The Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ — which seems eerily similar to 1984’s ‘Ministry of Truth' — proves that Americans’ First Amendment rights are in great danger. But when did one of those rights — our freedom of the press — become so unimportant to actual members of the press? When did journalists and media corporations stop working for the PEOPLE and start working for POLITICIANS instead? Glenn explains how Woodrow Wilson, the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, and a desire for power created a dark path AWAY from truth for members of the mainstream media…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So what happens when you can't say Rachel Lavigne is a dude, man. It's a dude. It's a dude.

What happens when you say, Rachel Lavigne probably shouldn't be the one we're listening to, when she comes out and says, pediatricians all agree on the importance of gender-affirming care for children. What happens when you can't question things? What happens when you can't have an opinion?

See, this is what the First Amendment is all about. The freedom of speech. The freedom to petition your government.

The freedom of press.

There is a really great book out, the know your rights -- know your Bill of Rights book.

And I talk about it in my book, addicted to you're welcome. And I talked about freedom of the press. And how important it is.

It's essential. If we are going to be free. You must be able to tolerate people saying crazy stuff. And when I say you, I especially mean the government. When the freedom of the press was first. And freedom of the speech was first put into the Bill of Rights. It was challenged. How far does that -- how far does that mean?

How far can you go?

Remember Edison, it was about 100 years later. He was like, I have a crowded movie theater. Because we're watching a movie. Don't cry fire.

So it took about 100 years before we got to that. But you can say fire, in a crowded movie house. You can't incite a riot. You can't incite panic. But I've been on stage, in several crowded theaters, all across the country. And I have said from the stage, fire!

There are certain things, like the press now is saying, Elon Musk, he's going to let people just say they're going to rape me, and give me threats of death, on Twitter.

No. No. That's against the law. That's against the law.

So if you break the law, by inciting violence, inciting a riot, well, then that's not freedom of speech.

That's breaking the law. Well, what's protected? Your opinion. Even believe it or not, lies or things you can't prove about the government. This is -- this was really well-thought out. About freedom of the press. Around the turn of the century in the 1800s.

They had the sedition act, and that's where the guys who just wrote the Bill of Rights were like, you know what, they're saying bad things about me, in the government. I don't like it.

And so we went back and forth, and they passed the sedition act.

Now, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing. He tried to do exactly the same thing, and stifle people. And now we're doing it again.

It rears its head, about every 100 years. And that should tell you something. Politicians and people never change.

We're having the same argument. So how do you -- how do you punish people?

When an author, an opinion guy, like I am. When a newspaper prints something, and the government says that's false, and the government has all of the tools at its disposal, it can hide documents. It doesn't have to for national security purposes, release certain information.

When they are the highest authority in the land, and you're like, no. I'm telling you, they're doing this.

How do you prove that?

And do you want the federal government, to be able to say, no. You can't say that!

Would you want Nixon to be able to say, to the Washington Post, you can't publish that!

Would you want the Pentagon to say to the New York Times, you can't publish those papers!

That stuff never happened. Imagine -- imagine how different it would be. How does a government ensure the freedom of the individual and the press, if they're the arbiter of truth?

How do you do that?

Our Founders actually came up with a couple of really good statements. Truth of opinions can't be proved. Allowing truth as a defense of freedom, is like asking a jury to say, what's the best food or drink?

It's an opinion. So you can't prove the truth, of opinions. So opinion is covered.

A citizen should have, and I'm quoting. Should have the right to say everything which is passion suggests. He may employ all of his time. All of his talents. And if he's wicked enough to do so, in speaking against the government matters. And using things, that are false, scandalous, or malicious.

Despite this, even if he condemns the principle of Republican institutions, centers the measures of our government, and every department and officer thereof. And ascribes the measures of the former, and conduct of the latter however upright to the basis motive, even if he ascribes to the measure and acts which never had existence. Thus violating at one, every principle of decency and truth.

He needs to be protected in his speech. Holy cow. You want to know how far it goes?

That's it. That's it. This was something incredibly new and novel.

No government had ever done anything like this. It was so radical, we're still debating it.

That's -- that's the key to our Founders. They were radicals. So much so, that we don't think of this, as old, dusty, and irrelevant. That's as irrelevant -- that's as relevant today, as anything else.

John Thompson wrote, the government cannot tell a citizen, you shall not think this. Or that upon certain subjects. Or if you do, it is at your own peril.

This was the first time, the government was the slave.

Not the other way around.

The master was the citizen. We could tell government what they can and cannot do. But we cannot have the government tell us, what we can and can't do.

Now, it took about 100 years, before all of this was dismantled again. Progressives started to dismantle free speech in the way that it would help them, and injure their foes.

But John Stuart Mill, and his book on liberality said, the silencing of opinion is a particular evil.

For if that opinion is correct, then we're robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.

And if it's wrong, we're deprived of a deeper understandings of the truth. In its collision with error.

Now, I brought up the progressives, because the White House Correspondents' Dinner happened this weekend. And nobody paid attention to it. Nobody paid attention to it.

