Latest / Uncensored Objection / [Podcast Episode] Enough With the Fake Outrage – “86 47” Isn’t a Threat, It’s Free Speech

Transcript

[Podcast Episode] Enough With the Fake Outrage – “86 47” Isn’t a Threat, It’s Free Speech · Uncensored Objection

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: OK, let's get straight into it.
• 0:01
  We're doing a deep dive today,
• 0:03
  focusing on this really thought provoking article.
• 0:05
  SPEAKER_00: It's from the uncensored objection substack.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 0:08
  And it digs into some pretty current,
• 0:11
  pretty fast moving political stuff happening now in 2025.
• 0:14
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 0:15
  SPEAKER_00: With Donald Trump as the current president.
• 0:17
  And the specific thing we're really unpacking is this whole
• 0:19
  debate around the phrase 8647.
• 0:22
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 0:23
  The big question being,
• 0:24
  you know,
• 0:24
  is it actually a threat or is it something else?
• 0:28
  SPEAKER_00: And the article's author, an attorney, offers their perspective on this.
• 0:31
  SPEAKER_02: It's kind of fascinating how this bit of language,
• 0:35
  SPEAKER_02: 8647,
• 0:36
  SPEAKER_02: has suddenly become such a flashpoint,
• 0:38
  SPEAKER_02: you know?
• 0:39
  SPEAKER_00: Totally.
• 0:39
  And the article makes a really strong case arguing that
• 0:42
  interpreting it as a threat
• 0:44
  SPEAKER_00: misses the point.
• 0:45
  SPEAKER_02: It suggests it's not just misunderstanding the meaning,
• 0:47
  SPEAKER_02: but potentially even bumps up against free speech principles.
• 0:50
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, absolutely.
• 0:52
  SPEAKER_00: So the article points to this specific incident involving James Comey.
• 0:56
  SPEAKER_00: He posted a picture, just seashells apparently.
• 0:58
  SPEAKER_02: Right, just seashells.
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_02: But some Trump supporters saw it differently.
• 1:02
  They interpreted it as some kind of like hidden message,
• 1:06
  a threat using 8647.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_00: But the core argument in this piece we're looking at,
• 1:13
  SPEAKER_00: it says that interpretation just,
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_00: it doesn't hold water.
• 1:16
  SPEAKER_02: The author's position is pretty clear.
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_02: 8647, they argue, isn't a threat.
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_02: It's political dissent.
• 1:22
  SPEAKER_00: Plain and simple political dissent protected by the First Amendment.
• 1:25
  SPEAKER_02: It definitely puts a spotlight on how,
• 1:27
  SPEAKER_02: you know,
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_02: how carefully political speech is being watched right now.
• 1:31
  SPEAKER_02: Scrutinized for hidden meanings.
• 1:33
  SPEAKER_00: For sure.
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 1:34
  And the article does a good job grounding the discussion in
• 1:37
  like the common
• 1:38
  SPEAKER_00: understanding of the phrase itself.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_02: The 86 part.
• 1:41
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_00: For anyone who maybe doesn't know,
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_00: the article explains how 86 is used all the time in restaurants,
• 1:47
  SPEAKER_00: bars,
• 1:47
  SPEAKER_00: hospitality.
• 1:49
  SPEAKER_02: Standard lingo.
• 1:49
  SPEAKER_00: Totally.
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: I mean,
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: back when I was working in college,
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_00: waiting tables,
• 1:53
  SPEAKER_00: bartending,
• 1:54
  SPEAKER_00: sometimes front door stuff,
• 1:55
  SPEAKER_00: 86 was just,
• 1:56
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 1:57
  SPEAKER_00: everyday talk.
• 1:58
  SPEAKER_02: So what does it mean exactly?
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_00: It just means like cancel it, get rid of it, remove it.
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_00: You know, the kitchen runs out of the salmon, 86 the salmon.
• 2:04
  Or if a customer is being disruptive,
• 2:07
  security might say they need to be 86 enough.
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_02: Gotcha.
• 2:10
  SPEAKER_02: So removed from the premises.
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 2:13
  It's just a quick,
• 2:13
  understood way to say something's off the list or needs to go.
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_02: And that real world context is really crucial to the article's point.
• 2:22
  It emphasizes that when people use 86-47,
• 2:26
  they're tapping right into that established meaning.
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 2:29
  SPEAKER_00: 86 means reject or remove.
• 2:32
  SPEAKER_02: And 47 is clearly pointing to the 47th president, Donald Trump.
• 2:36
  SPEAKER_00: So according to the article,
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_00: it's basically political shorthand expressing a desire to,
• 2:41
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 2:41
  SPEAKER_00: reject the current president or see a change in leadership.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_02: Political viewpoint, not a threat.
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_00: Now,
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_00: the article does acknowledge that some people,
• 2:50
  SPEAKER_00: especially Trump supporters,
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_00: are pushing hard to frame 8647 as a threat.
• 2:54
  SPEAKER_02: OK.
