1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,920
You've had a dynamic where money has become freer than free.

2
00:00:10,780 --> 00:00:13,040
You talk about a Fed just gone nuts.

3
00:00:13,500 --> 00:00:15,700
All the central banks going nuts.

4
00:00:16,380 --> 00:00:17,880
So it's all acting like safe haven.

5
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:23,500
I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their

6
00:00:23,500 --> 00:00:25,260
currency, Bitcoin wins.

7
00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:28,480
In the world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the victor.

8
00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:31,380
I mean, that's part of the bull case for Bitcoin.

9
00:00:31,800 --> 00:00:34,240
If you're not paying attention, you probably should be.

10
00:00:36,680 --> 00:00:38,140
Preston Byrne, it's been too long.

11
00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:39,080
Welcome back.

12
00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:40,460
Hey, great to be here.

13
00:00:40,520 --> 00:00:41,060
Great to see you.

14
00:00:41,700 --> 00:00:42,480
It's great to see you too.

15
00:00:42,620 --> 00:00:45,020
I mean, we've got a lot to talk about.

16
00:00:45,140 --> 00:00:49,760
What the hell is going on in Europe and the UK with speech?

17
00:00:50,900 --> 00:00:54,400
Yeah, they need to be put back in their box.

18
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:58,760
And they get back in their box, back in their kennel.

19
00:00:59,940 --> 00:01:02,880
And we can talk about that at length.

20
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:11,240
Yeah, I guess I think maybe the best jumping off point is 4chan and Ofcom.

21
00:01:11,800 --> 00:01:16,820
You're very intimately connected with that.

22
00:01:16,960 --> 00:01:18,320
You're representing 4chan.

23
00:01:18,740 --> 00:01:22,300
For those in the audience who may be unaware of what's happening,

24
00:01:22,300 --> 00:01:27,440
why don't we just start there and then we'll get into the broader topic of speech

25
00:01:27,440 --> 00:01:33,600
sure so i think i think you know as with all bitcoin stories um you know our story begins

26
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:42,420
on the aisle of yap but i was i've been active in cryptocurrency since 2013 mostly as a lawyer

27
00:01:42,420 --> 00:01:46,820
for crypto companies i also had a an early enterprise blockchain startup we forked to

28
00:01:46,820 --> 00:01:52,600
ETHPOC2 and built really complicated financial services automation things on it. And that didn't

29
00:01:52,600 --> 00:01:56,980
succeed. So I went back into private practice. And one of the first things I did when I went back

30
00:01:56,980 --> 00:02:01,400
into private practice, because it had been a sort of longtime interest of mine, was represent U.S.

31
00:02:01,480 --> 00:02:07,860
companies that were focused on free speech. And at the time, back in 2017, 18, U.S. companies that

32
00:02:07,860 --> 00:02:11,980
had free speech moderation policies were being targeted by the American government, right? And

33
00:02:11,980 --> 00:02:16,320
they were being targeted by American service providers. And it wasn't such a big problem

34
00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:22,180
the foreign governments weren't quite the problem they are now. But what has happened is,

35
00:02:22,280 --> 00:02:26,980
is that because the United States has this thing, right, the First Amendment, which protects speech

36
00:02:26,980 --> 00:02:31,680
here, and that includes the right to host whatever you want, essentially, as long as it's legal,

37
00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:35,980
the right to publish software, you know, in the terms that you want, the right not to be told by

38
00:02:35,980 --> 00:02:40,960
the government what kind of software you run or how you choose to run it or who you choose to

39
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:46,920
allow to access it. There were forces both in the American government during the Biden

40
00:02:46,920 --> 00:02:50,700
administration and the Obama administration. And there are forces outside of the American

41
00:02:50,700 --> 00:02:54,540
government in the NGO space. And there are, of course, foreign countries who want to take that

42
00:02:54,540 --> 00:03:00,040
away from the United States. And so one of their strategies was to try to achieve via the back

43
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,800
door what they couldn't achieve via the front, because the US government can't boss around

44
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:08,140
American citizens and tell us what we can and can't say. The First Amendment, of course,

45
00:03:08,140 --> 00:03:13,580
is geographically bounded. It is limited to the United States. So there were a series of legal

46
00:03:13,580 --> 00:03:17,220
regimes that have been stood up across the world. One of them in Europe is called the Digital

47
00:03:17,220 --> 00:03:20,900
Services Act. One of them in the United Kingdom is called the Online Safety Act. Another one in

48
00:03:20,900 --> 00:03:25,860
Australia is also called the Online Safety Act and is substantially very similar to the UK regime.

49
00:03:26,380 --> 00:03:31,860
And all of those regimes came online at the beginning of 2025. And the UK was the first out

50
00:03:31,860 --> 00:03:37,400
the gate to try to enforce them. So they started sending letters in late February to American

51
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:41,780
companies. The first one was a mental health discussion board called SASU. Second one was a

52
00:03:41,780 --> 00:03:46,960
company called Gab, which is a social network. The third one was a discussion board called Kiwi Farms.

53
00:03:47,100 --> 00:03:52,260
And the fourth one was a was 4chan, which I think requires no introduction for most people. But it's

54
00:03:52,260 --> 00:03:56,920
a it's an image board and it's the source of a lot of Internet culture, completely anarchic.

55
00:03:57,220 --> 00:04:03,520
Everybody is anonymous on the website. There are no usernames. And, you know, that's it's it's a

56
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:08,500
totally, it's not lawless, right? They certainly obey American law. But compared to something like

57
00:04:08,500 --> 00:04:14,600
Facebook or X or Reddit or YouTube or any other mainstream social media platform, there's

58
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:20,240
significantly less content moderation that occurs there. And so the UK targeted these companies and

59
00:04:20,240 --> 00:04:25,680
said, okay, well, listen, you guys are the worst of the worst from our perspective. You host speech

60
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:31,140
and conduct that we would prefer not exist. And so when their censorship law came online,

61
00:04:31,140 --> 00:04:36,140
they started targeting these four companies, tiny, tiny, tiny companies. I mean, at one point,

62
00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:39,940
you know, it's not that way anymore, but at one point 4chan was described

63
00:04:39,940 --> 00:04:46,180
accurately as just a bunch of Mac minis running in a closet. And so essentially like that was the

64
00:04:46,180 --> 00:04:53,280
infrastructure that ran the site. And to prove the principle that they could take on what the UK

65
00:04:53,280 --> 00:04:58,160
and its political class regarded as the worst actors on the internet, and it could make them

66
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:03,520
obey the UK's rules. And so these companies are targeted one by one. I was put in touch because

67
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:08,620
I've been active in the free speech internet space for nearly 10 years with these companies one by

68
00:05:08,620 --> 00:05:13,880
one. And, you know, their clients made the decision, each one of them, one at a time,

69
00:05:14,060 --> 00:05:20,920
right? They said, listen, we believe that the principle here is the idea that American civil

70
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:27,260
rights on the internet require defending is so important that we cannot give an inch to the

71
00:05:27,260 --> 00:05:32,040
United Kingdom on this front. And, you know, certainly I'm sympathetic, right, to foreign

72
00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:35,460
governments, you know, foreign countries have their own rules, they have their own ways of doing

73
00:05:35,460 --> 00:05:39,960
things, the world is not the United States. But the thing that distinguishes these four targets

74
00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:44,820
from, you know, a company like an X or a Facebook or a Google is that they have absolutely no

75
00:05:44,820 --> 00:05:49,280
operational footprint outside of the United States. And so when the UK was trying to censor

76
00:05:49,280 --> 00:05:55,560
these targets, as it continues to do to this day, the UK was essentially saying our rules,

77
00:05:55,560 --> 00:06:00,760
which are expressed to be applicable outside of the jurisdiction. There's a language in the

78
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:05,580
statute which says this is extraterritorially applicable outside of the UK. Our rules get to

79
00:06:05,580 --> 00:06:11,160
govern what Americans do on American servers, and you have to answer to us. And the principle of

80
00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:17,220
that, if we concede it, the First Amendment ceases to exist effectively as something which exists

81
00:06:17,220 --> 00:06:22,860
online. And so these four clients decided to fight back. 4chan and Kiwi Farms in particular

82
00:06:22,860 --> 00:06:29,000
decided to bring a lawsuit against Ofcom in the District of Columbia, which we brought in August.

83
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:34,620
And also what we've been doing in parallel to that is we've been advancing both communication

84
00:06:34,620 --> 00:06:38,780
with the executive branch. We've been ensuring that the executive branch knows what's going on,

85
00:06:38,780 --> 00:06:42,500
that they receive copies of these censorship notices. Obviously, we have no visibility into

86
00:06:42,500 --> 00:06:47,920
what the executive branch chooses to do and how it chooses to do it. But we have been serving as a

87
00:06:47,920 --> 00:06:51,300
source of information for them. We've been also ensuring that these censorship notices

88
00:06:51,300 --> 00:06:56,160
get presented to Congress. We now know as a matter of public record that Congress is considering

89
00:06:56,160 --> 00:07:02,080
introducing a foreign censorship shield statute. We don't know what's in it. And we ourselves,

90
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:07,900
the legal team for 4chan and Kiwi Farms developed in coordination with a fellow named Colin Crossman,

91
00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:13,740
who's the deputy secretary of state for the state of Wyoming, a draft bill called the Granite Act,

92
00:07:13,980 --> 00:07:19,540
like the ROC, which stands for Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion.

93
00:07:19,540 --> 00:07:29,560
And what Granite does is it provides a censorship shield law, which would effectively blunt any further attempts to enter the United States by one of these foreign countries.

94
00:07:30,220 --> 00:07:32,780
We know the federal government has seen a copy of that law.

95
00:07:32,860 --> 00:07:41,180
We don't know whether they're going to choose to follow the form of that law themselves and any legislative reform that they're going to proceed with in the new year.

96
00:07:41,660 --> 00:07:43,920
But essentially, it's been a multi front.

97
00:07:43,920 --> 00:07:51,120
This year has been it started out as just one guy repairing foreign censorship demands.

98
00:07:51,420 --> 00:07:55,960
And the whole process has snowballed to the point where now we're seeing executive action on this.

99
00:07:56,200 --> 00:08:04,240
We have confirmation from members of Congress, including Senator Eric Schmidt, that their own legislative solutions will be forthcoming.

100
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:07,380
We have our shield bill proceeding in Wyoming.

101
00:08:07,380 --> 00:08:14,200
We have strategic litigation being waged by ourselves and also by other entities like NetChoice.

102
00:08:14,380 --> 00:08:20,800
They're not part of the effort, but they have been fighting UK online safety act style laws in accordance with their mandate.

103
00:08:21,740 --> 00:08:24,520
And recently, just this week, in fact, it's today's what?

104
00:08:24,680 --> 00:08:25,980
Today's the 19th of December.

105
00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:33,080
So on the 15th, they got an age verification mandate, which is very similar to the OSA struck down by a federal judge in Louisiana.

106
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:39,760
then on the 17th so two days ago they had another rule which was a content mandate in the state of

107
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:44,540
Arkansas very similar to the UK online safety act that was preliminarily enjoined so they got an

108
00:08:44,540 --> 00:08:48,680
injunction a temporary injunction in that case which means it's very likely that they're going

109
00:08:48,680 --> 00:08:53,480
to get a permanent injunction and that law will be struck down so what we've seen is you know the

110
00:08:53,480 --> 00:08:58,820
foreign governments have been pushing pushing pushing this content this way of looking at the

111
00:08:58,820 --> 00:09:04,020
internet and saying, you know what, the internet should not be a free place. It should be a place

112
00:09:04,020 --> 00:09:08,520
which is regulated and tightly controlled by us and not in accordance with the First Amendment,

113
00:09:08,660 --> 00:09:13,420
but by our rules. And what's happened is there's been a response across the board, legislation,

114
00:09:14,140 --> 00:09:20,100
litigation, and executive action, and also education, right? Letting the American bar know

115
00:09:20,100 --> 00:09:24,540
and letting the American populace know what's going on overseas, how they're trying to enter

116
00:09:24,540 --> 00:09:28,460
the United States, the manner in which they're doing it. And we're starting to really reach some

117
00:09:28,460 --> 00:09:32,880
some inflection points where that that process now effectively is moving under its own power.

118
00:09:33,320 --> 00:09:36,280
Whereas a year ago, really, there were only a handful of people pushing.

119
00:09:36,900 --> 00:09:39,380
So if I, you know, if I dropped dead of a heart attack tomorrow,

120
00:09:39,980 --> 00:09:43,020
this is whatever is going to happen is still going to happen, which is great,

121
00:09:43,020 --> 00:09:47,520
because it means that, you know, my efforts representing these four clients

122
00:09:47,520 --> 00:09:53,640
will not have been in vain. But it's because now the whole American system is waking up and

123
00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:59,200
a legal response is beginning to form. So that's the view from 30,000 feet is that the foreign

124
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:04,000
censors coordinated a series of, and this has been planned for years, many, many years. The

125
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:10,740
first call I had with the UK on the topic of the Online Safety Act was in 2023 in relation to a US

126
00:10:10,740 --> 00:10:15,720
company, a free speech oriented social media company. And a senior civil servant at the home

127
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:20,440
office said, listen, how are you planning to implement the Online Safety Act? And I responded

128
00:10:20,440 --> 00:10:25,060
to him that, you know, we're not planning to implement the Online Safety Act. And if you want

129
00:10:25,060 --> 00:10:29,060
to censor my client, word for word, essentially, I said, you're going to have to land ground troops

130
00:10:29,060 --> 00:10:33,340
on the East Coast and seize their servers by force. And to be blunt, I don't think the UK is

131
00:10:33,340 --> 00:10:38,440
prepared to do that at the present time. But essentially, yeah, that's that's it's been a

132
00:10:38,440 --> 00:10:44,120
long, long, long fight. And finally, we're starting to see traction at the federal level

133
00:10:44,120 --> 00:10:49,560
in state legislatures. And I'm very optimistic that over the course of the next year, we're going

134
00:10:49,560 --> 00:10:54,240
to see meaningful legislative developments, which will essentially redraw the rules of

135
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:55,880
the internet in America's favor.

136
00:10:57,140 --> 00:10:59,300
Well, first off, thank you for your service.

137
00:10:59,420 --> 00:11:02,580
It's incredibly important work because it seems existential.

138
00:11:02,740 --> 00:11:09,480
So is the UK and, you know, I mean, Europe with their Online Safety Act, are they essentially

139
00:11:09,480 --> 00:11:12,560
assuming that the US government should cooperate with them?

140
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:19,060
And I think, yeah, I think they're assuming that the US government doesn't have the

141
00:11:19,060 --> 00:11:22,660
capacity to respond to them. I don't think they're assuming that there will be cooperation.

142
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:27,080
If the Biden administration had continued, or if we were under a Harris administration,

143
00:11:27,080 --> 00:11:32,720
I think you would see, if not active cooperation, then you'd certainly see willful blindness to

144
00:11:32,720 --> 00:11:36,640
their activities and you wouldn't see any legislative or executive momentum to stop it.

145
00:11:37,340 --> 00:11:40,980
As was indeed the case under the Biden administration, they were serving notices,

146
00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:46,000
they were giving reciprocal treatment to notices that the Germans were serving on American citizens

147
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:49,540
under the German censorship law, something called the Network Enforcement Act or the NETS-DG.

