 Welcome to American Issues, Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And today's title is Twitter, home sweet home for extremists. Now that Elon Musk owns Twitter, according to Mr. Musk that it's a full free arena of free speech, we're starting to see examples of certain hate groups, take advantage of that. Anti-Semitic comments are up 61% since his ownership took place. Racial slurs against black African Americans are up about 1500 posts per day and the list goes on. So to discuss that, I have with me my esteemed guest, our special guest, Jeff Portnoy and my faithful trustee co-host, Jay Fidel. Good morning to one and all. Morning everybody. Good morning everybody. Hey Jay, but Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, how does he keep the platform from being bombarded from extremist hate groups? Like we're starting to see already in this short tenure of ownership. He doesn't, he's like fine with that. Seems like- How do you know that? Well, he's not taking any steps to prevent it. And he's terminating people all over the lot, including his standards committee. So it's predictable that these hate groups are gonna come on Twitter and they are, as you read, there are a lot more statistics too that have been reported. So what we have is, it's like when you go out on a hot summer evening in August and one mosquito finds you and a minute later, million find you. That's what's happening. They're all buzzing around and coming in for it. And I think maybe there's a method in the madness. Maybe he has concluded that ultimately his advertisers will come back and he'll make a lot of money on Twitter. After all, there's an awful lot of people who are members of Twitter and that's an attractive market. So if the advertiser has come back, he's gonna make a lot of money. I think it must be a strategy like that, but he's not trying to stop him at all. You know, one thing I was reading here the other day was he made his announcements about the free speech arena being held on Twitter. Yet at the same time, he's concerned because he's lost a lot of advertisers. So he's introduced the concept of you may have freedom of speech, but you may not have freedom of reach, which is to say his access to comments like that may be well-buried within the boughs of Twitter that they may not rise to the surface. What do you think about that concept, Jay? I don't understand it. Yeah, well, I didn't explain it all that well. I'm not sure it's gonna work either. I'm not sure it's gonna do whatever it's supposed to be designed for. The algorithms make things rise or fall within a particular website. And the way he's constructing algorithms, I guess, or the intent may be, and I say may be, that if it's hate speech filled, maybe the algorithm pushes those way down on the bottom of the food chain. Well, that's interesting. You automate it and you fire all the people who were supposed to develop, you know, deploy standards within Twitter. Clearly it's not working yet, maybe in the future maybe he can perfect it. You know, there's a thing called a social network analysis that the intelligence agents they use and it searches on keywords. They try to find terrorists that way. So maybe he could, you know, use that kind of approach maybe and maybe with AI, you know, he can spot the words that are, you know, problematic and use that system to exclude people who are spewing hate speech. But I don't think he's done it yet, not effectively and I'm not sure it's gonna work anyway. All the trends are is that all the mosquitoes are coming around. All right. Hey, Jeff, you know, Elon Musk has fired a gaggle of his content monitors. What's your take on Twitter with the absence of these monitors and to what degree do you think Twitter now becomes the Wild West for anything goes as far as free speech? Free speech. Free speech. I kind of predicted you would say that, but I thought I'd ask you. I mean, I don't get this at all. What's the difference between posting so-called hate speech on Twitter and Nazis marching through Skokie? I mean, it's just a new technological tool that allows this speech to be broadcast for lots more people, but so what? Well, okay, so because it is social media and therefore it is affecting the general public or could be affecting the general public, what makes Twitter, Facebook, Instagram any different than ABC, CBS, NBC or any other media content that has some regulatory provisions to it? Well, there are no regulatory provisions that restrict the kind of speech you guys are talking about. There's some case law, which we've talked about before. Not all speech is permitted. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't use language that could provoke someone immediately to violence, but this whole concept of censored speech which is taken over the left is quite offensive to me. And it's not what this country is all about. Yes, there's more access to it. I agree, but that doesn't change the nature of the First Amendment. And ABC, CBS or any other entity can put restrictions on. They're entitled to, they're not the government. So they can say, we're not gonna allow this or that. I got that, but regulatory prohibition on Twitter or somewhere else? I mean, I'm not a must span and I think he has other things in mind, but the fact that people are using Twitter to do what they would otherwise do on a street corner. Now, the one thing I do have an issue with is anonymous speech. I have a problem with that. And I think that certain types of speech which should be allowed should still not be permitted anonymous. I think people should be able to know who it is that is making