1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:03,080
Speaker 1: So those of you who listened to the Armstrong and

2
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:05,720
Speaker 1: Getty Show a little or a lot are familiar with

3
00:00:05,800 --> 00:00:09,479
Speaker 1: the fact that we have been pushing for Professor Joshua

4
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:12,880
Speaker 1: Clover of the University of California Davis to get booted

5
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:16,239
Speaker 1: off a campus for repeatedly advocating the killing of cops.

6
00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:20,079
Speaker 1: David French, who is the is a senior writer for

7
00:00:20,120 --> 00:00:23,200
Speaker 1: The National Review and senior Fellow at the National Review Institute,

8
00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:26,960
Speaker 1: wrote a piece recently that is entitled there's a fake

9
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 1: outrage machine on the right also and suggests that we

10
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:32,760
Speaker 1: are part of said fake outrage machine. Oh, there's a

11
00:00:32,760 --> 00:00:35,199
Speaker 1: fake outmerage machine on both sides, no doubt about it.

12
00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:38,479
Speaker 1: Absolutely true. This is not one of those instances we disagree.

13
00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:41,280
Speaker 1: But so we've invited Mr French to come on the

14
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:43,440
Speaker 1: show and talk about the issue in general and our

15
00:00:43,520 --> 00:00:45,920
Speaker 1: little corner of the world. David, how are you, sir?

16
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:50,279
Speaker 1: I'm good. How are y'all? Excellent? Hey, listen, Uh, We're

17
00:00:50,440 --> 00:00:53,680
Speaker 1: especially interested in having this discussion with you because before

18
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:56,800
Speaker 1: uh we we joined in the call to get rid

19
00:00:56,800 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: of this guy, we discussed both on and off the air,

20
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:02,600
Speaker 1: whether it was the sort of thing which we hate,

21
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:06,160
Speaker 1: which is calling for somebody's job because we don't like

22
00:01:06,319 --> 00:01:09,920
Speaker 1: something they said, as opposed to calling for someone's job

23
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:14,720
Speaker 1: for you know, a serious offense, something deserving of it.

24
00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:19,440
Speaker 1: And we have the stance of if somebody says something

25
00:01:19,480 --> 00:01:22,800
Speaker 1: crazy and then they say I lost my head or

26
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:25,720
Speaker 1: I was trying to make a joke or whatever, we

27
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:30,559
Speaker 1: let people Okay, fine, then left right, Sah, you should

28
00:01:30,600 --> 00:01:32,640
Speaker 1: be able to move on from that. This guy has

29
00:01:32,640 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: been asked repeatedly you actually mean that. Yeah, I think

30
00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:38,800
Speaker 1: cops should be murdered. So what what are we getting

31
00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:42,640
Speaker 1: wrong in your opinion? Well, there's a there's a legalistic

32
00:01:42,720 --> 00:01:46,200
Speaker 1: aspect of this that asn't pregnant? Isn't pregnant? Is it

33
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:49,600
Speaker 1: present in the say, the Tucker Carlson case that I

34
00:01:49,600 --> 00:01:52,560
Speaker 1: think is important. And then there is sort of the

35
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:56,400
Speaker 1: cultural aspect. So the legalistic aspect of it is that

36
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:01,279
Speaker 1: because he's a public employee, he enjoys First Amendment rights,

37
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:04,960
Speaker 1: and as repugnant as that speech is, it's protected by

38
00:02:05,000 --> 00:02:08,519
Speaker 1: the First Amendment that there are there there's a long

39
00:02:08,560 --> 00:02:12,119
Speaker 1: line of case law that indicates that even if you're

40
00:02:12,120 --> 00:02:15,120
Speaker 1: talking about violence, even if you talk, for example, about

41
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: the violent overthrow of the US government. Even if you

42
00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: talk there's a Supreme Court case involving as someone who's

43
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: saying that if he was drafted, the first thing he'd

