Latest / Stuff You Should Know / Selects: How Free Speech Works

Transcript

Selects: How Free Speech Works · Stuff You Should Know

0:00
Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, Happy Saturday. Good morning. I hope you've had
0:04
Speaker 1: your breakfast cereal, and I hope you have had your cartoons.
0:07
Speaker 1: And I hope you are ready to learn about free
0:10
Speaker 1: speech here. That being thrown around a lot these days,
0:14
Speaker 1: free speech, free speech, But free speech actually means something specific.
0:19
Speaker 1: It's not just you can say anything you want, any
0:21
Speaker 1: time you want and without any repercussions at all. That's
0:24
Speaker 1: not free speech. We're here to tell you what it
0:26
Speaker 1: really is. In the episode from February How Free Speech Works.
0:36
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of I
0:39
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
0:48
Speaker 1: There's Charles w Chuck Bryant, there's Jerry. Papers have been shuffled.
0:53
Speaker 1: Their plumb and true. It's time for Stuff you should
0:56
Speaker 1: Know the podcast. You know it's not plumb and true.
0:59
Speaker 1: My gut. Anything in my house I went to, Uh,
1:05
Speaker 1: all of my house had those gross, cheap, hollow core
1:09
Speaker 1: doors you know. Oh yeah, you know they're not doors.
1:15
Speaker 1: I mean they function as doors, but if there's air
1:18
Speaker 1: in your door, then there's not a door. So one
1:20
Speaker 1: by one I've been replacing them with wood, solid doors.
1:23
Speaker 1: And I went and did that for our bedroom. And man,
1:25
Speaker 1: oh man, was it frustrating. Oh hanging them because they
1:29
Speaker 1: didn't want to hang. It's the worst, like nothing straight, like, oh,
1:33
Speaker 1: that looks good, and then it goes to shut and
1:34
Speaker 1: it's like whack. Well I'm sure it was straight, you know,
1:37
Speaker 1: a hundred years ago, you know, and then over time
1:41
Speaker 1: the house settled in and now it's it's doing its
1:43
Speaker 1: own thing. So I had to shave the door in
1:45
Speaker 1: so many places it looks like a Doctor SEUs store.
1:47
Speaker 1: Oh cool, you should plant one of those weird doctor
1:51
Speaker 1: Seue's palm trees in your yard to really complete it.
1:53
Speaker 1: It's called marijuana. So I'm glad you just said marijuana, chuck,
1:59
Speaker 1: because you have every right to say the word marijuana
2:02
Speaker 1: in this country. It's a free country. You can say
2:05
Speaker 1: the name of a plant, you know, people people do
2:08
Speaker 1: say and have long said. This is a free country.
2:12
Speaker 1: I can say whatever I want. And free speech is
2:16
Speaker 1: one of the basic hallmarks of what makes America free country.
2:22
Speaker 1: Freedom of speech. Um, but America is not the only
2:27
Speaker 1: country that enshrines a freedom of speech protection in its charter. Yeah,
2:33
Speaker 1: there are varying degrees of it in many many countries.
2:37
Speaker 1: In some countries there's not very much. In other countries
2:40
Speaker 1: there's a lot. In the US is arguably one of
2:44
Speaker 1: the leaders, although some people point to Europe's and we'll
2:48
Speaker 1: talk about those later, but some people point to Europe's
2:51
Speaker 1: free speech protections and saying they're those people know what
2:55
Speaker 1: they're doing. Um. In the US, if you look at
2:59
Speaker 1: free speech, you go to the Bill of Rights. Typically
3:03
Speaker 1: it's a great place to start, and you will find
3:07
Speaker 1: you will find in the First Amendment of the Constitution,
3:12
Speaker 1: which is the first part of the Bill of Rights,
3:15
Speaker 1: it says in there specifically that Congress will make no
3:20
Speaker 1: law right abridging the freedom of speech. It's as simple
3:26
Speaker 1: as that. It doesn't say unless speech says this, unless
3:30
Speaker 1: somebody says that, unless you really don't like the guy,
3:33
Speaker 1: there is no It's absolute. It's an absolute protection of
3:39
Speaker 1: freedom of speech. Yeah, and that goes on. I think, uh,
3:43
Speaker 1: it's pertinent to mention abridging the freedom of speech or
3:47
Speaker 1: of the press, or the right of the people to
3:50
Speaker 1: peaceably to assemble founding Father JFK and to petition the
3:55
Speaker 1: government for a redress of grievances. I'm sorry that I'm
4:00
Speaker 1: take Kennedy one because we're all very important, you know,
4:02
Speaker 1: sure they are. Oh yeah, the press right to a symbol,
4:05
Speaker 1: it's a pretty important one. Well yeah, And because we
4:08
Speaker 1: had just left the country uh one, independence from Britain,
4:14
Speaker 1: who at the time was like, no, no, no, we
4:17
Speaker 1: we very much want to squash any dissenting opinions about
4:21
Speaker 1: the grown uh And people were getting thrown in jail
4:25
Speaker 1: for that kind of stuff in the colonies. They were
4:28
Speaker 1: trying to quash a rebellion. And that's a pretty important
4:32
Speaker 1: part of it. If you're if you're a monarchy, an
4:35
Speaker 1: absolute monarchy that wants to keep the rebels in check,
4:41
Speaker 1: you just say you can't say certain things, and if
4:44
Speaker 1: you do, we're going to throw you in jail. It
4:45
Speaker 1: has a freezing effect, yeah, Or they're weird punishments, like
4:48
Speaker 1: when they said stick a sock in it, they went yeah, okay,
4:50
Speaker 1: and they went no, really, stick a sock in it
4:53
Speaker 1: by law for eight months, governor, and tape it, tape
4:56
Speaker 1: it shut. With my dirty sock in your mouth, my
5:00
Speaker 1: dirty century sock, my wool sock from my wet boots.
5:05
Speaker 1: Um quickly though, I think we should point out that
5:08
Speaker 1: as we were going through this, like I realized you
5:11
Speaker 1: could have an entire podcast called the Ins and Outs
5:14
Speaker 1: of Free Speech. Yeah, like a series, a whole show.
5:17
Speaker 1: You could have a whole show about it, not just
5:18
Speaker 1: an episode. So this is you know, this is an
5:21
Speaker 1: overview as we do that is going to pick and
5:25
Speaker 1: you know, talk about various court cases over the years,
5:29
Speaker 1: rulings and writings of judges, um, that are pertinent. But man,
5:33
Speaker 1: it's deep and wide. Yeah, it is, especially considering that
5:38
Speaker 1: again when you go to the Bill of Rights, it
5:40
Speaker 1: just says Congress can't pass any laws that abridge the
5:44
Speaker 1: freedom of speech. There they're like, why does he keep
5:47
Speaker 1: writing right there? And chuck. Not only though, was it
5:53
Speaker 1: this in retaliation reaction to um, the British monarchy. Yeah,
5:59
Speaker 1: it was also a big part of Enlightenment thinking as well.
6:02
Speaker 1: The protection of freedom of speech was a huge aspect
6:06
Speaker 1: of the Enlightenment. And you know, obviously the United States
6:09
Speaker 1: was founded during the Enlightenment and as part of the Enlightenment.
6:14
Speaker 1: It was an Enlightenment experiment, right, Yeah, like we don't
6:17
Speaker 1: want to restrict thought or expression, um. And you know,
6:21
Speaker 1: some might say that if if the Britain hadn't been
6:24
Speaker 1: so intent on squashing dissenting opinion, then we might not
6:30
Speaker 1: have been so enlightenment aside. So uh, heck bent on
6:36
Speaker 1: ensuring those rights. So maybe it all worked out for
6:38
Speaker 1: the best. Yeah, I think so. And Britain came around. Right.
6:42
Speaker 1: You can still get that sock thrown in your mouth,
6:44
Speaker 1: can you? I don't know, man, it's on the book still.
6:47
Speaker 1: I just don't know if they do it anymore. Is
6:50
Speaker 1: the socks are much nicer now, that's right. They're all
6:52
Speaker 1: happy socks. So since you have this very broad um
6:56
Speaker 1: protection of freedom of speech, right, yeah, then there's nothing
7:01
Speaker 1: more to be said about it. Anybody can say anything
7:03
Speaker 1: they want. Not true, quite true. It isn't true because
7:06
Speaker 1: we have three branches of government here in the US.
7:10
Speaker 1: We do. Yeah, it turns out I thought that was
7:12
Speaker 1: just one. You got the executive branch, which is the
7:16
Speaker 1: one I think you're thinking. Uh. Then you have the
7:19
Speaker 1: legislative branch Congress, okay, which is actually separate, and then
7:24
Speaker 1: you have the third branch, the judicial branch. Yes, they
7:28
Speaker 1: are equal and important branch. And with um the congressional
7:33
Speaker 1: legislative branch. They pass laws, people go out and break laws,
7:39
Speaker 1: people get convicted, people appeal their convictions, and in some cases,
7:45
Speaker 1: those convictions and the laws are questionable enough or interesting
7:51
Speaker 1: enough that it will eventually make it to a high
7:54
Speaker 1: enough court that the court will rule on whether or
7:58
Speaker 1: not that law holds to any constitutional standard. Yeah. Over time,
8:04
Speaker 1: freedom of speech has been shaped and expanded and paired away,
8:09
Speaker 1: um by the courts here in the United States. Yeah,
8:12
Speaker 1: Like maybe more so than any other kind of segment
8:16
Speaker 1: of law, or maybe not. But I'm gonna just as
8:19
Speaker 1: as an complete, um armchair attorney, I'm gonna say that
8:25
Speaker 1: perhaps free speeches has been challenge more and whittled down
8:30
Speaker 1: and defined more than maybe any other aspect of law. Yeah,
8:35
Speaker 1: because one of the big things that the courts did
8:38
Speaker 1: with freedom of speech was to really expand the definition
8:41
Speaker 1: of speech. Yeah, it's not just words that come out
8:44
Speaker 1: of your mouth or even right. No, Like it can
8:47
Speaker 1: be a T shirt that says f the police, or
8:51
Speaker 1: could say um um uh yeah, hug the police. Sure
8:57
Speaker 1: somebody might find that offensive. Who knows, thank you for
8:59
Speaker 1: coming to my rescue. It could be a billboard, it
9:02
Speaker 1: could be um, it could be a pamphlet you hand out.
