An op-ed titled “The First Amendment Is Out of Control” was recently published in the New York Times. In it, law professor Tim Wu argues that free speech arguments – especially for online speech – are now used to protect corporate interests and harm everyday citizens. While Glenn admits that he makes a persuasive argument, he lays out another take on what free speech STILL means: “You can speak your mind without fear of censorship or persecution.” Is that the version of free speech that our government and media are currently standing up for? Or are they instead trying to censor anyone who speaks out against their new “religion”?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I talked to you a little bit about the story in the New York Times yesterday. The First Amendment is out of control.

Tomorrow is Independence Day. And we should all review what freedom of speech is really meant for, and what it is. Now, it was written by a guy named would. He's a law professor at Columbia. (?) and he writes about tech and everything else.

And he says, First Amendment was a tool that helped the underdog. But sometime in this century, the judiciary lost the plot. Judges have transmuted a constitutional provision meant to protect the unpopular opinion, into an all-purpose tool of legislative nullification, that now mostly protects corporate interests. So he's making the case, that we've turned it upside down.

And I have to tell you, he makes a persuasive case here.

But he is wrong in the end. Let me just skip to this.

He's talking about regulation of the internet. Such regulation is not always perfect to be sure. But it represents a legitimate tool which democratic governments can stand up to private power. The next phase (?) the regulation of artificial intelligence.

I fear the First Amendment will be extended to the -- to protect machine speech. At considerable human cost. I 100 percent agree with that.

It's something I have been warning about, for about three decades. In our era, the power of private actors has grown to rival that of nation states.

True again. Most powerful are the big tech platforms. True again.

Which in their cocoon-liken compassing of humanity has grown to (?) in ways that would make totalitarian states jealous.

Correct again. In a democracy, no. Republic. The people ought to have a right to react and control such private power. As long as it does not trample on the rights of the individual.

Again, correct!

But thanks to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment has become a barrier to the government's ability to do that.

Free speech rights have been hijacked to suppress the sovereignty of humans. In favor of the power and companies. And machines.

Okay.

So wait.

But, no. There's a the difference between individuals, and the government.

And regulations, and suggestions. You want to regulate. Okay. Regulate.

And let's have that not going G through the administrative state.

Let's have that go (?) through Congress.

Let's have that debate. A serious debate about it.

We can do that. And I think the -- the right of the individual, is what will win in that. If we don't have some closed door, you know, Google writing the bill. But actual debate, the way Congress is supposed to work.

Then I think, free speech will win. Because it's a strong argument. For the people. But what the Supreme Court was talking about, was, well, now, wait a minute.

I think the government, you know -- maybe -- maybe we send it down to the lower court. And have them reexamine this.

Because should the government be able to just say, hey.

You really need to -- you need to silence these people P

No. The government (?) should never have that power. Ever. Ever. Ever.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone. It is why it is the first amendment.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press.

The way that the people can stand up against the government.

They can stand up against the government. They can question our government.

They can demand answers from our government. They have a press that should be completely separate from the government. To stand guard, against the government.

Remember, this whole document was made to stop a government from becoming tyrannical.

So if you're afraid of, you know, Trump or Biden becoming a tyrant, your answer, the only answer should be, return to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The freedom of speech thing, is so important. Again, it was the first.

But what it means is, you can speak your mind, without fear of censorship or persecution.

Now, that doesn't make you popular.

But it does mean that the government and those powerful institutions can do nothing against you, to stop you.

Would you like it if a church all of a sudden was in charge, and said

You can't say these things?

I mean, how many people on the left believe in burning the flag?

You have a right to do that.

Okay.

So why did the kid -- oh, gosh. Where was it? Never

In Oregon. The kid that burned rubber on the pride flag that was painted on the road.

He was just charged with a felony!

A felony!

What is that? Other than, a religion?

Or a government saying, this is what we stand for, and you will not tarnish it!

Excuse me?

I don't want that happening through a church. I don't want that happening through the government.

I don't -- I would like people to self-regulate. But things like peeling out on the pride flag. That happens sometimes, not because of homophobia. Sometimes it is homophobia.

Other times, it is just -- you know what, I'm a rebel. You are telling me, and jamming this down my throat.

No!

And it's their only way for freedom of speech. That's the case that is made for burning down the flag.

