It's always like time travelling, you're seeing those scenes and you really can feel the spirit of those events and what they mean to us, so thank you very much. You can see to the left of me Sandra and Thies, who I'll introduce properly shortly, but first a round of applause to you. You can feel it from everyone who watched the stream and it seems like you've just felt it, so thank you very much and also thank you for providing the film to us to show and quick note to everyone watching, we have a pad which is already filled with questions, you can find the link in the far plan and you can still add questions as we go. So let's tune in and see what we got from the internet. How were the animations made? Okay, so we're heading right in. I would be interested in whether people re-watch the movie or watch the movie for the first time. So let's get to the question. The animations were a cooperation with Tom Frigui, it's his name. He's an animation artist which I've known for a long time and I knew that his style is exactly what I envisioned for my film, so I wrote the text and described my vision to him and he provided me with a storyboard and he animated that in what he calls 2D 3D or was it 3D 2D? 2D 3D. So it's nice and neat but still 3D. Did you take him to the events, the CCC events or was it just... I kind of soaked up the material and put it on his desk. So of course he saw the movie and I provided him with the slots where he would add in his animations. Yeah that was in 2017, we still had some empty slots where I told him to add in the animation and I tried to explain to him. Well yeah, he watched the film, what I had so far, the material and I explained the whole thing to him and that's how we did it but his animations are always like you've seen in the movie so that is why I asked him to do my animation. Yeah they're very unique. Next question, what do the birds mean and do they have anything to do with birds aren't real? The birds, the big birds. Why birds? Birds are a swarm and I thought that was a nice image and also the associations with various sayings like birds of a feather. So it wasn't just real birds but also animated birds, like a mix between of the two and it was John's idea because I added so many pixels like I blurred so many people that didn't want to be filmed because of course people have to give consent before I can add them into the movie and then yeah of course I had to blur many scenes and that sometimes I liked the blurring and I added in additional blurring and so that was John's idea and the real escalation was the following Congress. Well for me as not being in the loop what is birds aren't real? Is it something that I should know? What does that mean? Are the birds really campers or? And one Congress there was an escalation but over the four days it started with birds aren't real and then all kinds of things suddenly weren't real. Does it have anything to do with those birds? I didn't know the origin. That's what I thought it was. Well I wasn't there. I don't know if I started that meme. I think it was something else. Everyone needs to know what they associate different things with because everyone has a different experience of the Congress. Okay we have some latencies. Sorry to the viewers. That was my great concern when I was making the film. I was always afraid that my vision wouldn't be understood but I think I managed to find an angle that everyone can understand and get into. Yeah at one premiere in Berlin I think you said that many of the raw data could be put into a pool where people could choose and pick their own ideas and remix them and in use about that would you need support for that? Well there was an idea to do that with a few people who wanted to do that but it turns out it's a great bunch of material which I had to sift through because they can't all be published with a CC license because in much of the materials people could be in the film that wouldn't want to be in the film or we couldn't ask but if somebody wanted to host that kind of material and make it accessible then they can feel free to approach me because the question would also be what to do with that material because if I just want to use two or three images and have to download a terabyte in order to do so that would make it difficult so we would need to find a way to do that in a way that it makes sense so I'd be happy to see remixes and stuff. On the internet I saw that your film is now under CC license in celebration of Wikimedia's 20th anniversary. What's the story behind that and what could people do with the material? While I was filming it became clear to me that I would want to publish it under a CC license and in the end of the film I just clicked into it. Well everyone is contributing to something to the community and the whole thing only works because we all work together and I think not just because of the community it's just my opinion that it would be sad to let this film rot somewhere in the drawer so it only makes sense to me to publish it that way and wiki comments have abused the violations towards using their licenses and I just recently gave it into wiki comments and there's also some additional material for people who want to use the film in educational contexts and I think the basic prerequisite for more films to be published that way in the end there are systems and laws that you have to that you have to keep and sometimes well financial issues are also part of that I was lucky to have 100% financing by the community which made my project possible and I'm working on a systemic approach to those issues in order to enable more people to make films like that and also support film communities that don't have it as easy as I did yeah let's get you into the supervisory boards necessary to do that thank you very much for your work I'm more of an audio junkie myself with the content from Deutschland Radio and so on and I'm also sad to always see material taken down because of copyright issues that plays into another question that was asked how about the financing was your way able to make your film lossless how was the starting phase well yeah getting funds is really tedious I can tell you that the good thing is once you've made it you have already an audience a target audience who want to see the film because they've contributed to the financing that's a good thing but crowdfunding is not a solution to all problems and well German taxpayers are paying into the into funds for the media but still the public media in Germany aren't able to completely finance their projects as well so it's no wonder that filmmakers are having a difficult time funding their projects and well that's also the thing with publicly produced media being taken down and that that makes it so that you basically have to sell your movie you're forced to sell your movie in the end you're a very good example in that direction another question are similar projects planned so I was always asked so when are you going to make the next one so I don't want to do the same movie two three five four times so we're not going to see all creatures welcome reloaded but at rc3 I created a music video for for a song that he's created and that's going to be released before this devock is over and I'm working on something that might be something like all creatures welcome but especially for children and these these are long-term projects and what I'm working on the most right now what I want to make it a film project and I want to work on accessibility and availability and that's what I'm working on and I'm sure you'll hear about it at a certain point in time and of course that will be made available 3d as well so so we're calling that latency so one question that connects very well so is there is there a soundtrack I really love the music and I would love to add that to my music list tease so Sunday morning between five and six we are going to play the soundtrack in a special dj set version and will be made available on bandcamp directly for download including new tracks new versions and the various bits and pieces that were released individually I've collected them all and reworked them and this is kind of the final version and that will be available right away on sunday for everybody to download so so please take the time to actually download it at bandcamp instead of just streaming it because it will sound so much better download it it will be free of charge and if you want to pay something that's fantastic but don't feel obliged to and it's it's it's a lot more fun to have it on your own hard disk so I'm really looking forward to that feast for the years so thank you for that so imagine question other things that you would like to add or move like patch the movie or the sound no the movie is done so you have to know I worked four years on this and it took me half a year to cut it and so I like watching it again and again and and also in the movie theaters while that was possible and I always enjoyed watching it and it's it's it's still a lot of fun watching it and the movie is done do you want to change something so for me this is kind of a time capsule it is like it is and it stays the way and so we we we put it into a capsule and shoot it into the sky so the next question you already kind of answered so what kind of update or or continuation might there be so so maybe that's a call for action for all the viewers if you are interested in doing this why don't you do it yourself simply do it then there's the question is the album available on cd so yeah download it and burn it so funnily enough so we we made dvds for this movie and many many people wanted to be able to give this movie as a gift to their parents and of course you need a dvd for that there are dvds but no cds so if you still have a cd burner like these outdated media then yeah sure go ahead and burn it well vinyl would be nice we tried that but we we didn't get the funds together to put that out and if we had succeeded in doing that the soundtrack would have been finished by then and all the things that have been created since the release the original release would not have been a part of that so i'm really happy about publishing that on sunday it's a new musical dimension that we were able to add and work with the wiki media commons license okay then we have so the media is free to download are there legal limits to public performance of the media a part of course of the pandemic related restrictions yes so we have the cc by s a license cc for creative commons bi for the attribution for me as the creator of the movie or a piece for the music and s a means and if you are going to create a derivative work if you're going to change something you have to publish your work under the same license so if somebody is doing some event for example uh so some people have created their own drive-in theaters and uh if somebody wants to show it and earn money with it then i asked for a share of that and uh if the public media uh were to ask for it of course i i wouldn't mind getting a share of that too so i read the questions do yes so so there's a big problem that the public media the public tv and radio stations