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 2:55
  SPEAKER_02: It tackles that head on.
• 2:56
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 2:57
  SPEAKER_00: And it doesn't really pull any punches.
• 2:59
  SPEAKER_00: It calls these individuals agitators.
• 3:01
  SPEAKER_02: Agitators.
• 3:01
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 3:02
  SPEAKER_00: Saying they're trying to stir the pot, maybe play the victim.
• 3:05
  SPEAKER_00: The author is pretty direct about how they see those interpretations.
• 3:08
  SPEAKER_02: So it's suggesting the motivation might not be a genuine fear of harm.
• 3:13
  SPEAKER_00: That seems to be the implication that it could be more strategic,
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_00: maybe trying to paint political opponents in a bad light.
• 3:20
  SPEAKER_02: Interesting.
• 3:21
  SPEAKER_02: Like casting dissent as dangerous?
• 3:23
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 3:24
  And the article really pushes back against the idea that one
• 3:27
  group could just
• 3:27
  SPEAKER_00: decide to change what a common phrase means.
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_02: You can't just hijack, as they put it, a well-worn phrase.
• 3:33
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 3:33
  SPEAKER_00: That's the term used.
• 3:34
  SPEAKER_00: Hijack.
• 3:36
  SPEAKER_00: Arguing that these attempts shouldn't override the original meaning or,
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_00: and this is key,
• 3:41
  SPEAKER_00: infringe on free speech rights.
• 3:43
  SPEAKER_02: Which brings us squarely to the First Amendment, doesn't it?
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_00: The legal side.
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_02: The article calls the First Amendment the bedrock of American democracy.
• 3:52
  You know,
• 3:52
  protecting our right to speak out,
• 3:54
  criticize leaders,
• 3:55
  voice dissent.
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_00: Without the government censoring you, that's the core principle.
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
• 3:59
  SPEAKER_02: Allows for open debate, even uncomfortable debate.
• 4:02
  SPEAKER_00: Okay,
• 4:02
  so let's dig into the specific reasons the article gives for
• 4:05
  why 8647 should be
• 4:07
  SPEAKER_00: seen as protected speech.
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_00: There are five main points.
• 4:10
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 4:11
  SPEAKER_02: What's the first one?
• 4:12
  SPEAKER_00: First...
• 4:13
  SPEAKER_00: Political speech is not a crime.
• 4:16
  It really stresses that the First Amendment strongly protects
• 4:19
  political expression,
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_00: even if it's edgy or makes people uncomfortable.
• 4:24
  So 8647 fits into that category as a political statement
• 4:28
  calling for change,
• 4:29
  SPEAKER_02: not actual violence.
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_00: That's the argument.
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_00: Second point.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: Context is everything.
• 4:34
  SPEAKER_02: Which goes back to what you were saying about the restaurant lingo.
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_00: It reinforces that.
• 4:38
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 4:39
  The common slang meaning of 86 reject oust combined with 47 for
• 4:44
  the president.
• 4:44
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 4:45
  SPEAKER_00: It creates political shorthand.
• 4:46
  SPEAKER_02: Not a coded call to arms.
• 4:48
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 4:48
  SPEAKER_00: Just expressing disapproval.
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_00: Third point.
• 4:51
  SPEAKER_00: Words have meaning and limits.
• 4:53
  SPEAKER_02: OK, what does that mean in this context?
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_00: Well,
• 4:55
  SPEAKER_00: it brings up the Supreme Court's distinction between just,
• 4:58
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 4:58
  SPEAKER_00: general political rhetoric and what the law calls a true threat.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_02: And there's a legal test for a true threat.
• 5:03
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 5:04
  SPEAKER_00: It requires a real serious intent to cause harm.
• 5:06
  The article argues 8647 is political rhetoric expressing
• 5:10
  dissent,
• 5:11
  not a true threat.
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_02: So it lacks that specific intent to harm someone, legally speaking.
• 5:16
  SPEAKER_00: That's the contention, which leads directly into the fourth reason.
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_00: The intent test.
• 5:22
  SPEAKER_02: OK.
• 5:22
  SPEAKER_00: This references a specific Supreme Court case, Canterman v. Colorado.
• 5:27
  SPEAKER_02: And that case clarified the need for intent.
• 5:29
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 5:30
  SPEAKER_00: It established that for something to be a true threat,
• 5:33
  SPEAKER_00: there has to be an intent to intimidate or harm.
• 5:36
  So the article applies that here,
• 5:38
  saying 8647 is about frustration with a public figure's power.
• 5:42
  SPEAKER_00: Not about actually inciting violence against him.
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_00: The author even suggests,
• 5:46
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 5:47
  elected officials should probably keep this counterman ruling
• 5:49
  in mind when these
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_00: controversies pop up.
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_01: Interesting suggestion.
• 5:54
  SPEAKER_01: And the fifth point.
• 5:54
  SPEAKER_00: The fifth one is broader, kind of brings it all together.