9:06
Speaker 1: It could be an act, symbolic act, flag burning. That
9:09
Speaker 1: was a big one to remember that in the eighties
9:11
Speaker 1: absolutely or or refusing to say the pledge allegiance that
9:15
Speaker 1: was in the I think World War two, Yeah, which
9:17
Speaker 1: is actually now protected as because free speech can also
9:21
Speaker 1: mean the freedom to not speech. Yeah, because up until
9:25
Speaker 1: I think in the Supreme Court ruled on it, kids
9:29
Speaker 1: were being forced to say the pledge whether they wanted
9:32
Speaker 1: to or not. In the Supreme quisite. Now we think
9:35
Speaker 1: freedom of speech is really freedom of expression, and if
9:40
Speaker 1: you don't feel like saying the pledge, you're free to
9:42
Speaker 1: express yourself in that way. Yeah. And as you'll find,
9:45
Speaker 1: um throughout the show, we'll kind of probably say this
9:48
Speaker 1: over and over, freedom of speech doesn't have a lot
9:52
Speaker 1: to do with something you might find offensive or repugnant. Um. Generally,
9:59
Speaker 1: the U S decided on protecting that right regardless of
10:03
Speaker 1: whether or not you're offended or you think it's awful.
10:06
Speaker 1: And that's kind of what makes America great in a
10:08
Speaker 1: lot of ways, is you know, what, who are we
10:11
Speaker 1: to decide what you know, to legislate morality essentially, and
10:16
Speaker 1: what we'll get into all this with obscenity and all
10:18
Speaker 1: that stuff and pornography. But um, even when it comes
10:21
Speaker 1: to like you know, I don't want to say the pledge.
10:24
Speaker 1: Because of this reason, the courts have said, you know what,
10:27
Speaker 1: that that you're right, this is America. We may not
10:29
Speaker 1: like it, but that you're right. Yeah. And the whole
10:32
Speaker 1: reason behind this too, it's it's easy to just take
10:35
Speaker 1: it for granted, especially if you were raised in the
10:37
Speaker 1: United States, that you have that right. Who cares what
10:41
Speaker 1: the basis of it is. You can say basically whatever
10:44
Speaker 1: you want, you know um. But when you really dig
10:47
Speaker 1: into why the founders sought to protect this and why
10:50
Speaker 1: it's been upheld and defended so much over the years,
10:54
Speaker 1: is because the idea is that if you are free
10:58
Speaker 1: to speak your mind without fear of being put in
11:01
Speaker 1: jail or killed or beaten by a mob um, that
11:06
Speaker 1: you are going to introduce new ideas to the marketplace
11:09
Speaker 1: of ideas. And through this you're gonna have an exchange
11:12
Speaker 1: with other people, and a lot of times it's going
11:14
Speaker 1: to be contentious and it's going to be ugly, but
11:17
Speaker 1: over time things can evolve and get better and change
11:21
Speaker 1: for the better through this exchange of ideas. And to
11:25
Speaker 1: ensure that the engine of cultural evolution continues unabated, you
11:31
Speaker 1: have to have the free exchange of ideas. And to
11:33
Speaker 1: have the free exchange of ideas, you have to have
11:35
Speaker 1: protection of free speech. Yeah, because if not, you have
11:38
Speaker 1: the government being the one saying, well, now here are
11:41
Speaker 1: all the ideas, right exactly, and um, don't worry about
11:45
Speaker 1: having any of your own. Yeah, these are these, these
11:47
Speaker 1: are the ones. Yeah. And in a lot of cases,
11:49
Speaker 1: those things can come across as really great ideas. Um.
11:53
Speaker 1: Here in the US, up until the UH, I think
11:57
Speaker 1: the mid fifties or early sixties, there were laws on
12:02
Speaker 1: the books where it said you can't you can't speak
12:05
Speaker 1: ill of groups, like you can't say anything about um,
12:10
Speaker 1: Jewish people or Muslim people or any group. You can't
12:15
Speaker 1: say these things. It was not protected, right. It was
12:19
Speaker 1: called group libel. And that actually sounds pretty good in
12:23
Speaker 1: a lot of in a lot of senses, like, yeah,
12:25
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be talking trash about entire groups of people,
12:28
Speaker 1: because it does it can lead to two problems. But
12:31
Speaker 1: that same prohibition on speech came to be exploited by
12:36
Speaker 1: white Southerners who were in power in the fifties, who said,
12:41
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King, he's trying to incite violent social change
12:45
Speaker 1: with his his radical ideas. Somebody needs to uh put
12:50
Speaker 1: a duct tape over that guy's mouth. He doesn't have
12:54
Speaker 1: the freedom to say this. And actually, our right to
12:57
Speaker 1: say hateful things about other people was a direct result
13:01
Speaker 1: in the United States of the civil rights movement UM
13:05
Speaker 1: being protected by the courts against white Southerners who sought
13:10
Speaker 1: to um to uh squash their their speech. So I
13:16
Speaker 1: hate speech, Yeah, is due in part in part to
13:20
Speaker 1: Dr Martin Luther King and and trying to advance civil
13:24
Speaker 1: rights in a weird turn of events, Yeah, it really was. Uh.
13:27
Speaker 1: And in Europe, and we'll talk about this a little more. UM,
13:31
Speaker 1: Like you said, some people say they have nailed it.
13:33
Speaker 1: They don't protect hate speech, and you can't be uh,
13:38
Speaker 1: you can't deny the Holocaust publicly, and you can't um say,
13:43
Speaker 1: you know Jewish people, you know x y Z or
13:46
Speaker 1: this group of people are like this. Um. Some people
13:50
Speaker 1: say that's you know, that's kind of right on the money.
13:53
Speaker 1: We have taken a different tech here in the US.
13:55
Speaker 1: Right in Europe does that because they have a pretty
13:58
Speaker 1: recent example of what can happen if you do have
14:01
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, and that totalitarian government can hijack that
14:06
Speaker 1: freedom of speech and use it as propaganda to incite
14:09
Speaker 1: hatred amongst an entire population. Um or even as as
14:14
Speaker 1: um this this one author put it to prepare them
14:17
Speaker 1: for extermination, just basically saying like, hey, everybody, get those guys.
14:22
Speaker 1: They're the reasons you don't have jobs. They're the rapists.
14:25
Speaker 1: They're the people who are who are going to kill
14:28
Speaker 1: you and steal your your family's wealth and well being.
14:32
Speaker 1: So get rid of them. Turn on them. And that's
14:35
Speaker 1: the whole point of saying, nobody can incite hatred through
14:40
Speaker 1: speech in these European democracies. Um, because the state has
14:46
Speaker 1: done it before. Yeah, and we all see what happened there. Um.
14:51
Speaker 1: Should we take a break? I feel like that's a
14:52
Speaker 1: good intro, broad, all encompassing, passionate, all encompassingly. All right,
14:58
Speaker 1: Well we'll come back here in a minute and get
15:00
Speaker 1: down to the nitty gritty of some of these court cases. Okay, sorry, gee,
15:18
Speaker 1: um large skid all right, trend um, So if you
15:30
Speaker 1: want to go back a little bit to justice Oliver
15:33
Speaker 1: Wendell Holmes Jr. Son of Sherlock, one of the famous
15:39
Speaker 1: justice is the United States. Uh, in a lot of ways,
15:44
Speaker 1: but very specifically because everyone has sort of heard the
15:48
Speaker 1: the old thing that, Um, you can't yell fire in
15:52
Speaker 1: a movie theater and say that's free speech because that
15:56
Speaker 1: will In the case of in the nineteen nineteen case
16:00
Speaker 1: Shink the United States, UM, Charles Schenk was arrested for
16:05
Speaker 1: distributing material basically that said, hey, UM, don't the the
16:11
Speaker 1: US draft military draft is bs um, don't do it.
16:15
Speaker 1: Fight against it? Uh. And they said, you know what,
16:18
Speaker 1: that's that's espionage actually, And that went all the way
16:22
Speaker 1: to Supreme Court and they did not protect that right because,
16:25
Speaker 1: in the words of Oliver Winto Holmes, they said, did
16:28
Speaker 1: the words create a clear and present danger that they
16:31
Speaker 1: will bring about substantive evils? Congress has a right to
16:34
Speaker 1: prevent and that sort of in line. And later on
16:37
Speaker 1: in that same ruling, he was talking about yelling fire
16:38
Speaker 1: in a theater as an example, like, you know, you
16:41
Speaker 1: can't do that because I will insight panic if people
16:42
Speaker 1: will get stomped. Right, And in this case this kind
16:45
Speaker 1: of set the precedent for or the tone for all
16:49
Speaker 1: free speech cases to follow. UM. It's weighing the the
16:54
Speaker 1: individual right versus the public good, yes, or in this case,
16:58
Speaker 1: the individual right, says UM, creating some problem or evil
17:04
Speaker 1: as he put it, that Congress has a right and
17:07
Speaker 1: an interest to prevent a danger to the country, right. UM.