do not pay for documentary works and my first movie that ran 15 times at city f and was five original broadcasts and 10 repeats and and for all of that all together i get 5000 euros for a movie for all together for all 15 performances and normally we only pay three they said when they buy stuff like that so it's many people stop making documentary movies because of that to exist here so it's it's really hard to live off that yeah so the simple things like paying your rent yeah i heard of that so that's unfortunately the situation for documentary makers so so i would love to see the reach that it would create but i would love for them to actually pay for it so there's many comments and so if you want to see more and read more there's lots of comments in the pad and people are very happy and at this point thank you very much to Sandra and teas or film gizmo and for all of you who were interested so so once we're finished here so friday night we watched a movie and after that we go to the dance floor so where do we go to the dance floor it's divock right dj spock has collected a lot of artists and he he has many very cool acts so so what's really cool we're not just here in the stream so we have the interesting 2d world and we're all going to go into the world to rave and listen to the dj's and teas teas are we going to see you sunday morning at five or is it is it just play and background the work so i will be in the background a little bit i have created a couple things i prepared a couple things so we'll see so if you really want me to i can i can appear yeah so i won't only push play but i will adjust some some parts thank you very much everybody thank you to the team in the background and that's it for tonight goodbye also from your translators she's a pirate and stb and somebody has to tell me


Standing in my bathroom and you may ask why and it's not because sound in here is horrible with all the echoing It's because well, I have children on the other end of the house and they're being noisy And I want to record this video right now and normally I go outside for this, but it's hot I live in Florida. Anyway, this is a follow-up video to a video. I posted not too long ago secret message Which was a very simple secret message and we're gonna have a quick look at how to decode that today It was just kind of a barely hidden QR code But definitely I hope to do more videos like that. It's something I've wanted to do for a long time And definitely get a lot more complicated than that one, which was pretty simple. Although, you know Some people might, you know, see things quicker than others So we're gonna look at at decoding that You know basically QR code But there's a few steps to get to that point today in this video But I also hope to do more videos like this. It's not gonna take the place of other videos It's gonna be like every once in a while I'll just make a random video with a secret message and then like a week or so later I'll show you how to solve that secret message and there's no Rewards or prizes usually the end result will link you to a YouTube video where you can comment and say, hey I made it here. Yay, you know Just so you can claim your fame A few things about the first video I posted. First of all, I don't know Maybe you guys don't like this because it had a lot of thumbs down I think there were four currently there are four thumbs up and four thumbs down So half people didn't like this and I don't know why I don't know if it's because it was too hard for them I don't know if it was because it was too easy or they just don't like secret messages But we'll see I like I said, I think about this sort of thing when I'm just out in the bottom like Oh, it'd be cool if I did a secret code like this or a secret code like that and So again, this one was real simple Look at it now, and it'll be more difficult once in the future, but let me know in the comments below Does this sort of thing things seem fun to you? You know my channel is mainly about learning but the second part is about community and just having fun with one Other and I've really over the years tried to get my viewers to be more interactive and There has been a few of you But I thought this would be more thing, you know, we can interact and The only thing I ask and I asked this, you know I had Annotations in the original video and people kind of ignored it is when you get the answer to the video don't post it in the comments Go to the link where it's providing and post your comments there. Don't ruin the fun for other people. Okay? I know me saying that's not gonna help, but let's go ahead and look at decoding That simple qr code now. Okay, so this we're just gonna solve that Simple qr code So first download the YouTube video at the best quality you can I like using YouTube DL But whatever technique you use will be great. So let me go ahead and I'm going to copy and I'm gonna paste in the URL to the video and It shouldn't take long. It's like a 12-second video There we go. So we have that downloaded So next what we want to do is we want to extract a frame from it You could open it up in a video editor like Caden live and then just say extract frame I'm gonna use I'm gonna use ffmpeg because that's what I normally use give it the input of our video So ffmpeg dash I inputted the video dash dash No, just one dash SS 00 colon 00 colon 0 0 actually 0 1 there So what I'm saying here is just go to the first second of the video and we're gonna say v frame One which is the same extract one frame and we're gonna put it output dot png So again ffmpeg and then dash I for the input and we give it the name of the video We just downloaded and then dash SS for you know the second that we want to go to Which it's the same image throughout the entire video. I'm just saying go to one second and extract a Frame just one frame and I'll put it to there hit enter and now if we list you can see that obviously I must have typed something wrong V frame. Oh, sorry. It's v frames with an s There we go So now we have an output PNG which I can display real quick Which right here and if you look close enough you can see that there's qr code in there in fact an image magic here I could probably edit this and and adjust it. I could do that enhancements, so I was gonna go into GIMP because that's what I would normally use Let me just go into GIMP because that's what I was planning on doing But you could use image magic in the GUI there or image magic from the command line to adjust the picture But I'm just gonna say go to GIMP and a lot of the viewers were right You could open this up and you can either Go to colors threshold and it would give you the qr code I haven't tested up people said it worked what I did was I just went to contract Brace and contrast and turn the contrast all the way up because the way I created this image was I Turned the contrast all the way down and then moved it up one one degree, you know So go ahead do that. We'll go ahead and we'll export that and then we will close this So now if I display output.png you can see it's our new image and then I'm going to use Z bar IMG which you can install the package is called Z bar dash tools I've done videos on this before give it an image and we'll find all types of bar codes both qr codes and standard You know standard bar codes like UPCs and stuff We'll go ahead and we'll enter on that and you'll see that it gives you a URL here And then you can go to that URL and comment again I'm going to hopefully do more secret video secret message videos like this just for fun And when you solve them again, don't comment on the secret message comments on how to get there or where it leads Go to the actual video because that's well where it will normally lead or a link on my site or something I don't even know but you can comment after you solve it not on the postings you want to ruin for other people But that is it It's that simple. Thank you for watching be sure to check out my my website films by Chris calm That's Chris the chaos should be a link in the description be sure to subscribe share like comment And as always I hope that you have a great


Greetings and welcome to the Introduction to Astronomy. In this week's special topic in astronomy, we are going to talk about geosynchronous orbit and what that means. So what is a geosynchronous orbit? Well, this occurs when the orbital period of a satellite is the same as the rotational period of Earth. And what that means is that it always keeps over the same spot on Earth. Now this is, it will say, you can see this here, if you can see the red line here as it goes through, that kind of connects, not directly, but it's staying over this exact same point as it orbits. So exactly as fast as Earth spins, the satellite orbits around. Now this is a relatively high orbit. Many things are in low Earth orbit, such as the space station, international space station, which orbits Earth once every 90 minutes. And we'll see all different parts of Earth over the course of an orbit. An orbit in a geosynchronous will stay over the same portion of Earth. Now if it's in geosynchronous, it can change its position slightly. So the ones that are actually very interesting are what we call a geostationary orbit. That is a geosynchronous orbit that orbits over the equator. When this occurs, then the object will, the satellite will stay at the same position in the sky. So you could look out, it will always be in the exact same spot on the sky. Now why is that so useful? Well, it's useful for things like communications, television, and weather if you want to monitor certain areas. So if you want to be able to monitor storms in the Atlantic, it's very convenient to have a satellite dedicated that is up over the can view that specific area. It's also useful for things like satellite communication. So satellite dishes such as this, that can be used for various types of communication for satellite TV, are important because you can then point it just to that one spot in the sky. Once it's all set up, then you don't need to track the satellite. So if you wanted to follow the international space station, you'd only get to see it for a short period of time when it was up above your horizon. The satellite dish would have to be able to move to track that position. When you have something in a geostationary orbit, then it stays exactly in the same spot. Your satellite dish can just be pointing to that satellite, and you no longer need the complexity of being able to track something around in the sky. So let's go ahead and finish up with our summary and what we looked at this time. We talked about a geosynchronous orbit and a geosynchronous orbit occurred when the satellite orbits at the same rate that Earth rotates on its axis. If this geosynchronous orbit is over Earth's equator, it will be geostationary and remain at the same position in the sky. These are useful for things like communication and weather satellites as we previously discussed. So that concludes this lecture on geosynchronous orbits. We'll be back again next week for another special topic in astronomy. So until then, have a great day everyone, and I will see you in class.