• 5:57
  SPEAKER_00: This is what democracy looks like.
• 5:59
  SPEAKER_01: Meaning?
• 6:00
  Meaning that labeling political criticism as threats is
• 6:03
  dangerous because it chills free speech.
• 6:06
  SPEAKER_00: It makes people afraid to speak out.
• 6:08
  SPEAKER_02: Whereas the First Amendment demands we protect speech,
• 6:10
  SPEAKER_02: even the speech we don't like or that feels uncomfortable.
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 6:14
  SPEAKER_00: That's the core democratic principle highlighted there.
• 6:16
  SPEAKER_02: Now, the article also dives into the reactions, right?
• 6:19
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:20
  SPEAKER_02: From Trump supporters and some specific figures.
• 6:24
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 6:24
  SPEAKER_00: It specifically mentions Tulsi Gabbard,
• 6:26
  SPEAKER_00: who the article notes is now the director of national intelligence.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_02: OK.
• 6:31
  SPEAKER_02: And what was her reaction?
• 6:32
  SPEAKER_00: Well,
• 6:33
  SPEAKER_00: she appeared on Fox News,
• 6:35
  and the article mentions she suggested James Comey should
• 6:37
  potentially be arrested.
• 6:39
  SPEAKER_02: Arrested.
• 6:40
  SPEAKER_02: For the seashell picture and the 86-47 interpretation.
• 6:44
  SPEAKER_00: Based on that interpretation, yeah.
• 6:45
  SPEAKER_00: That's what the article discusses.
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_02: Wow.
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_02: And how does the author frame these kinds of reactions?
• 6:50
  They're described pretty bluntly,
• 6:51
  actually,
• 6:52
  as a classic Trump supporter,
• 6:54
  sleight of hand.
• 6:55
  SPEAKER_02: Sleight of hand.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, and also as headline-grabbing distractions.
• 6:59
  SPEAKER_02: Distractions from what?
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_00: The author suggests it's a tactic,
• 7:02
  SPEAKER_00: a deliberate effort to pull focus away from other things like,
• 7:06
  SPEAKER_00: say,
• 7:06
  Trump's legal issues or the economic effects of tariffs or
• 7:10
  potential conflicts of
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_00: interest.
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_02: So the argument is don't focus on the phrase controversy,
• 7:15
  SPEAKER_02: focus on these other substantive issues.
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_00: That seems to be the underlying message.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_00: The article essentially says,
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_00: look,
• 7:22
  SPEAKER_00: this is an attempt to distract,
• 7:25
  SPEAKER_00: to manufacture outrage over something that's actually protected speech.
• 7:29
  SPEAKER_02: It's a call to not get sidetracked by it.
• 7:31
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 7:32
  The article wraps up that part by urging readers,
• 7:35
  stay focused,
• 7:35
  stay informed,
• 7:37
  be vigilant.
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_00: Don't let these perceived distractions sway you.
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_02: OK.
• 7:41
  So if we were to sort of summarize the main thrust of this deep
• 7:45
  dive based on that piece.
• 7:47
  The core message from this attorney,
• 7:49
  Mitch Jackson,
• 7:50
  in his article is pretty straightforward.
• 7:53
  SPEAKER_00: 8647 is political dissent.
• 7:54
  SPEAKER_02: It's protected free speech under the First Amendment.
• 7:57
  SPEAKER_00: And shouldn't be twisted into meaning a genuine threat.
• 8:00
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 8:00
  It really underscores why understanding the First Amendment is
• 8:03
  so important for everyone.
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 8:05
  That fundamental right to express political views,
• 8:08
  even critical ones,
• 8:09
  is vital.
• 8:10
  So for anyone listening who wants to,
• 8:12
  you know,
• 8:12
  read the original article and explore this more.
• 8:14
  SPEAKER_00: We definitely recommend checking out the Uncensored Objections substack.
• 8:17
  SPEAKER_00: You can find the full piece there.
• 8:19
  It's a good source for commentary on current events from this
• 8:23
  particular legal perspective.
• 8:25
  And hey,
• 8:25
  while you're there,
• 8:26
  the author would likely appreciate it if you subscribe.
• 8:30
  SPEAKER_00: Maybe share the articles if you find them interesting.
• 8:32
  SPEAKER_02: And jump into the comments, right?
• 8:33
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 8:34
  Keep the discussion going about free speech and how we talk
• 8:37
  about politics.
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_02: Support the dialogue.
• 8:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 8:40
  SPEAKER_02: It really leaves you with something to think about, doesn't it?
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_02: This whole issue.
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_01: Sure, sure.
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_02: Like in a democracy that really values free expression,
• 8:47
  SPEAKER_02: How critical is it that we can tell the difference between just strong,
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_02: maybe even harsh political talk and an actual real threat?
• 8:56
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 8:56
  SPEAKER_00: And what are the dangers if we start blurring that line?
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_00: What happens if we misinterpret dissent too easily?
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_00: Something to really mull over.