148
00:11:50,280 --> 00:11:54,640
And so they, you know, they largely ignored this. And we told them, listen, this violates the First

149
00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:59,360
Amendment. What are you doing? And they ignored our correspondence. We told the Trump administration

150
00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:04,080
about this, right? And the notices, we didn't, you know, hear anything back, but the notices from

151
00:12:04,080 --> 00:12:08,660
the German government against this particular target immediately stopped being served. So,

152
00:12:08,840 --> 00:12:13,940
you know, that's the difference in the change at the top. The U.S. government certainly,

153
00:12:13,940 --> 00:12:19,360
you know, it can't tell these countries what to do, but it has the option to decide whether it's

154
00:12:19,360 --> 00:12:24,200
going to resist. And I think under a Biden administration, it would not have resisted at

155
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:28,580
all. I think it would have just kind of let them roll over Americans' rights because it serves

156
00:12:28,580 --> 00:12:33,680
their political interests and their political objectives to do so. There are forces in the

157
00:12:33,680 --> 00:12:38,120
US government on both parties who are very much not in favor of free speech on the internet as

158
00:12:38,120 --> 00:12:45,960
the First Amendment understands that term. So yeah, I think that's the answer to that question.

159
00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:50,920
I'm not sure if it satisfactorily answers that. No, it does. And this goes far beyond just free

160
00:12:50,920 --> 00:12:58,620
speech too, because I know a lot of these acts from UK and European Union, the European Parliament

161
00:12:58,620 --> 00:13:04,440
more broadly, they want to basically kill encryption too, and then encryption, introduce

162
00:13:04,440 --> 00:13:11,140
these back doors to any app that is allowing their users to use and then encryption to communicate

163
00:13:11,140 --> 00:13:18,220
with each other. And so, I mean, this is not only an attack on free speech, but also a surveillance

164
00:13:18,220 --> 00:13:24,060
mechanism on top of it. And it's pretty egregious. Yeah. And I mean, I think we've had those,

165
00:13:24,300 --> 00:13:28,880
we've had the encryption wars here in the United States for 30, 40 years as well, right? There

166
00:13:28,880 --> 00:13:33,880
There have been attempts to break encryption at various times by various administrations.

167
00:13:34,620 --> 00:13:49,230
And there are always people I guarantee you there are people within the current Trump administration who aren fans of encryption But ultimately we have a system That system has constitutional guardrails And the job of the First Amendment lawyers to enforce those guardrails whenever

168
00:13:49,230 --> 00:13:54,150
possible, as robustly as possible, as quickly as possible to prevent encroachment on Americans'

169
00:13:54,350 --> 00:14:00,130
individual rights. And so from our point of view, it's something which is just so important

170
00:14:00,130 --> 00:14:05,990
that you have to get involved immediately. You have to stop it immediately. And I don't think

171
00:14:05,990 --> 00:14:09,650
the UK was expecting. I don't think they're used to that in their own country. I think what they're

172
00:14:09,650 --> 00:14:14,410
used to is lengthy judicial review procedures. Those judicial review procedures take forever to

173
00:14:14,410 --> 00:14:19,270
resolve. It results in minor modifications to the scheme. They're not used to the idea of

174
00:14:19,270 --> 00:14:25,550
Americans riding into battle and getting a TRO, a temporary restraining order, to tell a random

175
00:14:25,550 --> 00:14:30,090
federal judge telling the entire federal government in all 50 states, guess what? You can't do this

176
00:14:30,090 --> 00:14:33,070
on a nationwide basis anymore. That's not something that they're accustomed to because

177
00:14:33,070 --> 00:14:39,270
the judicial system doesn't have the power to do it. So I think what we've seen is a clash of

178
00:14:39,270 --> 00:14:46,730
systems, a clash of cultures, legal cultures, and foreign governments that really didn't understand

179
00:14:46,730 --> 00:14:52,090
that just because, for example, with the GDPR, the data protection, the European data protection

180
00:14:52,090 --> 00:14:56,730
rule, just because all of America rolled over when they decided to roll that out on a global basis

181
00:14:56,730 --> 00:15:02,310
didn't also mean that we would roll over when they decided to go after the First Amendment on

182
00:15:02,310 --> 00:15:08,330
a global basis. I think they're qualitatively different rules. And so they should have expected

183
00:15:08,330 --> 00:15:13,650
a qualitatively different response. But their experience dealing with the Americans and

184
00:15:13,650 --> 00:15:18,830
internet, European internet regulation before, taught them that that wasn't something that we

185
00:15:18,830 --> 00:15:24,450
were going to do. And I think that that was a mistake. Yeah. So bringing this back to 4chan and

186
00:15:24,450 --> 00:15:31,610
Kiwi, you guys sued in DC federal court on August 28th, alleging Ofcom's orders, do not bind them in

187
00:15:31,610 --> 00:15:35,190
the United States that the orders were not properly served. Interesting to learn more about

188
00:15:35,190 --> 00:15:39,990
how they were served, that any attempt by U.S. court to enforce them would violate the first,

189
00:15:40,170 --> 00:15:45,530
fourth, and fifth amendments. So let's talk about how they were not properly served.

190
00:15:46,410 --> 00:15:51,130
And then from there, what's happened since August 28th? What has the back and forth been like,

191
00:15:51,130 --> 00:15:56,430
if there has been any? Sure. So we filed, Ofcom announced that they were going to fine

192
00:15:56,430 --> 00:16:04,490
4chan 20,000 pounds sterling on August 13th or 14th. Two days later, Kiwi and 4chan,

193
00:16:04,590 --> 00:16:09,670
through a press release that my law firm issued, announced their intention to file suit in DC.

194
00:16:10,490 --> 00:16:17,470
We then did file suit in DC on the 28th. And when you've got an entity on the other side,

195
00:16:17,470 --> 00:16:22,210
which is potentially, right? So they're arguing that there is sovereign instrumentality in the

196
00:16:22,210 --> 00:16:26,710
United Kingdom, which presents some interesting problems from a litigation standpoint, because

197
00:16:26,710 --> 00:16:30,870
they may benefit from sovereign immunity. Now, that's a live issue in the case. I'm not going to

198
00:16:30,870 --> 00:16:34,550
go into that in too much depth, because we've yet to file our opposition, and they're going to file

199
00:16:34,550 --> 00:16:42,510
their reply. But the issue there, right, from our perspective, is that they sent these notices by

200
00:16:42,510 --> 00:16:47,750
email to the United States. They just said, hey, here's an email, you must do this. And we want

201
00:16:47,750 --> 00:16:53,210
confirmation, as is the established legal position here in the United States time and time and time

202
00:16:53,210 --> 00:16:57,370
again, that if you want to get an American to do something, you cannot just send them a letter from

203
00:16:57,370 --> 00:17:03,010
overseas. You have to serve them a legal process. That legal process has to comport with American

204
00:17:03,010 --> 00:17:07,690
due process requirements and generally speaking also has to comport with the requirements under

205
00:17:07,690 --> 00:17:12,050
an applicable international treaty, whether it be the Hague Service Convention or the Mutual

206
00:17:12,050 --> 00:17:16,870
Legal Assistance Treaty procedure between the two countries or letters rogatory between two courts.

207
00:17:16,870 --> 00:17:38,290
And so none of that was used. It was just sent by email. So we are highly confident that these orders, if Ofcom came over here and tried to say, hey, 4chan and Kiwi Farms are now obliged to follow our instructions, a U.S. court would say with Ofcom as the plaintiff and rather than with us as the plaintiffs, that they would say, listen, no, this order was not validly served.

208
00:17:39,110 --> 00:17:41,190
So there are two questions we've asked the court to resolve.

209
00:17:41,290 --> 00:17:43,190
The first one is, were the orders validly served?

210
00:17:43,710 --> 00:17:47,830
And if the orders were validly served, right, then we have to answer the second question.

211
00:17:48,090 --> 00:17:48,990
We don't think they were.

212
00:17:49,130 --> 00:17:53,230
So at that point, we're going to be asking the court, listen, the order wasn't validly

213
00:17:53,230 --> 00:17:53,470
served.

214
00:17:54,090 --> 00:17:58,430
So from our perspective, the second question about whether it's constitutional to enforce

215
00:17:58,430 --> 00:18:02,390
here is moot, right, effectively, because the case should end, because we should just

216
00:18:02,390 --> 00:18:04,010
say, listen, the order wasn't validly served.

217
00:18:04,370 --> 00:18:06,910
There's no ripeness on the second question.

218
00:18:07,370 --> 00:18:08,150
And the case ends.

219
00:18:08,290 --> 00:18:25,950
And that's really all we're asking for. We're not asking for damages. We're not asking for injunctions, various other things. We're just asking for confirmation. As a practical matter, we're asking for confirmation that these orders weren't validly served, which would then confirm the position that my clients aren't obliged to follow them.

220
00:18:25,950 --> 00:18:30,370
Now, in response to that, obviously, very legal, correct, legally correct position.

221
00:18:31,090 --> 00:18:35,190
Ofcom responded by alleging that they are completely immune from suit.

222
00:18:35,570 --> 00:18:42,410
Right. So there's no there's there's there's no way that we can sue them because they're saying that they're a sovereign instrumentality of the United Kingdom.

223
00:18:42,890 --> 00:18:45,890
And the way that works is we have a law called the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

224
00:18:45,890 --> 00:18:58,430
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act says that subject to certain limited exceptions, if an entity is a sovereign entity or in conducting sovereign things engaged in sovereign activity, it is immune from suit in American courts.

225
00:18:59,190 --> 00:19:06,750
And that means that even though we're not asking for financial damages or anything else, if it's a threshold issue, it's a jurisdictional issue.

226
00:19:06,750 --> 00:19:20,050
So if Ofcom is a sovereign instrumentality and if Ofcom is engaged in sovereign conduct that is not subject to one of the exclusions under the FSIA, then what happens is the case is dismissed, right? It goes away forever.

227
00:19:20,050 --> 00:19:37,530
And so they're entitled to do that. But part of the reason we brought the suit was to demonstrate to legislators in Washington that law reform was needed in order to head this off because this is the expected response if an American goes to court and seeks an order from a US court.

228
00:19:37,530 --> 00:19:41,290
not seeking very much, right? Just confirmation. Listen, we just want the court to confirm

229
00:19:41,290 --> 00:19:46,850
that this order wasn't validly served. Can you please tell us that, that a sovereign on the

230
00:19:46,850 --> 00:19:50,390
other end of that lawsuit is going to turn around and seek to have the case dismissed

231
00:19:50,390 --> 00:19:56,730
and is going to use every legal lever available to avoid a US court from reaching that determination.

232
00:19:57,530 --> 00:20:01,610
And so we've also done parallel to this as we proposed a law, the Granite Act that I referred

233
00:20:01,610 --> 00:20:07,030
to earlier, which would take sovereign immunity away from these foreign sovereigns if they attempt

234
00:20:07,030 --> 00:20:10,870
to get into the United States and push around American citizens. And it would also create a

235
00:20:10,870 --> 00:20:16,170
civil cause of action that allows an American citizen to sue that entity and obtain financial

236
00:20:16,170 --> 00:20:21,130
damages against them. So the case is the case. We have the issues. They've made their arguments.

237
00:20:21,270 --> 00:20:24,490
We're in the process of making ours. They're going to make some more arguments still after that.

238
00:20:25,250 --> 00:20:29,570
But one of the purposes of bringing the lawsuit was to demonstrate to Washington,

239
00:20:29,970 --> 00:20:34,010
which I'm very confident we have done, and I'm very confident the message has been heard,

240
00:20:34,010 --> 00:20:40,050
that American law currently disadvantages the American defender and massively advantages the

241
00:20:40,050 --> 00:20:45,570
foreign attacker. Because if the foreign attacker comes in, you have this enormous threshold issue

242
00:20:45,570 --> 00:20:50,850
to get over of sovereign immunity. And that limitation is self-imposed. It's not imposed

243
00:20:50,850 --> 00:20:56,050
by foreign law. It's imposed by American domestic law. And so that's one of the reasons we brought

244
00:20:56,050 --> 00:21:00,190
the suit is to ensure that there's a record, a comprehensive documentary record showing

245
00:21:00,190 --> 00:21:05,450
that this is the case and to and to tell Washington, listen, this is the problem.

246
00:21:05,450 --> 00:21:09,370
And this is exactly where you need to get involved and apply a fix, because ultimately,

247
00:21:09,370 --> 00:21:14,070
if it's federal legislation, you can pass all the state legislation you want, as we

248
00:21:14,070 --> 00:21:16,150
are indeed trying to do with the Wyoming Credit Act.

249
00:21:16,150 --> 00:21:18,410
But the fix has to be at the federal level.

250
00:21:19,190 --> 00:21:23,650
And and we you know, I'm very, very, very confident that a fix along.

251
00:21:23,810 --> 00:21:24,890
I haven't seen the federal bill.

252
00:21:25,190 --> 00:21:28,950
I do know that one is being worked on because it's public information that one is being

253
00:21:28,950 --> 00:21:34,510
worked on, but I'm very confident that the federal government is going to be commencing

254
00:21:34,510 --> 00:21:36,950
a legislative response to this problem in due course.

255
00:21:37,910 --> 00:21:39,510
Something along the lines of the Granite Act.

256
00:21:40,090 --> 00:21:44,690
So ideally, right, it's going to be along the lines of the Granite Act. The federal government

257
00:21:44,690 --> 00:21:49,290
has definitely seen the Granite Act, including its most recent iterations, which are currently

258
00:21:49,290 --> 00:21:54,570
non-public. But yeah, we'll see what they do. I'm optimistic that we're going to see some action in

259
00:21:54,570 --> 00:21:59,610
new year um but it really that's i don't have a lot a ton of visibility in that process because

260
00:21:59,610 --> 00:22:04,250
that's about i'm a solo practitioner you know working working nights and weekends from my house

261
00:22:05,210 --> 00:22:11,450
and so drafting federal legislation is a little bit above my pay grade yeah but if it is aligned

262
00:22:11,450 --> 00:22:16,970
with what you presented in the granite your proposal for the granite act you describe it as

263
00:22:17,850 --> 00:22:24,250
mutually assured destruction a system of this mutually destruction yeah so if if they follow

264
00:22:24,250 --> 00:22:28,370
Well, so what the Granite Act does, it has really two pieces, a shield and a sword.

265
00:22:28,590 --> 00:22:34,850
So the shield states that an entity operating in the United States, a foreign order, which

266
00:22:34,850 --> 00:22:38,330
has served on that entity, which would, if served by an American government entity, violate

267
00:22:38,330 --> 00:22:41,390
their constitutional rights, is not enforceable here, right?

268
00:22:41,430 --> 00:22:42,650
Which is already the position.

269
00:22:43,190 --> 00:22:47,210
But if you set it out in a statute and make it very clear, instead of responding to a

270
00:22:47,210 --> 00:22:51,030
foreign censor with a 20-page memo, what you do is, which we have done, right?

271
00:22:51,150 --> 00:22:54,230
What you do is you respond to the foreign censor by saying, here's the statute, go away.

272
00:22:54,250 --> 00:22:59,250
Right. So please stop sending us stupid letters. The letters are stupid now. Right. To be clear.

273
00:22:59,530 --> 00:23:08,390
But but it's a little more complicated to exhibit its stupidity as it would than it would be if we had a statute which which set out the position very clearly.

274
00:23:08,870 --> 00:23:15,310
The second thing it does on the shield side is it prevents any U.S. government agency from cooperating or serving or giving effect to those notices.

275
00:23:16,370 --> 00:23:22,270
And it basically says that a U.S. state actor can't cooperate with like the Biden administration did.

276
00:23:22,270 --> 00:23:24,270
It says you can't give effect to an order.

277
00:23:24,470 --> 00:23:27,510
And if you do give effect to that order, Zorro, will you stop it?

