Dennis Prager Talks Google, YouTube Lawsuits Over ‘Ideologically Driven Censorship’

October 25, 2017

WRITER

PragerU, a website that promotes conservative ideals in pithy 5-minute video clips, is suing Google and YouTube for content policies that the company says are overly vague and used to censor “conservative political thought.”

YouTube Appears to Be on a Crusade to Blacklist Conservative and Independent Opinions

Founder Dennis Prager joined Glenn today to talk about the lawsuit over YouTube’s restrictions on their videos. The lawsuit claims that PragerU videos have been arbitrarily marked “inappropriate” for younger views and demonetized, or cut off from generating ad money.

“I really did believe all my life that there was one thing that did unite Americans,” Prager said. “And that is … free speech. But I was wrong. The left in particular does not believe in free speech because it threatens their power.”

Get the full story with our explainer of the PragerU lawsuit.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There is a chill wind blowing across the First Amendment. And it is happening from all sides. When we have conservatives talking about limiting free speech and free press, it's disturbing.

But there's something else that's going on right now with the -- with all of the big -- I would call them, you know, railroad companies. They're -- the rail lines of communication, they've all been laid now. And so now, these rail companies of Google, Apple, YouTube, which is Google, Facebook. They're going to start dictating exactly what's heard and what's not heard. And it's -- we're entering a very dangerous phase.

I wanted to bring on Dennis Prager. Because Dennis and Prager University have just filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube. And we have a story up on TheBlaze.com that lays this all out very clearly. And you need to pay attention to this, because we have information from the dark web, where Media Matters was -- was hiding out their plan for the future, that shows what's happening to Dennis Prager was planned and coordinated. And this is their MO moving forward, to silence any voice on YouTube or Google or Apple or Amazon, that disagrees with Media Matters.

Welcome to the program, Dennis Prager.

DENNIS: What a joy to be with you. I'm in Israel. And wherever I am, it's good to talk to you.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. Dennis, I have tremendous respect for you and what you guys are doing. You are making these five-minute videos. And it's educating a lot of people in a very entertaining way. You are approaching your billionth view, if I'm not mistaken.

But YouTube has now removed or demonetized several of your videos and have blocked them because they say that it violates some sort of standard that you can't figure out.

DENNIS: Right. They're inappropriate. I think that's the term. And it's -- we are putting up the lawsuit actually on our website, so that anybody can read it. It's so devastating that it portrays an America that you and I never really thought would -- would take place. If there was one thing, I guess I was naive.

I really did believe all of my life that there's one thing that did unite Americans. Because I don't -- I never buy the unity issue, as you probably know.

I think there's too big a division in the country. But I did believe there was one, a common belief. And that is in free speech. But I was wrong.

The -- the left in particular does not believe in free speech because it threatens their power.

The more people know, the less left they will be. I would -- I bank my life on that belief. I devote my life to that belief. Prager University is devoted to it, my radio show, et cetera. And that's why they're very afraid of us. They have every reason to be afraid of us. We have 500 million views this year. And we change a lot of minds, in a very sophisticated manner. Just for your audience's knowledge, I think it's important that they understand these are five-minute videos on every subject outside of the natural sciences. We're not going to teach botany in five minutes. We understand that. Or mathematics or something like that.

And four of our presenters are Pulitzer prize winners. We have professors from Stanford, Yale, Harvard, UCLA, et cetera, et cetera.

We have liberals like Alan Dershowitz. It is -- it's an extremely sophisticated teaching operation. There is no yelling. There is no slamming. There is no anger. There are five had an minute intellectual presentations. And that's why they change minds. Because they're geared to the mind and not to the emotion. Yeah, go ahead.

GLENN: Is Alan Dershowitz's video on Israel, is that one of them that has been banned?

DENNIS: That's correct. That is correct. It was. They have been recently -- yeah, it was.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, in TheBlaze story was asked about it, and he said This is one of the most disturbing things that has happened to him.

DENNIS: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, here's a guy -- here's a guy on the left whose voice is being silenced by YouTube.

DENNIS: Right. Right. Well, let me then venture forth a very important point that I make I think almost daily.

There is nothing in common between leftism and liberalism. They have nothing in common.

GLENN: Yes.

DENNIS: And liberals used to understand this. They no longer do. And so many side with the left, even though it violates everything they stand for. For example, liberalism begins in integration, the melting pot, and that race means nothing. The left believes that race is important, the first ideology since the Nazis to believe that. They have separate graduation exercises at Harvard for black graduate students. They have dorms for black students all over the country at universities. That was called segregation when I grew up. Liberals would have found that to be the antithesis to everything that a liberal stands for. And I'm trying to show -- so I'm trying to show people like Dershowitz are liberals, not leftists. And I think he would even agree to that. Because he spends more of his time now, to his great credit, attacking the left than attacking the right. This is a Hillary Clinton voter.

GLENN: Yeah. I know several people who would have voted for Hillary Clinton in days gone by, who now say that their own party has gone so far off the rails, they're more afraid of their side, the leftists, than they are of the Republicans and the people on the right.

DENNIS: Well, there's nothing to fear from us. We don't want power. I always make this point.

Conservatives, basically run on the doctrine, vote for me. I want less of your money. And I want less power over you.

So --

GLENN: Well, I think that's -- I think that's --

DENNIS: We're only in danger to the left.

GLENN: I think that's generally true. Not as true as I thought it was. You know, we are seeing people talk about, you know, how the government should regulate the free press. I don't want the government involved in the press at all. Period.

