Season 5, Episode Twelve July 9, 2023

Hello! Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube! I’m your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, we’ll hear about the man who discovered Oxygen, the lord of the swimming pool, 1970’s New York City, and more free speech…but first, (Not the Headlines)!

There’s a lot of talk about the recent Supreme Court ruling about a woman in Colorado who didn’t want to create a website promoting a gay wedding. Comparisons are being made to another Supreme Court case involving a Colorado baker who didn’t want to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. There’s also a lot of talk about how this was a hypothetical case that had no business being in front of the Supreme Court. Well, I’ll see what I can find out, but first here’s my overall view of the premise. Should have this case been before the Supreme Court at all? Is it based on a hypothetical? Should the Supreme Court make judgments on hypotheticals? Jurisdiction is usually one of the first things the Supreme Court looks at before they agree to hear the case at all. By the time a case gets that far, it’s usually been through a thorough vetting process by both parties at every level where a ruling has been made. The idea that the Supreme Court would entertain a case that has no legal foundation is highly unlikely. A story about the ruling written for a publication called “them.” by Mathew Rodriguez says the case came about when a request was made to make a website for a gay wedding. I didn’t know weddings had their own websites, or why a wedding would need one, but whatever. Anticipating that as a web-designer, the woman in the recent case was looking for clarification, or so she claims, as to what the penalty might be if she were to be asked to design a website for a gay wedding. She wondered that because she’s a religious person, and doesn’t believe in gay marriage. That doesn’t mean she wouldn’t design a website for a homosexual. If a gay man or woman wanted a website for their plumbing business (pun intended), she’s happy to work with you to create an eye-catching website that’s sure to improve your sales. What she didn’t want to do was create a website celebrating same-sex weddings when she didn’t think they were right. Here’s where it gets tricky. Her beliefs are based on her religion. She doesn’t believe her talents, aka her artistic voice, should be used to promote something in which she doesn’t believe, regardless of what it is. In this case, it was gay marriage. She might also argue against making a website promoting Satanic beliefs for the same reason. But if you’re just a Devil worshiper who wants to promote his family-friendly restaurant, that’s a different story. So, while those who disagree with the ruling are calling it anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and calling for more separation of church and state, this isn’t a religion case. The Supreme Court made it clear that this is a free-speech issue. Although both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both covered in the First Amendment, the decision is being derided by it’s detractors as a religions case. Sure, her core beliefs are what prevent her from making the website, but her core beliefs are just as valid as yours. This isn’t about LGBTQ rights or discrimination. This is about making somebody else say something with which they don’t agree. In the article, the author quotes the plaintiff as saying, “If I continue creating for weddings consistent with my beliefs, the State of Colorado intends to fully come after me, Rather than wait to be punished, I decided to take a stand to protect my First Amendment rights. I shouldn’t have to be punished before I challenge an unjust law.”

She makes a good point. Here’s how I see it: If ignorance of the law is no defense, then clarification of the law is required. Her question was, if I refuse to create a website that promotes something with which I disagree, will I get charged under Colorado law? The fact that it was a gay wedding is irrelevant. As I’ve already demonstrated, it could just as easily been a website promoting circumcision. If she doesn’t believe it to be a healthy practice, whether or not it’s on the basis of religion, she shouldn’t have to make a website promoting circumcision. She would, of course, be accused of being anti-Semitic, but the press wouldn’t care about that. 

The story also mentioned the state organization in Florida called Equality Florida, which he says is at the forefront against the Governor’s so-called anti-LGBTQ agenda. He quotes the organization as saying the ruling creates a “foothold for refusing customized, ‘expressive services’ that would compel the creator to share a message with which they disagree.” I think they summed it up pretty well for being opposed to it. The only thing I would add is that the foothold of which they speak has already been created. It’s called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. But the statement from Equality Florida went on to add the “ruling neither creates a broad license to discriminate nor wholesale repeals vital civil rights protections.” Also correct. The real-world applications of this ruling will be minimal at best. It’s not likely to change a single thing in our everyday lives. If you’re a gay couple who, for some reason, wants a website for your wedding, I’m sure there are places that will happily make one for you. Just because you found one that doesn’t want to isn’t the end of the world. Don’t be a bridezilla! Besides, if she’s compelled to do the job for you by law, what are the chances you’ll be happy with the work? Why let them do it? They’re not going to do a good job for you anyway. They don’t think how you think. They don’t feel how you feel. It’s like hiring an advertising agency that doesn’t appreciate your product. Don’t do it. It’s a bad move.