17:11
Speaker 1: In this case, really what they were saying was they
17:15
Speaker 1: were suppressing criticism of a government program, the Draft. UM.
17:21
Speaker 1: And then but Holmes was fine with that. But within
17:25
Speaker 1: a year I think he saw his UM, his test,
17:29
Speaker 1: you know, does it present a clear and present danger
17:31
Speaker 1: being used in a way to to squash descent when
17:35
Speaker 1: a bunch of anarchists who were just generally advocating the
17:39
Speaker 1: overthrow of the government. UM, rather than need to do
17:43
Speaker 1: this on this date at this time, UM, they were used,
17:48
Speaker 1: they were convicted under the test that Holmes created. So
17:52
Speaker 1: he took what was called the Great Dissent and actually
17:54
Speaker 1: dissented against his own former test and said, no, it
17:59
Speaker 1: has to present a clear and present danger, present meaning
18:02
Speaker 1: like it's about to happen or you know, the time
18:04
Speaker 1: that it's going to happen, and it's a clear danger,
18:07
Speaker 1: like this is what's going to happen. Because this person
18:10
Speaker 1: said that, so that that ultimately became the format for
18:15
Speaker 1: UM what we'll talk about in a little bit, which
18:18
Speaker 1: is inciting violence. Yeah, and that's not to say that UM,
18:22
Speaker 1: like The ruling there, like you said, was about a
18:24
Speaker 1: clear and present danger, not necessarily the fact that Charles
18:27
Speaker 1: Schenk was against the war, because we have a long
18:30
Speaker 1: history in this country of being able to uh be
18:33
Speaker 1: a wartime dissenter and talk about it and be protected. Um.
18:37
Speaker 1: During Vietnam War, there was a man who had he
18:40
Speaker 1: went through an l A courthouse and he had a
18:41
Speaker 1: jacket that said, you know, F the draft, but it
18:45
Speaker 1: was really spelled out. It's so ironic that we're censoring
18:48
Speaker 1: ourselves in this one, but it's uh F the draft
18:53
Speaker 1: and they um as you will always almost always see here.
18:57
Speaker 1: These people are, like you said, usually arrested, convicted, and
19:00
Speaker 1: then when they're well maybe hippies, you never know, and
19:05
Speaker 1: then that's when the courts take it up and potentially
19:07
Speaker 1: either a protect or don't protect the speech. In this case,
19:10
Speaker 1: the court said no, you're within your right because someone
19:14
Speaker 1: could see your jacket and then not look at it, right,
19:17
Speaker 1: And that's a good point. Like you you can just
19:19
Speaker 1: look away from the guy's jacket, right. You can also
19:22
Speaker 1: not take the pamphlet that the guys handing you. You
19:25
Speaker 1: can also you can also not rent the movie that
19:29
Speaker 1: um that you find offensive. You can also turn the
19:32
Speaker 1: TV station. You can also turn the radio down. You
19:34
Speaker 1: can also not go to the website. You can turn
19:36
Speaker 1: our podcast off. To me, well you shouldn't, so you could.
19:40
Speaker 1: To me, the alternative of not not receiving some speech
19:45
Speaker 1: that you find offensive like being able to get away
19:49
Speaker 1: from it. That to me is the ultimate test for
19:53
Speaker 1: for whether speech should be restricted or not. And since
19:56
Speaker 1: you can in virtually any situation get away from speech
20:00
Speaker 1: each except maybe skywriting, we should probably really regulate sky
20:05
Speaker 1: riding pretty pretty toughly. Now you can look down on
20:07
Speaker 1: the ground, but I guess you could. Yeah, So as
20:09
Speaker 1: long as you can get away from it, or, more
20:12
Speaker 1: to the point sheared, shield your children from it, I
20:15
Speaker 1: don't think it should be I don't see any reason
20:18
Speaker 1: for it to be um entailed. For skywriting. You would
20:23
Speaker 1: have to argue in court that it is such a
20:25
Speaker 1: delight to children that they can't help. But look like
20:29
Speaker 1: you would have to physically restrain them and put blinders
20:32
Speaker 1: on them, exactly, and that's unreasonable, your honor right. You
20:34
Speaker 1: could write a curse word and then do a drawing
20:36
Speaker 1: of Barney and that would satisfy that is Barney still
20:40
Speaker 1: a thing. I think Barney will always be a thing.
20:43
Speaker 1: I don't know. Uh So over the years have been,
20:46
Speaker 1: like we said, a lot of court cases that have
20:49
Speaker 1: kind of whittled away and defined not whittled away, you know,
20:52
Speaker 1: because that molded shaped, molded and shaped. Uh So Marvin
20:58
Speaker 1: Old Marv ran an adult book business, and he what
21:02
Speaker 1: he did was he sent out mailers. He liked to
21:05
Speaker 1: send out a mailer, right, and um, these mailers would
21:09
Speaker 1: show up at houses where, you know, something my kid
21:11
Speaker 1: might read it, or someone easily offended might read it,
21:15
Speaker 1: or not so easily offended might read it. Uh. And
21:18
Speaker 1: there was a mom who uh this was her adult son. Yeah,
21:22
Speaker 1: it was a mom and her grown son who's the
21:24
Speaker 1: manager of I guess the family restaurant. And they childlike
21:28
Speaker 1: maybe he was his eyes were burning. Um, I don't know,
21:33
Speaker 1: maybe his mom was just just treated him like a kid.
21:35
Speaker 1: Who knows. But they said, you know what, you know,
21:39
Speaker 1: this guy shouldn't be mailing these randomly to just whoever.
21:42
Speaker 1: We certainly don't want it, so we're gonna call and complaint.
21:45
Speaker 1: And Marvin Miller ended up getting arrested for um obscenity.
21:50
Speaker 1: And this is a huge this turned out to be
21:52
Speaker 1: a huge case. Yeah, and went all the way to
21:53
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and um, yeah, it was. It was
21:57
Speaker 1: what you call a um, what do you call that? Landmark? Well,
22:03
Speaker 1: Landmark's waters watershed. I couldn't think of it. I was like,
22:08
Speaker 1: we did a podcast on it recently. It's an Intego
22:10
Speaker 1: Girls song. That's right. It was a watershed case. Miller v. California.
22:15
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna say V instead of versus. I think
22:17
Speaker 1: we've talked about that before, right, Um, it makes you
22:20
Speaker 1: sound more legal easy, Yeah, and everyone likes being legal easy. Uh.
22:25
Speaker 1: In three, like I said, the Supreme Court heard the
22:29
Speaker 1: case and they found that his speech did not qualify
22:32
Speaker 1: for for protection. Um. But here's the hitch. They didn't
22:36
Speaker 1: rule on the obscenity. They ruled that, hey, we're protecting kids,
22:41
Speaker 1: and you can't just mail this stuff to a house
22:45
Speaker 1: because kids live in houses, and so it was inappropriate
22:49
Speaker 1: content for children. Um. And what it did as well
22:52
Speaker 1: is it is it specified a test for defining obscenity, which, boy,
22:57
Speaker 1: over the years, this has been a really tough thing
23:00
Speaker 1: and it seems like over the years of courts round
23:03
Speaker 1: me don't want any part of that. Now. If There's
23:05
Speaker 1: one thing too that as far as restricting free speech goes,
23:08
Speaker 1: that drives me up the wall. It's obscenity. The Court
23:12
Speaker 1: should not have anything to do with obscenity, and mostly
23:15
Speaker 1: they don't wantling on it. Right, There's this great quote
23:18
Speaker 1: from Hugo Black, who, as of this podcast has become
23:22
Speaker 1: my favorite Supreme Court justice of all time. He said
23:26
Speaker 1: in Michigan versus State of New York, Um, I wish
23:30
Speaker 1: once more to express my this is my Hugo Black,
23:32
Speaker 1: by the way, I wish once more to express my
23:35
Speaker 1: objections to saddling this court with the irksome and an
23:38
Speaker 1: inevitably unpopular and unwholesome task of finally deciding by a
23:44
Speaker 1: case by case, site by site personal judgment of the
23:47
Speaker 1: members of this court what pornography, whatever that means is
23:50
Speaker 1: too hardcore for people to see or read. Basically, they
23:55
Speaker 1: were tired of sitting in court and looking at like
23:58
Speaker 1: pictures of a B. C. At the least, and ruling
24:02
Speaker 1: on this stuff like what about this one? What about
24:04
Speaker 1: this one? What about? The thing is they were looking
24:06
Speaker 1: at like pulp pulp books Like Michigan was a guy
24:09
Speaker 1: who had a publishing house of pulp books that showed
24:13
Speaker 1: like B D S M or lesbianism or masturbation or
24:17
Speaker 1: whatever on the cover. He's like, this is this is
24:19
Speaker 1: actually pretty nice, right, They're like minutes a perk of
24:22
Speaker 1: the job. But we shouldn't have to do it anyway.
24:25
Speaker 1: And so the idea that that um, the court is
24:28
Speaker 1: ruling what is obscene is and what is not is
24:31
Speaker 1: it's legislating morality, clear and just clearly it's legislating morality.
24:38
Speaker 1: And I don't think the court has any any right
24:40
Speaker 1: to that at all, but they have. They have a
24:42
Speaker 1: long tradition of it, and over time they've actually come
24:45
Speaker 1: to protect pornography, um, with the exception of child pornography,
24:52
Speaker 1: which you're not really gonna You're gonna be hard pressed
24:54
Speaker 1: to find anybody who argues for freedom of speech as
24:57
Speaker 1: far as child pornography goes UM. And then obscenity, which
25:03
Speaker 1: is which came out of this through the three pronged
25:07
Speaker 1: tests to determine what's obscene, came out of that Miller
25:11
Speaker 1: the California case, and it says this, It says that
25:14
Speaker 1: if the average person using contemporary community standards can look
25:20
Speaker 1: at something and says that this arouses the prurient interest?