44
00:02:23,440 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 1: do when he got a wifle is go after President Johnson. Uh,

45
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:30,840
Speaker 1: that there is a wide burth of protection even for

46
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,080
Speaker 1: speech this repugnant. And so therefore you have a First

47
00:02:34,080 --> 00:02:37,720
Speaker 1: Amendment issue present here in the case, and the fact

48
00:02:37,720 --> 00:02:42,079
Speaker 1: that he is a public official factors in exactly how

49
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:44,760
Speaker 1: for folks who aren't into this sort of thing. Yeah,

50
00:02:44,880 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 1: so a public official is able to speak on a

51
00:02:48,520 --> 00:02:51,280
Speaker 1: matter what's what's called a matter of public concern, which

52
00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:55,480
Speaker 1: you generally means a matter of public controversy. So they're

53
00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:58,320
Speaker 1: going to enjoy First Amendment protected rights. So for example,

54
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:04,040
Speaker 1: if I'm upset because, uh, someone keeps drinking too much

55
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: of the coffee and the faculty lounge, that's not a

56
00:03:06,320 --> 00:03:11,799
Speaker 1: matter of public concern. But police community relations definitely are

57
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:15,360
Speaker 1: a matter of public concern. So, uh, public employees still

58
00:03:15,400 --> 00:03:18,480
Speaker 1: have these First Amendment rights, especially when they're not speaking

59
00:03:18,560 --> 00:03:22,880
Speaker 1: in their official capacity. Okay, fair enough, that's the legalistic

60
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:25,200
Speaker 1: part of it. I'm curious about the other half. So

61
00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:26,920
Speaker 1: the other part of it is and this is something

62
00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:30,600
Speaker 1: that I'm I'm concerned about in particular, is so there

63
00:03:30,720 --> 00:03:35,360
Speaker 1: is a difference in my mind between um, let me

64
00:03:35,440 --> 00:03:38,400
Speaker 1: let me just move it to like the Fox News scenario,

65
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:41,800
Speaker 1: like to help sort of understand the differences. So Chucker

66
00:03:41,840 --> 00:03:44,880
Speaker 1: Carlson is going about his business. Um, some of the

67
00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 1: things he says on the show are controversial, Summer. Not.

68
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:51,320
Speaker 1: What Media Matters does is not it critiques you show,

69
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,240
Speaker 1: of course, But what Media Matters does it goes back,

70
00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:57,120
Speaker 1: finds a bunch of old things that he says and

71
00:03:57,160 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: brings them forward as a new controversy to say, you know,

72
00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:04,840
Speaker 1: you called iraqis primitive semiliterate monkeys. What do you have

73
00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:07,160
Speaker 1: to say about that? And the reason why I call

74
00:04:07,240 --> 00:04:11,440
Speaker 1: that fake outrage is it's not because it's not that, Um,

75
00:04:11,480 --> 00:04:15,520
Speaker 1: it's fake to be upset at the primitive similiterate monkeys.

76
00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: It's at the whole enterprise. The whole exercise of digging

77
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:23,200
Speaker 1: around in somebody's past with the hope of finding something

78
00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:28,160
Speaker 1: really bad is a process that's destructive and people who

79
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:30,559
Speaker 1: are engaged in it. It's not like when the Media

80
00:04:30,640 --> 00:04:34,159
Speaker 1: Matters found this quote by Tucker, but they immediately started

81
00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:39,000
Speaker 1: weeping for the hurt feelings of Iraqis it was, yes,

82
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:41,760
Speaker 1: we've got him now. And one of the things that

83
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:45,320
Speaker 1: I think is disturbing that I have seen happen time

84
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 1: and time again on college campuses, is there there's a

85
00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:54,800
Speaker 1: version of this that occurs often involving relatively obscure professors

86
00:04:54,839 --> 00:04:58,080
Speaker 1: who are quite radical. Either it's something they might say,

87
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:00,760
Speaker 1: you know, in contemporary you know, they've they might publish

88
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:03,640
Speaker 1: an article or have an appearance on the MSNBC or whatever,

89
00:05:03,839 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 1: or you know, you go through, you don't like them,

90
00:05:06,320 --> 00:05:08,159
Speaker 1: you hear their radical So you go through and you

91
00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 1: try to find something that they said that's really really bad.

