and this this sort of alternative realm of of expression. And you know what the other one is? Stand up comedy. Yeah. You know, stand up comedy. Yeah. Communions comedians, like, you know, I watched an old George Carlin bit. on how the how the our country back and he that was probably back in the eighties. How our country has become so obsessed with fear of safety and fear of of of what's gonna happen to you that they've given up their trading, their freedom for protection. And, you know, that's exactly what happened during COVID, and that's exactly what this decision is all about. This was about COVID era stuff where the government was tamping out any contrary viewpoint. And and let me tell you something. It's not just because they thought they were right. That's a bunch of hogwash. It's because they made a shit ton of money on this. There's a lot of money change in hands between big pharmaceuticals, the vaccine, the government shutting everything down and wanted to be called out to the carpet on why they were shutting things down. People dying in droves because they weren't getting treatments that would have worked, therapeutic treatments that wouldn't have worked. The government doesn't wanna be called out on this crap. It's like the Pentagon papers normally, remember? It's now what I think was the New York Times.

100%

authorized money for the Wuhan laboratory to engage and they use 3rd party cutouts. But US taxpayer dollars went to finance COVID, this this whole this whole scientific investigation, that to give credit to president Obama, he he issued a presidential directive that no US funds were to underwrite this research. And Collins and Fauci got around Obama's order by by using a third party cutout and our dollars. This is the scandal that Fauci and and his cohorts cut, you know, suppressed free speech in the in the in the Biden administration oppressed free speech of people discussing how the US government was involved in this gain of function research at the Wuhan lab. What could be more apropos

for the media to expose than that story. Yes. This is like this is this is like bombshell stuff. This this should've been a bombshell story. You know, Fauci became a millionaire after skirting law that prohibited from doing what he was doing. And then -- Yeah. -- he went forward in an orchestrated suppression of any opinions to the country. Why? Do you think it's really because he was trying to save American lives or do you think he was worried about getting bought violating the law and making 1,000,000 of dollars while doing it. You know? It's like and maybe both are true. But still, the the the New York Times should have been on this like molasses.

I mean, it in -- Big time, man. And I think part of the reason that they that they're, you you know, completely recoiling over this injunction decision is because The legacy media has been caught with their pants down. There have been stories of the century that they have failed to cover in any substantial way. Sometimes in the case of of these various news channels, which aren't really news. It's propaganda. The the they haven't spent 10 minutes on the Hunter Biden laptop, on on Fauci's funding, of gain of function of all of these different stories that are now being you know, the onion being peeled back, and we're finding that, oh, well, Twitter really did work with the US government. This is to suppress speech. And and they are there's egg on their faces all across all these newsrooms because now in the wake of things like the Durham port, which has conclusively proven that the Russia thing was a complete hoax. After feeding us this bullshit, for the last 6 years or so that, oh, it it it was definitely a Russian operation. No. It was a Hillary Clinton, DNC operation. And it's true. And none of it was none of it was true. And and yet, where are the front page headlines about, oops, hey, people. For the next 3 years run a headline saying the Russia Trump shit is a complete lie. It never happened. Durham's report exposed all that. Muller's report exposed all that. The attorney jet the the inspector general exposed all that. Various congressional committees Senatorial committees have proven all that. Where, you know, where does Trump get his reputation back? Right? In a lot of ways, that's why I'm a DeSantis supporter because as a practical matter, they have destroyed Donald Trump. The legacy media has They I mean, yeah, he's up in the polls and all that stuff. But they set out to destroy this guy, and he is a jackass. Okay? But setting that aside, they they they went after this guy made up stuff, and the news media carried that stuff as if it was factual without any real reporting or investigation. And now the the public knows it. The jig is up. We all see it for what it is, and they they should be I mean, they should all turn in their Pulitzer prizes. and they should resign in a new wave of young journalists like this Matt Taibi fellow.