278
00:23:27,910 --> 00:23:31,190
My dog is whimpering at the bottom of the stairs in the background.

279
00:23:31,450 --> 00:23:37,690
So it says that if you do cooperate with that notice, then what will happen is, you know,

280
00:23:37,710 --> 00:23:40,150
there's a civil cause of action against the government agency that did it.

281
00:23:40,190 --> 00:23:43,670
So that'll prevent any cooperation from the DOJ or the Department of State or something

282
00:23:43,670 --> 00:23:44,130
like that.

283
00:23:44,410 --> 00:23:46,530
It also creates a sword, right?

284
00:23:46,570 --> 00:23:50,990
I call it a turbo laser, a thermonuclear civil cause of action in podcasts and things like

285
00:23:50,990 --> 00:23:51,250
that.

286
00:23:51,250 --> 00:24:12,050
And what that does is it allows the American to counter sue or sue because it's not, you know, it's a separate proceeding. So it allows an American to sue a European censor for three times the amount of the threatened fine in an American court. And it takes sovereign immunity away from that European censor with respect to, you know, with respect to that claim.

287
00:24:12,050 --> 00:24:23,010
So essentially, if you send a letter to an American citizen under this regime, the American citizen on receiving the letter will know that letter is not going to be whatever that threat that letter contains.

288
00:24:23,350 --> 00:24:25,430
It's not going to be enforceable in the United States.

289
00:24:25,430 --> 00:24:34,410
And moreover, because they receive the letter, they now have a civil cause of action where they can bring it against the sovereign entity, the agency and anyone working for the agency jointly and separately.

290
00:24:35,070 --> 00:24:38,450
And they can seek to make them liable for damages in an American court.

291
00:24:38,450 --> 00:24:43,190
and those damages would be then recoverable in principle against sovereign assets custodied

292
00:24:43,190 --> 00:24:49,870
at American banks. So all told, this is not designed to create a lucrative practice suing

293
00:24:49,870 --> 00:24:54,690
foreign governments in American courts. It is designed to deter foreign notices from ever being

294
00:24:54,690 --> 00:24:59,370
sent in the first place because they know that firstly, they're never going to get those orders

295
00:24:59,370 --> 00:25:04,090
enforced here. And secondly, that if they attempt to enforce them at all or even threaten them,

296
00:25:04,230 --> 00:25:08,430
right, they will have to pay a very steep political price for that, which is not the

297
00:25:08,430 --> 00:25:12,090
case now, right? Now they can send as many letters as they want. It costs them nothing.

298
00:25:12,690 --> 00:25:18,050
The response is in fact very expensive from the American side of the equation because you have to

299
00:25:18,050 --> 00:25:23,370
get highly specialized lawyers willing to work for free for small targets running, you know,

300
00:25:23,370 --> 00:25:28,790
federal litigation in our federal courts, you know, without compensation, right? So that's not

301
00:25:28,790 --> 00:25:35,470
a sustainable or scalable way to defend the American constitutional perimeter. If however,

302
00:25:35,470 --> 00:25:40,850
you turn around and you say, okay, well, this is now catnip for a plaintiff's council and it's

303
00:25:40,850 --> 00:25:44,070
really worthwhile and you can do the work on contingency. And there's a big pot of gold at

304
00:25:44,070 --> 00:25:47,130
the end of the rainbow. You're going to have lawyers, you know, queuing up around the block

305
00:25:47,130 --> 00:25:51,330
to defend American civil rights. And it's going to communicate to these foreign governments that

306
00:25:51,330 --> 00:25:56,150
even if, right, for whatever reason, they decide it's worth their while to send these notices into

307
00:25:56,150 --> 00:26:01,130
the U S they're not going to get anything, right? They're not going to be able to enforce them here.

308
00:26:01,130 --> 00:26:22,030
So it's designed to redraw the boundary, tell foreign governments within this red line, right, that's America's turf. Don't cross it. If you have a question or a query and you're really interested in knowing whether the communication you're sending to an American citizen violates their First Amendment rights, that's not the American citizen's problem anymore. It's your problem, which is exactly how it should be.

309
00:26:22,030 --> 00:26:41,790
So if the federal government copies that approach in any meaningful way, I think that the foreign censorship problem will end largely. And I think it will end more or less overnight. And then we will have a new operating system, legal operating system for the Internet. And it'll be really interesting to see what happens over the course of the next 30 years with a law like that in the books.

310
00:26:42,390 --> 00:26:47,570
So that's the objective is basically to prevent this from happening anymore because it's the threat.

311
00:26:47,650 --> 00:26:48,590
It's the intimidation.

312
00:26:48,690 --> 00:26:52,170
It's not necessarily the enforcement because Ofcom can't enforce their orders here.

313
00:26:52,290 --> 00:26:52,870
We know that.

314
00:26:52,990 --> 00:26:53,750
Ofcom knows it.

315
00:26:53,810 --> 00:26:54,590
The U.K. knows it.

316
00:26:54,650 --> 00:26:55,690
The U.S. government knows it.

317
00:26:55,750 --> 00:26:56,470
Everybody knows it.

318
00:26:56,810 --> 00:26:58,870
But what happens is you go to a tech company.

319
00:26:58,990 --> 00:27:05,190
You talk to their highly risk averse legal team that likes occasionally going to London for a conference or something like that.

320
00:27:05,270 --> 00:27:07,890
And you say, hey, we're going to throw you in jail if you don't follow our rules.

321
00:27:07,970 --> 00:27:08,450
And guess what?

322
00:27:08,570 --> 00:27:09,390
They follow the rules.

323
00:27:09,970 --> 00:27:11,630
And their constitutional rights are limited.

324
00:27:11,630 --> 00:27:12,250
as a result.

325
00:27:22,820 --> 00:27:28,760
203 multi-sig. You have one key on the hardware wallet, one key on your mobile device, and Block

326
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:33,920
stores a key in the cloud for you. This is an incredible hardware device for your friends and

327
00:27:33,920 --> 00:27:39,140
family, or maybe yourself who have Bitcoin on exchanges and have for a long time, but haven't

328
00:27:39,140 --> 00:27:43,480
taken a step to self-custody because they're worried about the complications of setting up a

329
00:27:43,480 --> 00:27:47,740
private public key pair, securing that seed phrase, setting up a pin, setting up a passphrase. Again,

330
00:27:47,740 --> 00:27:50,340
And BitKey makes it easy to use, hard to lose.

331
00:27:50,540 --> 00:27:54,300
It's the easiest zero to one step, your first step to self-custody.

332
00:27:54,460 --> 00:27:58,080
If you have friends and family on the exchanges who haven't moved it off, tell them to pick up a BitKey.

333
00:27:58,080 --> 00:27:59,300
Go to BitKey.World.

334
00:27:59,460 --> 00:28:03,700
Use the key TFTC20 at checkout for 20% off your order.

335
00:28:04,200 --> 00:28:06,840
That's BitKey.World, code TFTC20.

336
00:28:07,160 --> 00:28:07,600
What's up, Freaks?

337
00:28:07,940 --> 00:28:11,360
Have you noticed that governments have become more despotic?

338
00:28:11,740 --> 00:28:12,540
They want to surveil more.

339
00:28:12,600 --> 00:28:13,520
They want to take more of your data.

340
00:28:13,900 --> 00:28:17,120
They want to follow you around the internet as much as possible so they can control your speech,

341
00:28:17,120 --> 00:28:21,260
to control what you do. It's imperative in times like this to make sure that you're running a VPN

342
00:28:21,260 --> 00:28:27,280
as you're surfing the web, as we used to say back in the 90s. And it's more imperative that you use

343
00:28:27,280 --> 00:28:32,420
the right VPN, a VPN that cannot log because of the way that it's designed. And that's why we

344
00:28:32,420 --> 00:28:38,620
have partnered with Obscura. That is our official VPN here at TFTC built by a Bitcoiner, Carl Dung,

345
00:28:39,040 --> 00:28:43,500
for Bitcoiners focused on privacy. You can pay Bitcoin over the lightning. So not only are you

346
00:28:43,500 --> 00:28:48,780
private while you're perusing the web with Obscura. But when you actually set up an account,

347
00:28:48,920 --> 00:28:53,800
you can acquire that account privately by paying in Bitcoin over the Lightning Network. Do not

348
00:28:53,800 --> 00:28:58,420
be complacent when it comes to protecting your privacy on the internet. Go to Obscura.net,

349
00:28:59,240 --> 00:29:07,220
set up an Obscura account, use the code TFTC for 25% off. When I say account, you just get a token.

350
00:29:07,220 --> 00:29:12,220
It's a string of token. It's not connected to your identity at all. Token sign up,

351
00:29:12,220 --> 00:29:17,580
pay with bitcoin completely private turn on obscura surf the web privately obscura.net use

352
00:29:17,580 --> 00:29:23,740
the code tftc for 25 off i think one of the more important things to really dig into here is this

353
00:29:23,740 --> 00:29:30,140
is all rooted in poor free speech laws in the countries that are bringing these lawsuits against

354
00:29:30,780 --> 00:29:38,300
american companies i think you're particularly well suited to critique uh british and the

355
00:29:38,300 --> 00:29:44,780
that's speech laws in the uk because you practiced over there you got um you you know that that system

356
00:29:44,780 --> 00:29:50,140
very well and i think this is something you've been highlighting recently um is the fact that

357
00:29:50,140 --> 00:29:58,360
the uk free speech framework is broken beyond repair and so i think diving into what the

358
00:29:58,360 --> 00:30:04,700
landscape of free speech if it even exists in the uk looks like today obviously a ton of headlines

359
00:30:04,700 --> 00:30:10,020
over the last year with British citizens going and put in prison for social media posts

360
00:30:10,020 --> 00:30:11,460
and other things.

361
00:30:11,460 --> 00:30:17,000
It seems completely insane to somebody like myself who lives in America and expects Western

362
00:30:17,000 --> 00:30:24,120
democracies to respect free speech as much as we do here in the United States.

363
00:30:24,160 --> 00:30:28,200
But I think it's becoming clear that free speech is something that is somewhat unique,

364
00:30:28,200 --> 00:30:33,060
at least in the way that it was written in our Constitution, is somewhat unique here in

365
00:30:33,060 --> 00:30:33,800
the United States.

366
00:30:33,800 --> 00:30:38,920
Free speech, free speech in the UK. I mean, it exists the way they define it, but it doesn't

367
00:30:38,920 --> 00:30:44,120
exist the way that Americans define it. There's an old joke about an American and a Russian having

368
00:30:44,120 --> 00:30:48,080
a drink together at a bar. And the American says to the Russians back during the Cold War,

369
00:30:48,500 --> 00:30:52,440
you know, America is such a free country. I can walk right up to the gates of the White House and

370
00:30:52,440 --> 00:30:56,440
I can curse out and criticize the president of the United States right in front of the White

371
00:30:56,440 --> 00:31:00,260
House. And they can't do anything to me. And the Russian says, well, we have free speech, too.

372
00:31:00,260 --> 00:31:08,320
And the American says, really? He goes, yeah, I can walk right down to Red Square, right up to the front gates of the Kremlin, and I can criticize President Reagan all I want.

373
00:31:08,320 --> 00:31:14,500
And so that's the difference is that there's a there's a realm of political.

374
00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:27,720
The United Kingdom has certain qualitative judgments by which the content of the content of speech can be regarded as sufficiently offensive or insulting or abusive.

375
00:31:27,720 --> 00:31:34,620
and what those terms mean is generally defined by the current accepted political and cultural

376
00:31:34,620 --> 00:31:39,200
consensus in the government. The United States doesn't have that because our rules focus on

377
00:31:39,200 --> 00:31:44,560
making sure that speech rules are content neutral, right? So you ask, what is the character of the

378
00:31:44,560 --> 00:31:49,860
speech, right? Rather than what is the content of the speech before you proceed to the analysis of

379
00:31:49,860 --> 00:31:53,340
whether you can regulate it. So in the United States, I can walk up to the White House and I

380
00:31:53,340 --> 00:31:57,140
and say, you know, I think, you know, I think President Trump is a dummy, for example, I'm

381
00:31:57,140 --> 00:32:01,360
something I'm allowed to say, but what I can't do is threaten him, right? I can't, and I'm not going

382
00:32:01,360 --> 00:32:04,240
to say what that threat might look like because it's the internet, but I can't threaten the

383
00:32:04,240 --> 00:32:09,080
president, right? I can't threaten the cop standing outside the door, but regardless of who is in the

384
00:32:09,080 --> 00:32:13,420
White House, it should be possible to assess whether a threat has been made or not, right?

385
00:32:13,460 --> 00:32:17,680
So that's, that's something which is objectively verifiable, whether a threat has taken place.

386
00:32:17,960 --> 00:32:23,120
Now, the criticism piece, right, is something where, again, regardless of who is in the White

387
00:32:23,120 --> 00:32:28,840
house, you can change the criticism all you want, but the identity of the target and the content of

388
00:32:28,840 --> 00:32:33,400
speech doesn't change its nature, which is that it's critique or it's criticism. In the United

389
00:32:33,400 --> 00:32:37,520
Kingdom, however, they have rules, particularly on the internet, section 127 of the Communications

390
00:32:37,520 --> 00:32:43,520
Act 2003 is a good example, where grossly offensive speech is something which the state

391
00:32:43,520 --> 00:32:47,940
is permitted to intervene on. That is inherently a subjective judgment, whether something is grossly

392
00:32:47,940 --> 00:32:52,580
offensive or not. And if you then go and you ask a British judge, right, well, where's the line

393
00:32:52,580 --> 00:32:56,740
between offensive and grossly offensive, they kind of shrug and they say, well, you know,

394
00:32:56,880 --> 00:33:01,680
it sounds grossly offensive to me because, you know, anyone who heard that statement would

395
00:33:01,680 --> 00:33:07,100
doubtlessly be offended by it when they heard it. And so that's been used. That's in other cases,

396
00:33:07,180 --> 00:33:11,760
right? In the real world, you have abusive, threatening or insulting words of behavior,

397
00:33:12,020 --> 00:33:17,060
right? And abusive, threatening and insulting. Those are also terms which are inherently

398
00:33:17,060 --> 00:33:21,360
subjective, right? Abusive or insulting particularly. And you've seen cases where

399
00:33:21,360 --> 00:33:26,020
someone burned a Quran outside of the Turkish embassy in London, right? There was a very

400
00:33:26,020 --> 00:33:31,500
specific political act derived from, you know, Turkey has a long history of a complicated

401
00:33:31,500 --> 00:33:36,600
relationship between secularism on which the state was founded and more religiously motivated

402
00:33:36,600 --> 00:33:41,480
politics, which is currently running the state. And so it was an inherently political act going

403
00:33:41,480 --> 00:33:45,860
to the embassy and burning a Quran saying, listen, I disagree with the involvement of religion

404
00:33:45,860 --> 00:33:51,720
in Turkish national politics. So that guy, Hamid Koskin was his name. He was arrested,

405
00:33:52,020 --> 00:33:59,140
right? And he was tried and convicted, I believe, or no, he was tried and acquitted of a public

406
00:33:59,140 --> 00:34:02,800
order offense. But now the crown is appealing, right? They said, well, actually, no, we think

407
00:34:02,800 --> 00:34:08,060
that was sufficiently abusive and insulting because anyone would have been. And we think

408
00:34:08,060 --> 00:34:13,280
the judge wrongly decided this case. And in the United States, that would fall squarely within

409
00:34:13,280 --> 00:34:18,520
protected speech. Was anyone being threatened? No. Was he threatening to cause him physical

410
00:34:18,520 --> 00:34:23,720
harm to anybody? No. Was it his Quran that he was burning? Yes. So regardless of the subjective

411
00:34:23,720 --> 00:34:29,880
perception of offense or abuse or insult being felt by anyone who is watching it, in the United

412
00:34:29,880 --> 00:34:33,400
States, we'd say, well, that was still a protected act of expression, right? Because it's not within

413
00:34:33,400 --> 00:34:38,160
the categories of speech which we seek to control under our constitutional system, which look at the

414
00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:42,800
content of the speech, which is the necessary inquiry if you're asking, well, is someone offended

415
00:34:42,800 --> 00:34:46,380
by the speech, inherently what you're doing there is you're looking into the content of

416
00:34:46,380 --> 00:34:51,540
the conduct, the substance of the idea that's being communicated, and you're punishing the

417
00:34:51,540 --> 00:34:54,960
person for the substance, right, rather than the nature of the speech itself.

