Nazi Website Gets Shut Down. Here’s Why That’s a Threat to Free Speech.

A white supremacist website was effectively shut down after one CEO’s order to pull service. Is free speech under threat when a site can be banned from the internet based on ideology?

Michael C. Moynihan, correspondent for “Vice News Tonight” on HBO, joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to talk about his interview with Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince, who essentially banned the Daily Stormer from the internet by denying service to the Nazi site. Is there any way to make sure private companies stay neutral on free speech without bringing in more government regulation?

“We’ve come into a country that is now so fearful that I think that reason has shut down,” Glenn said.

Cloudflare offers a service that protects websites from denial-of-service attacks, which happen when a site is targeted and overloaded with bad requests. Without being shielded by Cloudflare, sites can be kept offline. A helpful analogy is that Cloudflare is like having security that protects you while you speak in public.

Moynihan talked about the difficult balance between not bringing in more regulation and ensuring that a range of opinion is available on the internet.

“We lurch into this area when companies like Cloudflare, Twitter and Facebook accrue so much power and influence that people say, ‘Hey, you know we really should regulate them like public utilities,’” he said.

Instead, people need to realize that more speech is the answer, not censoring repugnant speech.

“The Nazis should be shut down. I want them shut down, and I want them shut down in debate,” Moynihan said. “I don’t want them shut down by companies or by the government.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Only 37 percent of Americans can name any of the rights protected under the First Amendment. There are five of them, by the way. Just in the First Amendment, there are five rights. Can you name all five?

If you can name all five, you are very rare. But only 37 percent can name any of the rights. And this is going become very, very important because there are some things that feel good and there are some things that you just feel like, that's right. That's right, as a knee-jerk reaction.

Like, these Nazis have got to be shut up. Yeah, it does feel right, doesn't it? I mean, I don't want that. I don't want the Nazis around me. I don't agree with the Nazis. The Nazis have led to a lot of, you know, really bad, horrible things. Understatement of the century.

I don't think they should be able to -- wait. Wait. Wait. Because the First Amendment, it's only there because you need to protect the rights of everybody. And the only right of free speech that really needs protection is the stuff that everybody goes, "Right. We got to shut that down. That's crazy."

The CEO of Cloudflare, which is -- which controls a lot of who gets on the internet and who doesn't get on the internet. The CEO's name is Matthew Prince.

And a few weeks ago, he made a decision by himself to begin to regulate the internet. Michael Moynihan from Vice spoke to him.

VOICE: I found The Daily Stormer repugnant. I am not shedding a tear that that content isn't online anymore.

But one of my fellow employees came up to me the day that we took it offline and said, "Hey, is this the day the internet dies?"

VOICE: There wasn't a due process. You woke up one morning, and you said, this is bad, and I'm going to do something about it.

VOICE: The thing that was the tipping point for us was I woke up one day and opened Twitter, and there were a whole bunch of screenshots of some of the people behind the site saying, "Cloudflare actually supports us, and the upper echelons of their leadership are white nationalists."

VOICE: But that's easily dismissed, though, isn't it?

VOICE: You're absolutely right, but what it had become was such a distraction that we couldn't have the really important conversation about what role should Cloudflare be playing in regulating the internet. And so I am deeply concerned that I had the authority and the power to wake up one morning and say, "You know what, I'm done. These guys -- I'm sick of this. So screw them. They're off the internet."

(music)

GLENN: That seems like a circus and kind of disturbing. Nobody should have that power.

Michael Moynihan from Vice joins us now. Michael, when you talked to him, I could see your frustration. I could see -- I'm watching it -- because I'm thinking the same thing you are, "Do you realize what you're even doing or saying?" What were you left with?

MICHAEL: Yeah.

Well, what I was left with was a few things. I mean, I don't like to ever use the phrase "free speech fundamentalist" because I don't like to associate the word "fundamentalist" with free speech. But I am somebody who is a free speech absolutist.

Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, knew that going in. And I told him, look, I understand why you did it. You're a private company. You can do what you want.