Ranger Bill, warrior of the woodland. Struggling against extreme odds. Traveling dangerous trails. Fighting the many enemies of nature. This is the job of the guardian of the forest, Ranger Bill. Pouring rain, freezing cold, blistering heat, snow, floods, bears, rattlesnakes, mountain lions. Yes, all this in exchange for the satisfaction and pride of a job well done. Say, have you ever been in an automobile accident? They can be pretty frightening. And on the spur of the moment, you might even get scared enough to want to run away. Never run away from the scene of an accident no matter how bad the accident is. Why?  Only by hard work and fast thinking did Bill Jefferson save them from the angry citizens of Big Pine. That's a village about halfway between Naughty Pine and Canyon City. Here's the story, hit and run. Cut it down, Smitty. Gotta keep well within the limit. Yeah, yeah, okay, Ruben. You know, I don't know where folks get the idea that hot rod drivers are always speed demons. Oh, that's because a couple of smart Alex didn't use their heads. Going through town like a jet plane the way they did, and everybody's been sore ever since. I can't blame them exactly. Can you? No. Say, Smitty, we gotta put the strobe light on this thing when we get back to the garage. It must be out of time again. Yeah, you're right. Seems to be missing at high speeds. Watch out. The street's narrow here, Smitty. What's the matter with you, Ruben? Getting the jitters or something? No. It's just that the folks in town are so dead set against us. We wouldn't stand a chance if anything should... Look out! Look out for that man! I think I hit him, Ruben. Yeah. Let's get out of here quick. You mean run? Sure. Okay, here it goes. Cut around him wide. That's right. Now, take off! What's farther we got? Quite a ways, well. Coming into Big Pine now. That means we're halfway home. Yep. Gray Wolf from Stumpy is still sleeping. I guess I'll do the same. Hey, Bill, what's going on up here in the center town? I'm just wondering myself. Better wake up Stumpy and Gray Wolf. We'll find out. Okay. Hey, Gray Wolf! Stumpy!   Why do we stop here, Ralph? Something's going on in the street. Bill says we should take a look. Hey! Sounds like a riot started. You're not joking, Ralph. Locked the car so no one can get our weapons. Come on, fellas, let's find out what this is all about. Hey! They're the rangers! Come through! Thanks for letting us through, folks. Where's Constable Gorman? Right here, Bill. He dead, Sid? Yeah. How did it happen? I don't know, Bill. Some of the folks heard a car tearing down the street with their phone for old Sam here. Yeah, it was one of those dirty hot rodders. Ralph, get a blanket out of the car and cover the body, will ya? Sure. Let me through, please. Uh, a blanket won't do Sam any good. Why don't you go after those rats who did this? Yeah, that's the stuff. Oh, look here, Mr. Chair. We'll handle this your own way, if you don't mind. Gray Wolf, Stumpy, let's clear the crowd off the street. Ah, not a good idea. You haven't got enough rangers to move us, Mr. There are three of us here and one at the radio car. That's enough. You seem to be the ringleader, Mr. so I'm talking to you. You don't stop making trouble. I'll arrest you for inciting mob violence and obstructing the work of law enforcement officers. I'll get a move on. Back it in, Smitty, before somebody sees us. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you think I'm trying to do, Rube? Just a skirt I can't see straight. Look out now. Yeah, okay. Come on back. That's that. Close the doors, Rube. Yeah, right away, Smitty. Why don't you go home, Rube? I hit the guy, not you. Uh-uh. We're in this mess together, aren't we? I sure don't know where that fella came from. All I know is, suddenly, he's right in front of the car and boom! I know. Let's stay here for a while and think what we should do. I know what we shouldn't have done. Yeah? What? We shouldn't have run away. Maybe you're right. And I'm the guy that told you to do it. But we wouldn't have had a chance with some of those hotheads in town. But it's too late to think of that now. Is it? Sure it is. If I could only calm down and do some straight thinking, we've got to think straight. It's our only chance. The ambulance will be here shortly, Bill. Thanks, Ed. Did you find out anything? Yeah, some very interesting things. As soon as they take Old Sam away, we can go into my office and talk this over. Yeah, it's a good idea, sonny. Something mighty fishy about this here accident. Huh? What's a clear case of hit and run, ain't it? Not the way we see it, ain't it? Is that right, Bill? Well, there are some very peculiar factors in the case, Sid, that you don't find in the ordinary hit and run. I hope you can prove your point.  Was we hit? Yeah. Who is he? Sam Potter. Sam Potter? Oh. I found out something else. What? He's dead. You mean... you mean it was our car? Must have been. They found him dead on the street. I can't figure it, Rube. Neither can I, Smitty, but we killed him just the same. Do you... do you think we better give ourselves up? We can't do that. The towns for people would lynch us. Well, Bill, how does the evidence stack up? Let's start with the tire, Mark, Sid. We measured the short skid marks, and they tell us the car was going between 20 and 25 miles an hour. 20 miles? How could there be skid marks at that speed? Well, the brakes were in excellent condition, and the drivers slammed them on hard. The marks aren't prominent, but they're there just the same. They're even more important point about skid. Tell him, Bill. I'm just getting to that, Gray Wolf. Another reason the car is skidded as it did is that the tires were bald. It makes skidding easier. What kind of a car would have bald tires? It ain't safe for a regular car to have them. But hot rod have bald tires in some cases. Hot rod? That would make matters worse for whoever hits Sam. What do you mean, Sid?  Sam Potter was recognized as the leader in the town. I see. That's why the folks here were so angry. That sounds more than just the usual anger and disgust over a hit-and-run case. Not only that, Bill. These folks are very prejudiced against hot rods. Most people are, Sid. It's the hot rod's own fault. Well, we just got to keep ahead of them, that's all, and ask for patience. How do we do that, Bill? We're finding the driver of that car before they do. Where we start to find driver, Bill? Well, the first thing I want to do is take Sam's outer clothing to the lab and have him gone over for paint fragments. Gray Wolf, you and Ralph get a list of all the lads who own their drive hot rods. And Stumpy, you stay here and help Sid keep things under control. Say, Stumpy, let's stop in here at Ben's store and have a cup of coffee. A lot of the folks just sit around there and talk. Well, that's for us, Sid. Maybe we can get an idea of what they're thinking about in this here accident. Yeah, seems to be quite a crowd in the store. Yeah, and I don't like it. Well, Sonny, let's go on in. There's only one way to catch a polecat. Go in after him. Hey, fellas, here's Sid. He's just an old guy. He can't do any harm. Oh, just a minute there, young sir. I was put in three-cornered pants and grizzly bears before you were born. Step up here, I'll show you how old I am. Okay, Pop, I'll take it all back. Hey, Sid. No, but the Rangers think a hot rod may have hit him. Hot rod? No. You shouldn't have said that, Sonny. No, it's on me. It's late night. Let's grab those hot rodders and let's get a one-by-one. Yeah, let's get started on this, man, huh, boys? I know the first place to go. All right. I guess I'm not the peace officer I ought to be. I didn't even try and stop him. Yeah, don't talk foolish, Sonny. There's some things you can do and some things you can't. Let's get a shooting iron and follow those men. Call Bill while we're at it. And listen, if we had a guard beat up, he wouldn't have been able to help anybody. University lab. Bill Jefferson, there. Just a minute. Bill, it's for you. Thanks, man. Hello, Bill Jefferson speaking. Bill is... What's happened? You thought the hit-and-run driver was a hot rod. Now the men of the town have taken matters into their own hands. They're going after all the lads who own hot rods. Mmm, that's bad. Well, I'll get over there as fast as I can, Sid. You stay at the office and have a stumpy follow the mob.  Okay, Bill. Oh, one more thing, Sid. Try and get hold of Gray Wolf and Ralph and any other Rangers you can. I'll see you soon. Something unexpected, Bill? Not unexpected, Pat. Just came sooner than I thought it would. Phone me at the constable's office in Big Five when you get through going over the clothes, will you? Quiet, you guys. Quiet. Quiet down. We got to find out some things. Is this your hot rod, kid? Yeah, it belongs to me and Smitty.  Hey. There's a piece of Sam's coat caught in the license. Quiet. Quiet down. Quiet. Did you two kids run down Sam Potter? Answer me, did you? Yeah. Yeah, we did. Who was driving? Me. So you're the guilty ones. You ran away, didn't you? You did run away, didn't you? You dirty, hit-and-run. That's right, sir. Yeah, let's take them away before the law gets here. We didn't mean to do it. It was an accident. Accident in my eye. Let's get a barrel of tar and some feathers. I got some. We'll take care of these kids our way. Okay, let's go. Come on, let's get them. Let's go. Here's the rangers. All right. All right. Release those boys. We ain't doing it, copper. They're guilty. This time we're doing things our way. Well, a point of view is judged. How do you know they're guilty? Release them, I said. You make me. All right, I will. Call it there, boys. Don't make me shoot. I can gouge the eye out of a dune bag at a thousand yards. Don't make me prove it. I'm warning you. Thanks, Stumpy. Now listen, you people. These kids are going to get justice. If they're guilty, they'll be punished. If they're not guilty, they'll go free. That's for the law to decide.  