418
00:34:55,500 --> 00:34:57,740
And so they don't really have our doctrine there.

419
00:34:58,080 --> 00:35:03,560
And the UK Online Safety Act requires American companies to remove speech, which is illegal

420
00:35:03,560 --> 00:35:10,060
there, which effectively ports their domestic speech regime as an internet regulatory regime,

421
00:35:10,060 --> 00:35:15,400
which obliges Americans to remove speech, which is illegal in the UK, but perfectly legal in the

422
00:35:15,400 --> 00:35:21,340
United States. And that is one of the, incidentally, we haven't even, in the 4chan case, we haven't

423
00:35:21,340 --> 00:35:25,720
even reached that point in the analysis, right? Because they haven't rolled out and started

424
00:35:25,720 --> 00:35:30,860
seeking to enforce those content moderation rules. What they sought to do was to compel 4chan

425
00:35:30,860 --> 00:35:36,360
to produce a risk assessment, an audit, an internal audit, essentially, where they were going to write

426
00:35:36,360 --> 00:35:40,720
a document where they confessed their sins, said how they complied with the rules and said how they

427
00:35:40,720 --> 00:35:44,800
were going to not – said how they weren't complying with the rules and how they intended

428
00:35:44,800 --> 00:35:48,300
to come into compliance. And we looked at that and we said, sorry, that's compelled speech under

429
00:35:48,300 --> 00:35:52,560
the First Amendment. We don't have to explain our content moderation decisions to you. And

430
00:35:52,560 --> 00:35:56,500
threatening us by saying that if you don't produce this report, confessing your sins,

431
00:35:56,580 --> 00:36:00,980
well, that violates the Fifth Amendment. And moreover, you're asking for an internal document

432
00:36:00,980 --> 00:36:05,500
that we may or may not have produced and you're doing it without a judicial warrant. That violates

433
00:36:05,500 --> 00:36:06,980
It's the Fourth Amendment, right?

434
00:36:07,060 --> 00:36:08,600
So it's the First, Fourth, Fifth Amendment.

435
00:36:08,920 --> 00:36:15,260
We have cases on all of these things that tell us that here in the U.S., the conduct

436
00:36:15,260 --> 00:36:22,440
of refusing a foreign censor's order to testify against yourself, admit your sins and explain

437
00:36:22,440 --> 00:36:26,080
your content moderation practices violates our constitution at multiple points.

438
00:36:26,360 --> 00:36:31,240
And we just decided, OK, we can either sit here and wait and ignore the notices or we

439
00:36:31,240 --> 00:36:32,400
can punch them on the nose.

440
00:36:32,400 --> 00:36:41,120
Right. And we can say, OK, we're going to explain to the entire American bar that the case has been viewed tens of thousands of times, the documents on that case.

441
00:36:41,820 --> 00:36:45,480
So we can explain to the entire American bar. We can explain to Washington, D.C.

442
00:36:45,480 --> 00:36:51,920
We can explain to you and we can explain to anyone else who might be interested all in one in one clean sweep.

443
00:36:52,040 --> 00:37:00,660
Exactly what you're asking, exactly why we object and exactly how what kind of law reform is needed in order to prevent this from happening again.

444
00:37:00,660 --> 00:37:04,740
through the simple act of filing a lawsuit, which is published in the District of Columbia,

445
00:37:04,740 --> 00:37:09,740
which a lot of lawyers are going to read. And that's another part of the reason why we did it.

446
00:37:09,740 --> 00:37:15,840
So the hurdles that we have to get over on the sovereign immunity point, I'm not going to beat

447
00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:19,900
around the bush. They are substantial. We do have arguments. We will be making them.

448
00:37:20,700 --> 00:37:25,000
But the sovereign immunity's defense that they raised is a formidable one.

449
00:37:25,000 --> 00:37:47,660
And our point that we've been making to Washington is that when you have a coordinated global effort from 31 different sovereigns, 30 different countries, the member states of the EU, the United Kingdom, Australia, and there are some smaller entities that have similar rules that might want to try the same thing, New Zealand and Singapore in particular, and that are purporting to have extraterritorial effect in the United States.

450
00:37:47,660 --> 00:37:54,080
when you that is the problem that you face it is not sufficient to be sitting here and saying okay

451
00:37:54,080 --> 00:37:58,420
we're going to tie americans hands behind their back with our own rules and sovereign immunity

452
00:37:58,420 --> 00:38:02,120
defenses and that's something which is going to be sustainable in the long run we need some

453
00:38:02,120 --> 00:38:07,740
major major law reform changes in order to arrest this conduct and prevent it from becoming common

454
00:38:07,740 --> 00:38:12,880
place for companies large and small and so you know the lawsuit was really designed to illustrate

455
00:38:12,880 --> 00:38:17,440
the nature of that problem we think we've done that very successfully we know for a fact that

456
00:38:17,440 --> 00:38:21,580
the lawsuit has been noticed at the very highest levels of American government. I'm not going to

457
00:38:21,580 --> 00:38:26,400
say where or among whom, but we think we made our point and we think we've made it very well.

458
00:38:26,940 --> 00:38:30,120
And of course, we're going to assert our claims and defenses, make our arguments and all the rest

459
00:38:30,120 --> 00:38:35,340
of it. But the name of the game here has always been for years now, it has always been, we need

460
00:38:35,340 --> 00:38:40,120
to change the structure of American law in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

461
00:38:40,680 --> 00:38:45,300
And I think where we are now, I sit at this very strange point where not a lot of lawyers

462
00:38:45,300 --> 00:38:49,380
or not a lot of people have been involved, but there is a process and it is very advanced.

463
00:38:49,740 --> 00:38:53,420
So it sounds a little crazy when you, when you say, oh, I'm really optimistic that something's

464
00:38:53,420 --> 00:38:57,560
going to happen, but I am extremely optimistic that something's going to happen on this front.

465
00:38:57,560 --> 00:39:04,700
And I think it's probably going to happen in Q1 of 2026, maybe Q2 at the latest. So it's,

466
00:39:04,700 --> 00:39:08,740
so yeah, that's where we are. If that is in terms of the summary.

467
00:39:09,320 --> 00:39:14,560
Yeah. Well, you mentioned companies, both large and small. And earlier, you mentioned the fact

468
00:39:14,560 --> 00:39:20,780
that 4chan was described as their servers being a bunch of mac minis connected to each other in a

469
00:39:20,780 --> 00:39:27,400
in a closet uh obviously uh elon and x have been in the news in recent months because the european

470
00:39:27,400 --> 00:39:32,520
parliament i don't know if they sued them they're simply finding them yeah the commission the

471
00:39:32,520 --> 00:39:37,000
european commission which is the uh executive branch agency of the european union just issued

472
00:39:37,000 --> 00:39:43,160
a fine for violating their various rules um and that completely violates the first amendment it's

473
00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:47,680
not enforceable here. So there's no, since X has business operations around the world,

474
00:39:47,760 --> 00:39:51,880
maybe servers and other places that doesn't, it's still the first amendment still protects them.

475
00:39:52,360 --> 00:39:57,380
It protects them in the United States. Um, and it certainly doesn't protect them in the EU.

476
00:39:57,480 --> 00:40:02,300
Right. But the, the issue with the global companies that they have is they, so my clients,

477
00:40:02,300 --> 00:40:08,460
I have a very easy job, right? They're entirely us based. All of their assets are us situs. All

478
00:40:08,460 --> 00:40:12,540
of their servers are in the United States. And so from our point of view, when you have that

479
00:40:12,540 --> 00:40:19,760
foreign intrusion. It's a very simple analysis, right? The analysis is, no, thanks. We're not

480
00:40:19,760 --> 00:40:23,780
doing this. You have no power here. Well, the company like X or Google or Facebook, they have

481
00:40:23,780 --> 00:40:28,480
very meaningful footprints outside of the United States. So it is somewhat more complicated for them

482
00:40:28,480 --> 00:40:33,180
to push back against these demands because there are assets against which a foreign state can

483
00:40:33,180 --> 00:40:39,180
enforce a judgment or a ruling or a fine or whatever else. We think that this should be

484
00:40:39,180 --> 00:40:43,820
resolved as a diplomatic matter between the United States and these countries, and that they should

485
00:40:43,820 --> 00:40:48,460
respect the way that we do things, because those are usually branch offices and subsidiaries that

486
00:40:48,460 --> 00:40:54,360
don't actually serve and operate the app itself. I know in X's case, the contractual counterparty

487
00:40:54,360 --> 00:40:59,880
is an Irish entity, and I think they probably also have servers in Ireland, and there are tax

488
00:40:59,880 --> 00:41:05,680
reasons why they do that. Ireland is a tax shelter for a lot of these companies, but for various

489
00:41:05,680 --> 00:41:20,550
various reasons that don bear going into here So their picture is somewhat more complicated But with the Granted Act as we drafted it it would actually protect American companies with those foreign operations and subsidiaries because it would say listen what you still seeking to do

490
00:41:20,550 --> 00:41:24,350
when you're targeting the sub is you're actually really seeking to target the parent.

491
00:41:24,570 --> 00:41:29,450
And you're telling the parent entity, listen, if you don't do this, your entire global business is

492
00:41:29,450 --> 00:41:33,830
going to suffer consequences. And at the moment, they can do that for free and it doesn't affect

493
00:41:33,830 --> 00:41:37,970
them at all. And there's no real pushback or response from the United States. There's no real

494
00:41:37,970 --> 00:41:44,410
resistance that we can offer except full withdrawal from the European Union and then daring them to

495
00:41:44,410 --> 00:41:48,070
come over here to enforce the fine, which, of course, if they were to do that, they wouldn't.

496
00:41:48,530 --> 00:41:54,170
They wouldn't be able to. So it's a complicated picture for a company like X and certainly more

497
00:41:54,170 --> 00:42:00,430
complicated than it would be for a client like 4chan or Kiwi Farms or Gab. And so we are, you

498
00:42:00,430 --> 00:42:04,450
know, to a certain extent, we're in a privileged position because we're able to be the tip of the

499
00:42:04,450 --> 00:42:10,130
spear because we have these structured, you know, the operations of my clients are structured in

500
00:42:10,130 --> 00:42:14,950
such a way that it offers a very significant and meaningful defense to these foreign censorship

501
00:42:14,950 --> 00:42:20,790
attempts that a company like Google or Facebook is vulnerable to. So, you know, it's and it's a

502
00:42:20,790 --> 00:42:25,210
whole because we're not doing this, you know, I am doing this just for my clients. Right. But it

503
00:42:25,210 --> 00:42:29,830
It just so happens that the solution that would save my clients from this sort of thing

504
00:42:29,830 --> 00:42:32,890
would also save any other American company at the same time.

505
00:42:33,230 --> 00:42:38,450
So the entire tech industry will benefit if a law is enacted which protects these tiny

506
00:42:38,450 --> 00:42:43,810
American companies as we proposed it, because ultimately a law that protects a tiny American

507
00:42:43,810 --> 00:42:48,770
company should also protect a big one in exactly the same way that it protects the small one.

508
00:42:49,250 --> 00:42:49,710
What's up, Freaks?

509
00:42:49,790 --> 00:42:51,830
When you take Bitcoin seriously, you start with custody.

510
00:42:51,830 --> 00:42:57,570
You want to control your keys, avoid single points of failure, and make sure your savings cannot disappear because you or someone else screwed up.

511
00:42:57,670 --> 00:42:59,890
That is what Unchained has been focused on since 2016.

512
00:43:00,230 --> 00:43:04,950
Unchained is the leader in collaborative multi-sig custody and Bitcoin financial services that keep you in control.

513
00:43:05,110 --> 00:43:08,490
They secure over $12 billion in Bitcoin for more than 12,000 clients.

514
00:43:08,910 --> 00:43:12,410
That means about one out of every 200 Bitcoin sits inside an Unchained vault.

515
00:43:12,590 --> 00:43:13,270
Their model is simple.

516
00:43:13,370 --> 00:43:14,910
You hold two keys, they hold one key.

517
00:43:15,030 --> 00:43:19,430
And it always takes two keys to move Bitcoin, meaning their single key can't access your Bitcoin on its own.

518
00:43:19,430 --> 00:43:23,410
Just resilient, shared custody that gives you institutional-grade security while keeping you sovereign.

519
00:43:23,610 --> 00:43:32,150
Unchain also lets you trade straight from your vault, access Bitcoin-backed commercial loans, open a Bitcoin IRA where you hold your own keys, and set up personal, business, trust, or retirement vaults.

520
00:43:32,250 --> 00:43:35,050
They even offer inheritance solutions built for long-term hodlers.

521
00:43:35,290 --> 00:43:44,230
Or opt for the highest-level private client service with Unchain Signature and get a dedicated account manager, discounted trading fees, exclusive access to events and features, and much, much more.

522
00:43:44,230 --> 00:43:53,670
If you want a partner that helps you secure and grow your Bitcoin without giving up control, go to Unchained.com and use the code TFTC10 at checkout to get 10% off your new Bitcoin multisig vault.

523
00:43:53,830 --> 00:43:56,450
That's TFTC10 at Unchained.com.

524
00:43:56,650 --> 00:43:58,650
What's up, freaks? This rep was brought to you by good friends at Silent.

525
00:43:58,850 --> 00:44:01,710
Silent creates everyday, faraday gear that protects your hardware.

526
00:44:01,950 --> 00:44:04,530
We're in Bitcoin. We have a lot of hardware that we need to secure.

527
00:44:04,990 --> 00:44:07,050
Your wallet emits signals that can leave you vulnerable.

528
00:44:07,630 --> 00:44:10,510
You want to pick up Silent's gear, put your hardware in that.

529
00:44:10,510 --> 00:44:11,790
I have a tap signer right here.

530
00:44:11,790 --> 00:44:15,890
I got the silent card holder replaced my wallet. I was using Ridge wallet because it's secured

531
00:44:15,890 --> 00:44:21,010
against RFID signal jacking. Silent, the card holder does the same thing. It's much sleeker,

532
00:44:21,190 --> 00:44:25,490
fits in my pocket much easier. I also have the Faraday phone sleeve, which you can put a hardware

533
00:44:25,490 --> 00:44:28,850
wallet in. We're actually using it for our keys at the house too. There's been a lot of robberies.

