 Thank you guys very much. I'm Team Skeptic. I already introduced myself. I am the killer of bad ideas. I seek out bad ideas like self entitlement. I seek out bad ideas like people that don't believe in science. And I absolutely do my best to prove that those people have no idea what they're talking about and why they have no idea what they're talking about. Do I introduce myself now? Absolutely. I'm Sean Fitzgerald. I don't know which one of these cameras is on. Or is this just for- oh, both of them. So I can say hi over here. Okay. That makes sense. I can see the lens. So I run a YouTube channel called The Actual Justice Warrior. I cover criminal justice-related topics primarily. But I also cover a bunch of other things that are in the news and related to different current events or whatever. I would say that I like the science. I'm not against it. But we have to find something to argue about in order to make this entertaining. So you've got to give me some more specifics and then maybe I can- Well, okay. Like I was having the discussion earlier that I believe that police auditing is necessary. But today's police auditor is a threat to the First Amendment. Like how do you mean? Well, as I was saying to these guys right here, that right now we start out before there is a constitution. We start out with just completely inalienable rights. We all can say what we want to say. We can murder each other because there's no government. There's no society. There's nobody to say what is right or what is wrong. There's just simply you and your rights. There's nothing to say that you can't. So eventually society forms and then laws come in to say this is not wrong. This is bad for society. So we start losing our rights based on these laws. By now our First Amendment and our right to freedom of speech, I won't cover freedom of thought or freedom of religion because it's really not those aspects that I'm worried about. Those aspects will be attacked by the attacking of the original First Amendment purpose which is to redress our government and have the right to speak our mind without fear from reprisal from our commitment. So today's First Amendment auditor will go up and literally jump in the face of a police officer to incite a reaction. This is not about the First Amendment. This is about a YouTube video making clicks and views and making a living out of it. Now when we try to distinguish between someone who's truly fighting for the First Amendment and someone who's doing it as a profit, a lot of times the people that are doing it for profit are not holding consistent values with what the founding fathers needed for the First Amendment to how it should apply. So my fear is that the Supreme Court will eventually have to step in one day on a big case. So it will actually be a case where a First Amendment auditor will get a serious injury or death and they're going to have to come in and say, is this really what the First Amendment is all about? Should we start taking away the idea that every citizen is an actual journalist? Because if we allow every citizen to consider themselves a journalist, this is how having non-license, like we can't allow doctors and lawyers to be, we can't allow non-license people to be doctors and lawyers. Do we say, can we not allow non-license people to be journalists because they're doing things improperly and causing danger to society and that will limit us? The doctor or lawyer has a specialized skill and I want to address something. You don't actually have the right to kill somebody up until a law is created. The whole point of natural rights and natural law is that you have freedom up until the point where you're infringing on somebody else's right. So you can't contradict somebody else's right. So that's why all the negative rights is what they're called when people argue negative and positive rights are just things that don't infringe on other people, like up until the point. So you have freedom of speech, of course. Or do I have the freedom to kill an animal and use it as food? No, animals aren't people, like rights are for people. But I'm still taking the life of something that's still my right. I mean, look, we can get into a vegan argument that's like... No, no, no, I'm not vegan. You want to ruin my day? I'm just saying, I believe it to be a right. It's immoral. I'll agree with you. I mean, a lot of rights come from... A lot of the philosophical basis of rights are endowed by the creator. I'm not particularly religious. But if you're going for that justification that's literally in the Declaration of Independence and in the Christian Bible, it's like man has dominion over the animals, which is why we don't consider... Some people do, but we don't consider extending rights to animals. But typically, in terms of a negative rights framework, your rights go up until a point where they conflict with somebody else's, which is why you have freedom of speech, which is why you have freedom of expression, you have your property rights and all these other things, because they don't infringe your justly acquired property rights. They don't infringe on other people's rights inherently. And then things like murder violate somebody else's rights alive and that's why you can defend yourself from a murder with it by killing somebody. Well, in society, right, but I'm saying pre-society, in which society does not exist, so moral ground to justify not murdering somebody when, let's say, murdering that person could feed your dog. Well, the moral framework that we have these natural rights comes before they're codified in the Constitution. I mean, I agree with you. There's a morality issue to it. And I'm saying let's ignore the morality to say we do have that right to do this if we feel that it extends our life. If I have a right to life, if I find myself in a situation where it literally comes down to me having to murder somebody else and eating them or they having to murder me to eat me, then I believe that's a right that's a justified right, regardless of the morality of the choice. Well, that's why they actually, in those situations, they say that you have to draw straws to figure out who dies and all that because your right can't conflict with one another. Obviously, that's a very niche situation, but it is a hypothetical for a reason. I guess they would say you'd leave it up to chance and that doesn't really sound like a great solution, I understand that. But in general, the idea is the right supersede their codification and they refer to it as natural law as an it predates government. And if you read the First Amendment or any of the amendments, it's kind of reflected in that. It's Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the speech or press. I forget which border it's in. But it establishes that thing as something that pre-exists government. So that's the little issue I have with, it's not that... Well, that's an extreme issue. Let's just hold it to the First Amendment. Let's hold it to freedom of speech. Let's say pre-government, pre-society, I could just walk out and say whatever I wanted. We're in a theater, I can walk in and go fire and watch all the people run out and trample each other and that's my enjoyment. Well, the fire in the crowd at theater decision has been thrown up. I understand. But you understand the point I'm trying to make. So eventually, they have to start limiting people from being able to do things that would incite violence or incite danger upon people. It's like direct calls to violence, not vague. But it is illegal, right? To directly go, why is it