And stay there with Shorty and Ned and guard the jail. We'll keep these men here until you're safely away. Okay, Bill. Come on, Lance. Let's go to the car. Hey, you in the back.  That's right. Everybody stays here until the car leaves. All right, you can disperse now.  Behave yourselves. One peep and we'll need a jail stretcher. Phew. That was a close one, Bill. We got here just in the nick of time. I'll say we didn't, Ralph. This isn't the end of it, either. Ah, thank you, right, Bill. Those men plenty mad. You think they try and break into jail? They wouldn't try that in this day and age, would they? Sounds ridiculous, I know, but it wouldn't be at all surprise if they did. Now, let's go back to the jail and talk with the boys. See what's what. First, let's take a look at the hot rod, Sid. We'll be back at the jail before the mob gets rebellious enough to try to break in. Smitty, suppose you tell us just how it happened. I was driving, Bill. I'm the guilty one, not Rube. But I told him to drive away. I'm the most of them. All right, take it easy, fellas. All I want to know is what happened. Don't worry about the mob. They won't get you, believe me. Okay, Bill, all I can say is that we were driving down the street. Couldn't have been more than 25 miles an hour at the most.  We couldn't stop. Man, we hit the brakes. It didn't do any good. I still can't figure where he came from. Well, all of a sudden, he was right there. And that's all there is to it, Bill. I know we did wrong by running away, but we were... All right, Smitty. That's what I wanted to know. And I believe you. We wouldn't lie, Bill. Not even when we were in a jam.  I did it for your own protection. They were going to turn feather us. Don't you worry about those, man. I'll take care of them.  We got trouble again. You fellas guard the real of the jail, will ya? Right. Come on, boys. Bill, I'm sure glad you and your men are here. I've never seen anything like this. Don't fret, nuns. I know you're in good hands. They don't scare us, nun. This has always been such a peaceful town. Perhaps that's why they've let themselves get carried away. They feel they have right to meet our justice, but they wrong. Here they come, with a battering ram it sounds like. You said it wrong. They mean business. Open the door, Sid. Did you say open the door, Bill? That's right. I'll be in the doorway and let them try to get past. Okay, Bill. You're calling the signals. Hey! What's that, you people? Are you mad? Listen to me. Unless you go home and behave yourselves, I'm taking Rube and Smitty to the Naughty Pine jail. You'll never make it, Ranger. I'll make it, all right, mister. Given if I have to use a tank. Now, either you disperse and go home, or I'll take drastic steps to make you. How do we know justice will be given on those two hot hands? How do we know that? You have my word for it. His word. That's a good one. Yes, it is a good one. Because it's a promise, not only as an officer of the law, but as a Christian.  That's right. You can believe Bill Jefferson. He's never gone back on his word in all the years I've known him. All right. That's good enough for me. Let's go home, men. When's the inquest gonna be held? I haven't talked to the coroner yet. The day and time will be posted. Okay. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going home. Okay, George. Stumpy for a minute. I thought we were gonna have a shooting brawl on our hands. Well, we can shoot if we have to, sonny, but we learned a long time ago that God is a lot more powerful than anything we can do. So what do you hope to prove by reenacting accident? I'm not sure yet, Gray Wolf. I have a couple of points in mind. I know they're coming in close now.  Ah, hot round. Almost here. All right. Now. Okay, Smitty. That was just what I wanted. That's just how I start, Bill. It all happened so fast, but I'm sure that's just as near as I can come to what actually happened. That's fine, Smitty. Thanks a lot. Gray Wolf, you escort the boys back to their garage and return them to jail. Ralph and I are going to Naughty Pine to see the corner. What's your honest opinion about this case? Not quite ready to make a statement yet, Rudy. I need one more piece to finish the jigsaw puzzle. Mm-hmm. What's that? A court order for a post mortem on Sam Potter's body. Do you think it will show something? I don't know, Rudy. That's why I'm asking for it. All right, Bill. I'll sign the order. Oh, here's the place, Ralph. Bill, uh, how'd you find out Jim Land was Sam Potter's doctor? Uh, Sid told me. Uh, hello, Jim. Well, Bill, Jefferson has a live and breathe. And Ralph Mitchell. Hello, Dr. Land. Come in here and don't just stand there. I'm sorry, Jim, but I got a lot to do. Busy, huh? Hey, what's that piece of paper you got there, Bill? Court order for a post mortem on Sam Potter's body. Oh, you won't need that. You mean... Yeah, I'll testify at the inquest, gladly. Oh, fine. I'll call you to the witness stand first thing. Thanks a lot, Jim. Bye. By which Samuel Potter met his death? Corner Rudolph Gordon presiding for the County of Canyon in the village of Big Pine. Spectators will not make comment, pro-account as the principles involved are interrogated. Corner Gordon. There's Corner. I'm setting aside the usual practice. Now I'm asking Ranger Bill Jefferson to present the Sadian Facts in the case. All right, go ahead, Bill. Thank you, Corner. First, I'd like Dr. James Land to take the stand, please. Dr. Land, you've been attending the deceased for some years because of a physical ailment. Is that right? That is correct. What was the physical impairment? Heart disease, angina. Jim, I served you with a court order to make a post mortem on the deceased Sam Potter. Why did you say it wouldn't be necessary since the order was in conjunction with this inquest? Because, Bill, I already knew how Sam Potter died. What? What? How did Sam Potter die, Jim? He died from a heart attack. This uproar occurs again. I'll have the Rangers clear the room. Proceed, Bill. Thank you, Rudy. Dr. Land, how did you come to this conclusion? I warned Sam to take it easy because his condition was getting worse. He wouldn't listen. When I heard about the accident, I went to the undertaker and looked at Sam's body. That was clear and positive symptoms of heart attack, despite the bruises. Well, we assign the death certificate, as you've stated, cause of death, heart attack, coronary insufficiency. Certainly. That's what kills Sam and that's what I'll put on the certificate. Thank you, Jim. You may leave the stand. Now, I call to the stand, Ranger Bill Jefferson, the arresting officer. Bill, I want you to explain what you found out regarding this case. Yes. All right. As you can see, I have drawn on this blackboard a diagram of the scene of the accident. We know that the car was traveling between 20 and 25 miles an hour. That fact has been very carefully checked. The victim was here at the X mark. The car didn't have time to stop and avoid hitting the victim. However, Smitty's reflexes are rapid. Upon seeing Sam in front of him, he applied the brakes instantly. It's a fact that the car was going only five miles an hour when it hit the victim. There's no dent in the fenders or grill of the car. Or are there any paint fragments in the claws? Sam was hit in mid-air by the car bumper as he toppled right into the path of the oncoming vehicle. Now I remember, Bill, that's the way it was. He didn't exactly fall, he sort of toppled. I've presented the evidence to an unbiased mind which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Sam's death was accidental. This concludes my presentation. Then if Rube and Smitty didn't kill him, they ought to be punished for running from the scene of the accident. I'm not making excuses for that, except that they're only boys and that they were frightened. How about you, mister? You, who should know better, have been inciting riot and mob violence, obstructing justice and invading the right of privacy. Did you have a search warrant when you broke into Smitty's garage and examined his car? No, I didn't. I apologize. I made a mistake. So did Rube and Smitty when they hit and ran. They've learned their lesson. And thanks to you, I'm sure they'll have nightmares about it for a long time. Take it easy, Bill. As coroner of this county, I have heard the evidence and do now pronounce Sam Potter's death as being from natural causes, not because he was hit by the automobile driven by these two boys. I also waive any punishment recommendation to the court because the boys ran away, since I'm sure they've learned their lesson. This inquiry is concluded and adjourned.  You were great on the stand. I'll never forget you for the lesson we've learned. I owe you the most thanks because I drove the car. Oh, boy.  I'll never forget the lesson you've taught us, either. What is that lesson, fellas? It's just this. Never run when you're in trouble, no matter how bad the circumstantial evidence. In this country, you're innocent until you're proved guilty. I was just as startled as you were when Bill presented the truth, but it was the truth, and that's what really counts. We'll see you next week for more adventure with...