25:24
Speaker 1: Does it meaning sexy time? Yeah? Uh, that's that's the
25:28
Speaker 1: wronged one. And you have to satisfy all three of them.
25:31
Speaker 1: Is this patently offensive sexual content or patently either one?
25:36
Speaker 1: I say patently And I got that from Mr Burns.
25:39
Speaker 1: Oh well, I say, I say patently like Mr Burns does. Yeah.
25:43
Speaker 1: And then the final one is a big one. Uh,
25:45
Speaker 1: it's whether the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic,
25:49
Speaker 1: or potentially or political or scientific value. Right. That's that's subjective,
25:55
Speaker 1: extremely subjective, like who who it literally says if it's
25:59
Speaker 1: our stick? Right? Who? Who says? What's art and what's not? Yeah?
26:03
Speaker 1: And very famously, uh, Justice Potter Stewart the very very
26:08
Speaker 1: famous line when asking about obscenity or pornography said I
26:12
Speaker 1: know what when I see it? Right? But they they
26:14
Speaker 1: have long said like we we One of them said,
26:17
Speaker 1: we may be trying to define the indefinable. Yeah, it
26:20
Speaker 1: is indefinable. You ask a hundred people what pornography is
26:24
Speaker 1: and you'll get a hundred different answers. And so as
26:26
Speaker 1: a result, some courts have said, uh, yeah, this community
26:31
Speaker 1: the jurors decided that this is obscene, So people go
26:35
Speaker 1: to jail for depicting sexual acts or something like that
26:38
Speaker 1: that some jurors in that town found um distasteful because
26:44
Speaker 1: America has has long had a very puritanical hang up
26:49
Speaker 1: with sex and nudity. Uh, violence, bring it on, but
26:54
Speaker 1: nude bodies shame, shame. I think that's probably my issue
26:58
Speaker 1: with it too, is we're super like will expose kids
27:01
Speaker 1: to violence, extreme violence at a very young age. But sexuality, Hey,
27:07
Speaker 1: you wait until you're you wait until your parents are dead.
27:11
Speaker 1: You understand. Wonders for the therapy industry though it's true,
27:15
Speaker 1: So hold on checked. There's one other thing. The other
27:18
Speaker 1: part that the other problem I have with the um
27:20
Speaker 1: defining obscenity is that there's no national standard. The courts
27:24
Speaker 1: even said it would be impossible to come up with
27:26
Speaker 1: a national standard. So if Miller had been tried in
27:30
Speaker 1: a community of swingers who are like into that stuff, um,
27:35
Speaker 1: he probably would have gotten off right. But because he
27:40
Speaker 1: was tried in a community that decided that no, this
27:43
Speaker 1: is this is obscene, it was deemed obscene, whereas in
27:46
Speaker 1: another community it may not have been deemed obscene. That's
27:49
Speaker 1: no test. Well, yeah, and that that became a big
27:52
Speaker 1: deal at one point because they basically, um, the law
27:54
Speaker 1: said that community standards are like you can't have a
27:59
Speaker 1: national stand or because what what the someone thinks in Skokie,
28:03
Speaker 1: Illinois is not what in Sin City, Las Vegas. They
28:06
Speaker 1: have an entirely different definition of obscenity and pornography, you know,
28:12
Speaker 1: and they're right. Yeah, I guess they are right, which
28:16
Speaker 1: is which is why I you I to me, it's
28:20
Speaker 1: one or the other. Either get rid of anything that
28:23
Speaker 1: could possibly be considered obscene or you allow it all.
28:28
Speaker 1: So obscenity, it's obscene, it is. Well, we'll get more
28:34
Speaker 1: into obscenity too, but um, there are a lot of
28:37
Speaker 1: other facets of free speech that you might not really
28:40
Speaker 1: think about. In two thousand thirteen, that was a case
28:44
Speaker 1: Bland v. Roberts where there were these two dudes, um
28:48
Speaker 1: that work for a sheriff department. You know sheriff's are elected.
28:50
Speaker 1: They were running for office, and they were fired for
28:53
Speaker 1: commenting and liking UM on an opponent's Facebook page, which
28:58
Speaker 1: you know, this gets into in the digital age and
29:00
Speaker 1: the Internet age, a whole different slew of questions to
29:04
Speaker 1: be answered, And they appealed that case and then and
29:07
Speaker 1: one actually, yeah, Bland v. Roberts. As a result, Facebook
29:11
Speaker 1: likes are considered protective protected free speech under the First Amendment.
29:16
Speaker 1: Now yeah, but ibronic, well maybe not ironically, but Facebook
29:19
Speaker 1: and social media in general you can also, I mean,
29:22
Speaker 1: it's at their discretion whether or not they take something down,
29:25
Speaker 1: and you can't say, well, that's free speech, and it's like, no,
29:27
Speaker 1: this is our our private room. Essentially is our home.
29:31
Speaker 1: And inside a private home you can tell someone to
29:34
Speaker 1: shut up. Private home, private companies, Yeah, social media platform
29:39
Speaker 1: Like if you show up to work in uh F,
29:41
Speaker 1: the police shirt, they can fire you or tell you
29:43
Speaker 1: to change it. And if you say no, no, no,
29:46
Speaker 1: like this is my free speech, I'll go no, this
29:49
Speaker 1: is my business. This is not a free speech. So
29:51
Speaker 1: like like the mall, remember yeah, oh yeah, that's right,
29:55
Speaker 1: poor Victor Gruing. Uh And here's the thing too is
29:58
Speaker 1: and this isn't really section in our notes. But I
30:03
Speaker 1: get kind of a riffin here. I get kind of
30:04
Speaker 1: bugged these days with I think a lot of people
30:07
Speaker 1: have the notion that freedom of speech means also freedom
30:09
Speaker 1: from consequence, and those are two different things. Like freedom
30:13
Speaker 1: of speech means that you were not going to be well,
30:16
Speaker 1: you might even be arrested and convicted, but eventually it
30:18
Speaker 1: will be overturned. You'll be vindicated. But if a business
30:24
Speaker 1: or a comedian or a TV show does something that
30:27
Speaker 1: people find offensive or provocateur YouTube and someone wants to
30:31
Speaker 1: pick at them and shut them down or boycott them,
30:34
Speaker 1: and they cry free speech, it's like you know, you know,
30:38
Speaker 1: you said that you got away with it. You're not
30:40
Speaker 1: in jail. Doesn't mean it won't be consequences. Well, yeah,
30:42
Speaker 1: the right to protest is enshrined in the same free speech.
30:47
Speaker 1: But I think, yeah, I hear a lot. It seems
30:49
Speaker 1: like more and more of these days where people, um,
30:52
Speaker 1: people whine about the consequences of their own free speech
30:56
Speaker 1: and that's not enshrined in the constitution. There there very
31:00
Speaker 1: likely will be consequences, right, people will hate you maybe,
31:03
Speaker 1: But it's like you said, though, you know the the
31:06
Speaker 1: the it's there to protect the unpopular opinion. There's this
31:10
Speaker 1: guy Um who's a an expert on free speech at
31:14
Speaker 1: Penn State. I believe um. He said, we have a
31:18
Speaker 1: First Amendment to protect unpopular expression or the minority viewpoint,
31:23
Speaker 1: because we don't need a constitution to protect the majority,
31:26
Speaker 1: what the majority thinks. The majority takes care of itself.
31:29
Speaker 1: It's a good point. It's the people who everybody else
31:31
Speaker 1: hates and what they have to say. Um, that is
31:35
Speaker 1: protected by the Constitution. Yeah. And uh, Harvard law professor
31:38
Speaker 1: Noah Feldman, in a very Unharvard law like way, said, uh,
31:43
Speaker 1: if your feelings are hurt, then that's your problem, snowflake.
31:47
Speaker 1: You didn't say Harvard like JFK. He didn't say snowflake.
31:51
Speaker 1: I was kidding, no, but he he. What he was
31:53
Speaker 1: pointing out was basically the sentiment behind free speech in
31:57
Speaker 1: the United States that as long as you are not
32:00
Speaker 1: physically harming somebody you like, emotional harm is whatever. We're
32:06
Speaker 1: not even gonna it's not even in a register. Well,
32:08
Speaker 1: although that one article you sent that op ed there
32:12
Speaker 1: there was the guy that argued that emotional harm was
32:16
Speaker 1: worse than physical harm and had a longer lasting impact. Um,
32:21
Speaker 1: so you know there are two sides to every argument there. Well,
32:24
Speaker 1: that's one of the reasons why Europe has said no
32:26
Speaker 1: hate speech. It's harmful. Yeah. Yeah, Like, even if it
32:29
Speaker 1: isn't physically harmful, it's emotionally it's an intellectually harmful it's
32:33
Speaker 1: it's not good alright, So we've dabbled in an obscenity.
32:39
Speaker 1: Uh one of the other and we'll talk a little
32:41
Speaker 1: bit more about it. But one of the other things
32:43
Speaker 1: that um, you can you can have insulting speech, but
32:46
Speaker 1: there's something called fighting words, um that is not protected
32:50
Speaker 1: and it's can be difficult to determine. And again over
32:53
Speaker 1: the years the courts have tried to do so. But
32:56
Speaker 1: in ninety nine that was kind of a landmark case
32:59
Speaker 1: Brandon Burr v. Ohio, where Clarence Brandenburg was at a
33:04
Speaker 1: clan rally in Ohio and said, we are we're not
33:09
Speaker 1: a revengeent organization. But if our president, our Congress, our
33:12
Speaker 1: Supreme Court continues to suppress the white Caucasian race, please,
33:18
Speaker 1: it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
33:23
Speaker 1: So they should have jailed him for grammar. Revengeance is,
33:27
Speaker 1: of course not a real word, and make it neither
33:29
Speaker 1: us revenge it. Although I think it's in a video
33:31
Speaker 1: game now someone said, yeah, revengeance too, don't. I don't
33:37
Speaker 1: think it's called that. Revengeance two called our parentheses s
33:43
Speaker 1: I C right, what does that stand for? Again? Uh?