Oh, no. Like common sense, Ohio norm, And and I mean that. I mean that. I mean that. I mean that. Because like you said, Brett, this the medicine here, the tonic for this, is happening. It's happening at the grassroots level. This is what makes our country awesome because we never just Americans don't just sit back by and large, and and march in line. You know? We all this our country was founded on this. People say, well, you know, England doesn't have guns, and England didn't have this. I it's like, yeah. We we we left. Right? We we've left and created our own version. And, you know, Americans are cocky cowboys perhaps, but we also don't sit down on our hands by and large and take this kind of nonsense. And I think the couple points that you brought up Norma was about to say because it's not just Fauci making money. It's about taking out your political rival. They use social media. The the opposing political party use social media to take out a political rival. And when the government is behind that, it is deathly dangerous. It is I mean, it's like that is that is, like, the worst of the worst. And, you know, it it's maybe it always comes back to this for anybody who wants to tinker with these sort of constitutional foundations. the ends always justify the means somehow in the short term for them. But it it when you get rid of the when you get rid of the of the protections just to meet your end, then they're gone forever. You know? And that's that's always what I always come back to is because you wanna flip this around. If Donald Trump were doing this to Hillary, would that be tolerated by anybody? If but maybe this is a good segue into the White House white powder. Because the media is doing the same thing here, Norm. They're sort of downplaying the fact that there's a bunch of there was a there was cocaine found in the freaking White House in the in, like, the west wing. You know, it's like, I I you know, you can laugh about it because it is sort of funny, I suppose. But on the other hand, what if this were in the Trump regime? What if this were Trump's kids? who had had cocaine. They would have been all over it and they should be. This is a story. Right? This is not, like, laugh it off. Like, somebody's snorton lines in the freaking White House. And let me put it in perspective just to bring it back to Ohio. That's a felony. It's a crime. No rare is cocaine permitted. Now we can debate about whether or not we should have a a libertarian approach at narcotics and drugs and whether it should be lawful and you should be able to use it. but you're not. Right? That's not the law right now. It is a crime. I have people in prison for using cocaine, and cocaine creates addiction. Addiction creates all sorts of other crime. And, you know, again, we can debate how to handle that, you know, as a as a practical matter. But as a as a very factual matter here, Somebody is committing felonies in the White House. Now who could it be? Is it the guy who's got a cocaine addiction and a crack cocaine addiction? that has been widely sort of publicized, or is it somebody else? Is it a worker? Is it a cleaning guy? Whatever. I heard Dan what's his name? Bongino. He said he used to work with the secret service. He's like, no way it had to be a family member because everybody else is is searched and and and scrutinize getting in. I don't know if I buy that. But it's a worthwhile question. You know, it's like, who wouldn't be asking is this Hunter Biden? who wouldn't be asking what is going on in the White House that people are using drugs. You know, it's like and we're not you know, I'll even make the distinction between you know, like, member snoop Dogg says he got high at one of the parties with at the under I think it was Obama. But on the other hand, this is Coke. You know, this is a big deal. Yeah.

I think it was Willie Nelson and Jimmy Carter's son blew a doobie out on the portico.

of the White House. Yeah. You know, it's sort of funny.

Yeah. But it's still a story. And and and, you know, let's look at Grant. blowouts with alcohol. He was kind of not lucked upon as a great president because of his big parties with all the alcohol. Oh, yeah. They're getting plastered. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. kind of the same vein. This is let's respect the house. Yeah. Well and it but this is look. Alcohol wasn't against the law that wasn't. Right. And and it may not be the best parison, but at the same time -- Pardon in the White House. Like, you -- stuff's going on. Let's that's that's let's figure it out. Let's figure it out. If you're Joe Biden,

What would your what would your like, I I try to put myself in this situation. If I were the president and on my watch, somebody found Coke in the White House. I would be out there saying we are going to figure this out. Here's what we know. Here are the facts, and we're getting like these dubious no pun intended. We were talking about doobies. We're getting these dubious responses. Like, Biden's sort of laughing it off. And -- Because he knows where it's from. It it seems it seems to It smells like that. Yeah.