534
00:44:28,950 --> 00:44:33,290
They have essential Faraday slings, Faraday backpacks. It's a Bitcoin company. They're

535
00:44:33,290 --> 00:44:37,530
running on a Bitcoin standard. They have a Bitcoin treasury. They accept Bitcoin via strike. So go to

536
00:44:37,530 --> 00:44:44,450
slnt.com slash tftc to get 15% off anything or simply just use the code tftc when shopping at

537
00:44:44,450 --> 00:44:49,310
slnt.com. Patented technology, special operations approved. It has free shipping as well. So go

538
00:44:49,310 --> 00:44:52,870
check it out. It's so crazy that we've gotten to this point because it seems like in looking at

539
00:44:52,870 --> 00:44:59,110
this, it seems existential for free speech on the internet. And I think it's not going to go one of

540
00:44:59,110 --> 00:45:07,350
two ways. I think there's many ways it can go. Do you see the potential for bifurcation of the

541
00:45:07,350 --> 00:45:13,990
internet, particularly on the lines of free speech? I do. But I think if what Granite is

542
00:45:13,990 --> 00:45:18,630
designed to do is it's designed to make the Europeans own the consequences of their censorship.

543
00:45:19,290 --> 00:45:24,010
So at the moment, the Europeans have sought to outsource censorship through they've introduced

544
00:45:24,010 --> 00:45:29,730
several layers of intermediation between themselves and the censorship by saying, well, we expect a

545
00:45:29,730 --> 00:45:34,290
tech company to comply with these duties. And if you don't comply, these duties require you,

546
00:45:34,290 --> 00:45:40,190
right, ipso facto, to commit acts of censorship in the European Union, in the UK, and on your

547
00:45:40,190 --> 00:45:44,750
servers in the United States. If you don't comply with those duties, we won't necessarily order you

548
00:45:44,750 --> 00:45:49,490
to remove a particular piece of content, but we will fine you, right, to disincentivize you from

549
00:45:49,490 --> 00:45:54,250
disobeying us again or not carrying out those duties sufficiently well. And so rather than

550
00:45:54,250 --> 00:45:59,610
specifically targeting individual pieces of content for removal, what they do is they create

551
00:45:59,610 --> 00:46:04,670
mechanisms whereby third parties, trusted flaggers, independent entities called super

552
00:46:04,670 --> 00:46:08,850
complainers in the UK, they have a super complaints regime for NGOs over there to complain about

553
00:46:08,850 --> 00:46:13,010
particular content. And they already have sent some of these complaints in, even though the regime

554
00:46:13,010 --> 00:46:16,910
isn't live, saying, look at all this bad content on X, look at all these posts that need to be

555
00:46:16,910 --> 00:46:22,370
removed. And what they do is they say, well, we've found this bad post. This NGO found this bad post.

556
00:46:22,730 --> 00:46:26,710
You didn't remove this bad post. So you're getting fined for not removing it because we've

557
00:46:26,710 --> 00:46:31,050
assess that you violated your duties. And so they never actually want to get their hands dirty doing

558
00:46:31,050 --> 00:46:35,450
the censorship themselves. Something like Granite changes that, right? It says, okay, well, listen,

559
00:46:35,770 --> 00:46:39,490
this is an American company. If you try to censor the American company or violate their rights,

560
00:46:39,490 --> 00:46:45,090
you will see you in court. But it is still within your sovereign power, if you wish,

561
00:46:45,470 --> 00:46:50,830
in a European country, United Kingdom, France, Germany. You control the pipes leading into and

562
00:46:50,830 --> 00:46:55,870
out of your country. And something the United States has no say over is whether you DNS block,

563
00:46:55,870 --> 00:47:00,790
particular pieces of content or domain. So if you want to, if you really think censorship is

564
00:47:00,790 --> 00:47:04,730
that important, what you need to do is you need to do it yourself. You need to hire armies of

565
00:47:04,730 --> 00:47:09,090
state-employed moderators. You need to troll the internet for content you disagree with.

566
00:47:09,190 --> 00:47:12,670
You need to block it. And when a user seeks to navigate to it, it won't get served.

567
00:47:12,770 --> 00:47:18,750
That is the type of censorship that we have no say over because it is purely domestic and it

568
00:47:18,750 --> 00:47:22,710
doesn't extend outside of your borders. Now, the reason the Europeans don't do that is because

569
00:47:22,710 --> 00:47:28,750
that's politically insane. Because it puts the censorship directly in the hands of the government

570
00:47:28,750 --> 00:47:32,570
and the attribution is directly in the hands of the government. So if a user navigates

571
00:47:32,570 --> 00:47:37,130
to a website or to a link or to a particular post that's been banned or a particular tweet,

572
00:47:37,270 --> 00:47:42,250
every tweet has its own URL, and they try to get that and they try to access it and it says,

573
00:47:42,250 --> 00:47:46,990
won't resolve, this content is 404 or whatever it is. Then they say, okay, well, the government

574
00:47:46,990 --> 00:47:52,410
has stepped in here. And there's a direct chain of causation between a government employee and a

575
00:47:52,410 --> 00:47:56,490
government rule and the content that the user isn't allowed to see. So what they've done is

576
00:47:56,490 --> 00:48:00,390
instead they've set up this very passive aggressive regime where they say we were going to launder

577
00:48:00,390 --> 00:48:04,490
that censorship through a third party and we're going to conscript the American to carry it out

578
00:48:04,490 --> 00:48:08,410
for us. And what we'll do is we'll just lord over it and we'll issue fines if we think that the

579
00:48:08,410 --> 00:48:12,970
censorship isn't sufficient and doesn't meet our standards or isn't otherwise to our satisfaction.

580
00:48:13,690 --> 00:48:21,170
And that's fine. They're certainly welcome to do that. But our position is that if that's the

581
00:48:21,170 --> 00:48:23,930
approach they're going to take. The American government needs to punch them on the nose,

582
00:48:24,010 --> 00:48:28,550
say, no, you can't do that. If you really want to censor, you are going to have to bear the full

583
00:48:28,550 --> 00:48:33,330
political cost of that censorship yourself. And we're not going to allow our companies to be

584
00:48:33,330 --> 00:48:38,450
forcibly conscripted into those efforts so that you can avoid the full political consequences of

585
00:48:38,450 --> 00:48:42,830
your actions. And I think that if they were forced to do that, and we're starting to see that in the

586
00:48:42,830 --> 00:48:47,630
UK, actually, because now they're starting to talk about client side scanning instead of server side

587
00:48:47,630 --> 00:48:52,110
scanning. There was a discussion in parliament yesterday about this, and the prime minister

588
00:48:52,110 --> 00:48:55,530
started to talk about this because they know that server-side scanning isn't going to work.

589
00:48:56,110 --> 00:49:00,430
And also they attempted to do the server-side enforcement against my four clients, every

590
00:49:00,430 --> 00:49:05,510
American target, known American target to date. And when they did that, they got stopped at the

591
00:49:05,510 --> 00:49:11,870
shoreline by a solo practitioner with an ex-accent who was working nights and weekends for free.

592
00:49:12,470 --> 00:49:17,370
So part of the reason we did that, so I've gotten a lot of criticism for being very vocal

593
00:49:17,370 --> 00:49:21,730
in how we, in writing funny emails and sending Pepe memes to them and all the rest of it.

594
00:49:22,010 --> 00:49:23,730
But the humiliation is the point, right?

595
00:49:23,810 --> 00:49:27,830
We are sending them Pepe memes and we are sending them funny emails and we are not treating

596
00:49:27,830 --> 00:49:31,650
this seriously because they're not treating it seriously because they're not using international

597
00:49:31,650 --> 00:49:33,370
procedures to serve these notices.

598
00:49:33,370 --> 00:49:37,550
They're not bringing lawsuits in the United States as plaintiffs, as we would expect to

599
00:49:37,550 --> 00:49:38,450
enforce their fines.

600
00:49:38,450 --> 00:49:42,990
they're just pretending that they can go do whatever they want in the uk and that whatever

601
00:49:42,990 --> 00:49:47,390
they do in the uk is going to have domestic effect in the u.s which for any lawyer who has ever done

602
00:49:47,390 --> 00:49:52,690
anything cross-border ever yeah any lawyer who's done that will know right that's not how this that's

603
00:49:52,690 --> 00:49:56,970
not how this game is played so if they want to get serious and start bringing their own lawsuits in

604
00:49:56,970 --> 00:50:01,750
american courts which of course they're likely destined to lose then then i will respond seriously

605
00:50:01,750 --> 00:50:06,970
right but if they're going to send emails over international boundaries and say we've sent you

606
00:50:06,970 --> 00:50:11,510
this email and it is legally binding and effective on your client in the US, I'm going to send them

607
00:50:11,510 --> 00:50:16,810
a Pepe meme, right? Which we have done. It was a Pepe, a little baby Pepe holding sparklers in

608
00:50:16,810 --> 00:50:23,210
front of a glorious fluttering American flag. And because the legal effect of their email is

609
00:50:23,210 --> 00:50:28,370
roughly the same as the legal effect of mine, which is none. And so if they want to get serious,

610
00:50:28,430 --> 00:50:31,410
which they're not going to on that front, then they're going to have to change their tactics.

611
00:50:31,410 --> 00:50:36,450
But I think they've recognized now that the, and they'll never admit it, but they've recognized

612
00:50:36,450 --> 00:50:42,410
that the solution of bullying Americans into compliance is not a solution which is durable,

613
00:50:42,570 --> 00:50:48,570
and it is one which exposes them to political costs both here in the United States and in the

614
00:50:48,570 --> 00:50:53,370
UK. If they turn around and do client-side scanning, that's something where, from a legal

615
00:50:53,370 --> 00:50:57,330
perspective, it's very different because they can simply say to Apple and Google, and I don't think

616
00:50:57,330 --> 00:51:01,610
there's a whole lot of constitutional objection that we can raise, if you want to sell your device

617
00:51:01,610 --> 00:51:06,810
here in the UK, you have to have this particular type of client-side scanning available for our

618
00:51:06,810 --> 00:51:11,610
use. And we will prohibit the sale of phones here. I disagree with that, right? I don't think that's

619
00:51:11,610 --> 00:51:15,730
the right approach at all. But it is something which is pretty unquestionably in their sovereign

620
00:51:15,730 --> 00:51:21,290
power to do that doesn't intrude on American sovereignty and doesn't require Americans to

621
00:51:21,290 --> 00:51:25,110
surrender their First Amendment rights. It simply says that any device which is sold in the UK

622
00:51:25,110 --> 00:51:30,290
is going to have to participate in our totalitarian panopticon that we have legislated

623
00:51:30,290 --> 00:51:34,810
for ourselves. And ideally, right, by doing that, what we do is we raise the political temperature

624
00:51:34,810 --> 00:51:38,750
in the UK for law reform, because people will navigate something on their phone, it'll get

625
00:51:38,750 --> 00:51:43,570
intercepted, there will be mistakes, there will be errors. And they'll say, this is crazy. Why can,

626
00:51:43,810 --> 00:51:47,810
you know, why in the United States, am I allowed to have a phone that doesn't do this? But in the

627
00:51:47,810 --> 00:51:52,690
UK, I've got this Nerf device that's run by the state and that, you know, calls home to the police.

628
00:51:52,970 --> 00:51:57,650
Yeah. Anytime I decide to go look at a porn website. I think that that's, that's where we're,

629
00:51:57,650 --> 00:52:01,150
But if the UK wants to do that, that is their decision.

630
00:52:01,630 --> 00:52:06,410
But we need them to be owning the political cost of it rather than imposing that cost on American citizens.

631
00:52:07,230 --> 00:52:07,390
Yeah.

632
00:52:09,510 --> 00:52:10,710
Yeah, I want to go down now.

633
00:52:10,790 --> 00:52:11,670
Is the NGO thing?

634
00:52:11,790 --> 00:52:18,490
Because we were in the United States, TFTC, this channel, we were subject to this type of mechanism.

635
00:52:19,050 --> 00:52:21,070
The Center for Countering Digital Hate.

636
00:52:21,290 --> 00:52:22,350
They came after you?

637
00:52:22,350 --> 00:52:37,210
They put us on a list of climate deniers because we've had climate scientists who disagree with the mainstream idea behind cataclysmic climate change.

638
00:52:37,290 --> 00:52:45,210
And so they put us on the list and they sent it to YouTube and they had algorithms that were scraping our transcripts.

639
00:52:45,310 --> 00:52:50,430
And they highly recommended to YouTube that they demonetize the channel and take down our climate related content.

640
00:52:50,430 --> 00:52:59,450
But I mean, the point being is like this, this NGO sort of layered mechanism existed here in the United States to not too long ago.

641
00:52:59,450 --> 00:53:02,650
I mean, you're allowed to advocate for censorship in the United States.

642
00:53:02,890 --> 00:53:04,590
That's something that you're permitted to do.

643
00:53:04,970 --> 00:53:12,190
But I think the problem with a group like CCTH is that they work hand in glove with the foreign regulators to censor American citizens.

644
00:53:12,510 --> 00:53:17,030
Right. So they consult with groups with Ofcom and with the European Commission and groups like that.

645
00:53:17,030 --> 00:53:26,650
And they will doubtlessly be one of the entities that Ofcom listens to under the super complaints regime where they're seeking to censor content in the United States.

646
00:53:26,810 --> 00:53:29,150
And so, you know, you can advocate for censorship here.

647
00:53:29,390 --> 00:53:31,930
Right. There was actually a lawsuit over this.

648
00:53:32,390 --> 00:53:39,030
X sued CCDH and X lost the lawsuit because they said, listen, this is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

649
00:53:39,030 --> 00:53:44,230
There's protective activity and they're trying to use a breach of contract claim to without commenting on the merits myself.

650
00:53:44,350 --> 00:53:44,990
That was the ruling.

651
00:53:44,990 --> 00:53:51,110
so ccdh can advocate for censorship all they want what happens is for a while they had a

652
00:53:51,110 --> 00:53:56,110
cooperative u.s tech industry when elon bought x or when you bought twitter and turned it into x

653
00:53:56,110 --> 00:54:00,030
a big piece of that industry ceased to be cooperative and particularly the piece of

654
00:54:00,030 --> 00:54:05,330
the industry which kind of operates as an incubator for policy ideas that then spread out

655
00:54:05,330 --> 00:54:10,450
across the rest of the ecosystem um and so then facebook of course after elon bought x and then

656
00:54:10,450 --> 00:54:14,550
president trump was re-elected um you know facebook then said we're going to be listening

657
00:54:14,550 --> 00:54:19,030
to these people less. So one thing that these foreign regimes do is they create another avenue

658
00:54:19,030 --> 00:54:25,090
for these entities and organizations to apply coercive influence on American platforms to

659
00:54:25,090 --> 00:54:30,150
censor protected speech and conduct in the United States. And they can advocate for that all they

660
00:54:30,150 --> 00:54:34,890
want, right? If they're here, an American citizen here in the United States, and you work for CCDH,

661
00:54:34,890 --> 00:54:40,330
and you think censorship is good, and you think the content that X or Facebook or someone else

662
00:54:40,330 --> 00:54:45,030
host is bad, you have a First Amendment right to run around and advocate for that speech

663
00:54:45,030 --> 00:54:46,530
to be removed.

664
00:54:46,530 --> 00:54:51,710
However, what they're also doing is they're calling down coercive state power from abroad

665
00:54:51,710 --> 00:54:55,630
on these same American companies, and that's something that we have the power to prohibit.

666
00:54:55,656 --> 00:54:58,736
particularly the coercive power in particular, not necessarily the advocacy.

667
00:54:59,376 --> 00:55:03,296
So yeah, these organizations have been doing this for a long time. I've been doing this for 10 years.

668
00:55:03,396 --> 00:55:08,396
There's never been any meaningful legislative intervention to prevent them from using foreign

669
00:55:08,396 --> 00:55:14,876
sovereign power. Basically, the way to think about it is they do the targeting, right? So

670
00:55:14,876 --> 00:55:18,716
they're the guy with the laser targeter, and they're painting the target. And they tell the

671
00:55:18,716 --> 00:55:24,316
foreign states, hey, come after this particular company, right? We want that company taken out.