33:48
Speaker 1: Sick I can't remember, Like, that's so sick they got
33:51
Speaker 1: it wrong. I don't. I don't know remember now I think, yeah,
33:55
Speaker 1: somebody else send it in people who tend to write
33:57
Speaker 1: it after the stuff we write. We don't usually use
34:00
Speaker 1: it ourselves. Yeah. It's funny, though. I have this thing,
34:03
Speaker 1: you know, just the weird quirky things that everyone sort
34:05
Speaker 1: of does in their head in life. Whenever I see
34:09
Speaker 1: s I C written in an article, I always try
34:11
Speaker 1: and think of what word either they got wrong or
34:15
Speaker 1: were replacing in the article, you know, to make make
34:19
Speaker 1: more sense. Well, no, they use it too, because well,
34:23
Speaker 1: if it's a misspelling or if it's not a word,
34:25
Speaker 1: it's basically the writer or the editor saying this guy
34:29
Speaker 1: got it wrong, not me. Yeah, yeah, but am I
34:32
Speaker 1: thinking of a different was it? What is it? When
34:34
Speaker 1: they um, that's just when they put it in brackets
34:37
Speaker 1: and they put like there or something like the person
34:40
Speaker 1: lets it out. Sick also goes in brackets, but it's
34:43
Speaker 1: basically saying I'm aware that this is misspelled. Yeahs to
34:47
Speaker 1: show what a dummy this guy is. I think I
34:49
Speaker 1: do it in both cases, Like if it's a made
34:52
Speaker 1: up word, I'll try and think of what like they meant,
34:54
Speaker 1: or like the other one where there's just a parentheses
34:58
Speaker 1: and they just basically add something to make it more sense.
35:02
Speaker 1: I try and think of, like, what did they say
35:04
Speaker 1: to begin with? It's a weird thing. No, I know
35:07
Speaker 1: to mean in my head right now I have for
35:09
Speaker 1: your eyes only. I thought you go away. You're trying
35:11
Speaker 1: to figure out what I'm thinking. The brains brain does
35:13
Speaker 1: some terrible stuff. I had that in my head now too,
35:16
Speaker 1: because you came in singing it for your only? Why
35:20
Speaker 1: do you? Doesn't make any sense? It doesn't. I haven't
35:23
Speaker 1: heard the song in decades. A week long ear worm
35:26
Speaker 1: from a song you haven't heard in decades? Was it
35:28
Speaker 1: in a dream? I don't think so. You're dreaming about
35:31
Speaker 1: She and Easton again. That's a good movie though. Uh,
35:35
Speaker 1: what's the Connery one on it? No? No, that was
35:39
Speaker 1: Roger Moore? Are you sure? Yeah? You're sure? I think
35:43
Speaker 1: it was Sean Connery's last time? No, all right, I
35:47
Speaker 1: may be right here. Go to the map for that one.
35:49
Speaker 1: All right, Um, all right, Getting back to Brandenburg, the
35:54
Speaker 1: the clan member who who didn't know how to talk right? Um,
35:57
Speaker 1: he didn't talk good. He was arrested for ad dedicating violence,
36:01
Speaker 1: and he won. Supreme Court decided in his favor and
36:05
Speaker 1: thus began the history, the long history of the United
36:10
Speaker 1: States saying, you know what, the clan wants to have
36:13
Speaker 1: a rally out in the public town square and they
36:15
Speaker 1: apply for their permit, you gotta let him do it.
36:17
Speaker 1: But again that actually that the clans hate speech being
36:21
Speaker 1: protected was lumped together and came out of the civil
36:26
Speaker 1: rights movements freedom of speech being protected as well, because
36:31
Speaker 1: they were like, well, hey man, stokely Carmichael says that
36:34
Speaker 1: you know, we gotta like take take the take control
36:38
Speaker 1: from the white He's rise up and take control, like
36:41
Speaker 1: that's hate speech, and the Supreme Court says, you know what,
36:44
Speaker 1: you're right, and that's protected. So so it was what
36:47
Speaker 1: the clan saying, or Illinois Nazis and Skokie right, second
36:51
Speaker 1: time Skokie's made an appearance in this episode. Yeah, why
36:56
Speaker 1: not a third um the usual. So yeah, anyway, I
37:03
Speaker 1: think what you're you're saying is as a result, hate
37:05
Speaker 1: speech is has a decades long tradition of being protected
37:11
Speaker 1: at any and all costs unless you are using it
37:15
Speaker 1: to incite violence, and that ties in to that original
37:21
Speaker 1: prohibition on free speech that Oliver Wendell Holmes came up
37:26
Speaker 1: with is that it presents a clear and present danger.
37:29
Speaker 1: So rather than using that specifically to incite violence, you
37:33
Speaker 1: basically have to be saying it's not enough to um
37:37
Speaker 1: to say, uh, like, we black people need to rise
37:42
Speaker 1: up and take control of the United States, and if
37:45
Speaker 1: it has to be violent, it has to be violent.
37:47
Speaker 1: But we can't live like this anymore. Right, If if
37:50
Speaker 1: Stokely Carmichael saying something like that, or Malcolm X is
37:52
Speaker 1: saying something like that, that is protected speech, even though
37:57
Speaker 1: it makes a lot of people, or it made a
37:59
Speaker 1: lot of people uneasy to hear that kind of thing
38:02
Speaker 1: and they said, hey, they're trying to start a race war,
38:05
Speaker 1: it's still protected speech. On the other hand, if you said,
38:09
Speaker 1: or Stokely Carmichael said everybody needs to go get the
38:13
Speaker 1: shotguns and we're all gonna beet here on Tuesday and
38:15
Speaker 1: we're gonna take the streets Tuesday afternoon, that would not
38:19
Speaker 1: be protected because he would be directly inciting violence. Yeah,
38:23
Speaker 1: what what are the two things? That violence has to
38:25
Speaker 1: be likely and uh, it has to the advocacy for
38:29
Speaker 1: violence has to be um directed to inciting or producing
38:33
Speaker 1: imminent lawless action, and then it has to be likely
38:37
Speaker 1: to incite or produce such actions. So it's it has
38:40
Speaker 1: to it has to be happening at some point that
38:43
Speaker 1: you can point to next Tuesday. Something that's not vague
38:46
Speaker 1: or indefinable, like we should do this in the future
38:49
Speaker 1: if um, if we're not granted greater rights. So it
38:53
Speaker 1: has to be something specific, and it has to be
38:55
Speaker 1: likely to produce that effect. Right, So if somebody is
38:59
Speaker 1: a great order and the people they're telling to get
39:01
Speaker 1: their shotguns all own shotguns at home, that would probably
39:04
Speaker 1: make it likely. And then a few years after um
39:08
Speaker 1: that case. Another one has v Indiana from nineteen three
39:13
Speaker 1: to find imminent a little further and it said an
39:16
Speaker 1: advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time. That's protected, right,
39:22
Speaker 1: so likely and eminent? Yes, interesting? All right, Well let's
39:25
Speaker 1: take a likely and imminent break and we'll talk more,
39:30
Speaker 1: even more about obscenity after this. George Large, I was skid,
39:55
Speaker 1: all right, So did you see the movie Carneal Knowledge?
39:59
Speaker 1: I didn't. I thought, um, for some reason, my I
40:02
Speaker 1: was like body heats not that old that I thought
40:05
Speaker 1: the movie was? Wasn't that a sexy one. Body heat
40:08
Speaker 1: was quite sexy. I never saw that. One very good movie,
40:12
Speaker 1: was it? Kathleen Turner, Kathleen Turner. That is correct? Uh,
40:19
Speaker 1: Romancing the Stone Kathleen Turner Friends, Kathleen Turner, Romancing the Stones,
40:24
Speaker 1: Kathleen Turner. It doesn't matter either way. She's a delight
40:27
Speaker 1: body heat Kathleen Turner. Never saw it. It's good, very steamy.
40:31
Speaker 1: That was going to Palmer, right, I think so? Yeah.
40:35
Speaker 1: I think she's also the star of one of my
40:37
Speaker 1: favorite all time movies, which is the War of the
40:39
Speaker 1: roses Man. That is a great movie. I can watch
40:42
Speaker 1: that movie a thousand times and not get sick of it.
40:45
Speaker 1: That's on um alright. So Carnal Knowledge was the Mike
40:49
Speaker 1: Nichols film with Jack Nicholson, Candice Bergen, and Art car Funkele.
40:55
Speaker 1: Of all people, what is our gar Funkle doing in there?
40:58
Speaker 1: He sings in a false that out throughout it's very nice.
41:04
Speaker 1: All lines are in sing song. Um no, he he
41:08
Speaker 1: was he acted in it was good? Was he good? Yeah? Yeah?
