Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor GREENE during yesterday's failed, humiliating,
instantly imploding Twitter hearings, wrongly claimed that Twitter broke the law when they
suspended her account because she violated their terms of service. She doesn't understand
the law or the First Amendment, but her followers don't either. So this stuff
is really effective. Listen to her rant. Speaker 2: Let's explain. 52 United States
Law 10101. Yes. No person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce or attempt to stop any other.
Speaker 1: I've never heard the word coerce pronoun to coerce.
She really speaks in an interesting way. Speaker 2: Or person for the purpose of
interfering with their rights to vote or to vote as he may choose. You didn't shadow ban
or permanently ban my Democrat opponent. Speaker 1: Because your Democrat opponent
didn't violate Twitter's terms of service. Speaker 2: Now, you did that to me. And that
was wrong. And it was against the law. Speaker 1: It was against the law. Wait,
No, it wasn't. Speaker 2: You see,
not only that was it. Was it me that you violated my First Amendment rights? You violated countless
conservative Americans. These were doctors that were trying to tell the truth about COVID.
Speaker 1: They were lying. Speaker 2: That we're having
success treating people with ivermectin. Speaker 1: That is not a scientifically
demonstrated claim. And in fact, ivermectin does not work on COVID.
Speaker 2: That you all would not allow to be talked about on your platform. These
were parents complaining about their school boards teaching gender lies in their schools.
Biological males entering their daughters, bathrooms and sports. These were also people
questioning the 2020 election. And guess what? That's Americans First Amendment right.
Speaker 1: Notice how on that one, she doesn't say they were right to question it. She's now moved to
they are allowed to question it under the First Amendment. Now, understand that Marjorie Taylor
GREENE has no clue and no understanding of the First Amendment, nor of the law. So I know many
of you know this, but let's put it together nice and concisely here. As far as the First
Amendment goes, it applies to the government. It does not apply to private companies like Twitter.
So when Twitter decides to ban someone, it is not a violation of their constitutional
rights. Could Twitter commit a crime by banning people? Sure. If Twitter was banning people.
Either overtly, or it could be demonstrating, demonstrated that they were targeting people of
certain protected classes for banning. If Twitter all of a sudden was banning Jews from Twitter for
being Jewish or banning black people from Twitter because they were black. That would be a crime. It
wouldn't be a First Amendment issue. It would be a nondiscrimination issue. But the First Amendment
does not apply to Twitter. Now, then you get to the second part of the argument, which is
that some people argue that because Twitter is such a big platform, it should be treated as a
public forum. Now, that is not the law. That is not the law. It is not the law. But let's imagine,
for the sake of argument that we accept that that's the way it should be. The First Amendment
also doesn't guarantee the right to speech in all circumstances, nor does it guarantee freedom from
consequences of your speech. There are still limits on speech, incitement to violence,
or whatever the case may be. It is circumstantial, but that's if we imagine that the law is different
than it is. And Marjorie Taylor GREENE said this was a First Amendment violation and it was a crime
even if someone's speech isn't a prohibited. Social media platforms still have the right
to set their own standards and enforce them as they see fit. I've been the target, or I guess
I could say the victim of the mis enforcement of these policies. When YouTube was it, you know,
when Instagram had a policy against COVID disinformation. I did a video covering a guy
who said, drink urine for COVID. Okay. I didn't say drink urine for COVID. I would never do that.
I wouldn't suggest distilling urine, drinking it, injecting it, using it for flambé. I would
not suggest urine for COVID in any way. However, I was caught up and we had a problem because the
terms of service were misapplied because I quoted someone spreading COVID disinformation, I was
caught up in it. It wasn't a crime. I disagreed with that because it was not an application fairly
of the terms of service, but none of it relates to criminality. But with them, everything is always a
crime. Now, one other argument that Republicans sometimes make is that social media censorship
is biased against conservatives. The reality is social media companies are private businesses.
They can enforce their policies however they want. If they wanted to ban conservatives,
they would be allowed to do that. Now, again, it goes back to, well, Twitter so big it should be
regulated in a different way. Should be and is are two completely different things. And lastly,
remember that these social media platforms aren't the only way to communicate with others to express
themselves. So one of the arguments people like Marjorie Taylor GREENE are making are have been
when I am running a campaign against someone, I'm speaking as Marjorie. Now, I know it's hard to
imagine, but I'm speaking as Marjorie. She argues when I'm running a campaign against someone else
and you ban me and not them. Essentially, it's almost like a campaign contribution of sorts.
It's against the law. You're silencing me. First Amendment. We've debunked basically every aspect
of that. But the other thing you have to remember is Twitter is not the only way that you run a
campaign. Twitter is not a requirement to run campaigns. There's TV she can put her videos up on
on YouTube, Facebook, all these different things. She can be interviewed, etc.. So also in that way,
it is neither a crime nor a violation of anyone's rights. Absolute last thing on this. There's also
the business regulation hypocrisy of these people when they make these claims. On the one hand,
Republicans claim to be against government intervention in business and at the same time
here they are demanding Twitter should be forced to publish someone's tweets. Why? That's extremely
heavy handed regulation to come in and say to a private business, we as the government are going
to tell you, you've got to publish, you're in conspiracies, you've got to publish Marjorie's
conspiracies or whatever the case may be. So this is absurd in every way. Marjorie Taylor GREENE is
wrong on every one of these claims. But you go to a Trump rally and you interview people and
they go, Oh, Twitter's violating people's First Amendment rights because they don't know any
better. All of these clips will be on our YouTube channel, YouTube.com slash The David Pakman Show.