Let me jump in. Let me jump in. Yeah. So one of the one of the corrosive bounce sides of politicizing arms of the federal government like the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the CIA, And in and in this case, the secret service that is there to protect the president and other particularly named high office people, speaker of the house, president of the Senate. You know, they get and former presidents, they get secret service protection. the well, back when Biden was vice president. And in fact, when he was I think when he was out of office, So he was a former vice president. This was when Hunter's gun was thrown away at his behest or he did personally, I forget which. But, basically, he irresponsibly handled his firearm and threw it or caused it to be thrown in a trash can at a shopping mall across the street from a school. I think that's the story. The secret service, which at that time and I I don't know if they provide protection, say, for Mike Pence now, for example, another former VP. But at that time, secret service protection didn't even exist for former vice presidents like Biden and add his Becken call, the secret service went out and retrieved that pistol from the garbage. and and and I mean, they they then covered up their role. The secret service covered up their role in it. And it's only because of the 100 black you know, laptop fiasco that some of these stories are now known. Who who knows what we don't know? but it's not on the black the laptop. But but here is abuse of the secret sir secret service should have told former vice president Biden. Listen. Call the Metro DC police or call, you know, call some other law enforcement agency. We don't work for you. We're not your shock troops. We don't go out and clean up your messes. Much less, a mess of your son, who never was elected to anything. who who we owe no duty to whatsoever. That same secret service is now in charge of this cocaine. investigation. Yeah. And so so it's another Biden situation involving the secret service. Now do you think the Do you think the American people have confidence given what the secret service did for Joe when he was out of office? Now that he's potas, My god, are we ever gonna get to know the facts? Well, what do you think the American people think about their FBI, their CIAA and their secret service now that it's been politicized.

And let me tell you. Once it happens once, it gonna happen again. And and this is an interesting point that I think you made or at least a thought that your point gave me. And that is it it wouldn't have been all that bad at the time for Joe Biden. Just to say, look, my son's got problems. He's gonna deal with the law just like everybody else is gonna deal with the law. There was a gun deposited trash. I think his wife did it or his girlfriend or somebody at the You know, it's like -- Yeah. -- he would've taken a hit. Now but because he was protected there, they're gonna protect him. If he's the guy with the cocaine, they're gonna protect him here. So again, Biden should say, look, if this were Hunter, I'm gonna find out about it, folks. Nobody's a nobody is above the law here in my White House, and he'll he'll have to pay for it. You know, In spite of a sweetheart deal on IRS infractions -- But, again, it's become a it's become a habit. we're gonna protect Hunter because it protects Joe, and it protects our person in the office. And the media is gonna whitewash this and and candy coat it and say, oh, no big deal. You know? Joe's such a good dad and, you know, there's another component of this. You know, he's just trying to be a good father. It's like, no. No. His son -- Right. -- and probably Joe have engaged in corruption at the highest level. He's getting 1,000,000 of dollars from other countries trading on his dad's name. It's like that's a -- So the -- -- and things story.

Oh, yeah. On the view to to to to support your point, Steve, On the view, I think it was Sonny Austin or one of those dim bulbs. Excuse me. I shouldn't say shouldn't say that. You love her. You know? Yeah. I do love her, but she can be a dim ball, and I still love her. But one of the ladies of the view, which is just you know, your daily infusion of idiocy into the body politic said actually, said that Joe Biden's actions to if if he did cause a sweetheart deal for Hunter, you know, using Merrick Garland and, you know, deciding 9 to press charges and and a a very light recommendation to the judge. We'll see if the judge accepts a plea deal, etcetera, etcetera. that the reason all of that happened is because it's fatherly love. You can't blame the Biden family because he loves his son, and who wouldn't do anything in the name of family unity and loving their son? Well, I'll tell you this. Norm Murdock wouldn't do that. I'd hired Steve Palmer, the best attorney I know. to represent one of my sons if they were in this situation. But I sure as hell wouldn't pick up the phone and call the US attorney and expect