92
00:05:11,920 --> 00:05:15,400
Speaker 1: And then it doesn't mean it's not bad what they've said.

93
00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:19,719
Speaker 1: But the entire enterprise, the entire object here is to

94
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:24,680
Speaker 1: find the offensive speech, elevate the offensive speech, and then

95
00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:29,039
Speaker 1: punish the offensive speaker. Right, Okay, that's what I object to. Okay,

96
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 1: And and well said, well said, and we agree with

97
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:35,960
Speaker 1: you actually on that point. Counterpoint, Uh, students on campus,

98
00:05:36,040 --> 00:05:38,200
Speaker 1: he's a jerk, that's my counter And that's in a

99
00:05:38,279 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 1: strong point made well well said. Um students on campus

100
00:05:41,640 --> 00:05:45,200
Speaker 1: had been hearing there's a professor that advocates killing cops,

101
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:47,960
Speaker 1: and they thought that was amazing. So they set about

102
00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:50,760
Speaker 1: trying to figure out if it was true and who

103
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: was saying it, and they found this professor Clover and

104
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:58,800
Speaker 1: his tweets from and and an an interview, a rather

105
00:05:58,960 --> 00:06:02,640
Speaker 1: lengthy interview with San Francisco Weekly. I believe it was

106
00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:05,880
Speaker 1: and And. Frankly, David, I was a little surprised you

107
00:06:05,960 --> 00:06:10,840
Speaker 1: left this quote out of your article because it's awful

108
00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,120
Speaker 1: and it's one that's been discussed over and over again.

109
00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:16,800
Speaker 1: People think that cops need to be reformed, they need

110
00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 1: to be killed. Okay, Having said that, in Davis, California,

111
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:26,040
Speaker 1: a five minute walk from various university facilities, a young

112
00:06:26,080 --> 00:06:29,480
Speaker 1: police officer was gunned down in cold blood, slaughtered. Twenty

113
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:34,159
Speaker 1: two year old woman gunned down. And in the wake

114
00:06:34,240 --> 00:06:39,440
Speaker 1: of that shooting, Clover stands by his remarks and says, currently,

115
00:06:40,320 --> 00:06:43,640
Speaker 1: I have nothing Well, he has refused to to change

116
00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:45,760
Speaker 1: his opinion. He's refused to change what he says, to

117
00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:49,160
Speaker 1: soften it, to walk it back, anything. So he stands

118
00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:52,480
Speaker 1: there in the community pro cop killing, as cops are

119
00:06:52,480 --> 00:06:56,640
Speaker 1: gunned down. Now the First Amendment, I'm a First Amendment freak.

120
00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:01,159
Speaker 1: And I love, I love protects that go that far.

121
00:07:01,400 --> 00:07:04,479
Speaker 1: I don't resent them, I like them. On the other hand,

122
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:09,840
Speaker 1: there have to be things so repugnant, so awful that

123
00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:14,160
Speaker 1: the community as a whole can say no, tenure will

124
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 1: not protect you, especially given given the monochromatic ideology of

125
00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:23,600
Speaker 1: college campuses. The people have to have a say in

126
00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:27,240
Speaker 1: how people's universities are run. Now, I'm not for a

127
00:07:27,240 --> 00:07:29,680
Speaker 1: witch hunt for everybody who goes against the you know,

128
00:07:29,760 --> 00:07:33,000
Speaker 1: the majority view, because I would lead to exactly what

129
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:37,280
Speaker 1: you know, we don't want to happen. Well, yeah, I

130
00:07:37,280 --> 00:07:39,200
Speaker 1: I understand what you're saying, and I would say that