But some in the LGBTQIA2S+ community think that everyone should be required to accept them as they deem themselves, and want laws that force everyone else do so. What they don’t seem to realize is that might be a violation of somebody else’s rights. The Supreme Court reminded us of that. What appeared on the surface to be a case about LGBTQ rights, was actually a case about free speech. The Supreme Court sided with free speech, as they should. Those who claim this is an anti-LGBTQ ruling is forgetting that the Supreme Court is also protecting the free speech of the very people they claim it will harm.

In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor said,“the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” So my question for Justice Sotomayor would be, “At what point do the rights of a protected class infringe on the rights of everybody?” 

Shouldn’t the rights of everyone have priority over rights that only apply to a protected class?

When did the Supreme Court determine the United States of America has different classes of citizens? Or is that only Justice Sotomayor’s opinion about the population of America?

Regardless, Justice Sotomayor, the Court didn’t give any business the right to refuse service to anybody. It was already in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution couldn’t have imagined there would come a time when we would have websites for gay weddings, but they knew that it was wrong to make people promote what they don’t believe. That’s why we’re free, according to the document they wrote, to tell the world, or anyone who will listen, how we feel about a topic, and not be forced to tell anyone how somebody else feels. Unless we want to. The woman who didn’t want to design a gay wedding website isn’t infringing on anybody else’s rights. They can still get a website made by somebody else. If they want to come back after they’re married and get a website built for their sex toy store, she just might agree. Just because your religious, doesn’t mean you don’t enjoy sex, right? God made it feel good for a reason. The only person on who’s rights could have been trampled in this case is the woman who didn’t want somebody else’s beliefs to be interpreted as her own.

By now, you might be wondering, “But Bob, where’s the ‘Not the Headlines’ part?” I’ll admit, this has been kind of a big story if you follow the courts or alternative lifestyle issues, or if you only watch mainstream media. But the fact is, we wouldn’t have these kinds of legal clashes if it weren’t for one thing: the failure of the Equality Act. One could argue that it hasn’t failed, but pending. So why did the largest lobbying group for the Equality Act disband in 2022? That would be Freedom for all Americans. They quietly told followers that they’ve already begun giving away their physical and monetary assets, and as they put it, “As the sun set on Congress in 2022, so too it sets on FFAA’s campaign. FFAA was a time bound initiative, designed as a short-term campaign to build toward the unique federal window of opportunity that has closed. We have made the decision that FFAAEF will dissolve, as designed.” It was designed to dissolve because when it was established, everyone thought Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States. That didn’t happen, and now with a Republican Senate, they realized they couldn’t get any more done. They took credit for the Respect for Marriage Act getting signed by President Biden and gave up. President Biden said he’s sign the Equality Act into law if it made it to his desk. So why hasn’t it? This act has been around since the 1970’s, and sometimes the House would pass it and sometimes the Senate would pass it, but never at the same time. While it aged, it got more specific about who’s covered by it, and more vague with the way it was written. The most common issue with the act today is the way some perceive it to favor transgender women over women who were born that way. Especially when it comes to sports. The vagueness comes in when the most recent version of the act put in the words, “gender identity” in place of “sex.” That opens the door for people who were born men declare they are now women, and get the same access to places where only women are now allowed, such as locker rooms, prisons, and little girls lavatories. The protections provided by the act are so broad that if a transgender woman wanted to become a Las Vegas Raiders cheerleader, they would almost automatically become one based on the law rather than the talent and beauty currently required. Otherwise, the Raiders would have a lawsuit on their hands. That’s why this ruling on the Colorado web designer is so important. What it says is that just because somebody believes they’re a female when they still have a penis, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to. Nobody can force you to think or say something you don’t believe. You have a Constitutional right to believe what you want, and say what you want. Today’s climate has demonstrated that the trans community not only demands that you accept them for whatever they claim to be, but the equality act will lawfully compel everyone else to accept it as well, even if they don’t understand it or believe it themselves. Even if you have a penis and testicles, I don’t think most people would have a problem saying, “thank you, ma’am” if you held the door open for them if on the surface you appear to be a woman. It’s when someone with a penis and testicles wants to compete against people who have vaginas in a sporting event that causes the problem. If you want to believe you’re a woman, that’s fine. But the Supreme Court gave gender-affirming care to those who believe in two genders with variations in between, and the freedom to express it without consequence. The Equality Act would take away those rights, especially in its current form.