anti-Semitic statements or anti-black statements or Muslim statements or whatever. But there's all this outcry and there is a movement. There's been a movement that hasn't yet succeeded in Congress to overturn the Communications Decency Act in certain parts and put restrictions on internet speech. And I think that needs to be continued to be debated, but I think there's a slippery slope to hire 20 people to decide what speech should be permitted or not to be permitted. To me, that's worse than allowing speech which is not otherwise actionable. That's why I'm not in favor of anonymous speech. I think the speaker or the poster should be responsible for what he or she says if in fact it crosses the line. Look, let me ask you this because this will be very educational for me to hear your answer. What is the difference between speech that is seditious in nature versus speech that is seditious in nature yet calls out for immediate action? Where's that boundary line, so to speak? You know, it's not easy to define and courts have struggled with it. You have to read the case law. You may not agree with an opinion in one case that seems to be contrary in opinion in the other case. There's no bright line on lots of issues dealing with speech. But generally, if a court were to find that speech would incite somebody to violence, it can be prevented. Now, you know, the left likes to say that any speech where someone finds offensive should not be permitted. The question is who decides what's offensive? Who decides whether the person who says it's offensive is really finding it offensive? And you know, words to me are words and they can be combined with other words. It's when you stand on the corner and say let's shoot the president, probably not gonna get much protection if it seems to be real. And it seems to be someone who is inciting someone to do something like that. But for someone to say, you know, I don't like Jews, which, you know, I find terribly offensive, but you know, fight it back with words. Not with prohibitions, whether it's done by the government, which is really bad, or by a group of 30 people who are hired or 2,000, how many does Facebook have to decide whether something should be permitted or not? So, you know, this is all a reaction to Trump and what he did using Twitter. And you know, you gotta give him credit because he figured out how to get 30% of the population to follow everything he says, most of which is false. So anyway, look, I'm a free speech guy, I've been for decades and my views are not shared by even people of the same political views that I have. Well, one last point on something you said here, you said timing, what is the difference between speech that someone acts upon immediately versus speech that took place, the same words that took place and someone acts upon it within two months? Very fascinating question. And I think that's part of what's being debated Justice Department as they look into January 6th. And I don't have, you know, I certainly don't have an easy answer because I don't think there is one. I think you can say if it's immediate, it's gonna be able to be prevented. The speaker could be arrested or whatever. But if someone says something today and someone acts on it two months from now, there's no way to prevent that. Other than to stop it from being said in the first place. And I just think it's a slippery slope. I mean, you know, I challenge anyone to define what's so offensive speech unless you define it as something that makes somebody else feel less worthy versus threatened, really threatened. So it's a tough conundrum. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for your answers. I appreciate it very, very much. You know, I wouldn't disagree with a lot of what Jeff says. I mean, the first amendment is sacrosanct. But in the year 2022, there is a huge, or 2023 is the case soon will be. There is a huge difference between the guy in the street corner or writing a letter, even a letter to the editor and a guy who's on social media. Social media has taken us to a level of community. It can shake your head, but it has taken us. Well, that's what they said when they invented the printing press. I mean, you know, it's just technology. What about the printing press and people were able to print 10,000 pamphlets versus a guy on the corner streaming to two passers-byes? Come on, Jay. When I was saying... Oh, go ahead, I'm sorry. No, do not. I lost control. You're used to it. You're used to it by now. Yeah, I know. That's true, Jeff. By all means, Jay, please continue. Technology now will start beyond the printing press. Technology... Go ahead, interrupt me. No, I don't want to do it anymore. The technology goes global. And the technology we know is being read by people as their sole source of information. They take it for gospel. Trump didn't start that, but he certainly exacerbated it. And so what we have now is a sort of communication mechanism that we have never had before. We have the ability to reach the whole world off our phone, standing on a street corner. That's different than telling passers-by you want to do something bad. The other thing we have, and we talked about this a show or two ago, is the notion of scope stochastic. Stochastic is the dog whistle thing. But I don't have to say that you guys should all go out and do an insurrection. All I have to say is that you should be mad, you should be angry, you should fight like hell for me, for democracy and all that. And if you say, well, it has to have a name on it, it can't be anonymous, that doesn't solve the problem of some guy standing in front of the Capitol