illegal? Who made it illegal? The government. Okay, exactly. So the government has started restricting our rights, but we can agree on that at least, right? If you're talking about an absolute, I get to say anything without consequences, then yeah, in that regard, we have restrictions. Okay, so the restrictions have already started to fall down and fall into place based on the actions of individuals who were doing it. Like if nobody ever yelled, and we're going to use the fire in a theater example, but even though we just talked about how that's not really a still thing, the idea is the constant, right? That's also a film isn't made with those silver nitrates that are so flammable anymore. Well, movie theaters aren't like that dangerous. Like they used to be a horrible fire trap. Yeah, but the idea is that it's inciting speech, right? It's inciting. So if nobody ever incited violence towards anybody else ever, there would have never been a law put in place that says you are not allowed to incite violence. It started out when people started inciting violence, and that's not protected speech. You cannot do this because you're violating the rights of the people. Yeah, they're considered fighting words or something like that. So we do have examples of where our right to freedom of speech has been limited by the actions of others. Now, these people, anybody can go in and look at them online. They are antagonizing police simply for views, clicks, and money. They go up to the cops and they start problems with them, and they're like, you should be able to film the cops, but these people are just being jerk offs is what you're saying. Exactly. And when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and those amendments, the idea was to keep what was happening in America at the time with Great Britain, to keep that from happening with the people from the government of America. To keep America, the government of America from becoming tyrannical like we were dealing with at the time. It's the whole reason why the amendments are written the way they are is from their frame of reference. It's a deconstruction of a monarchy. That's why it requires two-thirds of the legislative branch to declare war because typically that is a power held exclusively by the executive, which was the monarch and is the president and our thing. So the purpose then of the Supreme Court moving forward is to approve or not approve amendments and adjustments to these bills because that's what their job is. Their job is to interpret that for us since we don't have, we as the people, the generalized people, there might be people like yourself that have a little bit better legalese than I would, but the Supreme Court is supposed to be there to justify or not justify actions of certain people and if the unjustification is a result of the wording of the First Amendment or the wording of the Constitution or the wording of amendments, then they go in and they change that. Now when they change that, they never give you more rights. Never have you been given more rights. You've always had rights taken away. Now maybe civil rights. We'll talk about the civil rights acts and stuff like that for the disparity of how we were treating people of color back in the 60s and 50s and whatnot. There were things written to give them more rights, to give them rights that they deserve, that were taken away from them previously and that I can agree with. But in general, the Supreme Court, any amendment is there to reduce your rights and these guys will eventually be written, have the Constitution or the Supreme Court will eventually see a case that they're going to have to make a justification on that person's actions. When they say that person's actions are not justified, this is not what was meant by the First Amendment, they're going to write new laws around that and it's not going to be a law for that guy. It's going to be a law for all of us and then we lose more of our freedom of speech and that's important to hold as much of it as possible. In fact, it's so important that we should be fighting for more of it. We don't need to be restricted. We should not be restricted on YouTube. We should not be restricted on Twitter. Why restrict bad ideas? Let people like me take the bad ideas and deconstruct them and show you why they're bad in a way that you can digest and understand. We push them away. They go somewhere else. They foster those bad ideas under umbrellas. We can't see them and in January 6th happens. So, like I agree with you in general that like, yeah, I don't, there's a lot of restrictions that come against our rights but like in terms of like the specifics when you're like the Supreme Court has never expanded the rights of the First Amendment. When the First Amendment was established we were much more socially conservative society. So, we had laws against, I forgot what the exact word is but I think it might be smut, like being published and all these different things like, you know, very sexually restrictive. There's very famous Supreme Court cases where they've like gotten rid of those laws. Hustler magazine was involved in one of those cases. I believe that Playboy was involved. So, it's not necessarily true that they don't expand the First Amendment. Like the founders were passing laws against like, against like things like smut and all that because it was a way more religious time and back in the day we didn't have the reverse incorporation clause. So, even though the federal government couldn't restrict your speech the state governments were allowed to up until when the 14th Amendment was passed and then reverse incorporation doctrine has been expanded over the years to have more apply the Constitution. So, I get like your general premise that the specifics aren't like as accurate as they should be. No, you're right, you're right. But like, yeah, I don't want more restrictions. I like the idea of being able to contradict like things that I don't like and not even because I think that in this like holy grail world like the best ideas will rise to the top. That's the hope but I think freedom of speech is a good in and of itself even if it leads to bad outcomes because it's like principally you can speak there for you have the right to speak just like you can think there for you have the right to think. Yeah, to think with thought. And that goes beyond whether or not we have good or bad outcomes. A lot of people like to, you know, say, oh, well if this person has a lot to speak and then in five years we're going to be like Nazi Germany. Even if that were true that's not a good justification to like preemptively restrict their speech in my opinion. So I see a problem on YouTube with like and this is where I see the government heading. Okay, so when I cover an anti-vax video on YouTube a lot of times I'll get penalized because I'm covering the anti-vaxer even though I'm pro-science, I'm pro-vax, I'm here to to promote what YouTube wants me to promote but they don't know the difference so they restrict my freedom of speech. And it's not, they don't owe me anything. I'm not, I'm not dumb enough to think my first amendment right applies all the way to YouTube because it doesn't. That's just my first amendment right only applies to the government. I can still bitch about the censorship but they owe me nothing. So there's no point in saying in trying to make a first amendment argument I can see where YouTube is already doing this. Any major corporation already has to understand that throwing umbrellas on top of problems of misinformation requires throwing