RADIOJune 05, 2025

Alan Dershowitz WARNS the Supreme Court may CHANGE free speech

As chaos grows in America, will the Supreme Court soon put “security” over free speech? Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz joins Glenn Beck to explain why he’s concerned and debate the solution. Plus, as a Harvard Law School professor emeritus, Dershowitz explains why he approves of President Trump’s crackdown on Harvard’s government funding.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome, Alan Dershowitz. How are you, sir?

ALAN: I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good. So did I get this right?

You're talking about now, that the Supreme Court might start leaning towards security over free speech in the coming years.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, never -- it does. I pride myself on never making predictions based on what I want to happen.

That's what -- that's what others on the left do. And that's why they're always wrong. I make predictions based on my analysis of trends.

This is not a trend I approve of. But it's a trend I see coming.

GLENN: Right.

ALAN: I see it coming in the area of defamation. I see it coming in the area of incitement.

I think the Brandenburg decision was written.

During a time of relative calm. And we weren't seeing the incitements of violence that we saw, that probably led to the burning of Jews. In Boulder Colorado. And the shooting of these two innocent people in Washington, DC.

And the kinds of things.

Look, I -- I have a lot of --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Yeah. You just said, and I find this amazing.

You said -- you just said, it happened in a time of relative calm. It was 1969 that this case came down in the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken.

Which is not really a calm year.

But can you explain what the Brandenburg case is, or was?

ALAN: Sure.

Brandenburg was a Nazi, who was making horrible, horrible speeches. But he wasn't inciting anybody directly. And the Nazis in those days had no influence, and no power. They weren't getting people to do things.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: The people that were creating problems that were during the Vietnam War.

The people on the left.

I represented a lot of them. And I represented people who disrupted the Democratic convention in 1968.

The Chicago -- other people like that. And I saw with my own eyes. That some of these people who started as disrupters, and violent confrontationists. And people pushing and shoving.

And, you know, breaking property and stuff like that. Ultimately, became murderers, like Captain Houdini, who ended up being responsible for the killing of two policemen. Or the weatherman, who planted bombs, and killed people. And then their leaders became, you know, prominent spokesmen of the left. Professors at various places.

So I saw that, and what I was seeing now, is a different kind of quantity.

What we're seeing, with the globalize the intifada. And Palestine will be free from the river to the sea. Those are calls for violence.

The Brandenburg case, they're protecting speech. I think they should still be protected speech.

But my view, my prediction is that when the next case comes to the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court, I think they may take a more security-oriented point of view, and say, wait a minute.

The incitement does not have to be so direct, it could be a little bit more direct.

And let the jury decide that issue. So I'm concerned about that. In my book, the preventive state. I have a whole chapter on free speech. And how free speech can sometimes cause violence.

And, but that it's not proper to deny free speech, in order to prevent.

We have to pick better ways of preventing violence. And in the preventative state, we come up with better ways than constraining free speech.

GLENN: Because I -- I really, I'm really with you on this. This really disturbs me.

When I read this article from you yesterday. This story from you yesterday, I needed to talk to you. This is horrible. This goes beyond cancel culture.

This is now the government, being able to come in and say, nope!

Right, that's really bad.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, there are so many mechanisms we use that have an effect on free speech. Even deportation.

Deportation obviously denies the deported person, the right to speak freely in this country.

Now, of course, under the Constitution, a citizen has the most free speech rights. A green card holder, the second most -- visa holders, almost no free speech rights. They can be deported, if they say things that are contrary to the interests of the United States. They're just guests in our country.

And so, you know, I think we're going to see a lot -- lots of movement in this area, because we're going to see a lot more violence. Let me tell you what happened to me.

The take before the killings in the District of Columbia. One Christian boy and Jewish women who were killed, working for the embassy. The day after that, I was getting an honorary degree in college at Florida. The security people in college came up to me. We're terrified. It might be a copycat attempt to kill you.

Because you're a prominent spokesman for pro-Israel points of view. And so they created a whole security thing around me, where they created an escape plan.

They have policeman, with machine guns. And with bullet-proof glass. To protect me.

And I have redoubled my security. And I think we're going to see more copycat crimes. I think Hamas wants to see violence in the United States. That's their goal to get more people to kill Jews, Christians, and others in the United States.