41:11
Speaker 1: It was great movie. He like Paul Simon good, well,
41:15
Speaker 1: he's acted too here and there. Really good movie though,
41:18
Speaker 1: I mean, like I said, it was Mike Nichols. It
41:19
Speaker 1: was not like porn, but it was just a very
41:22
Speaker 1: frank movie about sex and relationships. Um, Like Nicholson plays
41:27
Speaker 1: sort of a you know what you would think kind
41:30
Speaker 1: of a womanizer, and Art gar Funkle a little more
41:35
Speaker 1: uh tinder and um not as big of a womanizer,
41:40
Speaker 1: trying to decide how to put all this, and it
41:42
Speaker 1: kind of just follows him in three points of their
41:43
Speaker 1: life from like college to middle age and their sexual exploits. Anyway,
41:49
Speaker 1: it sounds kind of boring. Just really good movie, Yeah,
41:52
Speaker 1: and very famously in nineteen seventy four. I think it
41:56
Speaker 1: might have started in seventy three. And right here in
41:58
Speaker 1: All Beneath Georgia, that was a theater manager that was
42:01
Speaker 1: arrested for showing that movie in a theater. Oh is
42:04
Speaker 1: that where this case comes from. Yeah, and he was
42:06
Speaker 1: arrested and convicted of distributing obscene material. It's Jenkins v. Georgia, right.
42:11
Speaker 1: Jenkins v. Georgia was a court case, and of course
42:13
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruled, um that Colonel Knowledge was not obscene,
42:19
Speaker 1: and I think in the ruling they said, it's Mike Nichols,
42:21
Speaker 1: for God's sake, He's like, what are you thinking, precious treasure? Uh?
42:26
Speaker 1: And um, well, they said that it basically your your
42:29
Speaker 1: opposition to a state of Georgia making us so proud
42:33
Speaker 1: is that there's nudity in it. And it's not a
42:34
Speaker 1: lot of nudity. They were like, that's not enough. That
42:37
Speaker 1: doesn't it's not patently offensive sexual, sexually explicit material that
42:44
Speaker 1: has no artistic value. Yes, it fails the Miller test
42:49
Speaker 1: is what it's called. Yeah, it passes. I guess it
42:53
Speaker 1: would fail the Miller test because if you pass the
42:55
Speaker 1: Miller tests, could be it would be obscene. Right, It's
42:58
Speaker 1: a weird way to look at it. I guess. Uh.
43:00
Speaker 1: Here in the modern age, like I said, with the
43:04
Speaker 1: Internet opened up a whole host of issues with free speech,
43:07
Speaker 1: and notably the Child Online Protection Act COPA. Yeah, that
43:12
Speaker 1: was a big deal, very big deal. COPA was legislation
43:14
Speaker 1: that was introduced to, you know, protect kids from online smut. Right.
43:20
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, uh, freedom of speech, I
43:23
Speaker 1: have a kids said, no, they're gonna this is the
43:25
Speaker 1: start of regulating the internet. The Internet is a free,
43:28
Speaker 1: open wild West and it should not be regulated, So
43:32
Speaker 1: don't try to regulate it. And again, everybody said except
43:35
Speaker 1: for child pornography, and the person talking said, well, yeah,
43:37
Speaker 1: except of course child preno. If you don't be stupid. Well,
43:41
Speaker 1: COPA never actually went into effect. It went through three
43:43
Speaker 1: rounds of litigation over the years, and um, you know,
43:48
Speaker 1: basically one of the big things that the court would
43:51
Speaker 1: say back was there are protections that parents can put
43:53
Speaker 1: in to restrict their kids from this stuff, and that's enough. Yeah,
43:58
Speaker 1: that's a huge thing. Like the court really tends to
44:01
Speaker 1: to not like government overreach and tends to restrict it
44:05
Speaker 1: whenever it comes about, right. Yeah, and this was really
44:07
Speaker 1: tricky because what they were trying to do is apply
44:10
Speaker 1: a federal law to community standards for a global product.
44:15
Speaker 1: And that's just I mean, talk about complicated law. That's tricky.
44:18
Speaker 1: It's very very tricky. Yeah. So, um, the court struck
44:22
Speaker 1: it down in part because they thought it was overly broad.
44:26
Speaker 1: They said that the what the government was considering offensive
44:29
Speaker 1: material would not would not pass the Miller test, so
44:36
Speaker 1: that was overly broad. And then they also said, yeah,
44:38
Speaker 1: there's alternatives like parental controls that are widely available are
44:43
Speaker 1: can solve the problem that the government's looking to solve,
44:46
Speaker 1: which is restrict kids from pornography, um, but without restricting
44:52
Speaker 1: anyone else's individual liberty right, so they said, see around copa.
44:58
Speaker 1: Uh and justice Even Bryer wrote in a concurring opinion,
45:02
Speaker 1: this is a good quote too, to read the statute
45:04
Speaker 1: as adopting the community standards of every locality in the
45:08
Speaker 1: United States would provide the most puritan of communities with
45:13
Speaker 1: a Heckler's veto affecting the rest of the nation, basically
45:17
Speaker 1: saying what many have said was, this is an impossible task,
45:20
Speaker 1: so don't even try. I wish they'd take that that
45:24
Speaker 1: idea with obscenity as well. Well. And here's the other
45:27
Speaker 1: thing when they struck down cope. And this is another
45:29
Speaker 1: really good quote, and this this one from U. S.
45:31
Speaker 1: District Judge Lowell read Jr. Not lou read, but Lowell read.
45:37
Speaker 1: Lou Reid said, take a walk on the wild side.
45:39
Speaker 1: Lowell said, maybe after a nap. Lowell said, uh. And
45:45
Speaker 1: this kind of sums up for me. I think he said,
45:48
Speaker 1: perhaps we do the miners of this country harm if
45:51
Speaker 1: First Amendment protections which they uh will with age inherit
45:56
Speaker 1: fully are chipped away in the name of their protection right.
46:00
Speaker 1: So basically like in trying to protect these kids, we
46:03
Speaker 1: have restricted their free speech when they become adults. Very interesting, Yeah,
46:08
Speaker 1: it's true, you know. Yeah, Um, the the courts, do
46:14
Speaker 1: you go with obscenity, I'm great with it with the
46:18
Speaker 1: courts have also kind of shaped um freedom of speech
46:24
Speaker 1: or protective freedom of speech by saying yes, certain types
46:28
Speaker 1: of speech are not protected. Obscenity, child pornography, fighting words,
46:34
Speaker 1: fighting words, and then libel is another one. But one
46:38
Speaker 1: of the ways they further protected even when they're restricting
46:41
Speaker 1: it is to say, not everything that you say is
46:44
Speaker 1: liabel is actually liable. It's print right. It's very I
46:49
Speaker 1: think it more has to do with slanders words that
46:54
Speaker 1: it is okay, so with libel laws, and I would
46:57
Speaker 1: guess slander falls under the same laws, right, don't so,
47:01
Speaker 1: But with libel laws, um, it's really difficult to prove
47:05
Speaker 1: liabel right because the person printing the libelous um information,
47:10
Speaker 1: which is basically you're defaming someone's character, and that's a
47:14
Speaker 1: really old, longstanding prohibition. I think even back in ancient
47:18
Speaker 1: Greece they had a certain amount of freedom of speech
47:22
Speaker 1: in Athens classical athens Um, but even even that was
47:26
Speaker 1: restricted as far as talking trash about someone's character. Right,
47:31
Speaker 1: So that's a that's a really old idea that you
47:34
Speaker 1: shouldn't You shouldn't put fake stuff about someone's character reputation
47:38
Speaker 1: out there. And if you do, then they have recourse.
47:41
Speaker 1: But to prove that that person said something libelous, they
47:46
Speaker 1: have to have had malice of forethought. They had to
47:50
Speaker 1: have um known that what they were printing was wrong
47:54
Speaker 1: or untrue. Yeah, that's the key. It has to be untrue.
47:58
Speaker 1: You can express an opinion about something and say someone's
48:01
Speaker 1: a big poopy pants, but you can't say someone's big
48:03
Speaker 1: poopy pants. Who did X, Y and z if that
48:05
Speaker 1: isn't true, right, exactly? Um, And so it's really tough
48:09
Speaker 1: to to prove to prove libel right. So it is
48:14
Speaker 1: unprotected speech, but it's also protected in that it's not
48:17
Speaker 1: very broad, it's very narrow. And then part and parcel
48:20
Speaker 1: with that is um, satire and parody are also very
48:24
Speaker 1: much protected in the United States, thankfully, and we have
48:28
Speaker 1: Larry Flint Hustler publisher to thank for that. Yeah, every
48:32
Speaker 1: I mean, people versus Larry Flint is a very good
48:35
Speaker 1: job of that spelling out that case. But very famously
48:38
Speaker 1: he went to war with the Reverend Jerry Fallwell because
48:42
Speaker 1: he had a cartoon and his Hustler magazine that was
48:46
Speaker 1: an unflattering, uh sexual depiction of Jerry Fallwell. It was No,
48:50
Speaker 1: it was a fake campari ad. It was a spoof
48:53
Speaker 1: campari ad. But it was a cartoon though, No, not
48:56
Speaker 1: the one I saw. Really, I saw like a I'm
48:58
Speaker 1: sure he han drawn. I'm sure he had that too.
49:01
Speaker 1: But this what the court case was. It was like
49:04
Speaker 1: a campari and there was like a campari um ad
49:07
Speaker 1: campaign where people talked about their first time they had
49:10
Speaker 1: campari or whatever, and Jerry fall Wells was, uh, he
49:13
Speaker 1: and his mother got drunk on campari and had sex
49:17
Speaker 1: in the outhouse and that was actually how he lost
49:18
Speaker 1: his virginity. Jerry Falwell didn't like that, of course, so
49:22
Speaker 1: he sued um. He sued Larry Flint, and Larry Flint
49:26
Speaker 1: won that case. It went all the way up to
49:28
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Yeah, it was a case and they said, Nope,
49:32
Speaker 1: this is parody. There's a satire. It's protected. If any
49:35
Speaker 1: reasonable person um sees it and would know that it's
49:39
Speaker 1: not true, it's protected. And and Larry Flint said, or
49:43
Speaker 1: no reasonable person, right, pervert frack. That was yours is
49:49
Speaker 1: better than mine? That was good? Oh yeah, what was
49:50
Speaker 1: that going? Yeah? He sounded like what he Harrelson doing
49:53
Speaker 1: Larry Flint, which is right on the money. In my head,
49:56
Speaker 1: I sound like a muppety tenor doing what do he
49:59
Speaker 1: Harrelson do? Great movie The Muppets people versus um. Yeah.