an umbrella on top of positive information as well. And it's really a bad thing for us to even try to remotely hide a good idea just because you're scared of the bad idea. I mean again, we're supposed to be fighting but I do agree with you. We're not gonna fight. We can talk about this. I do agree with you. The idea that like because they have these policies like a big one is that drug that like you know the media calls horse dewormer that YouTube specifically says you can't say which is why I'm not saying it not because I'm a child. It's that you can't even if you're against it or even if you're like hey this is like a treatment for other things like you can't do that on YouTube it's ridiculous and I don't think they're very much acting as a blunt instrument and the problem you're experiencing is similar to the problem that people who made videos about Holocaust denial ended up experiencing since they're talking about the Holocaust or something serious they end up getting restricted and treated like the denier. If they play clips of something they end up getting treated like that person like I've had that issue where I respond to a fully monetized video. Do you believe the government will follow suit in those type of actions? Well a lot of what we're finding out first of all like YouTube policies in America that they're doing on the corporate level are very similar to policies being pushed and advocated more by countries like in the EU or Australia and all that where they don't have the first amendment that protects like the very specific things that are protected in the United States so they are kind of following suit with government there's also government pressure like why do you think they drag all these CEOs to testify before Congress? There's nothing valuable being gained so that they can yell at them and then ironically throw those clips up to raise money off of it but they're doing it to intimidate them like you fix this you comply with what we want and I think that like ends up making a situation where they're essentially censoring on behalf of the government without the government saying it and on top of that that's also unconstitutional there's something called chilling free speech in US doctrine where if you don't make something explicitly illegal but you make attempts through government power to get harder for it to be done that's considered chilling free speech and it's actually unconstitutional excessive permitting requirements and all this stuff you're not allowed to actually do that so I think they're in violation of that when you have representatives and senators and even the president like saying hey Facebook get this stuff off of your websites and all that I think that crosses the threshold of corporate actors to government influencing corporate actors even if you don't have a literal exact policy so I think that's a huge problem and I'm very worried about that and not just because I make my money on YouTube yeah well I do too and that's a concern for me and it's not because I don't think I could translate that into something else because I know I could but the idea of taking away the biggest platform in the world for people to find out information and restricting the information that goes into it is the worst thing you can do for a society to move forward because guess what a parlor exists now and rumble does and everywhere else where they don't have these big followings yet big enough for the government to step in and start saying hey you know right now we need Amazon to step in right and pull the server from them if they want to stop them you know that's the only protection you have against those bad ideas and Amazon can do it but I don't want to see the government do it I don't want to see them running off to a hiding ground and doing domestic terrorist ideas we lose as a people we lose no matter where you sit on a political aisle you should never want the far any side trying to gain control because all they want they're fanatical about their ideas and it's also like if you're one of those people who worries about collusion in the government or collusion in the market because parlor you mentioned which we don't have anymore it was taken down when Amazon web services pulled it it's not like GAB which just like keeps coming back because Andrew Torba is like very he has Andrew Torba I've spoken to him he really does have a solid plan for keeping his website up once all the lights go out and the zombies start rising GAB will still be up there that's how we'll plan out this man has it but parlor was not responsible for January 6th no I'm just saying but the premise that Amazon used to basically violate the contract that they had with that company was that they were responsible for this attack it was put out by government officials and by other social media companies that they were responsible the bulk of this was organized on Twitter and on Facebook like you can see the evidence of the Facebook groups parlor had very little involvement because parlor was like not like it was not that popular it was popular among a niche crowd but it wasn't that popular and in fact one of the ways that the FBI has been tracking these people down is because parlor enables your location data like all the time and that's what ended up leading to the tracking down of a lot of these people so yeah I well when I say the January 6th I'm using that as an exemplary incident you know to say this is what can happen when you allow, when you push bad ideas out of the mainstream and into secondary forms of media and you can get growth of like certain groups like I remember early in the Obama administration there was a big obsession about the increase in like hate groups in the United States and my favorite news story of all time was like well we have to fight the race war so we're gonna start allowing Catholics in which they never did so it's like weirdly Obama made the clan more tolerant which I always find amusing made the clan more tolerant it used to be the Catholics are the big problem there but yeah they're like no that's fine we have to fight the war but um yeah no like that is what happens when they're out of the mainstream and there's some form of social marginalization that's good like I don't like deplatforming and I probably would advocate for very unsavory characters having a platform but like that doesn't mean that you have to associate with them like we're in a modern debates like thing they don't have to bring every single person on but I remember I attended CPAC and just to go to your point about how you end up creating this alternative and honestly hyping them up and Nick Fuentes shows up at CPAC every single year right and he brings his little like 12 year olds like with him and they try to storm CPAC and he gets kicked out because he can't even get the ticket at CPAC now CPAC sells itself and this is where I do agree with them they sell themselves that year as uncanceled right they have no speakers outside of President Trump who have been banned on anything this dude is like banned on Airbnb like Uber, banned from banks he's banned from like things like I didn't even know existed and they're like minor service websites he's banned from everything like he's a serious dude but he sets up an organization like a little event a counter event across the street and I don't know if you know anything about CPAC it's boring as hell so we go over there there's no air conditioner Dallas, Texas in the middle of July so it's 98% humidity no air conditioner, high temperature he packs that room for his speech