building and saying, let's fight like hell. And you don't have to stay and get your weapons together. I'll meet you in the rotunda who shoot the place up. You don't have to say that. You can use the dog whistle and that works. It has worked and it will work. So we're in a different place, Jeff. And as much as I also like the First Amendment, think the country is built on it, I am very worried about that. I'm worried that Congress hasn't really developed an understanding of how social media works. Social media hasn't developed an understanding of its power. And you know who's getting the idea? It's Twitter, Twitter is getting the idea. And Twitter is, he didn't buy it for a drill. He bought it for advertising revenue. He bought it to expand his marketing group, his marketing area. And he is doing that. I suspect that even though the initial reaction is negative and people like think tech don't wanna hear what he has to say, don't wanna participate in Twitter, the fact is every day I get dozens of messages from people who do participate in Twitter. And I don't trust any of them. Some of them may be correct, but a lot of them are misleading. So what we have is a new world. And what we have is the autocrat's best tool. Musk is going to make it that way. He is making it that way. He offered it to Trump. Trump hasn't fully accepted that, but I guarantee you guys and I'm willing to bet a pizza on it. In two or three weeks time, Trump will relent and he'll come back on Twitter because his personal social media platform isn't gonna do what Twitter can do. You cannot restrict speech. But what I'm saying is that I would like to see Congress get better informed. I do not know the solution. The point about AI and spotting negative words using social networking analysis, that's probably a part. What's a negative word? Sorry, what is the negative word? I can't use certain words. I have a combination of words. This is exactly what the intelligence agents include to catch terrorists. So if I can, I'm gonna blow up a few things. Well, now you're talking about something totally different. But you have 30 people sitting in a row. Why don't you let Jeff go on and then I will go? Okay. I'm done. Go ahead, Jeff. You cannot restrict speech based upon the hurt feelings for the lack of mental capacity of the listener. I'm sorry. And when you say it's, you seem to be suggesting that- It doesn't work that way. Wait, wait. It's the whole country. He's interrupting this. It enhances groups that will bully to start and then attack people and kill them. It has already shown us that it can do that. How do you think these groups communicate? How do you think they put the insurrection together? What insurrection? Without social media, without Twitter, the insurrection would not have happened. Hang on, sir. This is how you develop a civil war in place. It is happening in front of our eyes and we cannot let this mechanism be central in the undermining of our democracy which A, it has already shown it can do and B, which it is doing now. And we'll do more. Elon Musk is going to take it right there and we will all pay a price. We cannot afford to lose our democracy and social media is the way. Congress has got to find a way or think tech has to find a way. Somebody has to find a way. And I'm not talking about hurt feelings. I'm talking about organizing groups that undermine democracy. That's what I'm talking about. Jeff, let me ask you very quickly. I mean, you do know and I know you know that words have emotional impacts. It's in many words, in fact there was even court cases back in 1969 that words basically worked their way around the conscious rational thought process right to the fist, right to the emotions of an individual, human being. So words do have impacts and it's more about just hurting someone's feelings. What about those emotions? Feelings, what about those words and how they're used or going to be used on Twitter? Mr. Fidel in his rant used an early example. It was a long time ago because I think he was clear that I don't feel that I ranted anything but I do feel there are those among us who engage in rant right here on Think Tech. Go ahead, Jeff, we know what you're doing. No, we don't, yeah, but we're going to figure it out. Go ahead, Jeff. He early on, I think it was an hour ago, used an example of let's get angry. That's the example he used. He would like to prohibit someone from saying to a person, let's get angry about the state of our government. That in Jay's mind is an insurrection. He said it, he didn't put it together that way but that's what he said, that's crazy. Of course, every day people go, let's get angry about the governor let's get angry that we don't have, you know, rail or I mean, you know, you're trying. You will have to agree with me that the country is divided. Of course. There's many, many divisions. And it's always been divided. Those divisions are exacerbated by social media and speech. And you know, I think Tim is really hitting an important point. Tim's not allowed to speak. Go ahead. Not yet. Sorry about that, Tim. I'm trying to help you, Ted. Language has power. Yes. The dog whistles have power. And you know, you're a lawyer. Every word counts. Yes. And you can string them together to have the desired emotional effect by the listener. Yes. That's what's happening here. And so what? Now, what's theory about the First Amendment? It may be a little dated. I'm not saying you're dated, Jeff. I'm just saying that your theory about the First Amendment may be a little dated. What is my theory? It is that we should all get into the, what do you want to call it, the community conversation. And if somebody says something that we don't like, then we should respond to it. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time for that. I don't think any of us have the time to spend on the street corner arguing with essentially millions of people. I think that's so impossible to reach a balanced result. It's so impossible. Jay, less good policy. Last time I checked, Jay, last time I checked you were not storming the Capitol. You've read the same words. No, but I think what you're suggesting is I should get out there and for every anti-Semitic comment, for example, what I hear, I should go after that person. Sorry, Tim. I don't have the time. That's all right. My show's been hijacked, but that's all right. I don't mind. I love it. But barring that, I'd like to ask Mr. Feidella a question. Oh, please don't. Oh, yes, I am. Jay. You won't get a rant, though. I tell you now. I guarantee it won't get a rant. So here's an observation I've been making or I have seen perform like a maestro by Donald Trump is he makes an inflammatory statement, a hateful statement, hate speech. I don't care what you want to call it. And then he walks it back when the reaction from the public is severe. He walks it back by saying, ha, just a joke, just kidding. So let me read Marjorie Taylor Greene's statement. And she did the exact same thing. She goes, I want to tell you something. If Steve Bannon and I had organized that January 6th, we would have won. Not to mention, it would have been armed. And then when the reaction was severe from media and everyone, she goes, don't you guys know sarcasm? I was just kidding. What do you think about that? That technique on free speech. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a member of Congress. That's correct. Because the voters in her district put her there. Right. We've talked about this before. You guys keep criticizing the mouthpieces and I understand it, but they're there because the majority of people who voted in their district voted them into Congress. So they are reflecting the beliefs, the whims, the craziness of the people in that district. That's where the problem lies. Jeff, there's one thing you didn't mention. Every member of Congress took an oath to office to defend the United States Constitution. So there's a filter of responsibility other than the voter that put her in that seat that she ought to adhere to as a member of Congress that took the oath of office. What do you think of that? I agree 100% and there's no question that there's at least 30 legitimately insane people in Congress. Legitimately crazy. Probably are very close to actually having themselves grown out of Congress. Of course it won't happen because they protect their own unless they're caught with a nine-year-old of the opposite sex and even then they're not likely to get thrown out. What you're saying is there's no way to stop her. That she can. No, there is a way to stop her. Run somebody against her that the majority of voters are gonna vote for. You know, I gotta say that's not gonna work. That's not gonna work for any of those 30. Thanks for an idea that will not work. Okay, let me ask you this. There has to be a code of conduct for members of Congress and somebody has to enforce the code of conduct. Jay, what about the technique of saying the code of conduct? What about the technique of making seditious like statements? I didn't say seditious, seditious like statements. And then walking a back saying, can't you guys take a joke? What about that technique that Donald Trump mastered quite well? Well, you know, there should be a code of conduct and let me say that if I fry fire in a crowded movie theater and then I say, wait, wait, wait, there's only kidding. I was only kidding you guys. It was sarcasm. I didn't mean it. Does that get me off the hook? No. You know, I really. Orcid bomb on an airplane. Just kidding. Just kidding. That's not gonna work. Yep. But you know, I think we have to have a code of conduct and if somebody crosses that line and we three have not determined where that line is actually, but there is a line and should be a line and somebody has to draw the line and enforce the line. And right now we don't have that. And so. I have no question. I agree with you a thousand percent that you should be at a minimum censor. All right? Not because just of this statement. That's not gonna happen. And then blame the majority in the house or representatives. What do you want? Who do you want to make that decision? I don't know, Jeff. I just know we need a system here. Now, you know, yes, you can say that Congress should find the line and force the line. They didn't have it. They're not gonna do that. They didn't do it, Joseph McCarthy. Elon Musk is clearly not gonna find the line and there are gonna be people on Twitter who call for the most outrageous divisiveness in our country and break our country up. Let me say also that we are forgetting we must remember that Vladimir Putin has all kinds of fools. How'd we get to him? As I was saying before, right? I've lost control of this show, like you say. How about the Wizard of Oz? I mean, I don't get it. Okay. Dave, finish up your comment. I'm gonna go to Jeff and then we've run out of time. Go ahead. Master at using social media. You guys know this. And he has used it, you know, from January, 2017 on forward to turn Americans against Americans. He's an expert. He's got a building full of technology guys in Moscow who do this, not only in the United States, but elsewhere. And he's proud of it. And he's involved. So I say, oh, okay, well, you guys, you know, you