131
00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:43,120
Speaker 1: there is there are actual legal doctrines that support that

132
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:47,640
Speaker 1: there is speech that is so dangerous, for example, that

133
00:07:47,800 --> 00:07:51,080
Speaker 1: it can be punished, and for example, speech that can

134
00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:55,160
Speaker 1: be punished as speech that's inciting or incitement. And now

135
00:07:55,320 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 1: someone might say, well, his speech was incitement because he

136
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: advocated for cops killing killing cops and a cop was

137
00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:07,800
Speaker 1: actually killed, which is horrifying. Um, But incitement has legal

138
00:08:07,800 --> 00:08:14,000
Speaker 1: definitions in and so actual incitement isn't incitement involves trying

139
00:08:14,040 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: to uh ask people or demand that people engage in

140
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:21,760
Speaker 1: imminent lawless actions. So imagine you're on the corn house

141
00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 1: steps and you've got a pitchfork wielding mob in front

142
00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:28,040
Speaker 1: of you with torches and you say, this is one

143
00:08:28,040 --> 00:08:31,760
Speaker 1: of my fantasies, by the way, go on. In that case,

144
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:35,680
Speaker 1: what you've got is incitement because you're inciting imminent lawless action.

145
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:38,680
Speaker 1: But otherwise, you know, and there are other kinds of

146
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:43,760
Speaker 1: speech like obscenity and um, child pornography and kinds of

147
00:08:43,800 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 1: direct targeted harassment of individuals. So there's lots of things

148
00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:54,600
Speaker 1: where um uh speech can be limited and regulated uh

149
00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,640
Speaker 1: and is not protected by the constitution. This is not

150
00:08:57,720 --> 00:08:59,839
Speaker 1: one of those circumstances. And I think it's slice it

151
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 1: pretty thin whether it's incitement or not. But um, just

152
00:09:03,240 --> 00:09:06,160
Speaker 1: in general, I know it's actually not. It's pretty clear

153
00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:10,280
Speaker 1: under the jurisprudence, which doesn't make it any less repugnant.

154
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:12,320
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the thing that we have to say,

155
00:09:12,440 --> 00:09:16,160
Speaker 1: is there's a you can condemn the heck out of

156
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:21,080
Speaker 1: this guy, and should. He's awful, he's terrible. But the

157
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:24,120
Speaker 1: difference is when do you go from condemning him and

158
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 1: condemning his speech, and in this case, in this case

159
00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:31,040
Speaker 1: is when we do um and this doesn't refute your argument.

160
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:34,440
Speaker 1: But if he were, if he mentioned regularly in class,

161
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:38,240
Speaker 1: I think abortionist murder, or that I'm a Donald Trump supporter,

162
00:09:38,240 --> 00:09:41,600
Speaker 1: how how long do you think he would last standing

163
00:09:41,640 --> 00:09:45,040
Speaker 1: up for those free speech comments comments? Now, he would

164
00:09:45,040 --> 00:09:47,320
Speaker 1: not last long, and then he'd win his federal lawsuit.

165
00:09:47,400 --> 00:09:49,520
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is something that happens all

166
00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:53,600
Speaker 1: the time on college campuses, as colleges are imposed ridiculous

167
00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:56,719
Speaker 1: double standards on speech, and it's one reason why they

168
00:09:56,760 --> 00:10:00,280
Speaker 1: lose in federal court time and time again, because they

169
00:10:00,320 --> 00:10:03,800
Speaker 1: will bring down the hammer on certain kinds of speech

170
00:10:03,880 --> 00:10:06,560
Speaker 1: and stand up as guardians of the First Amendment on

171
00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:11,120
Speaker 1: other kinds when the when justice? When? When when the

172
00:10:11,160 --> 00:10:13,960
Speaker 1: actual First Ammber inquires a viewpoint neutrality from them? And

173
00:10:14,000 --> 00:10:18,040
Speaker 1: so they lose cases. Pack I've litigated against colleges for