full hour and a half and a lot of that is like guess he's a smart guy, he can build an audience or like I have to call him stupid or anything none of that's true with him but part of that is even the people who are supposedly against canceling cancel this man and that's why a lot of people go over there and listen to him so you end up bolstering him and he has a dedicated following it's not a joke and you see that in modern day political pundits as well that like Steven Crowder he constantly gets banned off of or suspended, yes suspended off YouTube but then again he turns around and has his mug club and all his videos on there and his fans are flocking there to watch him now there, he's uncensored completely and I'm okay with that I'm really am okay with that whether you believe him and believe in his way of thinking or not that's on you, I'm not even going to express whether I believe it or not because it's really nobody's business just like it's not my business to know y'all's viewpoints on his material but you see it there too and where do we draw the line that these people, I don't want to say like Steven Crowder's a lot like this but you do see a lot of the fundamental crowds where do we draw the line that some of these fundamental political parties that are forming in the undergrounds on both sides to not be colds you're starting to see leaders coming out of them and people religiously following them and being exonerated from their families and just completely separate the cute conspiracy people they've lost family over beliefs and Q when do we start, how did that blow up like YouTube regularly pushes that off of their thing you can't find pro-Q videos on there how are people finding them well they're getting them through secondary media so you're saying that there's an untapped market I should be tapping into it untapped market I should go pro-Q I hate the overuse of the term colds because what ends up happening and I recently made a video about this one of these and I won't name them because it's not relevant one of these men's guru guys people were like oh my god he's charging $100 a month for his organization and I made a video not necessarily defending him because he was in the wrong in one of these situations but defending that idea because what's happening is a lot of people are looking for community they're looking for a group in order to associate with to replace organizations, groups and communities that are lost and one of the ways that you can really join a group and colds do use this is a form of shared sacrifice you have to contribute something lose something in order to gain something this is why the army brings you down before they build you up into an overall hole and you look at the bond of soldiers returning from war it's one of the strongest bonds that we have these guys are always in each other's business because they went through that shared sacrifice together and what could work is money so you're not only when you're marginalizing these people and removing them from these free platforms because the community is stronger based on shared sacrifice so if they have to pay that becomes their shared sacrifice thus making their community stronger you're actually making them stronger because you're incentivizing them to participate in that behavior so I think that's a huge problem and great organizations that you can look at for this are fraternities and sororities they didn't get better what ended up happening was fraternities and sororities started just not phasing out of existence because that hazing did build them up I'm in a fraternity I went through hazing when I was at at the University of Texas I recently went to I remember it was 20 or 25 years it was 96 to 21 25 years and when we got there I was like where's the pledges at let's go haze them and they were like you can't haze them anymore you can't yell at them anymore you can't look them in the eyes anymore and be angry and I'm like what the fuck is wrong with society we're raising up marshmallows and it shows go look at the analytics on videos go look at what's popular we're raising human marshmallows and it's okay but the irony of that is that while those old organizations are dissipating and you remove them from these free platforms where they would not form these tight-knit communities when you force people out and then the most dedicated go over there you're forming those new type of organizations they're not as productive as a fraternity or any of these groups and they're with the people that you're worried about the most so you might cut off somebody from their 100,000 subscribers and be like yeah I nailed it but then they have more financial support from like the 2500 that end up paying them and all those people are super dedicated and those are the kind of people who are going to come out and not just stand in a room with 98% humidity and no air conditioning but those are the kind of people that if they're like hey you know let's go after this person they're going to go after them so you're creating a more radical type because like a lot of these people in the audience I got to talk to a lot of them and I feel like this creator that got canceled is getting canceled for saying what I believe so he's brave enough so they already have that connection that you're building this person up in such a way that I don't think it's worth it overall and even if it is worth it overall if you want to make that argument I don't think principally it's a really good idea but I'd rather them be in the forefront I'd rather say let's just let them be in the forefront so we can have that discussion and we can show whether because you know what they're going to get more people that's what's going to happen we get the Streisand effect again that will occur because then this relatively unknown person who says one crazy thing and we push him off and we say don't do that and then now all his like he's at 2,500 followers they're telling their buddies that God told you about that you never listened to me for guess what he's got ban on YouTube for what he was saying can you believe that what where's he at now he's over here go check him out look him up he's like this and gives you the address now guess what that's another follower right there that's also a person who's being pulled out of a mainstream source of information that can be more informative more professional more correct and not so emotionally driven trying to separate you from your support systems and take advantage of you as a person who is in an emotional need it's like if you heard a porn star got banned from Horn Hub you'd be like yo what was in her last video you want to know for sure you're like don't they allow almost anything where's she at now where I found this video at is that video on red too turn off save search results not that I know what any of these websites are but yeah it really does create a stronger knit community and I think that's a huge issue and again we agree on it we gotta fight over something so let me ask you the original premise of the debate and then let's see where you go from there do you think that the actions as I described and let's say the overt running up to police officers don't do you think that offers a danger to the First Amendment to mine and your right to freedom of speech so essentially these people would they would become such a problem because they're not actually recording them they're interfering with the police that we would get legislation to stop them that would in effect be effective against journalists 100% 100% I don't think