We lurch into this thing -- and you were just talking about the expansion of government power. You know, we lurch into this area when companies like Cloudflare and Twitter and Facebook accrue so much power and influence, that people say, hey, you know, we really should regulate them like public utilities.

You know, I don't want that at all. And I think Matthew Prince should be able to do what he does.

In one clarification, by the way: Cloudflare doesn't host anything. Basically what they do is they protect websites. They protect websites from denial of service attacks. And for listeners who don't know what that is, it's essentially you can hire people, you can do it yourself, to press a button and to flood a website with bad data to keep it offline.

So Cloudflare will protect you from that and essentially keep you online. So what Matthew Prince did, when he removed that protection from The Daily Stormer, is he said, you know, you guys can go offline at any minute. And it's sort of effectively what happened.

But, you know, I really like Matthew. I think it's a fascinating thing that he did wake up and say, "I do have too much power." Most people who have too much power don't say that. They -- they relish it, and they envy having that much power.

So, you know, I like the fact that he did that. But I don't buy, to be totally frank, when he says, you know, I just wanted to start the conversation.

Okay. The conversation is started. I'm on Glenn Beck's radio show talking about it. You are on our program on HBO. Let them back on your network.

No, that's not going to happen.

And The Daily Stormer -- and one must do the throat-clearing thing and say it is the most repugnant website.

GLENN: Oh, it's awful. It's awful.

MICHAEL: A series of repugnant, fascist websites, that harass people, troll people, et cetera.

But, you know, they can't find a home online now. And you do get into some sticky territory. Because when GoDaddy, the enormous company GoDaddy said, "You're not going to be on our network," GoDaddy was actually not hosting them. They were a DNS provider. And basically what that means is when you type in "Daily Stormer" into your browser, the DNS provider translates that word into a series of numbers and directs you to it.

So it's essentially not like we're not allowing the pedophile to buy a house in our neighborhood. It's actually taking them off the map and taking the street signs down. But I have a certain amount of faith in the American people and people everywhere that if they see this stuff, they will be repulsed by it and they will be convinced by it.

GLENN: Only 37 percent of the American people can name their rights protected under the First Amendment. What gives you the feeling that -- when I see people -- I have faith in the American people, are going to stand up against this, when they don't even know what the First Amendment protects.

MICHAEL: Yeah, I don't -- I mean, I don't have that much faith in them.

GLENN: Yes, okay. All right.

MICHAEL: Glenn, I want it -- they may not have freedom of assembly, but not freedom of petition. Pretty specific things.

GLENN: No, no, no, no. Only 37 percent can name any of the rights.

MICHAEL: Name one. Well, one of the things you'll notice recently, and it kind of collapsed my confidence in people and kind of their understanding of constitutional rights is this idea that exists in Europe that does not exist in the United States, you know, of hate speech.

GLENN: Yes.

MICHAEL: We do have hate crimes, and as a conflation of those things, which I think are also in a way problematic of prosecuting people for the things that are going through their heads when they commit crimes that are already on the statute books. But I routinely talk to people who say, "Hate speech. We can't have hate speech," which doesn't exist. And as you said in your intro, there is a reason that we have First Amendment protections. And most people don't understand this. And that is not to protect my speech.

GLENN: Yes.

MICHAEL: It is to protect the most loathsome speech that is out there. And when we grimace at hearing this stuff, it doesn't mean that we should take this away because it will influence other people and make them bad people.

The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech over repulsive, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing psychopaths like those who run The Daily Stormer.

GLENN: So, Michael, what is the answer here? Because we have -- we've come into a country that is now so fearful, that I think that reason has shut down.

And -- and so people are not in a place where they can say, "You know what -- I mean, let's -- can I -- let's take it from another angle. Everybody has an opinion. Very few people have a different perspective."

And that's important that we look at things with perspective. We're -- it feels too good to say, "The Nazis and Antifa should be shut down," to the average person. How do you make the case?