Why is it different on the pride flag?

See, we have a -- if we didn't have freedom of speech. We wouldn't understand anything.

Because the things that were said at some point or another, that have made progress, and pushed us into new areas. Have always seemed crazy. Or dangerous.

But they move us forward. Well, I'm not talking about speech that moves us forward, makes progress. I mean the speech that's dangerous.

Oh, really? Because that's what every authoritarian and theocratic (?) dictator always says. The problem is: Who is in charge of judging what's dangerous and not?

The church? The government? Academia? Some other group or organization that would have the power to silence people?

Remember, the only speech that needs protecting is the speech that either the majority doesn't like, or power doesn't like.

You know, the world was flat for a very long time.

And for centuries, that was the accepted view.

And challenging it seemed like (?) and later during the age of exploration.

Ferdinand Magellan. And Christopher Columbus. Dared to propose or demonstrate otherwise.

It was their courage to speak out and explore beyond the known boundaries. That led to an understanding of what the earth really was.

Now, the power didn't want it.

The church didn't want that.

The church would prosecute and persecute anybody.

You know how they got King Ferdinand to do it?

Gold.

I'm telling you, there's lots of gold. What happens if he's wrong. He falls off the edge of the earth. Big deal.

The idea that the sun revolves around the earth. Or is it the earth revolves around the sun. That faced significant resistance.

Copernicus and Galileo.

Pioneers, revolutionary idea, went against the power of the time.

In 1633, the Catholic Church, which was the power, tried Galileo, during the inquisition. And forced to -- forced him to recant under threat of torture.

Okay. Who is deciding what free speech is good? What's progress? What's not?

It's easy to see them in reverse. You know what Socrates was killed for? He was killed bit government. He went through a fair trial.

(?) you know what he was killed for? Because he was corrupting the youth of Athens.

Because he encouraged questioning the established norms and beliefs.

Anybody who ever says, don't -- you can't question that. Don't question that.

You should run from. Socrates was corrupting the youth, because he said, question everything. Jeer Don zero Bruno, I think was his name. (?) he's the guy who said there's infinite suns and innet worlds. He was burned at the stake, in the inquisition of 1600.

Martin Luther, as well as Martin Luther King. How about Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla? The war of currents. This was all about power, literally, and figuratively.

Power and money.

Here's Thomas Edison, who is using the system, to stifle invasion.

Edison wants (?) direct current. Because he was losing that battle, because it didn't make sense and it wasn't working.

He had to discredit Tesla.

And he did it through smear campaigns. And propaganda.

He had public demonstrations where he got this sick doctor to go, and electrocute animals, using Tesla's alternating current.

He would take down horses, dogs, whatever you have. (?) Tesla wants to put in your house.

Thank God we weren't afraid of the scare tactics. Because that's what we all have in our house today.

Or at least we will for a while, until they believe up with something even better. That you're not allowed to question.

If you can't challenge prevailing wisdom, if you can't propose a new idea, if you can't say, wait a minute. This doesn't make any sense, everything stops.

Progress depends on the free exchange of ideas. And if you get rid of your opposition, life falls apart. Even the Bible says, opposition in all things. You have to have the metal and the flint. It's when they rub together, when they strike against each other, that's when a spark is made. And that's when things change.

This is what we're arguing about right now. It should show you the health of America.

I mean, when you have a cold, the doctor might talk to you about, okay. I want you to take this, and this, and this. And just get some bed rest.

But when you have a cold, and you have cancer, the doctor is not talking about the cold. Okay?

He's talking about cancer.

Our cancer is so deep, we're down to the fundamentals. We're down to. Okay.

You can't lose freedom of speech.

You can't lose your -- your protection against your own civil rights. We're down to the big ones.

That's how sick this body is.

Meanwhile, they want you to yell and scream about Biden or Trump.

Or whatever. It's the fundamental rights, that are first expressed in our Declaration of Independence.

Something that was signed and agreed upon on July 2nd. Finally announced to the American people, on July 4th.

That we should be concentrating on.

I urge you, this Independence Day, tomorrow, and I know your family will roll their eyes and go, Dad. Please. At least mine do all the time.

Dad, please.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Tomorrow.

Read it. Understand it. Work through it with your kids.

Work through it with yourself. It's still alive today.