Unfinished business liner

There’s a follow-up to a story on a previous episode of the Listening Tube. You may recall the college student who got a zero on her assignment because she used the words “biological women.” Well, the professor who objected to the term was reprimanded. Then the reprimand was rescinded. A story in the Cincinnati Enquirer explains why. The professor argued that her decision regarding the assignment was well within the boundaries of acceptable censorship outlined in the University of Cincinnati’s free speech policy, which is where this happened. It turns out that the University of Cincinnati does allow censorship in its classrooms. Despite a comprehensive volume of ways they claim to protect free speech, such as stating a commitment to “broad latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, learn, and discuss any issue” and proclaiming it’s not the university’s responsibility to protect people from other’s free speech, even if they find it abhorrent. But they do list a number of ways the law makes it okay to limit speech, such as after a certain time at night or at a certain place on campus. One of the exceptions, “Reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions in nonpublic forums” is one I haven’t been able to figure out. I think it means you’re not allowed to curse in the lavatory. Anyway, the last of five exceptions to free speech at the University of Cincinnati is the one the professor used to justify not allowing the words “biological women” to be used in the class. It reads: Content restrictions on speech that are reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose, such as classroom rules enacted by teachers. Pedagogical. What does that mean?

Look that up liner

Well, that’s pretty simple. Pedagogical is an adjective meaning relating to teaching, according to whatever dictionary my search engine used. It used the example, "innovative pedagogical methods.” In other words, it’s just how somebody teaches. So the University of Cincinnati allows anyone who teaches to censor words they don’t want to hear or read from their students, as long as the words are somehow related to the class. So, because it was a class related to gender, the professor had every right to not allow the words “biological women.” That’s like your shop teacher expecting you to describe how to make a bird house without using the words roof or hole. But regardless, it was on that rule alone that the reprimand for the professor was withdrawn. If this disturbs you, there is a silver lining. The professor was also ordered to do some extra training on the University’s free speech requirements prior to the beginning of this year’s fall semester. She must submit her syllabus for approval. I wonder what grade she’ll get... 

Let’s go back liner

1776

George Washington ordered the Declaration of Independence to be read out loud to members of the Continental Army in New York City for the first time. They may not have heard it very well over all of the traffic, but it seemed to rile up the troops nonetheless. The rest, as they say, is history.

1778

American Revolution: Louis XVI of France declares war on the Kingdom of Great Britain. That’s right! For those of you who forgot, France helped the United Colonies win the Revolutionary war.

1791

The Priestley Riots drive Joseph Priestley out of Birmingham, England. The riots lasted three days, while a mob burned down homes of so-called “Dissenters” who they felt were betraying the Church of England by creating another form of Protestantism. Priestly went to London, where he was vilified for his support of both the American and French Revolutions, so he didn’t stay long. He ended up moving to the new United States of America, where he distanced himself from politics and concentrated on science. He was a brilliant man, and built a laboratory in his home in Northumberland, Pennsylvania, where he would spend the last ten years of his life. He’s credited with discovering Oxygen and a host of other gasses, such as nitrous oxide and ammonia, as well as carbon monoxide. He’s also credited with discovering the carbonation of liquid, which we all enjoy today as soda pop, or soft drinks. You can still tour his home in Northumberland, and see the laboratory, which was ingeniously built so that any explosion that may occur during his experiments would blow away from the direction of the house itself. 

1868

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified guaranteeing African Americans full citizenship and all persons in the United States due process of law. It seems like we were just talking about that. Oh, yea. That’s right. It’s the reason Affirmative Action was struck down by the Supreme Court.

1913

Death Valley, California hits 134 °F (~56.7 °C), the highest temperature recorded in the United States. Climate Change! said nobody. My wife and I were there about a month ago. At that time, the temperature was a chilly 111. Twenty-three degrees colder! BRRRR!