in New York, you're right. And then Basil just, like, will sit down under a tree. Basil, what are you doing? It's like, no, I'm just taking it. Right now, I just want to, I want to rest. But Bin Laden's Dog, and it's very funny. Anyway, this is how we... What kind of dog is Basil? What kind of dog is Basil? He is, we had a DNA test run on him. And he killed Nicole Simpson, and they freed OJ.  Now, he's, what is he, honey? He's a lapso chihuahua, lapso opso in a Norwich Terrier. He's a lapsed apso. It's like a lapsed Catholic. You know, that is a funny thing, by the way, when I'm working out.  And I point out that the oceans are rising, and he goes, don't, you have to think positively. And I point out that 80% of people are in terror in debt. And he says, you have to think positively. You have to see a golden ball of light. And I then point out that we have the largest prison population in the world in that, you know, we live in a police state.  And he says, please think positively and let, you know, so it's a weird relationship I have with the guard. Think of it as positive. We're number one in anal rape. Right. We work people behind bars. We're the leading country when it comes to anal rape. Here's the thing. I know you have to go. I know you have to go. Yeah. And do you carry the escape hammer? Remember when, for your birthday, when you turned 40, I bought you an emergency blanket and an escape hammer. Do you carry the escape hammer with you at all times? It'll break any type of window or glass. Well, have you thought about that? You know, well, you don't think there's going to be unrest. I don't think it'll just be a general rounding up, quietly rounding up. No. I think we've already been rounded up. Yeah. I think we're our own prisoners. You're right. My dinner with Andre. Did you ever see my dinner with Andre? I did. And that's, he says we're the jailers and the warden. Yes. And I think that's pretty much the way. Yeah. I am the, I am the my dinner with Andre action figures. By the way, that is my joke. I did. Christopher Guest's waiting for Guffman at the end. They did. They did all this really funny, like little one-off thing. My dinner with Andre action figures were hilarious. My dinner with Andre ruined me because it came out, I think, like in the mid to early 80s. And I thought, yeah, this is what a movie should be. Just two guys talking. But I loved it. Me too. I loved it. Like you, we both love, which, you know, the Buddha say is not great. We both love to like engage our minds and like chew on philosophical questions. Whereas the Buddha and the religious people, the spiritual people say, we have to, we have to divorce ourselves from mind and ego. Let that go. And, you know, kind of being taken into the womb. Maybe that's what my trainer means.  Maybe our inner reality can be different even if we're, you know, doing well out of wives. What do you think of that? I think that's true. And I think the lesson that I'm taking away from this conversation is we are communal animals. We need to be around other living things. And I find listening to you that the danger of people being around people, this addiction to people is very isolating. That the more time I spend, you know, when I'm face down and another human being, it's taking me away from what's really important in life.  More time on the phone. More time dealing with you. I don't know. I don't know if you're getting the lesson right, but... I love you, Eddie. I miss you. I love you too, buddy. What are you coming to New York? I don't know. I don't have anything booked in New York. Hey, we did a live show. We did a live taping of the podcast last week. Oh, you did? Would you have on it? We had Sean Donnelly, Angela Cobb and Pat Dixon. We did it at a QED. QED? Oh, in Queens? Yes. And we didn't do it old school, Eddie. Remember, because you were the reason I first started doing live podcasts. Was it the live one I did in the apartment there? No. It was kind of like that. It was just me talking to people. But if you ever come back, I miss those big production numbers that we used to do. Oh. Oh, yeah. I can't believe... I can't believe that was the genesis of your podcast with you writing and Rosenthal Steve Rosenthal. I don't know where he is. Do you know where Rosenthal is? I don't know. And Jim Merle, those were some of the funniest things. And you know what? They're just sitting on the website. People can find them. They're just... Oh, man. They weren't saying... But you just have to... They weren't saying... They were so... Let's... Before you go, tell me about Gary Shapiro. Yeah. Wasn't he... Oh. Yeah, sweetheart of a guy. Very funny. And, um, uh, died suddenly a couple days ago. Yeah. Just kind of a shocking thing. Um, what were your... What were your memories? He was a perfect human being. He was a rabbi. Yeah. He was a comedian. A songwriter. Yeah. A songwriter. A comedy writer. And a musician. There wasn't anybody on the planet who had a bad word to say about Gary Shapiro. Yeah, it's very true. Except you and me. Except you and me. You and I. You and I. Yeah, well, I have issues with everyone. No, he was... Um, by the way... Oh. Yeah. He was a sweetheart, right? Yeah. Yeah. All right. By the way, what? Also, we lost... Yeah. Yeah. And I know you're a fan of him, right? I love Don Rickles. I love Don Rickles. I mean, he lived a nice, long life, though. We just...  We saw Bob Newhart in the Lameran Theater. We had to go south on the 5 to see Bob Newhart. And I thought he was going to look terrible or just be kind of wheeled out. And the guy looks great and was sharp as a tack. I think he's 90. Good. Amazing. Good. That's what he said, though. Yeah. All right, everybody. I love you, buddy. Eddie Pepitone. We got to do this more often. Yep. All right, Dave. Give my love to Karen. Give my love to Charlotte, but not Basil. Okay. Bye. Bye. Time, once again, for Tuesdays with Corey. Professor Corey Brett Schneider teaches constitutional law at Brown. And I've somehow convinced him to come on this show once a week to give me a $5 million legal education. That's how expensive a law education has gotten. It has doubled since the last time the professor has been on my show. That's a special price for you, $5 million. My mother says I'm disrespectful to you. She listens and she says, you need to call him Pontiff, not Corey, not Professor. She said, any man with your credentials and patience should be the pope. Today, we're going to talk about libel laws and President Trump and the Constitution, your brief, your friend of the court brief on the travel ban opposing it. First up, Ryan Seacrest has been named Kelly Ripa's co-host on Monday. What are your thoughts, professors? Is this good for the Constitution of Ryan Seacrest? Is he doing too much? I just love that you begin with the most important pressing issues of the day. And I have three points about this. The First Amendment, is there ever an overabundance of speech with Ryan Seacrest? The guy has a radio show, TV shows, that is going to be on Kelly. Is there any way to protect the American people from too much of one person speaking? Well, I don't know. I guess the thing that the First Amendment protects the most is viewpoint. And so I don't know if what he's saying is enough to qualify as a viewpoint. So that might be our first question, but I really listened to him so little. I thought it might be three seconds at the most. I could not give an informed opinion. Hey, Ann Coulter. I wanted to clarify something. We found out that Ann Coulter's speech was charging $20,000 to speak at Berkeley. And it was being paid for by Young Americans for Freedom and Bridge USA. Outside groups coughing up the money. Is that still a First Amendment issue? That's interesting.  Well, I'd have to think about it. But the fact that it was money that was being funded to a Berkeley group, I think that would be enough to say that the state is involved, that there was state action. And the retraction, I guess, now that I think about it of the invitation, if it came from Berkeley rather than from that group, then that's enough for the state action. I mean, the institution was involved and I think that makes it a First Amendment case.  Here's the issue though. Let's turn it into a hypothetical. You have a state university. There is a group, let's just say Young Americans for Freedom. It's a right-wing Republican organization on campus. And they invite Ann Coulter and they're paying her through outside sources. According to the First Amendment, it's a First Amendment issue because it's state funding suppressing speech. Yeah, the question, I mean, Berkeley gets all sorts of money in donations from private institutions, I think. I mean, some of the money is public and then I know they do fundraising or they have a nonprofit arm. But the question in the case would be whether or not there was a government actor involved in the decision to revoke the invitation. And I think here, regardless of where the money is coming from, the institution Berkeley did get involved in that question. So that likely, I mean, we'd have to see more about the details, but would be enough. And I think too, it's important, you know, I think I explained this last time that the worry is about suppressing private individual speech. So if there was a restriction on the ability of a private student group to invite her to campus, the worry is that the government, Berkeley, is intervening in the private individuals or private groups' ability to hear somebody or to invite them. And that's where the real First Amendment worry comes. If it was a commencement, will Ann Coulter receive an award or not or something officially conferred by Berkeley? You might be able to argue that this is Berkeley conferring an honor or the university speaking would be a way to put it in the technical terms of the university of the First Amendment. And when the university is speaking or when the state is speaking, it does have the ability to pick and choose who to invite or who not to invite because the idea is that the university or the state is trying to express its own values. But this doesn't look like that kind of case. It looks like it was a private group within Berkeley or student group. And the government does not have the ability to suppress the ideas or the invitations or the expression of private individuals or including students. Let me, if you don't mind, I want to push back on this a little bit because obviously without the First Amendment, I'd be nothing. Well, I am nothing, but I'd be even more of nothing.  Thank you. College campuses, if I fire a teacher on the Chancellor of Berkeley, it's a state school. Right. And I'm also the president of Harvard, which is not a state school, but it does receive federal funding. Same scenario, Berkeley, Harvard, one's a state school, one's supposedly a private college. There is a professor who is teaching climate change denial. At Berkeley, I fire him. And I say, you are teaching something that's inaccurate. Can he challenge me and say I'm violating his First Amendment rights? In the Harvard case, you mean? Well, Berkeley. Let's start. Yeah.  But yes, there are protections, certainly, that are afforded university professors. And although it's a different kind of case, because Berkeley is a state institution, the First Amendment applies, and you could bring a First Amendment action. In a private university, as you said, the structure is different. Now, there are other protections for tenure. For instance, there are contractual protections that come with tenure in other areas of law that might protect your free speech depending on the university. The university might have promised you, basically, free speech rights with tenure. So free speech has a lot of different ways to defend it legally. But in the public institution case, the Constitution applies directly. So the First Amendment might be your best option. And so at Harvard, the same thing stands, you can fire a professor or a teacher because you believe it's... you're free to fire somebody for teaching the wrong things. Well, thankfully, private universities and the AUP, the organization of professors, have lobbied for protections generally for professors. Part of it is that there's a norm of free expression and free inquiry that comes from the profession of being a professor. It doesn't make sense to have a university if there isn't free speech and free thought in academic inquiry.  