those people should be doing that I agree with filming the police but you don't need to be in the incident that's a problem you should film the police I'll say it right here to the camera you should film the police but what you shouldn't do is interfere with their traffic stop you shouldn't interfere with their investigation you shouldn't show up at their homes when they're not doing their job as your political representative that's what their job is to do is to represent you to protect you these are social constructs that we as the people we live in a social democracy where we vote these people in to make those decisions as for us in a majority we can't just take the minority and say well the minority they got it right but they're still the minority so let's just make their policy that's not how America works and if you're a police officer like the body cameras were meant to be this big like social change and accountability for police officers it's helped them and I want to say 95% of the cases there was that famous like evidence bag oh they planted drugs on there where the guy was filming with a cell phone and by the way his phone was up a lot longer in the body cam footage he just conveniently put out that video it was only 10 seconds where the cops supposedly planted evidence on him without explanation and you hear on the body cam video he's like look this is blowing away in the wind it was in your friend's pocket I'm putting it right in the back seat right here he's like I know this is not yours and this guy puts up this video about police planning evidence so the body cams are great for police officers overall like they're and it's good for us especially those ones where they press it and it starts to recording 30 seconds earlier because there is that video that one cop that did plan evidence and then he runs up he didn't realize that 30 second recording with no sound so overall like they're wonderful for everybody involved and specifically the officers like they've really benefited from that and it allows us to audit some of their like activity sometimes police lying is misconstrued because we all don't have perfect memories and we kind of fill in the gaps so sometimes you get like the vague outlines of a story from an officer and like a police report is always written from their perspective but the footage doesn't most of the time lie obviously special exemptions and they don't typically review the footage then write their reports and then the footage gets processed and then it comes out they don't have access to it so you know I had my taser in my pocket the whole time it just happened to go off and shoot them out in the nipples there's a body cam footage that shows you aiming your taser and shooting the guy in the chest that's different you know that's what it's there for but to be fair if it hit both their nipples the guy would have been pressing them up I see now how small that prong is that's fine too yeah so excuse me so yeah so we agree on that and maybe this shouldn't be you know posted as a debate but a discussion about why it's important that we do hold these people accountable you know they're making money they're not doing it for me and you they're doing it for themselves because you know what they don't post don't post the good interactions I mean it's not that every single interaction with them is bad if it is, that's a problem on them not the police officers because police officers are individual people too where your interaction with one isn't going to be the same as the other so if you have 99 videos on your YouTube and 99 of them are all horrible interactions with the cops and the chances are that you're cherry picking the videos that you're posting so that you can sensationalize the actions of the police and the violation of your freedom of speech because it does happen I mean these people are pushing cops just like you said they have faulty memories they don't always act in the best interest because they're humans they make decisions in the moment we expect them to, we should expect them to that's their job but they're also humans we've got to accept that a certain percentage of cops are going to make a bad call even if the idea is not hate filled even if the idea is not to violate civil rights even if the idea is just in the moment I believe this to be illegal 100% behind the cops being totally intrusive I don't believe in stopping an idea like hey come here let me see your ID sir no, in Texas, you're seeing shit have I committed a crime no, that's my right to say no to you and I'm going to use my right because if you don't use your rights you will lose them the only two ways to lose rights is to not use them and to abuse them the rights are there for you love and enjoy them don't take advantage of them to the extent that you're taking away rights from other people don't be that jackass because that's affecting me, not just you if you're the one that does it for instance not anybody individual but the royal view but that's the whole argument that's my whole position on that a lot of people think I'm oh you're just 100% bootlicking the police awesome like what the fuck are you talking about you know what I'm saying I don't go around just making you know, blanket statements that every cop is good, they're a bad cop sure, I've experienced them in my life but not every cop is bad just like there's bad people everywhere you can intersectionalize as much as you want down to one group and you can go well there's bad people in that group and that does not define the entire group just like taking society and say these are the peace officers why are they called peace officers they're a bad guy, why are they called peace officers then well they're not everyone we just get sensationalized because these youtubers and these people are not getting you, they're not going to keep you for the 38 minutes of you having a positive interaction with the police officer they're going to keep you with the 6 minutes where the police officer is beating the shit out of them because they pushed the police officer just a bit too far and you know what 90% of the time the police officers are in the wrong, morally they believe them to be in the right, legally they're in the wrong and they violated rights and that's what I'm saying, it's eventually going to go to the supreme court because somebody's going to say, man come on this is bullshit, I'm done with it I'm done with it, I'm done with it put it to the state courts and it's going to go to the state to district, district to supreme and once it gets to the supreme court that's when they're going to lay out blanket statements to say this is what you're allowed to do under freedom of press and this is what you're not this is what you're allowed to say under freedom of speech this is what you're not this is what you're allowed to believe under your freedom of religion this is what you're not I don't want to see that I want to see all of us be free freedom of thought's a fucking amazing thing being able to speak my mind right here this is beautiful, this does not happen in China not at all I would also like to say a friend of mine Devon Tracy always says anytime you're looking at a video what you're not seeing is as important as what you're seeing so like there's always something that happened before there's literally different angles that give you a completely different perspective on it but even when like just think about all the times you saw a video and then another angle gave you another perspective when you only have one video just because you have one video