Latest / Financial Survival Network / Exposing Media Lies: How NPR and Others Mislead on Supreme Court Censorship Ruling

Transcript

Exposing Media Lies: How NPR and Others Mislead on Supreme Court Censorship Ruling · Financial Survival Network

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You are listening to Carrie Letz's Financial Survival Network, where
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: you get valuable information you just can't find anywhere else
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: to thrive in today's trying times. You need the Financial
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Survival Network now more than ever. Go to Financial Survivalnetwork
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: dot com and get your free newsletter and gift. Financial
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Survival Network now more than ever.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Hey, Carrie, this is Robert Ian with conquer Change dot com.
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: The late to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick moynihan famously said,
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: entitled to your own facts. The challenge in recent years
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: is that individual opinions have been drowned out and actual
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: facts have been gaslighted in the constant disarray of confusion
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: we refer to as mainstream media. Today, we'll discuss some
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: of what that gaslighting actually looks like, how it transcends
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: into everyday media discord, and how otherwise intelligent and well
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: informed people seem to somehow know what isn't so. On
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: April ninth, constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley posted on his
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: website Jonathanturley dot Org a commentary titled NPR repeats false
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: claim that the court rejected claims of government involvement in
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: censorship efforts. Turley recounts a recent interview of his on
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: NPR to discuss free speech. His blog article addresses a
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: statement made regarding his NPR interview that is not accurate
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: but has been repeated like a mantra by many who
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: are seeking to dismiss what he calls the censorship system
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: under the Biden administration. The claim others are making and
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: inferring is that the Supreme Court rejected the claim of
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: coordination between the government and social media companies. Turley points
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: out this is entirely untrue and urges readers not to
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: take his word for it, but rather to read the
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court decision themselves, in which the Court expressly states otherwise.
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: To set the record straight, Turley cites and PR host
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: Lyla Fedel, who quoted him as saying, you had a
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: level of cooperation coordination between the government and these other entities,
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: that the effect was that thousands were censored. The host
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: then immediately rebutted Turley's comment by stating that last year
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court rejected the claim the social media companies
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: were pressured to take down posts about CV nineteen and
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: the election from five years ago. Turley further clarifies that
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: this comment made by NPR is a reference to the
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: Court's decision in which the states of Missouri and Louisiana
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: censor conservatives and critics. But the Court actually ruled, in
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: a six to three ruling, is that those states, Missouri
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: and Louisiana, lacked standing to bring the case. A critical
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: point in the Court's opinion is that the justices went
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: out of their way to expressly refute the notion that
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: they were ruling on the merits of the coordination with
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: the social media companies. To underscore this point, Turley cites
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: footnote number three of the ruling, where the Court explicitly
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: states that because we do not reach the merits, we
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: articulated the standard for when the government transforms private conduct
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: into state action. In other words, all the Supreme Court
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: decided is that the two states bringing the case lacked
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: standing to do so. A decision on the case itself
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: about whether coordination actually occurred or whether such coordination violated
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: the First Amendment was never rendered by the Supreme Court.
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: Let me repeat that a decision on the case itself
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: was never rendered by the U. S. Supreme Court. Turly
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: further articulated the clarification of his statement by saying it
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: is demonstrably untrue that the Supreme Court rejected the claim
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: that social media companies were pressured to take down posts
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: about CV nineteen and the election. He then recounts how
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: other anti free speech figures have repeated this bogus claim, namely,
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: when he testified in the US Senate, a law professor
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: Mary Anne Franks and a senator both repeated the claim.
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: He quotes Professor Frank's comments to the committee where she
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: said for Republicans to call yet another congressional hearing to
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: investigate the so called censorship industrial complex of the Biden administration, officials,
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: nonprofit organizations, and big tech companies allegedly collaborating to censor
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: conservative speech, a conspiracy theory so ludicrous. And here's where
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: she repeats the bogus claim when she says that even
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: the current Supreme Court, stacked with a super majority of
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: far right conservative judges, dismissed it out of hand last
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: year in Murthy v. Missouri, while ignoring the current wholesale
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: assault on the First Amendment by the Trump administration. Turley's
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: blog links to the full transcripts so you can read
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: it in if you like. The bottom line is that
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: this often repeated false claim that continues to be made
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: at Senate hearings and on major news shows by people
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: who should know better and probably do, this false claim
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: is in conflict with the express words of the court.
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: In other words, this claim that the US Supreme Court
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: rendered a decision on this case is a lie. I
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: have followed Jonathan Turley's analysis of major issues for three decades,
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: ever since the Bill Clinton administration, where I recall his
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: position was that Clinton should be impeached but not removed.
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: Now fast forward to today, Turley is no fan of
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: President Trump. What he is a fan of, though, is
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: the Constitution he always has. What became painfully obvious as
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: I read this article is the realization that in the
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: mainstream media we seem to have fewer and fewer credible
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: and articulate defenders of the US Constitution and the principle
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: of free speech. Jonathan Turley is one of those defenders.
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: He says, the effort to portray evidence of collaboration between
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: the government and social media companies as a quote, conspiracy
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: theory or a myth is all too familiar. He says,
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: it attempts to portray free speech advocates as unhinged or
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: fringe figures in order to avoid answering the troubling questions
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: raised by things like the Twitter files, the Facebook files,
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: and thousands of pages of document produced in both litigation
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: and in Congress. He says, some apologists for the censorship
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: system have even attacked journalists as fans of Putin, which
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: is why when media outlets like NPR compare the Trump
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: administration to the McCarthyism of the nineteen fifties that resulted
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: in persecution of academics and leftists, they neglect to mention
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: that today it is the left who has been using
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: the very same tactics against free speech advocates. Turley points
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: out that Hillary Clinton has called Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Apparently,
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: those who support restrictions on free speech do not want
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: to address specific statements from social media executives that the
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: government pressured them to censor critics and target individuals, which
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: represents a clear and present danger that lurks within our
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: social media backdrop and out of control mainstream media, where
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: free speech, or more accurately, what remains of free speech,
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: has been weaponized against ordinary people. The bottom line is
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: that censorship is the antithesis of freedom and cannot be tolerated.
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: And until next time, this is Robert Ian with conquer
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: Change dot com. Thanks Carrie, thanks.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: For listening to carry Less's Financial Survival Network solution to
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: today's trying times. For the latest, go to Financial Survivalnetwork
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: dot com. Financial Survival Network now more than ever,