Now, there are different ways to get that protection legally, but one might come with the contractual obligations of the university when it comes to tenure. But it's not... We're not in the realm of the First Amendment anymore in the same way that we are in the case of a public institution. But thankfully, there are rights of professors against universities legally as well and private institutions. It's just a different area of law. And it's a good thing. I mean, you can't have a university, in my opinion, without having free thought and the ability of a professor to honestly say what their research demands they say and where their inquiry leads them. Is a state university allowed to ban somebody from the premises? Is the chancellor allowed to say, I do not want this person on campus because they're not a student and they do not reflect the values of this university. So I am banning and culting from stepping foot inside or on the property of Berkeley. I think they do do that. I mean, if certainly from the dorms or from the buildings or part of the campus is private, the university, I think, has the ability to control who's there and who's not for the purposes of doing the business of the university. The worry here is that, you know, this isn't just that they were worried that she was gonna rob somebody. The worry was that she was disinvited because of the content or the viewpoint of what she says. And, you know, it is complicated because they were worried about security and so we'd have to see whether or not it was impossible to have her on campus only because of the security concern. But, you know, what's worrying to me about the case is that if she was banned, no matter how vile her views are, I have the ability and a student has the ability to hear them and if the government, in this case the institution of Berkeley was preventing her from coming on campus because of her viewpoint, if that's what the inquiry revealed, then that would be a very serious violation of the First Amendment.  I hate the content of her views and I think she's deeply wrong, but she has First Amendment rights just like everyone in this country. She has First Amendment rights, so is it fair to say that a fraternity invited her to speak at Berkeley? Yeah. Is that pretty much what this group is? I don't think so. I thought they were a private conservative group devoted to discussions of politics. I'm saying the organization of students at Berkeley who invited her to speak. Yeah. There, for all intents and purposes, a club on campus, right? Correct. And are there official clubs at a university? Do you have to apply to be officially sanctioned by the university or can anybody set up a club? I don't know the details of this club, but there are clubs that are often received funds from a university, from a student group, and a lot of First Amendment cases involve issues around that. A group seeks to become an official club and is denied. But I really don't know the details of this one. Right. I'm talking about a hypothetical case. So if, let's say, the school newspaper, the official school newspaper at Berkeley, they invite Ann Coulter to speak. Actually, that's a bad example because that opens up a whole other can of worms. But I guess the point I'm making is, or the question I'm asking is, let's say there's a rugby team, and they invite a stripper to their fraternity to strip. And I'm the chancellor, and I say, no, you can't hire a stripper. Is that protected by First Amendment rights? There's money, they're giving you money, that's freedom of speech now. There is a difference in the First Amendment between expressing a political view or an opinion, the technical term that the court uses is a viewpoint, and certain kinds of content and restrictions on viewpoints tend to be disallowed. Restrictions on obscenity in particular, and that case seems to certainly be in the realm of obscenity, are often more tolerated. So I think there might be a case for the group that wants to invite exotic dancers to campus or something, but it's weaker than it is in this case. I mean, this is really about, if it turns out that the worry about Coulter was her views, that's worrying because the whole idea of the... I mean, go back to the core idea of why we have this protection in the first place. It's that we want to allow for the protection of all opinions to be able to say them, to hear them, to have the free inquiry that is necessary in a democracy, and that's why it's not just a sort of random amendment. The idea is that without being able to hear all viewpoints and argue and say what you want, including the ability to criticize the government, to criticize the Constitution on all sides, then we don't live in a democracy anymore. So that's why the rule is so strong in protection of censorship against viewpoints. Yeah, you know more about... This isn't false humility, Professor, but you know more about the Constitution than I do. I know it's hard to believe. Men's... Men's Ray... And you know more about the comedy world than the radio. Why is it called Men's Ray? What does Men's Ray mean? Men's Ray is usually in the criminal context, the mental state that's involved in a crime, or it's just a term for mental state. If we kind of know that this wasn't about Ann Coulter speaking, the same way Milo Yappinapolis, the Breitbart editor who spoke, or tried to speak at Berkeley, this isn't about freedom of speech. It is about freedom of speech, but the people who hired them to go to Berkeley were screaming fire in a crowded movie theater, right? I don't know. You know, there is a security concern, and certainly there was violence when... around some of these incidents. But I think that we have to... You know, the whole idea of university is that we allow free inquiry. And if it's possible to provide security and also to have controversial speakers on campus, then Berkeley I think is obligated to do that. And they have a security challenge that they have to figure out. But it's not acceptable to say that we're not going to have very conservative, even fascist speakers have the right of free speech, because it's too dangerous. I think that would really give up on the idea that, as I said, isn't just central to the First Amendment, but central to the idea of democracy. And even if private universities aren't bound by the First Amendment, I think the very idea of a university requires that kind of free inquiry and that they also have to figure out how to meet those security concerns. We can't just give up on the idea that you have the right to say what you want and to hear everything, because there are challenges of security that those are going to arise in a tumultuous time. But those are the times when it's most important that we protect all viewpoints. Let me get back to free inquiry. It wasn't free inquiry. She was charging $20,000. And it was being paid for by outside sources who were trying to prove a point about the politically correct movement.  As I remember, high school, in order to have a club, you needed a faculty advisor. Right. To reflect the values of the institution and justify the purpose. As I see the Ann Coulter case at Berkeley, these were just a bunch of kids without, I believe, without a professor behind them, without a Berkeley representative, just a bunch of fish out of water at Berkeley. They decide to be conservatives.  It has nothing to do with free inquiry. And it's not the university.  We talked about this last time. I think part of the idea of the university is to allow students the freedom to have access to information and to ideas. Now Berkeley, I'm sure, like all universities, has a process of applying for speakers or applying for speaker funds or applying for permits. And if you could show in a way that had nothing to do with their opinions that they were violating those rules, that would be one thing. But I haven't heard that in this case. I think what they're worried about, and they would have a serious claim that they're being limited in their ability to do what any other kid on campus could do because of the content of their views. And as I said, even though I deeply disagree with them, I think they've got a right to hear whatever they want without censorship. That doesn't mean that they can violate the rules of how you invite speakers. But what the university is restricted from doing is saying, you can have your speaker because of the viewpoint that she has or that you have. Now, again, too, I see your point. I don't like what Ann Coulter says one bit. I think she's way off, not just conservative, but she says things that fundamentally disrespect the idea that we're equals under law regardless of race. Her attacks on birthright citizenship, I think, go beyond the pale of reasonable inquiry. But there are ways to express that short of saying you can't speak. I think you can bring her to campus and have the university, even if it's an official voice, have other speakers criticize, condemn her, or you can have protests on campus. As I think I said last time, if Ann Coulter would have come to Brown, I wouldn't impose her invite. She would have a right to speak if a student group went through the process of inviting her. But I wouldn't go in to listen to her. I would hope that the university president would do the same and that we would make a statement as part of the Brown community defending her right to be there, but also to criticize her.  Yeah. Why are the children in charge? I mean, you know, we're not just selling some ready-made thing that you can buy, and we give you a degree at the end, but we're trying to create an atmosphere on college campuses of serious thought and to teach people to think in the end, not just to tell them what to think. And if you don't give them that actual ability to make mistakes, to hear different views, then, you know, the brand is killed. What you're buying becomes... No, no, I just... I went to see Neil Diamond. And he sings Sweet Caroline. He starts to sing Sweet Caroline. And then he points the microphone at the audience. And then we're supposed to sing Sweet Caroline. And I started screaming. Nobody could hear me. No, Neil Diamond. I paid... I paid to see you sing sweet. Everybody be quiet. I'm not interested in hearing the audience sing Sweet Caroline. You sing it. That's why I'm here. And they escorted me out. And I screamed First Amendment rights. And it was... They used the Fifth Amendment eminent domain to build the stadium where he was singing, but the case was thrown out of... Because I did feel it was government oppression of freedom of speech. I should be able to insist that Neil Diamond sing Sweet Caroline by himself without my having to hear Herb Glossman screaming it into my right ear. But the point I'm making is you go off to college. I want to hear Neil Diamond. I don't want to hear the kids. I guess, you know, one response is to pull it back to what you and I are doing. We've called this... You referred to this segment at some point as Corey teaches David. Now there could be two ways of doing it. I could talk for an hour. Not stop. You could take notes and I could see if you understood what I said. But isn't that better? Or we could go back and forth and you could say things about kids on campus and we can do what's really more of a socratic discussion. What do you learn more from? My sense is if I were to give you a grade you've gotten a lot out of this. You've seen the nuances of it. You've pushed back. You've asked great questions. You read your case last week and did that beautifully. It's the interaction that matters. Well, if you try to put that on the grand scale of the university, that's also how you learn. That's the way to do it. So Slippery Slope. I've never seen Neil Diamond. I don't think I would pay for that, honestly. He's great. I know. I may be. No, he is. Neil Diamond is great. He really is. Now we're outside my area. Slippery Slope.  