that they're going to give me a sweetheart deal because it ain't gonna happen. Well -- And it's not it's not right that it would It's it but I think it's more subtle than that, which makes it even more dangerous. It is understood that the US attorney will do that. It doesn't have to be a call anymore. You know? It's like a nudge nudge wink wink. annoy. Right. You know, well, somebody written me of this menace, and it happens. You know? Right. It's like it's it's become more sinister because it's it's almost an unspoken rule that they're gonna put that they being the justice department, the deep state, the media. They're to protect anything that is

contrary to their agenda. Well, and it's sad that fatherhood is equal to enable or enabling. Which which which biblically

and historically

in every psychological way absurd. Of course, it pings us his father's see our sons or daughters make mistakes. But how how does it help if we continue to enable? We're gonna do everything we can to help them. get the best lawyer, give us attorneys, the best mental health care, addiction care, whatever.

But you're not gonna go buy off the jury. You're not gonna No. You're not going to do that. No. Because there

there has to be a better outcome than that. Well, the hardest thing long run. The hardest thing we do is fathers.

is permit our children, particularly our sons to fail. Correct. That's true. You know? Yes. Because only in failure painful. Can you learn? Yeah. And only in failure do you grow? It's like you you go to the gym and you work out hard and you get you leave and you're all and your muscles are feel like they're you know, you can't move your arms or whatever it is. What's happened is you've created thousands of little tears in your muscle fibers and in the healing process, they get bigger and stronger. You know? It's like the hardest thing. I I use that analogy because I have to I have to remind myself often. You know, my sons, they forget their lunch. It's like, sorry. I'm not bringing it to you. You know, not. No. You're gonna have to figure it out on your own, and they're not gonna learn not to forget their lunch, but they're gonna learn how to solve the problem when they do. And and and it's such a bigger lesson. And and, you know, the media should be praising a father who let their son fail and learn and get better as opposed to praising a father who protects their son and particularly protects their son unlawfully. I yeah. You know, the this is unreal. It is. It's so and and it makes you question other things. Like, well, I wonder how much Joe Biden really knew on how much money he was getting. Why is Joe Biden a millionaire? Like, look, these are questions that the media historically would be all over. How did Joe Biden become a millionaire in public service? Yeah. And it may be that he has a bunch of cushy speaking gigs and he makes a 1,000,000 a a a pop. so be it. At least we know. Yeah. But something tells me there's more the in in the darkness back to the free speech movement, In the darkness is where these things grow. You know? So now I wonder if they're suppressing any question about how Joe Biden became a millionaire, It makes you wonder whether it was legit because they won't go look. You know? It's like when things are hidden like this from the public purview, That's when the conspiracy theories grow. And it may be that it's true. It may be that he is concealing criminal behavior. It may also be that He just the media just wants to protect them against any possible conceivable threat like a father overprotecting their kid. And now you end up with this huge enormous backlash and it cometh right quick.

Yeah. Yeah. And so, you know, the the the the the the state itself is now questioning its constituency. The American people who it ostensibly exist to serve. The state is now so worried about conspiracy theories and fringe groups, and people with tin foil hats and wacky ideas about everything from UFOs to JFK's assassination etcetera, etcetera. And and the state wonders why there has been this upsurge on social media of people questioning the basic truthfulness of what we've been told in the warren report or about the the operation blue book about you all these very various issues. And they and they wonder why is the American why are the American people so cynical and and so mistrustful of government. Well, Jesus Christ excused the expression. But my god, it's because of stuff like this. It's because the the the so the the secret service, which Dan Bongino, was a a an agent of. I've got a classmate that's currently in the secret service. These people are are not there to protect opinions about the people that they're physically protecting. But, yet, that's what they they've turned into a praetorian guard. It's ridiculous. And so the public doesn't trust these institutions anymore. You know, with James Comey, Trix Trunk, are you telling me the FBI director tricked Trump and and tricked Mike Flynn into, you know, being able to expose that Mike Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador, you know, during the prelude to the Trump administration. So, therefore, Mike Flynn is unfit to be national security adviser. I mean, all of this all of these games, these political games that the deep state is playing, they don't I it blows me away. They don't understand how it is corroding their own authority. The the the people are not accepting the deep state, and the deep state keeps trying to suppress us. and it's a never ending cycle. And it it's gonna end up in a very ugly place like on January 6th. Right? Yeah. Where a small group of people lost their shit. Right? And and did some very illegal, very wrong, and in some cases violent things. other people were pretty innocent and, you know, just got waved in. But that's, like, the very tip of the iceberg of where this could go or BLM or Antifa on the other high. Yeah. When you when you when you try to suppress,