doesn't mean the whole range of what happened is contained in there there's always more context there's always a bunch of different things and about bad cops there's like good cops, bad cops but there's also good cops that are having like a bad day any one of us has phoned in a day at work or a mistake at work it's just when you're a police officer and you're having a bad day and you have a slip up somebody could die in that scenario like you could wrongfully arrest somebody and ruin their life or any number of things and also there's a ton of cops wearing bodycamps there's everyday interactions that are benign, mundane all the time that we don't see because they don't make news and we also have news media that even when there's heroic actions like that crazy video of the plane that crashed on the track in LA where the LAPD goes and they pull that guy out and then the plane gets hit by a train it's insane it's all caught on video even that comes out of the news in like a week so just remember anytime one specific case is being lingered on we're in a nation of 300 million people it could be a really bad case it could be deserving of punishment, anger scorn and all that but 300 million people hundreds of thousands of police interactions a day like you have to put everything into its proper context and yeah so 99 police, bad police interactions I like this guy guys just so you all know I like this guy he actually has a good head on him at least for freedom of speech I'm not sure your other beliefs don't want to make any assumptions but I could have a conversation with this guy at least you know how why because of freedom of speech because we have that right we have the right to discuss these ideas without fear from the government walking through that door because we don't agree with them or saying that you know you don't agree with this president or the last president whatever the case may be you two guys might you might support this president you might support the last president and y'all might get into a verbal argument well guess what in China the one who supported the last president he goes to jail you don't because you support the party we don't want that we need freedom of expression here we need for the right to speak our mind to speak we should stop being so afraid of the other side that we think that any moment if we don't like if we don't take authoritarian control like you know you got to take control of the empire to prevent them from taking control of the empire thank god we don't live in a nation that is like that let's make sure our tyrant is the tyrant I gotta crush you before you crush me thankfully we don't live in a place like that and a lot of people try to sell you like doom and gloom and like every presidential election is the most important one that's all propaganda I've been hearing it ever since I was a kid I'm a libertarian I'm actually very libertarian that's why I believe in freedom of speech because man I don't want the government telling me what the fuck I can say and can't say fuck that I don't want YouTube to tell me what I can say and can't say I don't want YouTube to tell me I can't call someone stupid for fucking not believing science but you know what, YouTube has to do what it has to do to protect the masses and I understand that from a government perspective I don't there's presidents from both sides and you could have your disagreements but it's not the end of the world because libertarians never win that's the perspective you gotta have you can't be like go get em crush em this is a good place to end that argument then sure in this talk because it wasn't arguing we had minor disagreements but I think we both agree about the importance of the First Amendment I think we can both agree that that there are people and there are actions out there that can lead to restrictions that are absolutely the most important things to us as people to not lose never lose your right to freedom of speech your right to freedom to believe I don't care what, I'm an atheist I still believe you should have the right to believe it to be a Christian I still believe you should have the right to hold anarchist thoughts and anarchist beliefs that's your deal so I'm an atheist too so like this is a plenty of brothers alright, why? pleasure talking with you thank you guys for listening I will take questions if anybody has it, alright if you say the rules as before can we come up here between the cameras just so we can get the recorded I kind of disagree a little bit about your take on that it's okay for YouTube to censor in like a legal sense because the First Amendment doesn't apply to them just because of Section 230 that treats them as a platform not a publisher because they're actually a publisher so do you think that should be repealed if they're going to be censoring? so yes and no, I think there should be an audit on people that are under protection of Section 230 like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook they should be audited because there is regardless of what anybody wants to say me sitting in the middle and being able to look back at shit that's going on I can tell you there's an obvious bias towards political belief when it comes to censorship on private platforms now there's two arguments to that and you've made one of them a good argument against, right the argument for is that there is some responsibility to YouTube, Twitter and Facebook to provide safe information to the people for instance the vaccine you don't want somebody saying they are a doctor because like we were saying there's licensing that's required for lawyering and doctoring so when someone says I'm a doctor and here's this thing when they're not a doctor they can cause harm to people who would believe in that because they hold the title of doctor I don't believe that they should be censored if they are a doctor but section 230 while it does protect them from being responsible responsible as a publisher instead of a platform I mean not held responsible as a platform instead of being held responsible as a publisher actually holding the publisher responsible I think that's important because that gives us the platform to spread our freedom of speech around so 230 is important there needs to be an audit to make sure that 230 is being applied properly and I don't want to see any service take away terms of service any social media take away terms of service maybe go back and readjust them and say don't be so hard on ideas you're not either politically or scientifically in agreeance with as a platform but at the same time you know you have to still be there to protect people from saying that they're a doctor when they're not a doctor and giving bad information so that people don't take that advice under the assumption that they're a doctor giving medical advice that is a separate thing with them because you can't actually impersonate a doctor that's a separate crime I was completely unaware I see it all the time for section 230 and I agree with you in some regards but the law doesn't bear out the point that it doesn't bear out what it should so section 230 was put forward because people leave comments on websites and then people could sue the website for that commenter and they would win in court so they put this section in in order to protect the websites because they could not possibly moderate all this content however there's no clear definition of platform versus publisher it's very broad and even in the section where it lists off a few things and then says otherwise objectionable content there's a