But law, as we've just demonstrated, is all about nuance. There is nuance to the First Amendment. Correct. There's a whole other area too that I was going to bring in. It's not that you were bringing up something that's irrelevant. There's a whole set of cases that are about the right of clubs to exist or not exist on campus. It's different than, I think, the enculter inquiry, but there is a very subtle area of law. So, for instance, in California, I know a lot of your listeners, especially a radio show, are in California. There was a case involving Hastings Law School. And Hastings Law School had a club on campus, an official club called the Christian Legal Society. And the Christian Legal Society didn't allow gay students to be executive officers in the organization. They couldn't be vice president or president. And the university said that they were basically going to revoke their status as an official student group. Now, that turned out to be a very complicated case. In the end, Hastings won the case for a variety of reasons. But I guess to me, the simplest way to put what the court should have said, at least, they said something very complicated. But is that, you know, sometimes when it comes to funds and what's being supported, the university has a right to just promote its own values. Now, if Christian Legal Society had been kicked off campus or denied their free speech rights or to say what they think a good Christian lawyer is and how that relates to issues of gay rights, that would have been, I think, a blatant violation. But because the case was about official student status and about funding, I think Hastings actually did the right thing. So another way to put it is imagine that Berkeley would say, you know what, it's one thing if you want to invite Ann Coulter to campus, but we're not going to use government funds to pay for it. I think in my view, they would have been well within their rights to do that, because they'd be saying, we don't want to fund Ann Coulter. Now, there are cases to the contrary. There's a case at the University of Virginia that seems to say the opposite where a student group that had religious content in their publications was denied funds and they were able to win that on First Amendment grounds. But that's really a kind of cutting edge area of law. In this book I mentioned last time when the state speaks, what should it say? I talk about this sort of divide between the idea that sometimes the state is acting as a speaker, as a defender of its own values, and the idea that we can have viewpoint neutrality and the protection for all viewpoints in what we say. So, you know, there is nuance and you were capturing it by talking about the funding issues in a lot of ways. Let's talk about Donald Trump and libel laws. Trump has a chief of staff named Rince Priebus. He is a murderer.   He walks through the White House in full access regalia. And he said over the weekend that his administration is looking into opening up libel laws. I just love how you make yourself the test case. You just volunteer. I did make it clear that I'm not a member of the bar and that I'm not going to be defending you, right, in any of these cases. Well, I love it, but, you know, also Rince Priebus you're doing it. Rince Priebus, who has been writing checks to the Hungarian Nazi party for 20 years wants to open up libel laws and make it easier to sue journalists and media personalities. Do you want to make it clear to listeners that you're doing a subtle thing with the facts there and that you're helping yourself to the protection of the First Amendment or right? That's what you're doing. I don't know what you're talking about. He's a bad guy maybe, but don't have evidence that he's doing it. Well, I mean, if you think calling somebody who killed 14 male prostitutes in April and then ate them if you think that's a bad guy, I mean, I think it's worse than bad, but if you think Rince Priebus, a notorious... We are in the cutting edge of the First Amendment right here. Thank God for the case I'm going to tell you about because that's your best chance at a defense against the libel lawsuit that he's going to bring. The fact that it's clearly satire and I'll add that disclaimer. What is the difference between the law? David Feldman, a comedy satire show, not a factual news inquiry. Thank you, Hussler Magazine, I believe. I think Hussler Magazine defended my right to say that. What is the difference between slander and libel? Libel, I think is... Boy, no, I'm going to have to look this up. Maybe we can cut it if I'm wrong. But libel is a written false statement, published false statement. And libel is saying a false statement with the intent to hurt somebody, to damage the reputation, right? Well, that's the issue. So, you know, you just now likely committed, well, I guess he didn't publish it in print, but slander. You made a false out about Priebus. Satire, of course. But the question that Trump and his brought up over the summer and now his staff is actively pursuing, it's a frightening thing, is the question of whether or not if we go back to a case called New York Times versus Sullivan, whether or not the Supreme Court was correct to say that when it comes to public figures and issues of public concern, that we weren't going to allow libel lawsuits to just go through if there was a little bit of falsehood or a small mistake in there. So, in particular, during the Civil Rights Movement, there was a strategy to try to bankrupt civil rights organizations on grounds that they were occasionally taking out ads that had falsehoods in them. So, in particular, I think, in New York Times versus Sullivan, there was an issue about publication of one of these ads that talked about how many times Martin Luther King had been arrested. And the claim in the libel suit that was brought against the Civil Rights Organization was that they got the number wrong. Now, technically, if you get the number wrong about the number of times that King was arrested, that's a falsehood. That's not true. And in a very strict libel regime where any libel was subject to suit, you could be sued for libel. Now, the thought of the court and this was an important thought was you don't want to allow that. You want to protect small mistakes because if anybody can be sued, they're just a small thing wrong. They're going to be afraid to speak out in public matters against public officials. And the whole idea of the First Amendment is we want more rather than less speech. So it's not that they abolish the rule of libel when it comes to public officials, but they required actual malice that you really try to hurt somebody in your falsehood. And in finding for the Civil Rights Organization, they protected and used the First Amendment to protect a wider amount of speech. Does that make sense? This is important to me. What is it, Sullivan? New York Times versus Sullivan. As I remember, as you just said, there was a Civil Rights Organization that published a full page ad in the New York Times accusing a sheriff in the south of targeting Martin Luther King the number of wrongs. It wasn't the New York Times the number of arrests. The myth about Sullivan versus the New York Times is that they were suing the New York Times for its reportage that's reporting professor of reportage. Thank you. Good word. Thank you. So they were defending the full page ad that the New York Times printed. Right. And it gave the ruling from I believe the Warren Court gave the New York Times an old journalist after that the right to be factually incorrect as long as it wasn't malicious. Right, exactly. Yes. And the idea is that it might be a different case if I wrote something about a coworker or somebody that had no public presence and published it online and said something just false about them they could probably sue me on grounds that I was negligent should have known that I was writing something that was wrong or that I was in fact wrong. But in this case the reason why it's a First Amendment case is because of the interest in allowing for even false speech if it's not intentional we're not trying to hurt somebody in order to what, to make it comfortable incentivize speaking out about public officials. How much of Sullivan versus the New York Times is the one of the backbones to Citizens United that decision? Was that cited? Because Citizens United I guess it was 2010 the Roberts Court said that money is speech because you need money to buy a full page ad in the New York Times. I see. I think it's just a different area of law. That's really an issue about whether or not private corporations can spend money from their own treasury on campaign statements. This is a separate issue whether or not you're going to be subject to laws private laws in which one person can sue another for saying a falsehood. Looking at an organization like Breitbart News which can be malicious or the National Choir although I think a lot of their stuff is accurate can you sue well you can sue the National Choir and win? Yeah, if you could show what you were doing with satire but if I say that a public official is having an affair in order to try to hurt them when I know it's not true and I'm only doing it to try to hurt them they probably can and I do this in print they could probably bring libel lawsuit against me but what this protects are these sort of more small mistakes so think about every time somebody writes something about Trump if he could find something about the number of hotels that he owns the amount of money he made on a deal and it was reported in a way that wasn't exactly 100% accurate and he could sue that would scare people. News organizations would be really reluctant to report on his finances or try to give answers about basic things to do with his presidency or his background because they'd fear of being sued by him but what New York Times versus Sullivan does is it says if you make a small mistake and you didn't intentionally try to hurt Trump but you're being honest and you're reporting or even if you were negligent but you weren't trying to hurt him we're going to protect you and the idea is what we really care about is getting the information out there so that citizens can make decisions for themselves in the democratic process is Rush Limbaugh how calculated is Ann Coulter because here's what they do they play fast and loose with the truth and they make wild accusations and then they hide behind the cloak of satire talk to me for a second about Jerry Falwell versus Larry Flint and is Rush Limbaugh I don't know you can't go in their head because they always fall back on I was joking that was a joke when they get cornered they claim to be comedians talk to me about Jerry Falwell versus Larry Flint and my right to make jokes about rinse previs even though I'm malicious I do I want people to believe that he's this way I mean I hate Donald Trump let me rephrase the question what is malicious intent I would like people to despise rinse previs I think nobody should ever hire him again I think he's a disgrace my jokes do come from malice right but you're not trying to spread the lie of whatever the nonsense that you said was in an effort to get people to really believe it you were engaging in and I hope you agree with I really don't want to see this guy come after you you were engaging in a satire am I? yes we don't have any evidence and you know that you don't have any evidence of him rocking around a Nazi uniform you imagine that and it's funny but it's you know the radio equivalent of what Larry Flint would do when he depicted in Hustler magazine in a parody the Jerry Falwell as being drunk it's not that you know he was trying to say this guy is really a drunk he was making fun of him and what the court said in a very sensible decision I believe it was unanimous in Hustler magazine versus Falwell is just following up on that idea that we're talking about with New York Times versus Sullivan that if you're engaging in a parody of public figures then you're protected from private lawsuits like a tort claim that says you were trying to inflict emotional distress something that I am serious listen I wrote on the and culture roast you're engaging in satire you're doing what Falwell did you're making fun of the person you're exaggerating facts in order to use humor but that's a very different thing going out to somebody hey you know what Jerry Falwell is really a drunk with no humor involved it's the humor in a way that protects you but your honor I'm confessing to you yeah you're trying to but thankfully I have I'm being serious I wrote on the Rob Lowe roast and culture was on that roast yeah I watched it it was unbelievable it was pure malice every joke came from from hatred I could tell it's why it's so enjoyable to watch but doesn't that run counter isn't that flying in the face of the Jerry Falwell case I could see how they would the Falwell might make that kind of argument but I think what the court saying which is sensible is that there's a difference between truly trying to get people to believe a lie and using humor because you don't like something like that or you want people to dislike them the latter is okay if I'm using these sort of cartoonish