Because we know who all of these people are. There are 3,000 people that attended this. And they all gave themselves a big round of applause. Because they all showed their vaccination certificates at the door. That's great. But what is this? How did this even begin?

What does to do with the DHS, and the ministry of truth?

I'll tell you, in 60 seconds. These days, kids grow up in a virtual world, they're practically raising each other through YouTube and TikTok, dancing through the shallow world, filled with strange challenges and weird stunts. It's very different growing up today.

With all that noise in their day, they need help. They need help finding purpose so they don't waste their lives. Or worse, lose the drive to understand and maintain the liberty that we all share.

You need to show them examples of what's possible. And connect them with a bigger vision of what other kids have achieved.

The Tuttle times, does just that. Tuttle Twins. They have a magazine. A monthly magazine for kids from the creators of the Tuttle Twins. And every issue has big ideas that promote personal responsibility. And freedom. Like, you know, owning their own health and education. As well as profiles about kids who started their own businesses.

You can now get access to the magazine at a reduced price, for $49 for an entire year. This will inspire your kids, and give them examples of other kids doing great things.

You know, it's basically what the school does. You know, every day, when they get in. When they watch the CNN magazine. You know, right at the beginning of school. That's really -- except, it's not like that. In fact, it's probably 100 percent different that happen that. 180 degrees in the other direction. This is about personal responsibility, and liberty. TuttleTwinsBeck.com.

Get the magazine. It's 49 bucks for 12 months. It's TuttleTwinsBeck.com. Ten-second station ID.

(music)

So the president has always had press conferences. And what changing in the 1900s, is the -- the press used to work for the people. Their idea was, that the people in Washington DC, are the guys who are corrupt. And have power. And are trying to steal money and power, from the people.

Woodrow Wilson and the progressives changed all of that. And they changed it. In 1914, Woodrow Wilson decided, I'm not going to give any more press conferences. And everybody was like, wait. What?

And he's like, no, I don't think so

And all of the reporters went crazy. He's like, okay. I'll have them from time to time. I'll have them. But I'm inviting only the people that I want to invite.

That's where the White House Correspondents' Association started. They started, because they saw the White House as an enemy. And the White House was trying to cut off access. And so the White House correspondents got together and said, hey. We're the ones who will cover. And you don't tell us, who will be in, and who will be out. Okay?

Then Woodrow Wilson had this idea, what if we just get them all together, and we make friends?

We just bring them into our circle?

This happened around the same time, they were starting with Colonel House, the best friend of Woodrow Wilson. When they started the Council of Foreign Relations. And no matter what it is today, what it was started as, was let's get the scholars, the politicians, and the media together to explain to them, so they can understand, and explain it to the people.

Because the people are too stupid. This is where you start getting the press, looking down their nose at the average American. Before that, it wasn't happening.

After the Wilson administration, they start thinking, that they are better. Because they know. Because they're informed. They talk to all the experts. They talk to the politicians. They know who they are. We just had dinner the other night. And we made mad passion and love after that.

And so that's -- they start gathering as a group of intellectuals, politicians, and media.

In 1920, I think, the first White House correspondents -- there's like 50 people there, in '24, Silent Cow goes. And Charlie Chaplin makes fun of him. But it was a very small group of just the correspondents.

It was a small group. They would put -- back in the '50s and '60s, Frank Sinatra would show up and sing. But there was no comedy until the '80s. That's when they started bringing the comedians on.

And the comedians used to be neutral. And kind of, you know, Jay Lenoish. So it wasn't -- you know, nobody's hair was on fire. And then in '94, Don Imus, a good friend of ours, went on -- went on the stage and started making fun of Bill Clinton.

And, you know, cigars. And everything else. Ninety-four -- it was '96, I think.

That's when -- that's when -- that's when things kind of changed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Thank you, Don Imus. But Don Imus was doing something that none of the rest of the press would. He actually talked about -- he burned everybody to the ground.

That's what should happen, and that is exactly the kind of stuff, this new disinformation governance board, is involved in. In fact, do we happen to have the clip from the weekend?

Here's Mayorkas, cut number seven. Here's -- this is the Secretary of DHS.

GLENN: Will American citizens be monitored?

VOICE: No.

VOICE: Guarantee that?

GLENN: He didn't --

VOICE: What we do -- we in the Department of Homeland Security, don't monitor American citizens.

VOICE: You don't. But will this board change that?

VOICE: No, no, no. The board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do, is gather together, best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: From foreign state adversaries.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

Mr. Secretary, follow-up, are you using any other agencies, that do monitor? Are you using agencies, from other countries, that will monitor?

They're not going to give you the truth anyway. But whenever anybody in the government says, oh. We're not going to -- I can guarantee you. They're already doing it.

We're already like, oh, yeah. In fact, I knew that question was coming. Because I've been monitoring between you and your culverts on the questions you're going to ask me today. Of course. Of course, they're monitoring.

STU: I love how they blow it off as like, hey, we're announcing this big initiative. It doesn't do anything though. Whatever you think two may do. It doesn't do those things. It does nothing.

It's a total waste of time. Don't worry about it at all. Because it's only -- it's a positive idea that does not accomplish a thing. That -- wait. What?