50:10
Speaker 1: In any way, thankfully satire and is protected here in
50:14
Speaker 1: the US because we have a long, rich history of
50:19
Speaker 1: political cartoons and rich satire that can really make a difference.
50:25
Speaker 1: Like you see what's going on with Saturday out Live
50:27
Speaker 1: right now. It's like they've had a long, long tradition
50:31
Speaker 1: of political satire and and most times that opening bit
50:37
Speaker 1: they do is political in nature. Uh, And then you
50:41
Speaker 1: know it's nothing new. They've been doing it forever. So
50:45
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just think it's it's when you
50:48
Speaker 1: start like poking at that and the onion and you
50:51
Speaker 1: know some of the great satirical publications that's that goes
50:54
Speaker 1: down a bad road, you know. So took One of
50:57
Speaker 1: the things that's coming up now that we're connected globally
51:02
Speaker 1: is this idea that what we talked about at the beginning,
51:05
Speaker 1: the US has very broad free speech protections some other
51:10
Speaker 1: countries don't. There's like the the U N Universal Declaration
51:15
Speaker 1: of Human Rights, right, some of that has has some
51:20
Speaker 1: free speech protection in it. Not everybody signed on to it,
51:24
Speaker 1: and a lot of people think there will never be
51:26
Speaker 1: any way to to protect freedom of speech worldwide. Normally,
51:33
Speaker 1: up to say the nineties, that wasn't that big of
51:35
Speaker 1: an issue unless like Salman Rushdie published a book or
51:38
Speaker 1: something like that, UM, because each country had its own standards,
51:44
Speaker 1: and what what's said in one country typically stayed in
51:47
Speaker 1: that country, even if it was offensive to another country.
51:50
Speaker 1: Right the the the the two didn't collide. Now that
51:54
Speaker 1: the internet's here, what's said in one country can be
51:57
Speaker 1: carried immediately to another country, and the offense can be taken.
52:02
Speaker 1: And this went out of hypotheticals and into real world,
52:07
Speaker 1: well into the real world. UM. Back in two thousand twelve,
52:11
Speaker 1: when a guy named Nakula Baseli Nakula released a fourteen
52:17
Speaker 1: minute video called The Innocence of Muslims. Do you remember that?
52:20
Speaker 1: I don't. It was extremely incendiary. If you, um were
52:26
Speaker 1: a Muslim, you were going to be offended by this
52:30
Speaker 1: because it basically said the prophet Mohammed was a fraud. Uh.
52:34
Speaker 1: It had him as a flander, a womanizer, I think,
52:38
Speaker 1: a pedophile. It was like, and the people who were
52:41
Speaker 1: in it were scared to death because of the reaction.
52:44
Speaker 1: There were riots around the world once it was translated
52:47
Speaker 1: into Arabic and released. What they think was going to happen,
52:50
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't know, like I don't, I don't
52:52
Speaker 1: remember if the person was a provocateur on purpose or
52:56
Speaker 1: if these were their real beliefs son Islam. Regardless, they
53:00
Speaker 1: were um Egyptian American, so the video was protected, even
53:05
Speaker 1: though elsewhere in the world they were literally rioting the
53:08
Speaker 1: streets and people were dying because this video existed. They
53:12
Speaker 1: were so upset by it. But in the US t
53:15
Speaker 1: s and as far as I know, it's still up
53:17
Speaker 1: on YouTube right because it's protected by free speech. Well,
53:22
Speaker 1: that's a that's a great example of should the US
53:27
Speaker 1: have the freedom of speech that is going to cause
53:32
Speaker 1: harm in another country now that those two countries are
53:36
Speaker 1: connected via the Internet. There's no easy answer to that.
53:40
Speaker 1: That was basically a rhetorical question at this point, but
53:42
Speaker 1: it's one that I think is going to have to
53:44
Speaker 1: be decided more and more and what goes to the
53:46
Speaker 1: heart of his blasphemy in this case. Yeah, blasphemy specifically
53:52
Speaker 1: means insulting God or any religious or holy person or thing. Uh,
53:56
Speaker 1: it means different things in different religions. Um, it's actually
54:00
Speaker 1: still illegal in some states in the US. Um. Oh is,
54:04
Speaker 1: I thought the last one was struck down in two
54:06
Speaker 1: thousand seven. H okay, well but two thousands up until
54:11
Speaker 1: two thousand seven. Um, yeah, yeah, had laws until two
54:15
Speaker 1: thousand seven. That's right again two thousand seven. Yeah. Uh.
54:20
Speaker 1: But the last conviction for blasphemy in the US was
54:23
Speaker 1: in night. So because these were laws that were sort
54:26
Speaker 1: of on the books that no one did much about. Well,
54:28
Speaker 1: there's a dude. It was in Little Rock, Arkansas, and
54:30
Speaker 1: he was an anti religious atheist, this white supremacist who
54:36
Speaker 1: um had an office and in the office there was
54:40
Speaker 1: a sign out front I guess it was a storefront office,
54:43
Speaker 1: and it said, um, evolution is true, the Bible is
54:47
Speaker 1: a lie. God is a ghost. And he got arrested
54:50
Speaker 1: and convicted for blasphemy. So again, this is night and
54:55
Speaker 1: there were blasphemy laws on the books until two thousand seven,
54:59
Speaker 1: and yeah, is it's it's really surprising to think that
55:02
Speaker 1: the United States ever had blasphemy laws, but they were
55:07
Speaker 1: fairly recent. Yeah, and you know when it comes to religion,
55:11
Speaker 1: like the United States protects Westboro Baptist Church and they
55:15
Speaker 1: say you can go out and you can have uh,
55:18
Speaker 1: offensive messages on signs at military funerals if you want um,
55:23
Speaker 1: because as the United States and we allow that. Yeah.
55:25
Speaker 1: And so I think that kind of brings up that
55:27
Speaker 1: one op ed you're talking about from the Atlantic, that um,
55:32
Speaker 1: free speech isn't free. What's the title of it, Yeah,
55:35
Speaker 1: what's the what's the guy who wrote its name? Garrett
55:37
Speaker 1: Epps wrote it? Yeah, and he makes really great He
55:43
Speaker 1: didn't even make a case, he just kind of presented
55:45
Speaker 1: both sides well, and what he did was he was
55:48
Speaker 1: a quote. And I think you're right on the money
55:50
Speaker 1: with that um, with that summation, because he said, Um,
55:56
Speaker 1: repressing speech has costs, but so it does allowing it.
55:58
Speaker 1: And the only mature way to the system is to
56:00
Speaker 1: look at both sides of the ledger. Right. That really
56:02
Speaker 1: kind of says it all. Yeah, And he's basically saying
56:05
Speaker 1: like it's not enough to be to say freedom of
56:08
Speaker 1: speech exists because we have free speech in the U.
56:11
Speaker 1: S America is a free country. You have to examine
56:14
Speaker 1: why and you have to defend it or else it's
56:16
Speaker 1: just a privilege, and privileges are always subject to attack,
56:20
Speaker 1: but actual freedom is should be defensible, and so he
56:25
Speaker 1: says we need to defend it, especially based on another
56:29
Speaker 1: op ed that he was actually talking about by a
56:32
Speaker 1: law professor from fordom Thane Rosenbaum said, Um, no, there
56:37
Speaker 1: are actual harms to speech. It does cause physical or
56:41
Speaker 1: it does cause emotional harm that can in some cases
56:44
Speaker 1: exceed physical harm. It can be longer lasting, it can
56:47
Speaker 1: have a greater impact on more people at once. Um.
56:52
Speaker 1: And so why do we allow hate speech in the
56:56
Speaker 1: United States? And Garrett Ups doesn't have the answer, He
57:00
Speaker 1: just examines the whole question. I think really well, yeah,
57:03
Speaker 1: I thought it was interesting. I mean, you know, he
57:05
Speaker 1: makes a point that the same laws that allow for
57:09
Speaker 1: strides of civil rights and feminism and gay rights groups
57:14
Speaker 1: over the years are the same laws that protect the
57:17
Speaker 1: people that have done them such harm over the years. Um.