672
00:55:24,316 --> 00:55:25,896
They went after gab.com, right?

673
00:55:26,056 --> 00:55:29,536
And they said, well, it's content which is harmful for children, right, on Gab.

674
00:55:29,876 --> 00:55:40,196
Well, Gab is an 18-plus website, doesn't focus on children's content, doesn't permit adult content, and its content moderation policy is aligned with the First Amendment.

675
00:55:40,656 --> 00:55:43,996
The likelihood, right, then it doesn't have any apps in app stores or anything like that.

676
00:55:44,036 --> 00:55:44,836
It's not widely used.

677
00:55:45,176 --> 00:55:52,876
That company was targeted for political reasons because they host the wrong thing, the UK state, and that the NGOs who advise the British state don't like.

678
00:55:52,876 --> 00:55:59,096
and that is the function that they serve. They point to the target. The regulator listens to

679
00:55:59,096 --> 00:56:03,596
the NGO. They launder it and they say, listen, this is research. This is independent study.

680
00:56:03,796 --> 00:56:09,196
It's something like that. Disinformation studies people at Stanford, basically just chronically

681
00:56:09,196 --> 00:56:17,456
online sociology PhDs who troll the internet all day and confuse that for original research,

682
00:56:17,456 --> 00:56:21,036
which advances the human species. Then they turn around, they write sophisticated,

683
00:56:21,036 --> 00:56:27,876
well-cited reports, cherry-picking content, which they don't like, out of tens of millions or

684
00:56:27,876 --> 00:56:32,696
hundreds of millions of posts. And then they use that to paint a picture of these sites as these

685
00:56:32,696 --> 00:56:39,536
lawless anarchic wastelands that need to be brought under control. When I, the lawyer,

686
00:56:39,816 --> 00:56:43,496
one of the few lawyers willing to represent them, I know for a fact that some of these websites,

687
00:56:43,596 --> 00:56:49,436
you get a law enforcement request, let's say from the FBI, you get a subpoena or an emergency

688
00:56:49,436 --> 00:56:53,556
requests, right? Prime example. These companies are so small, they can turn around those requests

689
00:56:53,556 --> 00:56:58,476
in 15 minutes, which is the height of corporate responsibility, right? If the police approach and

690
00:56:58,476 --> 00:57:02,456
they say, we've got an emergency and we need you to do something, you go to Meta, you go to Google,

691
00:57:02,536 --> 00:57:08,096
you go to X, it'll take days. You go to one of these tiny websites, there's not a huge amount of,

692
00:57:08,176 --> 00:57:13,016
you know, it's a tiny team. They know where everything is. Executive decisions can be made

693
00:57:13,016 --> 00:57:16,916
very quickly. You can get CEO attention on something very quickly and it doesn't take up

694
00:57:16,916 --> 00:57:21,656
a ton of bandwidth. And they respond to these requests in under 30 minutes. There's one case

695
00:57:21,656 --> 00:57:27,456
for one of these companies. We sent a tip to FBI NTOC, the National Threat Operations Center,

696
00:57:27,496 --> 00:57:34,076
because a post was reported by a user as potentially presenting a threat. The tip went to FBI NTOC at

697
00:57:34,076 --> 00:57:39,036
10 o'clock on a Saturday night, 10.22 on the Saturday night. We get a phone call back from

698
00:57:39,036 --> 00:57:43,176
the National Threat Operations Center in West Virginia saying, hey, could you please send us

699
00:57:43,176 --> 00:57:47,636
the relevant data were on the job, right? So you have this, these companies are actually really

700
00:57:47,636 --> 00:57:51,836
responsible and they're actually very efficient at responding when it matters, which is when you

701
00:57:51,836 --> 00:57:55,836
actually have a crime being committed where they are not responsible, right? Is when they're hosting

702
00:57:55,836 --> 00:58:00,016
wrong thing that the British state thinks is corrosive to British society, but which in the

703
00:58:00,016 --> 00:58:03,696
United States is constitutionally protected. And so that is, that is why they've been targeted.

704
00:58:04,176 --> 00:58:07,596
Not because they're non-cooperative with police and not because they're not responsive, because

705
00:58:07,596 --> 00:58:12,536
in fact, these smaller, these smaller websites generally are highly responsive when you have a,

706
00:58:12,536 --> 00:58:15,196
When the rubber meets the road and when it actually matters.

707
00:58:16,336 --> 00:58:19,956
But of course, the regulators don't think this because what they've done is they've

708
00:58:19,956 --> 00:58:23,156
seen reports that were commissioned to make these websites look like they're run by the

709
00:58:23,156 --> 00:58:23,736
spawn of Satan.

710
00:58:24,836 --> 00:58:30,556
And they're evil incarnate and their sole purpose is the destruction of all that is

711
00:58:30,556 --> 00:58:31,516
good in the world.

712
00:58:31,816 --> 00:58:36,056
Because what they did is they cherry picked content that's been read, maybe posts that

713
00:58:36,056 --> 00:58:40,556
have been read maybe three times by obscure accounts spouting silly ideas, right?

714
00:58:40,616 --> 00:58:42,496
Okay, well, my client's got 100 million users.

715
00:58:42,536 --> 00:58:48,096
Are there a population of 100 million people? How many of them are going to say stupid things?

716
00:58:48,216 --> 00:58:53,636
How many of them are going to say that per day? It's going to be a lot. And we don't turn around

717
00:58:53,636 --> 00:58:56,976
and hook everyone up to a Neuralink and start censoring their thoughts as a result.

718
00:58:57,576 --> 00:59:03,776
So the NGO sector is corrosive, but it's particularly corrosive because it has been

719
00:59:03,776 --> 00:59:09,456
married to foreign state power and because they are steering these foreign regulators in making

720
00:59:09,456 --> 00:59:15,376
targeting decisions against American citizens. We know that for a fact. And so they can do that,

721
00:59:15,376 --> 00:59:18,736
right? If you're Americans and you're an American organization, you can call for all the censorship

722
00:59:18,736 --> 00:59:23,336
you want because the First Amendment protects your right to do so. But I think what we can do,

723
00:59:23,416 --> 00:59:27,476
right, in terms of intervening is we can prevent foreign regulators from being an effective tool

724
00:59:27,476 --> 00:59:33,416
to achieve via foreign coercive force what they are unable to achieve by U.S. domestic coercive

725
00:59:33,416 --> 00:59:42,276
force yeah i wear my ccdh um being on that list with as a badge of honor you should i'm a new

726
00:59:42,276 --> 00:59:49,276
climate denier according to them um but again thing of solutions it would be ideal if we didn't

727
00:59:49,276 --> 00:59:54,736
have to do any of this and if these countries would just enact better free speech laws and

728
00:59:54,736 --> 01:00:03,376
moving back to the uk you have sort of um you presented a free speech law for the uk that

729
01:00:03,376 --> 01:00:04,236
I have.

730
01:00:04,476 --> 01:00:05,316
You can fix this problem.

731
01:00:05,596 --> 01:00:06,116
What's going on there?

732
01:00:06,516 --> 01:00:09,356
So I'm pretty active in the UK free speech movement.

733
01:00:09,556 --> 01:00:10,676
I could have been a British citizen.

734
01:00:10,836 --> 01:00:11,916
My father was a British citizen.

735
01:00:12,116 --> 01:00:17,636
I elected not to do that because I kind of saw the way the wind was blowing at the relevant

736
01:00:17,636 --> 01:00:18,056
time.

737
01:00:18,096 --> 01:00:21,096
And I said, you know, I think having a British passport is really not in my interest.

738
01:00:22,076 --> 01:00:26,856
So maybe at some point I'll go back, you know, naturalize and become a citizen again or become

739
01:00:26,856 --> 01:00:28,236
a citizen for the first time.

740
01:00:28,236 --> 01:00:32,216
But in the meantime, you know, I enjoy the diplomatic and legal cover that the United

741
01:00:32,216 --> 01:00:33,056
States affords me.

742
01:00:33,376 --> 01:00:47,496
But I wrote something called the UK Free Speech Act in 2020, which essentially creates a First Amendment style principle. It's not the same. It's not go extensive. The language isn't the same. It's not designed to be as extensive because that's a different country with different rules and different practices.

743
01:00:47,756 --> 01:01:03,056
But essentially it says that the First Amendment should apply to spoken or written expression. So you should be able to say anything and you should be able to write anything in accordance. So other kinds of expressive conduct, we can leave that to one side. It's up to their courts to figure out whether they want to extend that principle that way or not.

744
01:01:03,376 --> 01:01:09,396
and repeals large swathes of British speech codes in one go, right? It just says, listen,

745
01:01:09,596 --> 01:01:14,736
here are the laws that need to disappear. And it's big chunks, right? So it's part three of

746
01:01:14,736 --> 01:01:19,616
the Public Order Act in its entirety. It's large sections of Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 in their

747
01:01:19,616 --> 01:01:25,656
entirety. It's largely the entire Communications Act would disappear. Or, you know, I want to

748
01:01:25,656 --> 01:01:30,456
disappear the entire Communications Act and start from scratch. But, you know, at least Section 127

749
01:01:30,456 --> 01:01:34,916
of the Communications Act would have to go. Bits of the Contemptive Court Act for reporting on

750
01:01:34,916 --> 01:01:38,916
judicial proceedings would go. Bits of the Protection from Harassment Act would go and be

751
01:01:38,916 --> 01:01:46,496
replaced by other more robust provisions that, you know, more robust provisions that would protect

752
01:01:46,496 --> 01:01:52,736
free speech, but also prevent harassment. And so those are really thought experiments, right,

753
01:01:52,816 --> 01:01:56,996
for teaching, for demonstrating, much like the Granted Act was, right, illustrating, listen,

754
01:01:56,996 --> 01:02:00,536
here's a thought experiment. Here's what the world could look like, right? So we're going to

755
01:02:00,536 --> 01:02:05,336
just create the idea and then introduce the possibility that this thing could exist. And

756
01:02:05,336 --> 01:02:09,196
now what we're seeing is the thing is on the verge of existing, right? So with the UK Free

757
01:02:09,196 --> 01:02:13,776
Speech Act, it's similar, right? It's saying, listen, here's the UK Free Speech Act. Here's

758
01:02:13,776 --> 01:02:18,736
what could exist. Now take that away and go consider how you would adapt it and what you

759
01:02:18,736 --> 01:02:24,016
think you can get over the line in a politically acceptable fashion. So I'm not going to say who's

760
01:02:24,016 --> 01:02:30,696
working on it or what stage those things are at. But I do know that that proposal has been ingested

761
01:02:30,696 --> 01:02:35,956
by more than one and fewer than three political organizations in the United Kingdom.

762
01:02:36,576 --> 01:02:39,856
And there are people within those organizations who are looking at it very seriously,

763
01:02:40,536 --> 01:02:45,276
not for immediate enactment, because the Labour government is never going to do it because they

764
01:02:45,276 --> 01:02:50,536
don't believe in free speech. But after a general election, that is something which might be on the

765
01:02:50,536 --> 01:03:06,628
table as part of a great repeal bill and potentially doing a large reform of the UK institutions and its laws to make the place freer more competitive and just generally a nicer place to live So that proposal is out there It been chewed on by relevant people

766
01:03:06,849 --> 01:03:11,589
I'm very active in the UK free speech movement. I'm a legal advisory council of the UK free speech

767
01:03:11,589 --> 01:03:17,249
union, which is the nation's premier free speech advocacy organization. And essentially when these

768
01:03:17,249 --> 01:03:22,028
issues come up, my free speech practice is not a money making practice. It has not been a money

769
01:03:22,028 --> 01:03:27,349
making practice for a very long time. And so I provide pro bono assistance to lawyers who are

770
01:03:27,349 --> 01:03:33,689
representing companies that have been targeted under these rules, because I do so much of it,

771
01:03:33,729 --> 01:03:38,449
that basically just reading a lawyer in and saying, okay, here's the back. It almost wouldn't

772
01:03:38,449 --> 01:03:42,208
be fair to charge for it. At some point, I'll charge for it, but not until we're done winning

773
01:03:42,208 --> 01:03:49,729
the fight. So that process is moving. It's still very prototypical. We haven't got any draft

774
01:03:49,729 --> 01:03:54,588
legislation. Nothing's been introduced. There are some MPs who have considered introducing

775
01:03:54,588 --> 01:03:58,928
something like the Free Speech Act as a private member's bill, but those efforts would largely be

776
01:03:58,928 --> 01:04:03,629
symbolic until such time as you have a change of government. I'm optimistic that if the reform

777
01:04:03,629 --> 01:04:08,869
government gets elected, that something like the Free Speech Act would be enacted fairly quickly.

778
01:04:10,108 --> 01:04:15,229
And currently, they're projected to win the election by 400 seats. So, you know, if one

779
01:04:15,229 --> 01:04:20,069
were held tomorrow, right? But of course, one is not legally required to be held until 2028 or 29.

780
01:04:21,208 --> 01:04:26,528
So yeah, that's where things are there. There's a long way to go. But I think the censorship has

781
01:04:26,528 --> 01:04:32,289
finally reached the point where the party in waiting, right, that's waiting for the election

782
01:04:32,289 --> 01:04:38,968
to occur by one means or another, is very much on board with loosening up speech controls.

783
01:04:40,028 --> 01:04:44,509
And these kinds of fights, when you're trying to... I've been doing this, as I said, I've been a free

784
01:04:44,509 --> 01:04:49,588
speech activist for 15 years, and I've been pushing on the foreign free speech issue as a

785
01:04:49,588 --> 01:04:56,588
practitioner for 10. These fights play out over decades, right? And so the objective that I have

786
01:04:56,588 --> 01:05:05,269
is not, you can't, how to put it, how to put this, when you're trying to steer a state in a

787
01:05:05,269 --> 01:05:11,789
particular direction, you cannot do it yourself to start, and you cannot do it at once, right?

788
01:05:11,789 --> 01:05:33,588
So what we've seen with the federal response to what's going on with the foreign censorship, this has been a very, very, very, very, very long process involving a lot of different people in a lot of different places, both writers and journalists like Mike Benz and Mike Schellenberger, lawyers like myself and Ron Coleman, you know, politicians and political activists throughout the federal system have been aware of this.

789
01:05:33,588 --> 01:05:39,409
And it's been a question of just kind of creating groundwork, laying traps for the foreign

790
01:05:39,409 --> 01:05:41,648
censors to fall into, waiting for circuits.

791
01:05:41,648 --> 01:05:42,509
It's a waiting game, right?

792
01:05:42,568 --> 01:05:47,009
So the Online Safety Act, we knew that was coming in 2019 when it was called the Online

793
01:05:47,009 --> 01:05:47,588
Harms Bill.

794
01:05:48,068 --> 01:05:51,568
And then, of course, they enacted it in 2023 when it was finally called the Online Safety

795
01:05:51,568 --> 01:05:51,849
Act.

796
01:05:52,389 --> 01:05:55,409
That was not the right time to launch a counteroffensive, right?

797
01:05:55,448 --> 01:05:57,629
We had to wait for them to try to enforce it.

798
01:05:57,869 --> 01:06:01,509
And then when they tried to enforce it, that is when we could launch the counteroffensive

799
01:06:01,509 --> 01:06:02,269
and go strike.

800
01:06:02,269 --> 01:06:08,588
So there's a lot of timing involved and the time scales that are involved are multi-year invariably.