1922

Johnny Weissmuller swims the 100 meters freestyle in 58.6 seconds breaking the world swimming record and the 'minute barrier'. Born in what is now Romania, he swam for the American Olympic team at the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris and the ‘28 games in Amsterdam, winning five gold medals as well as a bronze. Because of his success as a swimmer, he became a movie star. Despite his success as a swimmer, you might remember him as Tarzan (sfx). Weissmuller starred in 12 Tarzan movies, according to Wikipedia, as well as 16 Jungle Jim movies and 26 episodes of a Jungle Jim television show.

1955

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto is released by Bertrand Russell in London. It began with the following statement: “I am bringing the warning pronounced by the signatories to the notice of all the powerful Governments of the world in the earnest hope that they may agree to allow their citizens to survive.’

The manifesto was anti-nuclear war, and called for a conference of scientists tasked with examining the dangers and the possible elimination of humanity by weapons of mass destruction, which at the time was the atom bomb.

1973

John Paul Getty III, grandson of oil magnate J. Paul Getty, is kidnapped in Rome, Italy. I was in Air Force basic training with a guy named John Getty, and his family lived in Saudi Arabia. Naturally, a lot of people assumed he was part of the wealth family. He wasn’t, but if you were a pretty girl, he’s let you believe it all you wanted.

1977

Lightning strikes north of New York City around 8:40 pm, plunge the Big Apple into darkness. For almost 24 hours, in the sweltering July heat, during a time of financial and social turmoil. The bright lights of the big city went out, subways stopped working, idle traffic lights led to gridlock as people were forced to find other ways of transportation. More than a thousand fires erupted, and looting went virtually unchecked. Thousands would be later arrested for looting and vandalism. As the sun came up the next day, the city skyline was a silhouette, with no lights in the windows of the skyscrapers. A look back at the incident on all that’s interesting dot com says much of the Bronx was burned down, and equates the blackout with the rise of Hip Hop music. The story says the blackout provided the opportunity to loot music stores, taking the turntables and and mixers needed to become DJ’s. 

1985

Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior is bombed and sunk in Auckland, New Zealand harbour by French DGSE agents, killing Fernando Pereira. A member of the crew of the Rainbow Warrior at the time, Grace O’Sullivan, is now an Irish Member of the European Parliament, and just last week, she called on French President Emmanuel Macron to apologize to the crew members and the family of the one man who died in the bombing. A story in the Irish Times recounts the event. You may recall how the French denied involvement, even as New Zealand security forces arrested two French agents. A diplomatic frenzy ensued, leading to the French ambassador to the United Nations formally apologizing to the government of New Zealand, but not to Greenpeace nor to the victims of the attack. 

Phone and email liner

An interesting thing happened this week just as I thought I wouldn’t have anything to talk about. But, as this week’s edition of Not the Headlines would demonstrate, I do have strong feelings about our freedom of speech, and, if you’re a regular listener to the program, like Dave from Alabama who became my first paid subscriber (Thanks Dave! Spisak), you know I’m also vigilant about what the news isn’t telling us. A judge in Alabama also sees how important it is to not suppress information. His opinion is the result of a lawsuit brought by Attorney’s General from the states of Louisiana and Missouri alleging the Biden administration and social media companies were operating outside the law when it came to suppressing information. The judge agreed. In a lengthy ruling, the judge declared that certain departments of the United States Government, and more specifically, individual persons who work in those departments, as well as anybody who works for them, are prohibited from having any contact with social media companies. That may sound like a blanket statement, but the judge wasn’t vague. He named specific people in the Biden administration, as well as their subordinates, in many cases. This judge left no stone unturned when it came to who is forbidden to have any contact with social media companies on behalf of the government. Not only was the judge specific about who could not have any contact with social media companies, he was also specific about the types of contact that was forbidden. Among the departments prohibited are the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National institute of allergy and infectious diseases, as well as specific employees of those departments, the Centers for Disease Control and the Surgeon General of the United States, as well as employees of the departments. Those prohibitions are obviously the result of the suppression of speech during the Covid-19 pandemic. But there’s more. Even the Census bureau and several employees were named in the suit. Well, that doesn’t sound pandemic-related at all. But the big guns are still to come. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, yes, the FBI, and specific employees of the FBI, are prohibited from specific contact with social media companies, as is the entire Department of Justice, plus basically anybody who works in the White House, including the Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who was specifically named in the ruling. Not to mention the Secretary of Homeland Security and anyone in the department. There are others. Other departments and specific employees therein. 