little comma that says including constitutionally protected content the argument that I've always made and I think this makes legal sense and I've seen the court talk about this with other types of laws is that they name like lewd conduct violent conduct they list off a bunch of things and then they say or otherwise objectionable that that sentence or otherwise objectionable can't mean literally anything and everything like these companies have interpreted it to be because if it could there's no point in listing off anything else however the courts are like broadly over interpreting that and the spirit of 230 was to allow open discourse but legally the way the courts have interpreted that portion of the statute means that we're totally out of it so I wouldn't repeal section 230 I would just clarify that you're listing off things and otherwise objectionable is meant to be like things that may not be specifically lewd but not specifically violence or whatever but it's not meant to be literally anything and everything and the authors of it said this is for an open dialogue like that would be like the purpose of the law not passed into the law like on the internet and that's just so it's a weird spot we need 230 some version of it because the internet can't exist if I can put something stupid on a Facebook post and you could sue Facebook Facebook's gonna shut down because they have billions of users they can't they can't moderate it even the New York Times can't function in that way and they are a publisher but they're not responsible for their comments because that's part of their like platform that they're allowing you to comment on their articles if that were not there we would be we wouldn't be able to have the internet like it just would not like because you wouldn't be able to interact because discord would be responsible for any dumb thing that you said so like it's so the legal leaves don't really bear it out I think our revision but not a repeal would be something to look at yeah and I agree you know 100% with what you said that the revision part is it's overdue because we cut we're in a constantly dynamically changing environment and what is controversial today is not going to be controversial on a year and instead of having you know instead of saying well you know 230 was meant for this or for that because of how it happened back in the day and now they're trying to apply it to ideas that were never really covered by 230 we're never really discussed for 230's purposes I do believe there's over censorship but I also I just look back and say but there's terms of service you know they tell us that we sign you know we want to use that platform as a method to get our freedom of speech out but we do sign everybody that creates the channel signs that terms of service to agree to those rules so it's it's kind of a slippery slope where you say is the terms of service there because it's being it's being influenced by the government's you know section 230 and maintaining they have to write their terms of service so that they can still be you know 230 compliant you know that's there's just so much to discuss there but he's right it needs to be rewritten it needs to be audited the people that fall under the umbrella need to be made sure that the purpose of 230 is being properly used and it's not being used to validate censorship I I mean I agree he said he agrees with me I agree with him he started speaking first you sure you don't want to take 30 seconds to agree no I agree no I did and I and like like I said there's there's one more thing that we're related to 230 that I can't quite oh here we go and there is like a great hypocrisy in the way that we talk about like the Russians buying like Facebook ads like 170,000 Ruples when and you cannot like any of these people but like Sargonovacad Tommy Robertson and all these people ran for a parliament in the UK Twitter banned them right like so like they take Facebook takes 170,000 Ruples from Russia and that's distorting our election but this American company bans like meant to be a social media influence campaign like legitimate candidates I think Tommy Robinson almost won like he was way closer than Sargon sorry Sargon actually like Sargon he speaks his mind you know freedom of speech you gotta enjoy somebody that enjoys his freedom of speech but he didn't come close to winning sorry Sargon for reminding you of that but regardless of whether or not they came close to winning they were banned by like a foreign company and nobody talks about how that's election interference like even if you say what they happen in America but even if you put like there they have foreign shareholders in those companies they're probably trading companies like you get like if Russia bought a bunch of stock in Twitter and then started banning American politicians they didn't like that would be fine but if they advertise on those social media websites then that's a huge deal like it's ridiculous by the way bad advertisements broken English like if you ever read any of them are we dealing with our Russian bots in the chat all the time alright well hey man do you have any more questions anybody? you guys talked about the ritualism or a living constitution I believe that there is room for eventually finding a new constitution that's more dated modern day I don't believe in a completely rewriting of the constitution because I think throwing away several of the amendments that we have in there are pretty important one of the amendments that bothers me to this day is the 13th amendment how can you be bothered with the abolishment of slavery right? slavery was only abolished for a certain number of people in this country it says in the 13th amendment if you're a captive if you're a prisoner of this country which is every felon that's in prison right now you don't fall under that protection you don't fall under the 13th amendment you can be treated like a slave in fact here in Texas they do slave labor they put people out on farms they make them work for food to be fed that night it's fucked up it's privately owned shit too it's fucked up here in Texas so yes we do need a new constitution but we don't need to get rid of the old one we just need a more modern one but there's a process for that capriconvention of the states and amended absolutely I'm in favor of that but I believe it's if you're really talking about change you've got to change more than just one amendment you've got to modernize all amendments they didn't have cell phones when they wrote the constitution that's just a dangerous idea it is a dangerous idea that's why I said we shouldn't do it now definitely not now but there needs to be with time there needs to be a more modern constitution that really takes into account things like privacy we didn't consider privacy a thing because back in the day there were no telescopic lenses that could take pictures from 100 meters away right into your bathroom while you're using the bathroom nobody considered that the constitution wasn't written like that we wrote in wiretapping laws there needs to be why does the constitution have to be amended for the wiretapping laws why can't we have a constitution that already takes that into account you can pass laws on the state and federal level without amending the constitution to certain aims but I'm not for the living constitution I'm up the belief that a living constitution is a dead constitution if you have a piece of text the words have to mean what they mean and there's actually a good argument about whether or not to me the living constitution