801
01:06:08,829 --> 01:06:10,928
And frankly, they're multi-decade.

802
01:06:11,648 --> 01:06:14,708
So the UK's free speech fight is nowhere near over.

803
01:06:15,208 --> 01:06:17,389
The European speech fight is nowhere near over.

804
01:06:17,789 --> 01:06:24,068
But a lot of it is just a question of doing very unglamorous preparatory work in the shadows, right?

805
01:06:24,148 --> 01:06:32,248
And watching and observing and gathering evidence and figuring out strategy and figuring out what weak points are and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.

806
01:06:32,269 --> 01:06:37,028
until eventually the moment arrives. And then what you do is you move. So I expect that that,

807
01:06:37,208 --> 01:06:41,889
I expect we'll probably, if there is going to be a UK free speech act, I would put the timetable

808
01:06:41,889 --> 01:06:47,269
on a five to 10 year timetable, probably close. If electoral trends continue, it's going to be

809
01:06:47,269 --> 01:06:51,729
closer to five. If reform for some reason falls apart and doesn't get elected, I'd put it at

810
01:06:51,729 --> 01:06:57,129
closer to 10 to 15, but you just have to stay in the fight and keep pushing. And eventually you get

811
01:06:57,129 --> 01:07:02,909
your moment. Is the political will there from the populace in the UK? Are people fed up with this,

812
01:07:02,909 --> 01:07:09,689
or is there a lot of cognitive dissonance sort of just go along? I think that there's a lot of

813
01:07:09,689 --> 01:07:13,349
muddling along. I think that most people don't care enough because it doesn't affect them.

814
01:07:13,849 --> 01:07:20,189
The issue is, does it affect enough people? Does it affect a substantial enough minority

815
01:07:20,189 --> 01:07:26,548
of the population enough for that minority to exercise the political will to overcome the

816
01:07:26,548 --> 01:07:31,149
political apathy of the majority? And I think the answer to that question right now is yes.

817
01:07:31,928 --> 01:07:36,548
So you don't need to get free speech over the line in the UK. You do not need to have 90%

818
01:07:36,548 --> 01:07:43,208
of the country turning into ardent First Amendment activists. You need about 50 to 60% to not care.

819
01:07:43,629 --> 01:07:50,689
And then you need about 30% to have it be a foundational part of their political identity.

820
01:07:51,448 --> 01:07:54,869
And you then need to have them get a parliamentary majority. Because for most people,

821
01:07:54,869 --> 01:07:59,189
the First Amendment doesn't really, for most Americans, the First Amendment is not something

822
01:07:59,189 --> 01:08:04,349
which they recognize as being operative on a daily basis, right? It's kind of, it's really,

823
01:08:04,509 --> 01:08:08,869
really deep down in the system. It's part of the kernel, right? So you'll notice it if it's gone,

824
01:08:08,988 --> 01:08:13,269
but you're not sitting there thinking to yourself, gee, I really used the First Amendment a lot today.

825
01:08:13,729 --> 01:08:16,968
And I think in the UK, it's kind of similar, but the reverse. There's a lot of censorship and

826
01:08:16,968 --> 01:08:22,408
people have self-censored in order to stay within the guardrails. So they're not really aware of how

827
01:08:22,408 --> 01:08:26,129
much better things could be for the country and for themselves if you remove the guardrails.

828
01:08:26,129 --> 01:08:29,389
And you're never going to be able to convince them that that's the case. But I think the

829
01:08:29,389 --> 01:08:34,288
censorship has gotten bad enough that you probably have 25 to 30 percent of the British population

830
01:08:34,288 --> 01:08:39,189
that now thinks that free speech is a critical national issue. And they're willing to, you know,

831
01:08:39,269 --> 01:08:42,788
they're willing to make that voice heard at the ballot box and they're willing to make the voice

832
01:08:42,788 --> 01:08:47,928
heard in a very specific way. So it depends on what, you know, what happens politically over the

833
01:08:47,928 --> 01:08:53,668
next two years. But I think if we, looking at current trends, it seems probable that reform

834
01:08:53,668 --> 01:08:57,889
will be elected. And I'm reliably informed that reform is very pro-free speech.

835
01:08:58,769 --> 01:09:03,009
Good. No, because Matt O'Dell and I were joking about it yesterday on Rapid Hall Recap. We were

836
01:09:03,009 --> 01:09:09,509
highlighting Peter McCormick's nonviolent sort of opt-out campaign that he's been on. And if you

837
01:09:09,509 --> 01:09:15,328
go and read, he's trying, he's basically throwing his hands up and saying, this isn't working.

838
01:09:15,328 --> 01:09:24,428
Like we need to protest peacefully and nonviolently to make a change here in the UK.

839
01:09:24,569 --> 01:09:29,129
And we were joking about how it was so obvious that he was self-censoring himself on the website.

840
01:09:29,368 --> 01:09:32,529
I think Peter's going to be – I'm going to put this on the record.

841
01:09:33,269 --> 01:09:35,069
I think Peter's going to be prime minister one day.

842
01:09:35,569 --> 01:09:36,088
You think so?

843
01:09:36,509 --> 01:09:36,668
Really?

844
01:09:37,408 --> 01:09:40,609
I actually think that one day he's going to be prime minister.

845
01:09:40,609 --> 01:09:46,889
um that's that's my my most controversial english political opinion is i think one day he's gonna

846
01:09:46,889 --> 01:09:54,328
he's just so he's just so he's such a good guy right and he's such a good communicator and that

847
01:09:54,328 --> 01:09:59,009
i've known him for years and years when he was doing you know his own bitcoin specific podcast

848
01:09:59,009 --> 01:10:05,708
before he became the big you know the uk's version of joe rogan and um he's just such a good guy that

849
01:10:05,708 --> 01:10:10,668
Like he's the kind of person where you said you want to where I'd like to be is in 15 years.

850
01:10:10,949 --> 01:10:22,889
Right. Looking back. And Peter's the prime minister because he's just such a good guy and he cares so much about the country that for whatever reason, circumstances and and his and Peter collide.

851
01:10:23,048 --> 01:10:27,788
And he winds up becoming PM. I think that that's that's my long shot for PM in 15 years.

852
01:10:27,788 --> 01:10:30,788
I think that I think that he's actually going to do it. That's my hunch.

853
01:10:31,349 --> 01:10:34,288
I would love to see that. It's been incredible watching his progression.

854
01:10:34,288 --> 01:10:47,009
I mean, obviously, he's moved back to Bedford and really walking away from what Bitcoin did, launching the Peter McCormick show and really leaning into the political topics of the day over in the UK to try and make a difference.

855
01:10:47,009 --> 01:10:51,029
It's been it's admirable at the very least.

856
01:10:51,168 --> 01:10:52,828
Right. It's been fun to watch.

857
01:10:53,488 --> 01:10:58,269
Well, I think he's learning he's learning a lot about politics by keeping it hyper local on Bedford.

858
01:10:58,269 --> 01:11:15,781
Right And so what he doing it an interesting kind of exercise in in teaching himself Right Exactly what he what he doing is he mapping the battle space right So he running into all of the craziness about how UK local government works and figuring

859
01:11:15,781 --> 01:11:20,221
out how everything's broken and how all their attitudes are attitudes of learned helplessness.

860
01:11:20,381 --> 01:11:24,681
So like Keir Starmer is a prime example. Parliament, in theory, legal theory, right,

861
01:11:25,041 --> 01:11:30,221
has absolute power to do whatever it wants. It could proclaim, right, by an act of parliament

862
01:11:30,221 --> 01:11:34,401
that the moon is made of cheese and that everyone has to refer to the moon being made of cheese.

863
01:11:34,641 --> 01:11:37,761
And everyone in the UK would have to say once a day when they woke up in the morning,

864
01:11:37,901 --> 01:11:41,401
I believe that the moon is made of cheese. That is how much power it has. There's no

865
01:11:41,401 --> 01:11:45,641
constitutional guardrail on it. And the prime minister goes before a committee yesterday. He's

866
01:11:45,641 --> 01:11:49,441
like, well, there's nothing we can do about immigration issues because every time we do it,

867
01:11:49,901 --> 01:11:53,581
there's a judicial review and there are regulations and there's a report that has to be done and

868
01:11:53,581 --> 01:11:56,401
there's this and there's that and there's this and there's that. And you just go, you have absolute

869
01:11:56,401 --> 01:12:03,421
power. Write a law, enact it, you delegate the power to a state agency, and you can fix any

870
01:12:03,421 --> 01:12:08,701
problem you want. But what they've done is there's so much institutional inertia. They're so used to

871
01:12:08,701 --> 01:12:13,461
doing things in a way where nothing gets done, right? And they have various constituencies within

872
01:12:13,461 --> 01:12:17,661
the state that are highly incentivized to keep it that way, right? Where nothing gets done at speed

873
01:12:17,661 --> 01:12:21,421
and everything requires an enormous amount of bureaucracy. And accordingly, everything requires

874
01:12:21,421 --> 01:12:26,561
an enormous amount of bureaucrats that you can never really short circuit it and adopt a sort of

875
01:12:26,561 --> 01:12:30,781
startup style mentality where you just go, no, what's the real problem here? How do we take a

876
01:12:30,781 --> 01:12:36,101
shortcut? And how do we make sure that this happens at speed? But they have unlimited power,

877
01:12:36,141 --> 01:12:40,141
right, in principle. So there's nothing stopping parliament for doing it except their own

878
01:12:40,141 --> 01:12:49,001
internal preconceptions and preconceived notions and self-imposed barriers. And I think Peter's

879
01:12:49,001 --> 01:12:52,661
probably running into that, a lot of that, dealing with local councils where it's like, hey,

880
01:12:52,721 --> 01:12:56,201
there's a problem downtown. There's a lot of crime. What do you want to do about it?

881
01:12:56,621 --> 01:13:00,761
And they're like, well, sorry, we can't do anything. So Peter goes and hires a private

882
01:13:00,761 --> 01:13:05,701
police force to go and patrol the downtown and the problem goes away because he can see the problem

883
01:13:05,701 --> 01:13:09,461
clearly for what it is, understand what the solution is, deploy that solution at speed,

884
01:13:09,461 --> 01:13:14,541
and then the problem disappears. But the local governments just don't work that way.

885
01:13:14,541 --> 01:13:16,921
So he's learning the map.

886
01:13:17,021 --> 01:13:18,821
He's learning how the enemy is shaped.

887
01:13:19,481 --> 01:13:28,241
And I think that at some point, he's going to learn enough where he says, OK, I know enough now to figure out what needs to be done.

888
01:13:28,341 --> 01:13:31,101
And I think when he does that, he will have his own – my hunch.

889
01:13:31,381 --> 01:13:33,881
He hasn't said anything like that to me or anything like that.

890
01:13:34,081 --> 01:13:39,101
But my hunch is that Peter is eventually going to get sick of it enough that he just decides something needs to be done and he's going to jump into the arena.

891
01:13:39,101 --> 01:13:42,161
and when he does so he will be a very formidable

892
01:13:42,161 --> 01:13:44,481
he'll be a very formidable participant

893
01:13:44,481 --> 01:13:44,961
at Arena

894
01:13:44,961 --> 01:13:46,261
he's got

895
01:13:46,261 --> 01:13:52,321
he's got a campaign right now

896
01:13:52,321 --> 01:13:52,621
to

897
01:13:52,621 --> 01:13:55,841
again it's funny

898
01:13:55,841 --> 01:13:57,861
reading the website was

899
01:13:57,861 --> 01:14:00,081
a hoot because you could tell

900
01:14:00,081 --> 01:14:01,961
he was self-censoring to make sure

901
01:14:01,961 --> 01:14:04,081
he wasn't making

902
01:14:04,081 --> 01:14:04,981
the government mad

903
01:14:04,981 --> 01:14:08,221
everybody over there does

904
01:14:08,721 --> 01:14:09,361
They all do.

905
01:14:09,581 --> 01:14:13,101
And that's, you know, if I were working over there now, I'm an English solicitor, right?

906
01:14:13,181 --> 01:14:14,221
I'm a lawyer over there.

907
01:14:14,541 --> 01:14:17,361
If I were over there now, I would not, I'm not flying over there now for context.

908
01:14:17,521 --> 01:14:20,341
I'm not flying over there because I'm afraid I'll be arrested the second, or not arrested,

909
01:14:20,441 --> 01:14:21,981
but at least searched the second I land.

910
01:14:22,161 --> 01:14:27,461
Because my clients are conceivably criminal targets for the UK's online safety regime,

911
01:14:27,701 --> 01:14:27,861
right?

912
01:14:27,941 --> 01:14:32,161
And my computer, conceivably, it doesn't, but conceivably, it has relevant information.

913
01:14:32,601 --> 01:14:36,041
And so they could use counterterrorism laws, for example, to stop me when I enter the border,

914
01:14:36,041 --> 01:14:40,301
search my devices, detain me for 12 hours, and then put me on a plane and fly me straight back

915
01:14:40,301 --> 01:14:46,221
to New York. So from my point of view, the UK is not a safe place to be if you are active in

916
01:14:46,221 --> 01:14:51,601
free speech at all, right? And if they're willing to do that to Graham Linehan when he flies over

917
01:14:51,601 --> 01:14:57,801
there because he posted one offensive tweet once, you know, the chief architect of the American

918
01:14:57,801 --> 01:15:04,581
legal resistance, right? Who's taking them on head on in every forum available. I just don't trust

919
01:15:04,581 --> 01:15:11,321
that the UK wouldn't take advantage of that. So it's not a pleasant place to be a speaker,

920
01:15:11,501 --> 01:15:15,761
and it's certainly not a pleasant place to be a free speech activist. And yeah, everyone I know

921
01:15:15,761 --> 01:15:19,921
over there is very guarded with what they say, because they know that if they cross the line,

922
01:15:20,301 --> 01:15:24,441
they're not... And that's the whole point, right, about why the First Amendment exists. The realm

923
01:15:24,441 --> 01:15:29,741
of public discourse has been severely constrained in the UK, which prevents people from actually

924
01:15:29,741 --> 01:15:34,821
participating in it and pushing back on state excess because effectively if you criticize

925
01:15:34,821 --> 01:15:39,061
something it loudly enough if you criticize a government policy loudly enough you'll be

926
01:15:39,061 --> 01:15:44,341
arrested for it um and that's why that's why we're doing what we're doing here because we we know that

927
01:15:44,341 --> 01:15:50,641
we can't allow that to spread into the states yeah it's um that's what i wear because i would

928
01:15:50,641 --> 01:15:55,601
like to actually go over to peter's uh conference next year but he wrote this i no longer consent

929
01:15:55,601 --> 01:15:58,041
the moral case for a peaceful revolution.

930
01:16:00,101 --> 01:16:01,161
He's got a whole website.

931
01:16:01,301 --> 01:16:03,001
Yeah, I think he's trying to make a movement out of it.

932
01:16:04,321 --> 01:16:06,741
So it's interesting.

933
01:16:06,901 --> 01:16:07,241
It's funny.

934
01:16:07,421 --> 01:16:08,161
Not funny.

935
01:16:08,261 --> 01:16:09,581
It's just crazy.

936
01:16:10,081 --> 01:16:10,741
It's sad.

937
01:16:11,921 --> 01:16:14,221
It's crazy how Peter ended up in this position, too.

938
01:16:14,421 --> 01:16:16,141
He's going from a...

939
01:16:16,141 --> 01:16:18,481
I mean, he's a smart guy who cares.