And I think they're probably going to succeed unless there's some preventive steps they're taking. Now, the preventive steps should not include diminutions of free speech under the Constitution.

GLENN: I -- I tell you, I -- you know, I see what the government is doing, and how AI is -- and Silicon Valley is playing a big role with the Pentagon and CIA.

And everything else. And I am really, really concerned. If there is another big event like a 9/11.

I fear Americans are just going to run to that kind of stuff. And then we're in a trap. And I don't think we'll get out of.

JOSH: Yeah. That's what history shows.

I show, that there's a common phenomenon. We underreact, and we don't prevent.

We didn't prevent Pearl Harbor. We didn't prevent 9/11. Israel didn't prevent October 7th. Then what happened?

After we failed to prevent Pearl Harbor, we put 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, in order to prevent them from doing it again. They never would have done it again.

We overreacted. After 9/11, we created the Patriot Act, which gave the government too much power, to prevent a recurrence of that.

And, you know, the reason we disagree with Israel. But a lot of people think Israel, for failure. From October 7th.

Which they could have done. They had the intelligence. May have overreacted. In Gaza.

I'm not agreeing with that. I'm just telling you, historically, there's a phenomenon, it starts with underprediction.

And ends up with overreaction to the event.

That was not predicted and prevented.

That's one of the thesis of my book.

GLENN: So what -- what should we expect?

And how do we prepare ourselves, so we don't go down that road?

JOSH: Well, first of all, we do a lot more preparation and prevention. We try desperately to use what the resources are available. I'll give you an example.

The young man who burned those people in Boulder, Colorado.

He was here illegally. He had overstayed his visa. There's nothing wrong with using artificial intelligence and computer technology to keep track of people who stay here illegally.

And once he overstayed his visa. Action could have be taken.

And maybe this crime could have been prevented. So I think there are preventive steps that are consistent with the Constitution and free speech.

That can be taken, to avoid the cataclysmic events. Give you another horrible example, that we're working on right now.

Should the United States and Israel bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? We know they're playing to create an atomic bomb.

And we know in the 1930s, if France and England had prevented Germany from building up its army, it would have saved 50 million lives.

We must know it then.

Are these the crimes of preventive decisions, but there's no free lunch!

Every preventive decision entails some diminution of liberty. And, you know, Benjamin Franklin was correct, when he said those who would deny essential liberties to secure a little bit more security, deserve neither.

But the question is, can we deny a little bit of nonessential liberty, to prevent major cataclysmic events. Give you appear example. Before 9/11. We arrested ten people, and prevented 9/11. And the people arrested. And spent two months in jail.

That's probably a trend that was worth it.

GLENN: What are nonessential liberties?

ALAN: Well, there's a continuum. Obviously, free speech is the most essential liberty. Privacy is a matter of degree. And, you know, keeping track of people who are here illegally, does in some way, invade their right of privacy.

But in a small way.

Because they really don't have a right to be there at all.

Liberty is a continuum.

And we have to make sure that we don't go after fundamental liberties, as I think, look, what could be worse than putting 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, and denying them their right to earn a living?

We did that for three years.

And the Supreme Court. The liberal justices -- Earl Warren was the governor of California at the time. He was on the Supreme Court.
They all agreed with that, only a couple of justices.

Justice Jackson didn't agree with it.

But Americans were outraged at Pearl Harbor, as they were outraged at 9/11.

When you were outraged.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: You don't think terribly.

GLENN: I know. I know. And that's a little terrifying. Just looking at what's coming around the world. And then seeing the growth of AI and what can be done.

It's a little frightening, that we will jump immediately to, yes.

We need a super, duper Patriot Act.

That it's --

ALAN: Yeah. That's right. We need a super, duper Patriot Act that denies free speech. That's the first thing. People hate free speech. The vast majority of Americans, even though they claim the First Amendment, believe in free speech for me, but not for thee. When I taught my class on the First Amendment, I would ask my students, how many people believe free speech for everybody?

Everybody would raise their hand, and then I would say, well, what about pornography? Some hands went down.

What about anti-Semitism?

Some hands would go down. What about bigotry against Catholics? Some hands would go down. By the end of the class, no hands were up. Everybody had an exception.

GLENN: Hmm. Alan, hold on for one minute. I want to talk to you a little bit about Harvard and what's going on there, and what do you think is coming for Harvard and out of all of this.