57:21
Speaker 1: And you know, like you said, you gotta look at
57:22
Speaker 1: both sides of the ledger. It might cause harm and
57:25
Speaker 1: there is a cost to it, but ultimately the freedom, well,
57:31
Speaker 1: in my opinion least outweighs those harms. So there's this
57:34
Speaker 1: guy named Jonathan Rausch who UM Garrett ups quotes, but
57:38
Speaker 1: he wrote another OpEd that I read, and his idea
57:41
Speaker 1: of why freedom of speech, including hate speech, is important
57:45
Speaker 1: is because he says that if you suppress speech, you're
57:49
Speaker 1: suppressing thoughts. Right, So if you suppress hate speech, it's
57:53
Speaker 1: still gonna be there, It's still gonna be boiling under
57:55
Speaker 1: the surface. People are still gonna quietly, subtly trade in it,
57:59
Speaker 1: but you can't refute it. If you allow hate speech,
58:03
Speaker 1: it can be refuted loudly, publicly. And then from that
58:07
Speaker 1: and he makes the case that this is why gays
58:11
Speaker 1: in America have made such strides in the last few years,
58:14
Speaker 1: because of the vicious homophobia that was publicly hurled at them,
58:19
Speaker 1: that they stood up and said, you know what, this
58:21
Speaker 1: isn't true. You know what, we deserve this right. You
58:24
Speaker 1: know what, we're not pedophiles, you know what, we should
58:26
Speaker 1: be able to adopt everything, and shot down all this
58:29
Speaker 1: stuff systematically. And America was watching this back and forth
58:34
Speaker 1: and um, gay people one public sentiment just through logic,
58:39
Speaker 1: he was saying, if you didn't allow that hate speech
58:41
Speaker 1: in the first place, there wouldn't have been that position
58:43
Speaker 1: to address, um that hate speech. Improve it wrong because
58:48
Speaker 1: you can't suppress hateful ideology. It's going to exist, So
58:52
Speaker 1: allow the speech so it can be publicly refuted and
58:56
Speaker 1: just smacked down. Yeah, yeah, I thought. I think that's
58:59
Speaker 1: probably the asked explanation for freedom of speech. I've ever
59:02
Speaker 1: heard a good way to close to huh Man, Thanks
59:05
Speaker 1: a lot, Jonathan rosh Ah, You got anything else? No,
59:09
Speaker 1: I don't, but a little tease before listener mail, We're
59:11
Speaker 1: gonna have a couple of very intriguing follow ups to
59:15
Speaker 1: recent questions. Okay, all right, well, if you want to
59:18
Speaker 1: know more about free speech, uh to start talking. And
59:21
Speaker 1: since I said that, it's time for whatever Chuck's got
59:24
Speaker 1: up his sleeve. Yeah. Before I read the listener mail, UM,
59:31
Speaker 1: two things were on a recent show. We asked about
59:35
Speaker 1: our old buddy Sarah the Amazing fan and then our
59:39
Speaker 1: old buddy Sam, the summer of Sam. Weirdly enough, we
59:44
Speaker 1: come into the office and Sam's parents dropped off a
59:49
Speaker 1: letter to us. Sam wants to be an intern here.
59:52
Speaker 1: So he's around. He's in college, yeah, doing great, and
59:56
Speaker 1: wants to intern and wrote us a letter and we're
59:59
Speaker 1: gonna try and get him in here. Oh yeah. And
1:00:00
Speaker 1: he wouldn't be our intern specifically'd be for how stuff works.
1:00:04
Speaker 1: But um, we're going to burn a lot of currency
1:00:06
Speaker 1: to make sure he gets this job. Yeah. I hope
1:00:08
Speaker 1: it happens. It'd be great. It was good to hear
1:00:09
Speaker 1: from him and sounds like college is going great. His
1:00:11
Speaker 1: resume was stacked, buddy. Uh. And the other thing is,
1:00:15
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this because I did
1:00:17
Speaker 1: the Facebook, but um, Katherine Mary Stewart of Night of
1:00:22
Speaker 1: the Comet played the older sister Reggie. Uh and was
1:00:27
Speaker 1: also in the Last Starfighter and we kened to Bernie's
1:00:29
Speaker 1: and you know it was, you know, sort of the
1:00:32
Speaker 1: darling in the nineteen eighties and nineties. Uh. And it's
1:00:35
Speaker 1: still an actor today, does theater, working stuff and movies
1:00:39
Speaker 1: and TV and radio. She does it all. Uh. She
1:00:43
Speaker 1: got in touch with us. She listened to the Malls
1:00:45
Speaker 1: podcast posted on Facebook that we shouted her out and
1:00:49
Speaker 1: also her hometown Edmonton Mall and I was just knocked
1:00:53
Speaker 1: out and told her to email us. She email that
1:00:56
Speaker 1: thinks she lives in New York, and I said, hey,
1:00:58
Speaker 1: listen next time. We do a show at the Bell House.
1:01:01
Speaker 1: I want to act out week end up, Bernie, I'll
1:01:03
Speaker 1: play I'll play the dead guy, and you and Josh
1:01:06
Speaker 1: can just pup it me around. Uh Now. It was like,
1:01:09
Speaker 1: you know, come and bring your family. We'd love the
1:01:11
Speaker 1: guest list you. Maybe you can hop up on stage
1:01:13
Speaker 1: and we can chit chat for a minute. Nice. I
1:01:15
Speaker 1: took the liberty of doing that. It was very nice.
1:01:18
Speaker 1: You're like, no, she can't get on stage. We need
1:01:21
Speaker 1: to edit that part out. I just thought that was
1:01:23
Speaker 1: very cool. Yes, very cool. Thanks for writing in Katherine
1:01:26
Speaker 1: Mary Stewart. Yes, and boys, she's found the fountain of youth.
1:01:29
Speaker 1: She looks exactly the same. Oh yeah, yes, uh and
1:01:33
Speaker 1: Sam too, he looks exactly the same. It's like twenty
1:01:38
Speaker 1: looked like he did when he was seventeen. Well, thanks, dudes. Oh,
1:01:41
Speaker 1: we haven't even done listener mail yet. No, so listener mail. Um, well,
1:01:46
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna read it. It's called would you rather?
1:01:49
Speaker 1: I feel bad for Jerry. She's not gonna know where
1:01:51
Speaker 1: to put the listener mail China. That's all right. Hey, guys,
1:01:55
Speaker 1: just finishing listening to soil It And uh, I thought
1:01:58
Speaker 1: I had a surefire argument starter for you guys. Josh's
1:02:03
Speaker 1: rant about the pros and cons of cooking and sharing meals.
1:02:06
Speaker 1: I don't rain reinforce my position on the subject. I'd
1:02:09
Speaker 1: like to know what you think about it. Here's how
1:02:10
Speaker 1: you play would you rather and it's not the sexy one? Okay,
1:02:14
Speaker 1: you get to forego one thing that humans need to
1:02:17
Speaker 1: do in order to live, either eating, sleeping, or breathing.
1:02:20
Speaker 1: You can do the thing that you choose to forego,
1:02:23
Speaker 1: of course, you just don't need to in order to live,
1:02:26
Speaker 1: and you remain neutral in terms of pleasure or discomfort
1:02:29
Speaker 1: caused by the lack of the necessity. So you don't
1:02:32
Speaker 1: feel hungry, you don't feel sleepy, you don't feel affixiated.
1:02:38
Speaker 1: Stop out to me. So he wants to know what
1:02:42
Speaker 1: would we rather do without? Um mine is easy. I
1:02:46
Speaker 1: would easily read not breathe question who would want? Who
1:02:53
Speaker 1: would say, like, I don't want to eat. I get
1:02:55
Speaker 1: a lot out of breathing. I'd have trouble giving that
1:02:57
Speaker 1: one up. Well, Andrew said he would need that's the
1:03:00
Speaker 1: answer to that question. He said, I would always forego
1:03:02
Speaker 1: eating because of the money it takes to feed myself.
1:03:06
Speaker 1: And uh, the waking hours I would save. Yeah, I
1:03:10
Speaker 1: mean people's that's the two things with food, time and money. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
1:03:16
Speaker 1: but you get so much pleasure of it. Breathing. Sure
1:03:18
Speaker 1: it's free, but who cares, especially if you're not going
1:03:21
Speaker 1: to die from not breathing. And this situation is weird
1:03:25
Speaker 1: fantasy world of his. I say, anyone who chooses, and
1:03:29
Speaker 1: this is Andrew talking, I say, anyone who chooses to
1:03:32
Speaker 1: forego sleep as a dummy, because not only are you
1:03:34
Speaker 1: not saving on food, you have to entertain yourself for
1:03:36
Speaker 1: an additional five hours a day. You argument there, though,
1:03:39
Speaker 1: is you could get more done. Sure, sometimes I do
1:03:41
Speaker 1: wish that you don't have to sleep enough to sleep.
1:03:43
Speaker 1: Sometimes I also enjoy sleep too, he says. Plus, I
1:03:47
Speaker 1: could eat socially every now and then under these terms
1:03:49
Speaker 1: if I wanted to. But who would just take a
1:03:52
Speaker 1: nap if you don't feel refreshed afterward? Yeah, well I would.
1:03:56
Speaker 1: I love to sleep. And then the non breather are
1:04:00
Speaker 1: just like deep sea diving and exploring volcanoes and stuff.
1:04:04
Speaker 1: I guess, oh, what do you think about that perk? Yeah,
1:04:08
Speaker 1: you just go swimming all the way at the bottom forever. Yeah,
1:04:11
Speaker 1: so it's clearly breathing is the answer. It's not even
1:04:14
Speaker 1: a subjective question at this point that we've proven it. Yeah,
1:04:19
Speaker 1: all right, keep up the good work. That's from Andrew.
1:04:21
Speaker 1: Thanks Andrew, you keep thinking work too. Yeah. Nice, I
1:04:25
Speaker 1: just want to see you're a sucker for not eating though. Yeah. Uh.
1:04:28
Speaker 1: If you want to try to stump us but fail
1:04:31
Speaker 1: at it like Andrew did, you can tweet to us
1:04:33
Speaker 1: at s y s K podcast. You can join us
1:04:36
Speaker 1: on Facebook dot com. You can or slash Stuff you
1:04:39
Speaker 1: Should Know. You can send us an email to stuff
1:04:41
Speaker 1: Podcast at how Stuff Works dot com and it's always
1:04:43
Speaker 1: joined us at at home on the web. Stuff you
1:04:45
Speaker 1: Should Know dot Com. Stuff you Should Know is a
1:04:50
Speaker 1: production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,
1:04:54
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
1:04:57
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.