174
00:10:18,080 --> 00:10:21,119
Speaker 1: more than two decades, and that's going to be satisfying

175
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:24,880
Speaker 1: work again. Yeah, there was a time I I don't

176
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:27,200
Speaker 1: know if it's still true, but it might be, But

177
00:10:27,240 --> 00:10:29,920
Speaker 1: there was a time when I think I sued more

178
00:10:30,040 --> 00:10:35,120
Speaker 1: universities than any other constitutional lawyer in the US. And

179
00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:38,360
Speaker 1: and what ends up happening is these universities lose, these

180
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:43,120
Speaker 1: cases time again. Pay attorneys fees, pay damages. But you're right,

181
00:10:43,200 --> 00:10:45,960
Speaker 1: the double standard is very real. And you see Davis

182
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:50,520
Speaker 1: has been has had its own issues with double standards

183
00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:53,760
Speaker 1: and then not too distant past, right. David French, senior

184
00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:57,839
Speaker 1: writer for National Review, Senior fellow at the National Review Institute,

185
00:10:58,360 --> 00:11:02,280
Speaker 1: and uh a joiner in of people disagreeing and not

186
00:11:02,480 --> 00:11:07,480
Speaker 1: hating each other. Now, lovely, David, Hey, a real pleasure.

187
00:11:07,520 --> 00:11:09,880
Speaker 1: Thank you for the time. Thanks for having me. I

188
00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:13,000
Speaker 1: really appreciate. All right, let's do it again. Thanks. Yeah. Well,

189
00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:14,640
Speaker 1: you know, you get a whole bunch of lawyers together,

190
00:11:14,679 --> 00:11:16,800
Speaker 1: you get different opinions. I don't agree with him that

191
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:19,240
Speaker 1: it is not a pretty thin difference at a time

192
00:11:19,240 --> 00:11:22,120
Speaker 1: when cops are being gunned down around the country for

193
00:11:22,200 --> 00:11:24,560
Speaker 1: a professor to say I think cops should be killed,

194
00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:27,440
Speaker 1: I don't think it. It is clearly not inciting violence

195
00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:29,920
Speaker 1: against cops, as David French does well. And I would

196
00:11:29,920 --> 00:11:32,520
Speaker 1: love to see the case adjudicated of a professor who

197
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:39,160
Speaker 1: repeatedly expresses something not only illegal but horrific and repugnant

198
00:11:39,520 --> 00:11:44,160
Speaker 1: that arguably has had horrible repugnant results. And the if

199
00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:46,959
Speaker 1: the board or the chancellors what's the term whatever the

200
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:50,560
Speaker 1: pubas of the University of California. I'll say, we can't

201
00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:54,400
Speaker 1: have this guy teaching young people and get rid of them.

202
00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:57,000
Speaker 1: I'd like to see that case tried. Yeah, yeah, me too.

203
00:11:57,280 --> 00:11:59,360
Speaker 1: I'd like to hear the arguments. We do have clips

204
00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:04,120
Speaker 1: of the week come up? Would we get any time

205
00:12:04,160 --> 00:12:07,880
Speaker 1: we talk to universities, you always play Pump Pump and circumcision?

206
00:12:08,120 --> 00:12:13,040
Speaker 1: Is there any Are there any other choices? Back to

207
00:12:13,200 --> 00:12:18,120
Speaker 1: college or animal house or okay, what's your alma mater?

208
00:12:18,280 --> 00:12:20,679
Speaker 1: Play the fight song because the Notre Dame fights on

209
00:12:21,760 --> 00:12:26,160
Speaker 1: lazy alright, the awesome I'll just forgiven. What do you

210
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 1: think our text line four five two nine five k

211
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:31,440
Speaker 1: f TC. You're listening to the Armstrong and Gutty show.

212
00:12:34,679 --> 00:12:37,080
Speaker 1: Good conscience of the nation