DENNIS: I agree with you. But who said that?

GLENN: The president has talked about, maybe it's time to regulate NBC.

DENNIS: Oh, really? I don't really him saying that.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

DENNIS: I believe you. Because you're an honorable man. It's hard for me to believe even he believes in that. But, anyway, obviously none of us believe it. So it doesn't matter.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Dennis, tell me some of the -- tell me which videos are being taken down. See if there's a pattern.

DENNIS: Well, the list is on -- I believe the list is in the indictment. I should have it in front of me. But off the top of my head, I'll give you a few examples.

GLENN: Yeah.

DENNIS: This is my favorite, okay? I think there are about 40 out of 250. But I'll give you -- this is my -- I'm laughing because it's actually hilarious.

I did -- I personally -- I only do 15 percent of the videos. About 85 percent of them are by other people. But I did the videos because we do a fair number. You know, about 10 percent of our videos are on religion. Because we think a godless United States is not what the Founders wanted. In any event, so I did 11 videos on the Ten Commandments, one on each of the Ten Commandments and one introduction.

Believe it or not, they actually took down my video much thou shalt not murder.

GLENN: Why? Why do you think --

DENNIS: I don't know. I don't know. To be honest, to this day, I don't know. That's how absurd -- we're talking about the realm of the absurd.

GLENN: So the videos that TheBlaze is talking about, there are 40 that have been restricted. Many of them have also been demonetized, which means you can't make any money on them. Among the restricted videos, why America must leave. Ten Commandments, do not murder. Why did America fight the Korean War, which is unbelievable. Everyone should see that one. The world's most persecuted minority, Christians. Another unbelievable video. And -- and there's no answer.

DENNIS: By the way, that's really -- that tells you something about the -- Google's morality. That the persecution of Christians in the Middle East would be taken down, would be restricted. It shows you, they're not -- they're not merely totalitarian. They're bad.

I mean, only a bad person would find it objectionable -- and I'm a Jew saying this. Calling -- calling the world's attention to the removal of Christian communities in Middle Eastern countries.

GLENN: Genocide, yeah.

So you are suing them. There's no damages so far that you're going for. What is your -- what's your plan for?

DENNIS: The plan is to win. And thereby bring down the greatest threat to free speech perhaps in world history, or in the history of the existence of freedom of speech. Because they control -- they are the conduit to free speech on earth. You can't -- there's no alternative.

GLENN: So, Dennis, doesn't that make them a utility? Aren't they a private --

DENNIS: That's correct. That's right. It does make them a utility. And the entitlement makes it clear that -- I will use these words. It's not in the indictment. They are a fraud because they -- utterly misrepresent themselves. They say they are a completely open forum. That is as pure a lie as exists. And Prager University is the living proof of the lie that it is. They are not an open forum. And if we don't prevail, it's over for free speech, until there will be an actually open Google. And I don't know how you rival Google at this time.

One day, it may happen. But in the meantime, it's critical to understand --

GLENN: I don't think so.

DENNIS: That this is what is happening.

STU: Dennis, isn't it consistent though with conservative principles that it's their website and they get to do what they want with it?

DENNIS: No. That's very important.

I have actually asked that. The indictment shows law after law after law in California. And it's not an indictment, by the way. That's a technical term. It's a complaint. So just for the record. But, in any event, the -- the -- we show law -- the lawyers -- by the way, that's important that you know who they are. It was actually the suggestion of former California governor Pete Wilson, who was -- I'm greatly honored to know, is a great fan of Prager University. And he is the one who has one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. He is leading this. And it was his idea actually. And they are -- they are truly helping out. I mean, it's very expensive to have lawyers, as you well know, as everybody knows in America.

GLENN: Especially against Google --

DENNIS: Yes, exactly. Unlimited funds, like the government.

But, anyway, they list law after law. This is not a -- this is not a new idea. This predates Google. It predates us. It predates my existence on earth, where the Supreme Court has established that there has to be free speech, where there are claims to be free speech in the private sphere. So it's not merely government cannot -- cannot suppress speech. Now, obviously in the case, let's say of religion. If you have a Christian school and it teaches that -- you know, that -- you know, that a Catholic school teaches that abortion is immortal sin. A teacher says, no, you know, I think that Catholicism welcomes abortion. Obviously, a religion can teach a certain thing. By the way, in that regard, it would be very interesting. I wonder, I don't have the answer to this myself. I'm posing a question to me.

What if Google did announce, you know what, we are a left-wing organization. And we can't stand any left-wing idea that has any traction. And therefore we will shut it down. I wonder then --

GLENN: If they could get away with it.

DENNIS: Yeah. That would be interesting. Because that's what they are.

GLENN: Okay. Dennis, we'll have more on this tonight. Hope to have more on this tomorrow. We are big supporters. Thank you for everything that you're doing. And we will continue to help you get the word out on this. Anything that we can do, you know, that the audience can do?

DENNIS: Right. Well, yes, of course. First of all, they -- for no money whatsoever, they need to watch our videos. Because they are life-changing. They're meant to be. If their kid is in college, their kid is being indoctrinated.

GLENN: Yes.

DENNIS: And we are an antidote to that indoctrination. If they have to pay their kids in high school or college to watch it, or whatever, they should. And, obviously, if they want to help us in any other way, that's great.

GLENN: Okay. Dennis Prager, thank you very much from Prager University. This is worth your money and your time to help them out. Prager University.

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Glenn's Show Prep