In 60 seconds, back with Alan Dershowitz in just a second.

The sponsor is Good Ranchers.

When was the last time you looked forward to dinner?

And I don't mean out of habit. I mean, actually felt exited like you used to, when steak night meant something. When the smell hit the pan, and people drifted in the kitchen, without being called.

It's amazing what good meat can do. Good fish. Good chicken.

Good Ranchers is not just about buying American. You're supporting US farmers and ranchers. It's about making food mean something again!

Because we have forgotten, you know, what chicken is supposed to taste like.

Or how a burger used to taste. When you were sure you were eating American beef, and it was all natural.

This is a wake-up call.

Everything Good Ranchers sells, is 100 percent American. No import. No mystery. Just high quality beef, chicken, and seafood, delivered straight to your door.

Right now, when you subscribe, they're offering free meat for life. Choose from ground beef, wild caught salmon, bacon or seed-oil free Chicken Nuggets. You'll get that bonus in every box for as long as you stay subscribed.

So visit GoodRanchers.com. Use the promo code Beck. Unlock your free meat for life.

Plus, get $40 off.

It's GoodRanchers.com. GoodRanchers.com. American meat delivered.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So, I mean, you were the youngest full professor at Harvard, at the law school. You're an emeritus now at Harvard. What do you see happening to Harvard and this -- this war, this battle between the Trump administration and Harvard?

ALAN: Look, it started with the people in government administration.

Harvard started on its decline, probably more than a decade ago. By adopting DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Which lowered standards for emission. Lowered standards for faculty.

And turned us into a mediocre university. We are a mediocre university, Harvard.

The Latin term shouldn't be veritas. It should be mediocritas. We technically have lowered our standards.

This is not about Jews, or about Israel. This is about lowering the standards for DEI. We also adopted a content called intersectionality, which says that the world is divided into two groups. The oppressors. Those are Americans, white, Jews. And the oppressed. People of color. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That's permeated the faculty.

Third, we've created these crazy departments of gender studies. Of Critical Race Theory. Of southeast Asian this. And these programs are nonacademic.

They are political.

They have agendas.

And they have destroyed the university.

And so I think we need to fundamentally root out, these hard left political, nonacademic courses.

And, of course, there's anti-Semitism as well.

And so I generally support Harvard a kick in their rear end.

I have a new book coming out in the summer, that's called Trump to Harvard. Go Fund Yourself.

And it lays out, how it's important to have targeted defunding. Schools like the Divinity School. The school that teaches Christianity has become the cesspool of anti-Semitism.

The public health department. A cesspool of anti-Semitism. Human rights has become a place of human wrong. So there's a lot of work to be done. It should be targeted. We shouldn't be denying visas to everybody. We should be denying them to those who would come in and cause terrible disruptions on the campus. So there's a lot of work to be done. And the president of Harvard is food. I assume he's trying his best.

But there are hard left people on the faculty. Who care more about promoting their progressive agendas. Then about teaching students.

You know, 60 years at Harvard. I never once expressed a personal vie in class. Never once. They didn't know what my views were on capital punishment, on Israel. You name it. None of it. I never expressed a personal view in class. My job was not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think. If they were conservative, I wanted them to go as a smart conservative. If they were liberal, I wanted them to be a better liberal.

So that's my job. But that's not what's going on at Harvard today. Today, it's becoming a place of indoctrination and propaganda.

GLENN: What do you say to -- there's this big thing going around now. You know, I was just a year away from curing, you know, tuberculosis, and the government pulled all of its funding out of my Harvard research.

ALAN: Terrible.

GLENN: And now these children are all going to do. How do you respond to that?

ALAN: Yeah. First, A, it's an overstatement. Harvard has $53 billion that can at that it can devote to curing cancer. But clearly, I mean, for example, one of the first reactions when they cut off the funds from Harvard research was one of the researchers made an announcement that said, oh, my God. The mice will now die.

We can't afford to feed a mice. You know how much it costs to feed a mice? Eleven cents a day to feed a mouse.

So a lot of overstatement, but I do think we have to have all the targeting. And we should not be cutting back on research at all.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz. I would love to do a podcast with you, on about the preventive state. You're always right on top of it. Thank you so much, Alan Dershowitz. Again, the name of the book is The Preventive State. Harvard law school professor ameritas and host of the Dershow.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.

The difference between debate and celebrating death

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.