keep us awake at night. probably. Right. That's fine. You know what? There there are bigger brains and better brains that should hold that information. I don't have to know that stuff. But Yeah. We're not talking about, like, battle plans here. We're we're talking about

whether the government should force me to get a shot. and you're not gonna even give me the data that I need to make the decision because that data is so dangerous to your position and contrary to what you wanna do that you can't you you can't tell me. And that's what I mean, that's in simple terms, that's what's been going on. Mhmm. And -- The one of the one of the key revelations

in the Durham report One of the people that he recommend for prosecution, and the guy skated Scott Free is you have FBI I mean, just just imagine this. This is the government lying to the court system. You have the FBI falsify A faiza request saying the information in this fake dossier, right, was verified information that the FBI had verified it. When in fact, the FBI, we have now found out, the FBI never confirmed the dossier, never substantiated it. They hired further Sources paid further money for other people to go out and try to verify what was in the dossier and they came back and said it's not true. We now know all that. But this guy wrote on his Pfizer request to to spy on you know, some of these Trump people. He wrote right on it to the Fisa court, this in information is verified. He later admitted that he lied. So the FBI guy lied, and he admitted he lied. And they they did not find him guilty He he was he he is now practicing law, you know, in some Tony Georgetown Law Firm.

Scott Free, Yep. Right? When when when when your clients for a DUI at least get 3 days in jail. Right? This thing gets nothing. If somebody lies let's say law enforcement officer, and then we gotta we gotta hit your nuggets and wrap it up after this. But say law enforcement officer lies to get a search warrant. and searches your house, and there's no consequence for that. And it's like, what do you think is gonna it's like we're in a in in our country, that isn't gonna work. Where does that not It's gonna work in our country. It's not. We're different. We are not like everybody else. This crap, like, you know, you go to Europe, and I was like, woah, in history, they all the Europeans, you know, they have such this awesome white, blah, blah, blah. They are so used to the the the suppressive thumb. on top of them that they don't even see these things as problems. It's like it's it like, government corruption is so natural and so commonplace that, again, it's like the water they're swimming in and swimming in. They don't even know it exists, and they're totally cool with it. We are not. I am not. And, you know, for we got back to Ohio. We got guys like Jim Jordan out there trying to expose it. Guys like, you know, at least they're having hearings and and subpoena people and and and like bringing this stuff out into the sunshine. So and and you know what's the media is is smashing down on them. Like, there's evil people for doing it. It's like it's so insane to me. that that people that the content of people's speeches or people's speech and viewpoints is so dangerous that it has to be suppressed. And it's it to bring it back full circle, that's what this decision was all about. This this district judge saying on July 4th, we're not gonna take it to -- Imagine if you are -- Right. -- imagine if you are in a silo,

right, informational silo. and you're you're a daily subscriber to The New York Times. Right? And that is your source of news. Maybe you don't watch TV. You're not on the Internet. You get the New York Times, which is supposed to be the newspaper of record, is what they all always called themselves. And all you reads in New York Times and you think you're a well informed citizen, you read every yes, you, you know, front to back. And now all these stories are coming out, right, about things that the New York Times never covered or they covered on page 5th do. Gore said it was acategorically false.

Yeah. Right. I mean -- Chastised anybody for even suggesting it.

That it must be unbelievable to those people. what they're reading now. Like, well, wait a minute. You mean Anthony Fauci

owned patents -- He lied. -- or owned