The judge did deem some contact allowable. After outlining all the ways in which the government couldn’t communicate with social media companies, he did allow some things. Among them are reasonable ways in which the government might want to alert the public of a natural disaster or other threat to public safety. And again, the judge was much more specific than I’ll get here, but other protected areas were things like criminal activity and Constitutionally protected speech promoting government information and basically informing social media companies of posts that might mislead voters or voting requirements. But make no mistake. The line has clearly been drawn. This judge in Alabama did his homework and came to conclusions based on readily-available evidence and information provided by the plaintiff. And what I’m telling you here is just the tip of the iceberg. This judge wrote a 150-something page ruling that cited specific actions by specific persons as examples of the ways the Biden administration may have violated people’s right to free speech by pressuring a willing social media business to silence and limit the speech of opponents or alternate viewpoints. The government argues that they’re battling misinformation to save people’s lives. Certainly a worthy goal. But what it also implies is that Americans aren’t intelligent enough exist without government protection. I’m reminded of the man who designed a table saw that would prevent you from accidentally cutting off your fingers. I remember seeing it demonstrated on the David Letterman Show. He used a hot dog to replicate the effectiveness of his device, which suffered no more than a slight nick before the blade of the saw stopped spinning in the blink of an eye. It was if the saw itself had eyes, and recognized something it isn’t supposed to cut. When Letterman asked the man why his device isn’t on all table saws, he was told that the government can’t mandate it because every American has the right to cut his fingers off with a table saw if he wants to.

It seems the federal government is alright with us cutting off our fingers, but not considering opposing points of view. We’re living in a place where we can’t believe what we’re being told half the time, and the other half of the time we’re wondering what it is we’re not being told. Part of the reason for that is the collusion between the government and the social media companies. When the government can tell any media what to say or what not to say, we’re all in trouble. That’s exactly what the judge says was happening. There is an argument that the judge is limiting the free speech of the government, but it isn’t impeding any legitimate government activity. Plus, it’s not like the government is a corporation, with the same rights as a human being when it comes to these matters. The government is, and should be limited in it’s ability to influence those corporations to promote a certain viewpoint. If corporations have the same freedom of speech rights as individual people, which was the conclusion of the Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission in 2010, then if you want to influence the people, you do it through the corporations. It seems the democrats have had an advantage of that corporate influence when it comes to social media. And while it’s okay for Zuckereberg an Bezos and Musk to promote their own points of view on their media behemoths, it’s not fair for the government to instruct them on what to allow and what to omit, or even limit. 

In response to the judges ruling, the Biden administration is objecting, claiming the prohibition on meeting with social media companies prevent it from working “...on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes." The court memo filed Thursday, according to AOL, also quoted the government as saying, “These immediate and ongoing harms to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to Plaintiffs if a stay is granted, and for the same reason, a stay is in the public interest."

So, the federal government is saying it’s being harmed because it’s not able to meet in private with social media people. My first question would be, “Why do you need to meet with them in private?” Is it truly a national security concern? Who should decide if it is or isn’t? If it is a national security concern, how do we know that’s what your actually talking about in the meeting?

When a federal judge decides that a lawsuit brought by two states not only has standing, it concurs with the lawsuit and cites multiple examples of how the defendant, in this case the United States Government, probable broke the law by limiting the free speech of others, then at the very least we need to examine the situation. A preliminary examination from where I’m sitting doesn’t look good for the defendant. The sad part is, the defendant is the federal government, trying to use social media to suppress the digital opposition. 

Since the ruling, the Biden administration has been forced to cancel meetings that were already scheduled with social media representatives. A White House official said the department of Justice will review the ruling and then evaluate it’s options. In other words, they’ll see if they can find another way to suppress opposing views, or “misinformation.”

If we could trust the federal government to tell us the truth, this might not even be an issue. The evidence cited in the judge’s ruling demonstrates that we can’t trust the Biden administration to tell us the truth, despite claiming to be “the most transparent administration ever.” If the Biden administration wants to be transparent, they can start by telling us who brought the cocaine into the White House.

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly. Copyright 2023. Thank you for putting your ear to the Listening Tube. Be like Dave and subscribe today! I’m your host, Bob Woodley for thou ad infinitum.