RADIOMarch 15, 2024

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?

KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

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.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado on Overcoming Grief in Dark Times | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 266

Disclaimer: This episode was filmed prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But Glenn believes Max's message is needed now more than ever.
The political world is divided, constantly at war with itself. In many ways, our own lives are not much different. Why do we constantly focus on the negative? Why are we in pain? Where is God amid our anxiety and fear? Why can’t we ever seem to change? Pastor Max Lucado has found the solution: Stop thinking like that! It may seem easier said than done, but Max joins Glenn Beck to unpack the three tools he describes in his new book, “Tame Your Thoughts,” that make it easy for us to reset the way we think back to God’s factory settings. In this much-needed conversation, Max and Glenn tackle everything from feeling doubt as a parent to facing unfair hardships to ... UFOs?! Plus, Max shares what he recently got tattooed on his arm.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Demonic Forces to Blame for Charlie Kirk, Minnesota & Charlotte Killings?

This week has seen some of the most heinous actions in recent memory. Glenn has been discussing the growth of evil in our society, and with the assassination of civil rights leader Charlie Kirk, the recent transgender shooter who took the lives of two children at a Catholic school, and the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, how can we make sense of all this evil? On today's Friday Exclusive, Glenn speaks with BlazeTV host of "Strange Encounters" Rick Burgess to discuss the demon-possessed transgender shooter and the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. Rick breaks down the reality of demon possession and how individuals wind up possessed. Rick and Glenn also discuss the dangers of the grotesque things we see online and in movies, TV shows, and video games on a daily basis. Rick warns that when we allow our minds to be altered by substances like drugs or alcohol, it opens a door for the enemy to take control. A supernatural war is waging in our society, and it’s a Christian’s job to fight this war. Glenn and Rick remind Christians of what their first citizenship is.