MICHAEL: Oh, yeah. No, it feels great to say the Nazis should be shut down. I want them shut down. And I want them shut down in debate. I don't want them shut down by companies and the government. And what I often hear as comparisons to European countries. And I'll give you one that is actually quite helpful. The Germans from -- in the de-Nazification process from sort of 1945, up until I would say the American occupation ended, was a helpful thing and it was a good thing. And I understand the instinct to ban Nazi symbols, to ban Mein Kampf, to ban Nazi rhetoric, and to ban Nazi-affiliated parties. I mean, been trying to ban the NPD, which is the sort of post-Nazi party for quite a long time.

And they're pointed to as a success story. Because you cannot have The Daily Stormer on a network if you are Google in Germany. I mean, you have to take it off your search engine.

After Charlottesville, which, you know, was a couple -- three, 400 idiots raging through Virginia and making a national and international spectacle, a similar Nazi march happened in Berlin that was larger. And every year, on the anniversary of the bombing of Dresden and on Rudolf Höss' birthday, Germans take -- certain Germans, fascist Germans take to the streets and they march. David Irving's books are banned in Germany. Holocaust denial is banned in Germany. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. And the only copy that you can get of Mein Kampf in Germany is one that has been annotated recently by scholars.

So you can't pick that up and get that on the internet, of course. This has not prevented hatred and fascism from laying down roots again in Germany. And you see this -- now, they haven't been incredibly successful in the political process. But do they exist? They certainly do. And I would say there are more Nazis -- my guess, and I'm just going to say, I'm guessing, to sort of preface this -- is that proportionally, there are probably more Nazis in all the European countries that ban Nazi propaganda than there are in the United States.

GLENN: So Matthew Prince was hiding behind -- in some regard hiding behind. He is a private individual and a private company, I think do have the right to choose who they work with. So we're balancing a couple of rights here.

MICHAEL: For sure.

GLENN: However, we are --

MICHAEL: I don't want to have his rights -- I don't want to regulate his rights. No, you're right.

GLENN: Correct. And I don't want to either. However, we're entering a time where Google and Facebook, in particular, they control so much, that, you know, if Google gets up in the morning and says, "You know what, you're just not going to be able to search for Vice anymore," depending on who is in power and what is popular, et cetera, et cetera, that's extraordinarily dangerous. How do you balance this? What is the answer? Have you come up with one?

MICHAEL: Yeah. Well, one of the things -- I once pitched a story, and the people at Google gave me a very quick and a very swift no. And I probably should have pitched it a different way.

But I noticed that essentially Google around the time of the innocence of Muslims controversy was acting essentially as a parallel state department. I mean, they were interfacing with foreign governments. They are talking about policy and about what stuff that their citizens can see.

And that gave me, you know, this sort of free speech absolutist, a sort of a chill. And somebody also who doesn't want the government involved in this and saying what Google can and cannot do.

I do not think they're a public utility. There are plenty of other options. I mean, if it's a case -- if it's a monopoly of one internet provider that is, you know, running the show in an entire city, that's problematic. But, you know, there is Yahoo. There are other search engines out there. But, yeah, there isn't any easy answer to this, other than to kick up a lot of, you know, dust when this happens. You notice that the ACLU, for instance, has been pilloried by so many people, I think primarily on the left, for saying that these guys that are marching in their jackboots and shaved heads through Charlottesville have the right to do that. I mean, I think the first battle is convincing people, as you said, about understanding constitutional rights. But people do have the right to these opinions. And we have a right to debate them. And we should debate them. I think the biggest problem right now is the fact that, you know -- you know, younger people today -- and people I talk to routinely, don't believe that free speech should be an unfettered right. They believe it's something that should be qualified, if it lurches into the territory of, you know, racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera. That is my bigger concern. Because I don't see it -- right now, I see, you know, Facebook sort of regulating stuff in their own way, but I see a lot of people going away from Facebook.

I don't think Facebook is going to be the biggest thing in ten years, much in the way that Internet Explorer doesn't have to be broken up by the European Union because it was going the way of the dodo. So I think the technology changes. And I think there's a lot of stuff out there, where people can get this information. It's not really going anywhere. But I don't like the mindset. That's the thing that bugs me the most, is that we really have to get rid of this stuff. If it infects people's minds, then we're done.

GLENN: Michael, thank you for your time.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.