Waiting..
Auto Scroll
Sync
Top
Bottom
Select text to annotate, Click play in YouTube to begin
00:00:00
earlier this week a uk judge denied extradition for wikileaks founder julian assange of the united states journalist glenn greenwald has been a vocal advocate for assange he tweeted out his support saying quote the rejection by the uk judge of the u.s government's request
00:00:13
to extradite julian assange to stand trial on espionage is obviously great news ultimately though from a humanitarian and political perspective what matters most is that assange be freed as soon as possible
00:00:25
journalist glenn greenwald joins us now to expand on his thoughts great to see you glenn good to see you glenn good to be with you guys glenn give us your reaction to this i mean we we've all i think here have been forceful defenders and this is one of the first like
00:00:38
band where i haven't even seen much reaction to it but is this a dangerous precedent for locking the account of the president of the united states and what does it mean really for our civil discourse i think it's dangerous precisely because
00:00:51
there's so little objection being expressed and the reason there's so little objection being expressed is because we have one of those climates that often arises in the wake of some kind of traumatic event that unites everybody in anger
00:01:04
which obviously was the case for yesterday's invasion by a mob in the capital where the only permissible expression is to demand retribution or assist the law enforcement in the
00:01:16
government increase their powers to the highest extent in order to punish the wrongdoers and prevent future occurrences and there's very little effort to take a step back and say what is it that we're endorsing
00:01:28
while in this moment of high intensity of trauma and rage and i think that the fact that something so extraordinary which is that the president of the united states has
00:01:41
been barred from using social media and threatened with permanent removal is being met with kind of a shrug because people are so focused on the anger that they feel and that's exactly when
00:01:54
those kinds of emotions can most often be exploited in dangerous ways that should have been the lesson in the weeks and days after 9 11. yeah i think your point is an interesting one because you think
00:02:06
about like the patriot act and the excesses of that and also the authorization of use of military force that has just been you know expanded to the entire world and presidents using it to do whatever they want at the same time i have to say this was the first time
00:02:19
where i've been like maybe this was justified because when you get into the realm of actually inciting and contributing to political violence like i'm just wondering how you look at this in terms of is there a line that you think the
00:02:32
president united states could cross or do you feel like because he's the elected president united states he should be able to say whatever he wants on twitter without any sort of suspension or consequences
00:02:47
oh no he froze he's froze one sec let's wait for him to come back did you hear the question glenn i'm here i'm here i got it i got it okay perfect yeah i did i did so i i i think that what is most
00:03:00
important is that we think about the analytical framework we're using it is always the case this is not at least for me the first time when i look at a certain kind of speech and say it would be better if that
00:03:13
speech didn't exist because that speech is dangerous people are online encouraging others to look at false cures for the coronavirus and causing them to be reckless because they think that there's a
00:03:25
treatment that will protect them from the virus that will ravage their lungs or if people are encouraging others to believe any number of false things that might lead to violence or people are explicitly advocating violence obviously
00:03:38
that kind of speech is dangerous speech can be dangerous there's this is not the first time when that's been the case the problem is you have to not only look at the dangers in that speech in question but also the dangers that
00:03:51
come from the solution to the speech and so if in this moment when we're really all upset and disturbed by what president trump said and did in the outcome of it which all decent people
00:04:02
are to then turn around and say okay the solution is that we're going to empower tech companies silicon valley companies or even the government to start increasing their
00:04:15
censorship powers in the name of preventing this kind of speech from fueling right-wing extremism if we're only looking at one side of the equation hey i think it's better that trump not be heard from from 12 hours it's very easy to reach that
00:04:28
up that that conclusion you have to look at the other side of the equation though as well the dangers of the solution that you're advocating to the problem yeah i hear you but is there a line for you because none of these rights are
00:04:40
absolute right like you can't yell fire in a crowd of movie theaters the the classic example of where the line is sort of drawn so do you think that there is a line in terms of the president and free speech
00:04:53
or do you think that because he's the president that he you know that he was democratically elected and he has a right or you know it's in the public interest to hear what he has to say
00:05:04
no matter how abhorrent yeah i think both of those points are important first of all i think when it comes to expressing political viewpoints rights are absolute
00:05:18
obviously not all speech is absolutely protected i can't call you on the phone and threaten to murder you unless you pay me money even though i'm using speech to do it that's still a crime that's not the expression of a political opinion same with
00:05:30
yelling fire in a crowded movie theater which is why those examples obfuscate rather than illuminate the point so the supreme court has said that even when a ku klux klan member stands up and advocates violence as
00:05:43
a justified reaction to government policies that they regard as odious even that is protected speech advocacy of violence that's the way our country began by people advocating violence against the
00:05:56
british crown so i do think political viewpoints are absolute but then i also do think the efficacy question matters you cannot silence the president of the united states it is much more beneficial to know he
00:06:08
still has a nuclear codes he's still the commander in chief of the armed forces i'd rather know what he's thinking and and saying then not have him have a valve for that and ultimately he can find a valve he can call a press conference he can
00:06:20
you know go on fox news or newsmax or find a way to communicate with his followers it's not effective even if if it were desirable anyway last question for you glenn there's a lot of discussion i see on the right now
00:06:32
about civil liberties and worried about the fbi and all that i'm curious for your view if in moments like this that those concerns are justified and what is the right way um to handle these things i mean i think
00:06:46
we ought to look at the way that these events were handled or mishandled in the past i started writing about it this morning and i started with the speech that barbara lee gave the lone congresswoman who in on
00:06:58
september 14th three days after the september 11th attack passed the only vote against the authorization to use military force she went to the floor of the house and simply said let's just take a deep breath let's think about the implications of
00:07:11
what we're doing not act with rage and before that she was accused of minimizing the attack of siding with the terrorists he needed armed guards there are all kinds of situations where
00:07:22
in response to a particular attack for example i spent the first 10 years of my journalism career urging people to realize that the threat of islamic terrorism was being exaggerated for all kinds of political and financial
00:07:35
ends and people on the left were very sympathetic that people on the right weren't it doesn't mean the threat is non-existent it means we have to be very careful about allowing our emotions to enable people to depict it as bigger
00:07:47
than it is in order to get us to agree to things that we otherwise wouldn't agree to of course right-wing violence is a threat the question is what is the magnitude of it we have to be very
00:07:59
careful not to overreact and empower censorship and surveillance and law enforcement powers that will be invoked in the name of combating it yeah you have a very clear analytical
00:08:12
mind on these things glenn we really appreciate it thank you glenn all right good to be with you guys thank you all right team rising they're going to join us now to discuss what unfolded in washington rising continues
End of transcript