is not interesting at all that means you could change it whenever you want and it's like whatever whatever I think the interesting discussion is whether or not your original intent like a textualist versus just straight up in a original intent because you can go by the text and then you can end up with decisions where the 14th amendment was really written for black people like the citizenship guarantee and it was written for black people that were freedom slaves like that's the original intent if you're going based on that that's where it applies however like if you go by the text it says if you were born in the United States and or its territories you are a citizen of the United States and what that ends up granting us is birthright citizenship it's technically in the text but that wasn't the original intent and that's how you get all these different like the term anchor babies that's where it comes from so like that's a big deal whether or not you have birthright citizenship or not like for anybody going forward but like that's a more interesting conversation because you can make sound legal arguments for both if you're looking at the text and I so like that's more interesting than a living constitution like there are amendments in order to change stuff I do think person's papers and belongings should cover wiretapping on its own with the 4th amendment and I think the third party carrier thing that used to be addressed where in like 1980 something they said because like nobody had all these fancy bank accounts and credit cards and all that the court said that the government doesn't need a warrant for that but now everything in anything we do is digitally held by third parties and if they don't need a warrant for that then those companies could just turn them over then like we have no effectively we have no 4th amendment so I think that needs to be that decision needs to be reexamined so I hope that answered your question from mine I didn't really answer the living constitution part just I believe there should be I believe in traditional constitutional a traditional constitution but I think it should be more modernized to account for all of us today we're totally different than they were 200 years ago and if we don't start making these changes soon and more modernizing them soon then in 100 years they're gonna be 300 plus years removed from the founding fathers writing the constitution you're really putting a lot of faith in it go your way you could rewrite it and restrict it but I think that the idea is if you actually if you take into account that certain things are important the founding fathers could have written in the idea that no freedom of speech ever would exist that all speech should be should have been restricted and we would have had a government that arose from that so you're absolutely right in that I think that a government that arises from a restriction of freedom of speech is a government that's already doing a fail because it's gonna inspire uprisings and the people and the people are gonna come and they will eventually overthrow the government then you're back to an anarcho society or whatever government moves in if they have a militarized government that moves in or takes it over or what not but I think when you write a good constitution you end up with a country that's as free as we are today on the basis of the constitution that we have and the amendments that were already put forth I think anybody that's serious about doing this at a top political level will already understand the value of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of press even if they do restrict us as a people from being able to do first amendment audits with a new modern constitution it's still gonna be there with the idea that we as a people are free to express what we wanna express with limitations but anyway you wouldn't do a page 1 rewrite you would like amend it over time yes, that's what I say it's something that would happen over time to get a completely modernized constitution but it's not, I mean when you're talking about this you're kind of almost like speculating on an impossible idea like how would this work well it wouldn't how would instituting UBI work and do a system that's already capitalist let's say a whole nation doesn't go UBI, how do we just immediately go December 31st, 2021 no UBI January 1st, 2022 UBI it doesn't work that way it's an integration and a constitution a revision constitution a severely revision constitution would never happen overnight it would happen over time and it would be almost impossible to happen that's just speculation if you want to say if somebody called the Constitutional Convention tomorrow like I'm not one of those doom and gloom like there's a civil war upon us but I think that would be like the trigger point because everybody would be like they're gonna come for your guns and give Alex Jones on the radio they're gonna get out of there I love my guns so much but I'm saying those people would be super worried about them declaring a Constitutional Convention I think anybody would be pretty great the whole thing the freedom of speech advocate I'd be severely concerned I'd want to be a part of that talk because I would want them to understand that the position of the people who hold my beliefs and with me having a platform that I do I would want to speak up for the people that don't have platforms and say look, give us the freedom of speech just allow us to be able to discuss your ideas so that we can make sure that you aren't coming in here and it has to be done over time and history shows us it's done over time except for the Bill of Rights it seems like the most any generation could get is like three amendments even after the civil war one of the most destructive events probably the most destructive event in American history are our deadliest war three amendments that's it, that's your maximum and then you gotta wait for the next generation and all that and that's with a couple goofy vice presidential amendments that are like like kinda no brainer well it looks like a great conversation you got a question? alright, well thank you thank you both for doing this thank you specifically for stepping up coming in here last minute well you're not wanted it, Alex did text me he's at the cowboy's gate which is why he's not here I'm telling you guys, he's probably not there he was scared he's scared of me because I had him in a debate and I made him look stupid and I was very aggressive with him same way I used to, do you know Nathan Thompson is? I might never be there I had a live debate with him wait, you're a rounder? you're a rounder? I'm a rounder, yeah I'm a globetard but no, I had a debate with him in person at a tattoo shop local and I like just shit all over he wouldn't look me in the eyes the whole time you been to a tattoo shop? I was going to say that but it was funny the one time we were sitting there and you can see in the debate he's like got something on his phone and he's talking about some evidence on his phone and I'm like, dude I can't fucking see what you're talking about man and he's like here and I naturally went for the phone and he looked up at me like don't hit me he had this look on his face like and I was like come on man we're on camera and he's like chill for that shit on camera until this shit goes off but I was in the Mankini that night I debated him in the Mankini for memorability you know, that's how serious we take the flattery where I come from alright, last chance in questions if not, thank you very much for being here