940
01:16:18,481 --> 01:16:23,721
And eventually what happens is if you care about the world,

941
01:16:23,721 --> 01:16:29,241
you get involved, right? And you get involved sometimes. Peter doesn't need to do this,

942
01:16:29,341 --> 01:16:35,221
right? He could keep running the podcast business, not have opinions, and probably make a lot more

943
01:16:35,221 --> 01:16:42,521
money than the trajectory that he seems to be hinting he might go down. But that's what happens

944
01:16:42,521 --> 01:16:47,481
if you care, right? You eventually start making decisions that affect your ability to make money,

945
01:16:47,781 --> 01:16:51,681
right? But you're not optimizing for money at that point, you're optimizing for outcomes.

946
01:16:51,681 --> 01:16:57,561
and I strongly suspect that Peter will wind up optimizing for outcomes rather than money.

947
01:16:58,401 --> 01:17:04,381
Just knowing, given the aggregate sum of every interaction I've had with him over 10 years,

948
01:17:04,801 --> 01:17:08,801
it seems logical and almost inevitable that he will do that. But we'll see.

949
01:17:09,501 --> 01:17:13,321
Well, as some people say, real recognize real. It seems like you're real in this sense, too,

950
01:17:13,381 --> 01:17:18,761
where you've dedicated a lot of your life to pro bono work and the defense of free speech,

951
01:17:18,761 --> 01:17:23,821
particularly here in america and hopefully outside of our border so again um that blend

952
01:17:23,821 --> 01:17:27,061
smoke up your ass thank you for all the work you've been doing on that front it's extremely

953
01:17:27,061 --> 01:17:33,801
important these are existential anytime you know they're i'm not i'm nothing special though you

954
01:17:33,801 --> 01:17:39,021
know they're i know at least three other lawyers if they'd caught this case who they would have

955
01:17:39,021 --> 01:17:44,701
done thank you um but there are like three people who i know who would have done this um but but

956
01:17:44,701 --> 01:17:50,061
any one of them would have done exactly the same thing um it's just less than a handful of us

957
01:17:50,061 --> 01:17:56,881
there's less than a handful of us yeah it's it's ron coleman amy pike off um maybe mark randaza

958
01:17:56,881 --> 01:18:02,821
and um trying to think and i think that's it i think that's those i think those are the three

959
01:18:02,821 --> 01:18:08,381
others who would have who would and mark randaza ron coleman is involved right because he's co-counsel

960
01:18:08,381 --> 01:18:14,401
on the 4chan case uh amy pike off is currently working with pacific legal and she's doing fourth

961
01:18:14,401 --> 01:18:18,841
Amendment work at the border, which is a big problem here in the US. And Mark Randazza is one

962
01:18:18,841 --> 01:18:25,041
of the most storied First Amendment litigators in the United States. So those three people I know

963
01:18:25,041 --> 01:18:30,721
would have done exactly the same thing. And one of them, in fact, is involved in this fight. So

964
01:18:30,721 --> 01:18:35,821
I'm not alone. There aren't many of us, but there are a lot of people in the federal government now

965
01:18:35,821 --> 01:18:41,001
who care and they can't be named for obvious reasons, but they're pushing the ball forward

966
01:18:41,001 --> 01:18:47,301
too. And I'd say probably another 10 lawyers in the government in various places are looking at

967
01:18:47,301 --> 01:18:54,541
this very seriously and moving the ball forward. So every issue has its specialists. My issue,

968
01:18:54,981 --> 01:18:59,821
I languished in comparative obscurity, just focusing on this one problem nobody cared about

969
01:18:59,821 --> 01:19:07,001
for a long time until suddenly everybody did. And so it was just a weird set of circumstances where

970
01:19:07,001 --> 01:19:19,934
the UK if Bulgaria had done this right If Bulgaria had decided that they were going to have an internet censorship law and they were going to enter the US I would not have been the right lawyer for that You would have needed a Bulgarian dual qualified lawyer But it just happened to be

971
01:19:19,934 --> 01:19:25,494
coincidence timing and, yeah, coincidence, pure coincidence that it happened to be the UK that

972
01:19:25,494 --> 01:19:32,173
did it first. But yeah, it's been a crazy ride. It's not over yet. I'm not doing any victory laps

973
01:19:32,173 --> 01:19:40,314
yet. But I think once we're done reinforcing the American perimeter, I think a lot of the UK's

974
01:19:40,314 --> 01:19:49,293
assumptions around controlling domestic speech are predicated on the additional assumption that

975
01:19:49,293 --> 01:19:54,934
they would be able to control American speech and the environment here through their extraterritorial

976
01:19:54,934 --> 01:20:00,953
rules. And I think the same is true in the EU and Australia. And if we can negate that assumption

977
01:20:00,953 --> 01:20:04,934
by nullifying the effect of these extraterritorial laws here in the United States,

978
01:20:05,414 --> 01:20:06,453
that will do two things.

979
01:20:06,534 --> 01:20:08,894
The first one is, one, it will communicate to those places

980
01:20:08,894 --> 01:20:14,093
that they are not able to pull us down to the lowest common denominator

981
01:20:14,093 --> 01:20:16,234
and hobble us competitively.

982
01:20:16,713 --> 01:20:19,494
So this is not a viable economic strategy for their countries.

983
01:20:19,953 --> 01:20:21,633
And the second thing is it will tell them,

984
01:20:21,633 --> 01:20:24,613
you are not able to control the political environment here

985
01:20:24,613 --> 01:20:26,453
through extraterritorial coercion.

986
01:20:26,453 --> 01:20:43,693
And as a consequence of that, you will have to learn to live with America and American free speech online, and you will have to make the decision whether you want to really own the censorship, like Stasi-style, Soviet-style, controlling what information enters the information economy.

987
01:20:43,693 --> 01:20:47,213
And my dog is now making more noise.

988
01:20:47,333 --> 01:20:51,854
He's digging on the carpet under the chair, presumably to go take a nap.

989
01:20:52,814 --> 01:20:53,833
That's my life now.

990
01:20:54,034 --> 01:20:59,953
I sit here, I fight foreign governments, and I have a small poodle who makes noises inside.

991
01:21:00,394 --> 01:21:09,994
But yeah, so they'll have to make the decision whether they want to take those politically damaging actions in their countries or whether they want to chart a different course and try something else.

992
01:21:09,994 --> 01:21:15,274
I think it'll take a little time, but I suspect over the next five to 10 years, the alternative course of action.

993
01:21:15,453 --> 01:21:27,333
I think we've reached a high watermark of this nonsense and that the pushback, once we're done, once we've completed it here in the U.S., that's going to communicate to a lot of people in Europe that their current course was not sustainable.

994
01:21:27,774 --> 01:21:28,734
It does not have a future.

995
01:21:29,373 --> 01:21:31,333
And accordingly, they need to alter course as well.

996
01:21:33,394 --> 01:21:35,873
With that note, any calls to action to the audience?

997
01:21:35,873 --> 01:21:38,354
Anybody who's listening to this is inspired.

998
01:21:38,593 --> 01:21:39,854
What can they do to get involved?

999
01:21:39,994 --> 01:21:47,193
Um, if you're a lawyer, uh, there's a lot that you can do. Uh, chiefly you can pick up a, you know,

1000
01:21:47,354 --> 01:21:52,113
pick up a pro bono case now here and there, um, and get involved, reach out to me. You know,

1001
01:21:52,113 --> 01:21:56,774
if there's anything you want to do, let's, let's be friends. And, um, you know, I can try to send

1002
01:21:56,774 --> 01:22:02,693
some work your way because if we don't succeed at, you know, holding the line with federal action,

1003
01:22:02,693 --> 01:22:07,354
but I think we will, but if we don't, uh, there are certainly going to be more clients and I'm

1004
01:22:07,354 --> 01:22:13,394
certainly not able to take them all myself. If you're not an attorney, you can retweet,

1005
01:22:13,574 --> 01:22:19,414
engage with content and call your representatives, that sort of thing. I know that your audience may

1006
01:22:19,414 --> 01:22:25,314
not actually know this because Taylor Lorenz, who's a journalist over on the political left,

1007
01:22:25,693 --> 01:22:31,873
who is very much not aligned with the ideals of most Bitcoiners, is actually one of the most

1008
01:22:31,873 --> 01:22:38,753
outspoken pro-free speech activists for internet speech in the United States. And I frequently find

1009
01:22:38,753 --> 01:22:46,074
that when she expresses an opinion on any one of the many child safety or online safety or age

1010
01:22:46,074 --> 01:22:51,734
verification laws here in the United States, even I learned something and I find myself adopting her

1011
01:22:51,734 --> 01:22:56,274
positions. And we are not predisposed to agree with each other by any stretch of the imagination.

1012
01:22:56,453 --> 01:23:00,753
So definitely follow Taylor, follow people she engages with, follow groups like FIRE and Net

1013
01:23:00,753 --> 01:23:07,293
choice, retweet their content. If we get federal legislation in the new year, please call your

1014
01:23:07,293 --> 01:23:12,293
representative and say that you support that legislation and that you'd like to see it enacted.

1015
01:23:12,613 --> 01:23:17,774
And there'll be a time and a place for that. No bills have been published as yet. But yeah,

1016
01:23:17,854 --> 01:23:23,734
I think there's going to be an interesting story for internet censorship over the next six,

1017
01:23:23,734 --> 01:23:29,434
12 months. And you can get involved. Everything helps, literally. Every retweet, every like,

1018
01:23:29,434 --> 01:23:34,333
every reply, every phone call you make to a representative, if enough of us do it,

1019
01:23:34,654 --> 01:23:40,314
we make a difference. And it requires everybody, you know, it requires everyone. And everyone,

1020
01:23:40,533 --> 01:23:45,994
everyone who is involved does, you know, this effort that we had, you know, nine months ago,

1021
01:23:46,014 --> 01:23:49,934
I struggled to get a journalist to cover it. I remember I wrote, I wrote to, we provided some

1022
01:23:49,934 --> 01:23:54,394
documents to Politico. And basically the only media coverage this had was a, was one link of

1023
01:23:54,394 --> 01:23:59,293
Politico uploading a PDF. And it wasn't a story, right? And it's become a story because so many

1024
01:23:59,293 --> 01:24:04,394
people have followed it. So many people have engaged with it. And so I'm the shit poster in

1025
01:24:04,394 --> 01:24:10,394
chief, right? But everybody who's helped to disseminate that content, there is a direct

1026
01:24:10,394 --> 01:24:16,193
line of causation to every Twitter user, every Facebook user, every internet user who shared

1027
01:24:16,193 --> 01:24:21,074
this content, engaged with it, commented on it, even disagreed with it by making this a conversation

1028
01:24:21,074 --> 01:24:27,174
that's now being had in Washington. And yeah, I thank everybody for it because without each and

1029
01:24:27,174 --> 01:24:32,613
every single person who has retweeted anything, read a post, shared it by email, anything like

1030
01:24:32,613 --> 01:24:36,193
that over the course of the last year, every single one of those things you can, and you can

1031
01:24:36,193 --> 01:24:40,953
chart it. You can actually plot it on a map or on a chart. You can see the graph going up, up, up,

1032
01:24:40,953 --> 01:24:45,453
up, up. And so with engagement and things like that, and it's because of you, right? It's because

1033
01:24:45,453 --> 01:24:49,253
of the people who listen to these podcasts, follow us on Twitter, repost these things,

1034
01:24:49,674 --> 01:24:55,654
that this has become a national issue. And, you know, I would not, it's, it's, it's one of the,

1035
01:24:55,654 --> 01:24:59,613
I wish I could snap my fingers, make a magic list.

1036
01:24:59,713 --> 01:25:01,354
And I'm sure there's a way for AI to do that.

1037
01:25:01,654 --> 01:25:07,354
But in rank, every contributor to the discourse, but literally every single person who has

1038
01:25:07,354 --> 01:25:13,074
contributed to the discussion or participated in the discussion and agreed with us in particular

1039
01:25:13,074 --> 01:25:15,314
and said, you guys are doing good stuff.

1040
01:25:15,713 --> 01:25:16,793
All of that has been seen.

1041
01:25:17,154 --> 01:25:18,074
It's all been ingested.

1042
01:25:18,674 --> 01:25:22,474
And now what we're seeing is we're starting to see movement at the federal level to respond

1043
01:25:22,474 --> 01:25:22,814
to this.

1044
01:25:22,814 --> 01:25:26,713
So yeah, thank you to the entire internet for helping us do this.

1045
01:25:28,234 --> 01:25:29,193
You're a formidable shitposter.

1046
01:25:29,354 --> 01:25:30,354
Don't sell yourself short.

1047
01:25:31,033 --> 01:25:34,873
This was an incredible conversation.

1048
01:25:35,074 --> 01:25:35,774
Very important.

1049
01:25:36,113 --> 01:25:37,074
And co-sign all that.

1050
01:25:37,113 --> 01:25:38,934
Get involved if you're listening to this.

1051
01:25:39,894 --> 01:25:40,873
Every little bit helps.

1052
01:25:40,974 --> 01:25:47,514
It's a very important, again, existential fight as we continue to transition into the digital age.

1053
01:25:47,873 --> 01:25:50,033
We're having the big battles right now.

1054
01:25:50,074 --> 01:25:51,394
Speech being one of the biggest.

1055
01:25:51,394 --> 01:25:54,033
So Preston, thank you for your time.

1056
01:25:54,234 --> 01:25:55,514
Thank you for what you're doing.

1057
01:25:55,674 --> 01:25:57,293
It's incredible work, important work.

1058
01:25:57,453 --> 01:26:01,894
And I'm excited to see this progress into 2026.

1059
01:26:02,593 --> 01:26:03,814
I'll keep you posted.

1060
01:26:04,193 --> 01:26:12,154
But what I would say to everyone, the parting message is it may not seem like it, but we are winning and we are going to win.

1061
01:26:12,613 --> 01:26:13,514
So watch this space.

1062
01:26:14,074 --> 01:26:14,314
All right.

1063
01:26:14,713 --> 01:26:15,474
We're going to win, freaks.

1064
01:26:15,574 --> 01:26:16,033
Peace and love.

1065
01:26:16,693 --> 01:26:19,613
Thank you for listening to this episode of TFTC.

1066
01:26:19,613 --> 01:26:23,674
if you've made it this far, I imagine you got some value out of the episode.

1067
01:26:24,033 --> 01:26:28,033
If so, please share it far and wide with your friends and family.

1068
01:26:28,133 --> 01:26:29,494
We're looking to get the word out there.

1069
01:26:30,274 --> 01:26:34,314
Also, wherever you're listening, whether that's YouTube, Apple, Spotify,

1070
01:26:34,814 --> 01:26:37,593
make sure you like and subscribe to the show.

1071
01:26:37,593 --> 01:26:42,333
And if you can leave a rating on the podcasting platforms, that goes a long way.

1072
01:26:42,873 --> 01:26:47,333
Last but not least, if you want to get these episodes a day early and ad-free,

1073
01:26:47,333 --> 01:26:53,174
Make sure you download the Fountain podcasting app and go to fountain.fm to find that.

1074
01:26:53,914 --> 01:26:57,654
$5 a month gets you every episode a day early, ad-free.

1075
01:26:58,193 --> 01:27:00,753
Helps the show, gives you incredible value.

1076
01:27:01,693 --> 01:27:04,974
So please consider subscribing via Fountain as well.

1077
01:27:05,553 --> 01:27:06,434
Thank you for your time.

1078
01:27:07,014 --> 01:27:07,854
And until next time.

1079
01:27:08,474 --> 01:27:08,674
Okay.

1080
01:27:17,333 --> 01:27:47,314
Thank you.