don't wanna talk about it, Vladimir Putin. It's not really relevant. Okay, it is relevant. But what's interesting about it is that you can be Vladimir Putin and you can achieve divisiveness using social media, which he does. Nobody will argue that, not even Jeff. They could have used radio too, and they did. It's just a new technology. They are using radio. Well, maybe we should do it with radio then. That's the next show. Oh, okay. Jeff, we run out of time. Oh my God. I wanna know how many minutes he used versus how many minutes I used. Who has the clock? The next show, I'm gonna dedicate 28% of the show just for you, Jeff. What is your last question? Aren't you doing it already? My last question is the following. Yes. Okay, so I'm gonna take a guess here that you probably won't have an issue. But the question I asked Jay, what do you say about Siddish's talk that is walked back when they get a strong public reaction by just saying it was a joke. It's sarcasm. I don't agree with that at all. And I think if it was Siddish's, she ought to be prosecuted. All right. She says it's a joke or not. You guys have given two prime examples and clearly it wouldn't work, right? Then you have a bomb on the plane and then when the marshals come on going, I was just kidding or yelling fire. And then after everybody runs for the emergency exit, say, oh, I was bored with the movie. I mean, it's no different. So I think- I assure you that you could think of words as I could, as Tim could, that would have the same effect as a straight statement of Siddish. And that's what Trump did on January 6th. If you take the individual words, it doesn't amount to Siddish, but if you take the whole package, and Ari Melbour has made this case on MSNBC, his state of mind and the relationship, his stochastic relationship he has with his followers, it turns into a statement of Siddish. If there was proof, and I believe there is, forget the storming of the Capitol. That is not the purpose of what occurred. The purpose was to stop the legitimate swearing in of a new president and the timely transition under our constitution. That's the act that I think is actionable. They didn't just storm the Capitol because they were unhappy with the weather. They were trying to stop a lawful activity, and that's what those proud boys, girls got convicted of. And I agree with that. So the Siddish activity in my humble opinion is not trying to get into the building. That may be trespassed. The Siddish activity was what the intent was, which is actionable. Would you indict Donald Trump for January 6th? No. Whoa. Would you want to indict Donald Trump? I don't think we have to worry because I think you should get indicted for something that's much clearer and easier to prove. And that's taking classified documents to his home. Yeah, it's easier. It's a slam dunk. It's a slam dunk. And mixing it with his Macy's bill. That's what I said. He doesn't stop at Macy's. He doesn't go out of the shop. He has people to do that for him. All right, we have run out of time. No, how could that happen? I do not know, Jeff, but we're gonna investigate that after the show. I would like to ask Mr. Fidel for his last thoughts and comments pertaining to this topic or any other topic he may think of. I thought you'd never ask. I am very worried about Elon Musk. I'm very worried about Twitter. I think that he has no interest, no concern in trying to hold negative speech down, incendiary speech down, divisive speech down, and seditious speech down. And he is not gonna develop any systems. He's throwing his systems out. So we are going to take the full thrust of what social media can do to us. And one of the questions you raised him is are other social media companies are going to follow? Are they? And the answer is, if Twitter makes a lot of money, they're gonna wanna make a lot of money. And they may very well be, and they may follow a culture that allows and encourages exactly that. So somebody has gotta step up here. Somebody has gotta recognize that we are living in 2022 when the technology has a different effect than it did before. All right, thank you, Jay, very much. Mr. Portnoy, would you like to have the last word? No. Would you please have the last word? I think any legitimate listener understands whose position here is correct. And I don't see any need to have- I'll agree with that. I don't need, look, the only thing I agree with with Jay, not the only thing, but is that the new technology makes it easier to get your message out to more people. They said the same thing with television. They said the same thing with radio. They said the same thing with the printing press. They said the same thing with the Pony Express. We've heard it for decades. And so, yes, the new technology makes it easier, but it doesn't mean that there should be restrictions on speech, which is otherwise constitutionally protected. I am done. Thank you. Well, that makes all three of us. If we've run out of time, Jay- Back to the Pony Express. Well, you've run a protein, I have no idea. I'd like to quote that, but not going to. So, I would like to say, I'd like to thank our audience for watching a engaging topic and- There's no one left, no one left watching. Actually, it was a debate. It wasn't a quarrel because it had arguments behind it. So an engaging argument between Mr. Fidel, Mr. Portnoy. This is American Issues Take One. I'd like to thank Jay Fidel, my co-host, and Jeffrey Portnoy, our special esteemed guests. And I'm Tim Apachele, your host. Won't you join us next week, American Issues Take One? Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.