facts to mock somebody I don't want them to be reelected for instance in the sort of court case of Trump then that's fine or I don't want them to read and culture anymore or to pay her or to believe in the to give Jerry Falwell money I want to expose them as a fraud that's not worthy of respect and I use comedy or satire to do that or parody then the court's saying that's fine that's protected than trying to get somebody to believe something fake about them in fact you're trying to get them to believe something real isn't that the idea that she really is bad or that Trump really is a fraud I think that's the idea and she has to be a public figure I mean don't do this with your co-worker it's a completely different case and how do you measure a public figure I think there's no empirical test but in the case of Donald Trump I think or previous or those in the White House or in the news all the time they're sort of the paradigmatic example of public figures politicians people who were talking about and Falwell is famous enough that the court said there that he also knows a politician that he qualified as a public figure but you know somebody's never been written about in the newspaper has lived a completely private life that's an easy case on the other side looks like they're not that's why I keep saying don't try this on here with your co-workers don't do it anyway because it might not be nice but you're not going to get the first amendment protection so Donald Trump gave an interview recently where he said that the Constitution is archaic man who believes in appointing originalists right to the Supreme Court but he himself believes that the Supreme Court is archaic right the whole Constitution I think he was talking about checks and balances yeah although before the show started kind of listened to him and it's taken out of context he's blaming Senate rules I know when Obama was president we were complaining about Senate rules which you've pointed out are not the Constitution there are some parts of the Constitution that are archaic you teach constitutional law what if President Obama or Hillary Clinton said the Constitution is archaic it was written more than 200 years ago it's slowing progress down we need a constitutional convention we have to rewrite the Constitution would you support that well a lot of people are saying that and we're saying it before Trump was elected I guess my view is that I have never had more faith in the Constitution than I have in the last certainly days but really since Trump began to run there's a classic defense of checks and balances and strong role of judicial review in the Supreme Court that it's a defense and a bulwark against tyranny now a lot of people I think before Trump was elected said you know what that's really a silly argument we have a good constitutional culture in the polity we're not going to elect a demagogue to the highest office in the land and the idea that we need this degree of protection is a mistake and this is getting in the way as you said of progress and I just don't believe that anymore factually it's not true we elected a demagogue who is completely opposed not just to small instances of checks and balances or Senate rules and I interpret what he was saying in that quote in a different way I think he really doesn't like the fact that the courts struck down his travel ban based on animus that they are stopping him deporting massive numbers of people by going after sanctuary cities and that he doesn't like the fact that he has to deal with Congress and passing legislation he doesn't like the system because it stopped him from just implementing his really bizarre and pernicious agenda so I am a complete believer in the Constitution now in checks and balances I think frankly it's the one thing that saved us over the last 100 days it's what's thrown him off kilter and prevented an even more radical not just right wing but I'll say it I believe it authoritarian autocratic agenda from taking place we stopped him because of the Constitution so I'm not surprised he doesn't like it do you have Trump fatigue no I'm getting more energy every day watching him lose I love it help me because listening to this show know that I have Trump fatigue that I've been inviting a lot of comedians on the show and right it's your eyes don't glaze over don't you get tired of being lied to and addressing stupidity I think we're being tested on a daily basis and that all the stuff that I was just talking about which used to be weird you know you learn it in politics 101 or in con law and in people's eyes glaze over because who cares that every day that he lies that he tries to you know deport people or to attack the as he puts it the open up the libel laws that these are it's a test for the Constitution and for people around the country to stand up to a potential tyrant now you know a lot of people think oh we were overreacting what's the big deal the system is working but it's working because people are standing up to him so I feel invigorated and I think it's you know people will look back on this and he's not going to win his agenda won't be implemented but it's because we're we're not going to get tired and we're going to keep challenging all right help me out here perfect I'm being yeah I'm being really serious about this me too my question is where's my juice the problem that I have had since Trump got elected is I cling to the New York Times of the Washington Post and they're fighting the big fight they're fighting the rational disc you know they're being rational and they're waiting they're holding their fire till they gather up all the ammo and then boom Bill O'Reilly is gone and it was it was masterful what they did right a month ago they wrote this article and next thing you know Bill O'Reilly is gone so they're very circumspect because they're in the crosshairs where's the juice where's the thing that gets your your heart beating every morning I just looked at the Palmer report which is covering Russia and kind of like a Walter Winshal type of left-wing view of the Trump Administration where do you go for your juice not your rational discourse just the juice I mean I'd say that just reading everyday news reports of what he's doing it doesn't come from a particular publication it comes from seeing people fight back so take this way of defeating his executive order about sanctuary cities I mean these were local officials that stood up to him and used the conservative federalist society precedence when I say federalist society I mean a lot of the members of the conservative bar argued for states rights and for limits when it came to the spending clause and now that series of precedence is being used by local officials to stand up to Donald Trump that just reading that news story in any one source is evidence that the Constitution is working that there are judges implementing it same with the travel ban same with Congress at least members of Congress torpedoing his attempt to disable Obamacare so I mean I'm just everyday any news story that's about him losing gives me energy okay before you go I want to talk to you about your friend of the court brief on the travel ban which I didn't read I didn't do my assignment I want to ask you for an assignment but before I ask you for an assignment and we talk about the assignment I didn't complete I want to talk to you about the process of completing assignments there's this I'm being this is very important to me there was this great piece in the New York Times about six months ago that apologized the Obama Camelot I have a feeling Michelle Obama was behind this piece in the New York Times much the same way that Jackie Kennedy was behind the notion of Camelot after Jack died it's the seven omens it's President Obama sitting in the treaty room of the White House he puts the kids to bed he's a constitutional law professor and from eight till two in the morning every day he every night he would sit and read with ESPN going in the background but he would spend about six hours a day in the treaty room of the White House with the yellow legal canary reading and they would bring him eight omens friends of mine we called it the eight omens story what is your measurement for reading do you view reading as an indulgence or a necessity and how can my listeners the hell with my listeners how can I say to myself each day reading is a necessity I have to carve this time out I don't know that I have a special technique I mean I'm trying to write a lot these days so I'm kind of religious about usually when I'm not talking to you in the morning writing in the morning and I think when I've got things that I'm writing that I absolutely need to get more information about I'll use that time too to sometimes I'll just replace it with reading for two or three hours but yeah I think clear blocks of time and making it a priority if it's something that you really want to know about you know I don't think just reading around always is the most focused thing but I think having a question that you want answered and then reading around that question this is very important to me for my new listeners we're always gathering up new listeners we had for example we had Mr. Methane on the show last week he's a flatulent artist out of Great Britain and in the tradition of LePetamane and so we have a lot of his fans now listening to the show so they may not know that you have a a masters in philosophy from Cambridge where I think Mr. Methane I think Mr. Methane might have walked by Cambridge because he's from Great Britain is it Cambridge where you got your masters in philosophy? Yes and you have a PhD in political science from Princeton I think Mr. Methane has heard of Princeton and and then you have a law degree from Stanford Mr. Methane has never been to California but so I forgot the question no so you're enjoying that contrast by the way Mr. I never if you heard the interview and I suggest you I never allowed him to perform I interviewed him for about 40 minutes and we just talked about the craft and his instrument and how he did and do you know that I have a lawsuit it's not Methane by the way but that's not none of your business that's not fair to you but the point I'm making is you are very well educated do you view reading as your job by the way this is my job my job is to read and if somebody distracts me you're making it impossible for me to do what I'm supposed to be doing yeah I mean to the extent that I need it for issues especially that I'm working on I try to read a lot about things I'm writing about and you know that requires a lot of research and I like to go deep into the facts and if it's a legal issue to really know not just the specific on point case law but things that are related to it and scholarship so yeah it's you know it's a big part of what I'm doing when you were I don't know was there an internet when you started law school it had early internet but yeah there was an internet it was not as developed as it is now certainly are you reading case law are you reading on the internet or are you reading actual books no I'm reading on the internet I mean I was right at the edge of when you would kind of go into the library and I still remember actually our first year we did learn about that system well they had Lexis Nexus yeah but they already had Lexis Nexus are you distracted are you able to immerse yourself when you're reading on a tablet are you distracted and looking up other things and hitting hyperlinks or can you stay focused or do you go down rabbit holes yeah I mean it depends if I'm working I try to I think I am pretty focused and because I'm trying to get some information and so I'm able to read in a different way but if it's the afternoon and I'm just reading a newspaper or looking at something online I find it distracting but you know I still get the paper the hard copy of the paper so that's one way to focus is there are no hyperlinks right right you know I think that's a good thing I'm all for the existence of hard copies of the newspaper that you could sit with your coffee and go and sit outside and really just read it thoroughly yeah okay thank you for your time before you go I want to ask about the amicus yeah sure is it amicus curate yeah that means friend of the court friend of the court yeah you wrote one on the travel ban where are we I did it with a lawyer Joshua Matz and two friends and colleagues Nelson Tebe from Brooklyn Law School and Micah Schwarzman from the University of Virginia and the four of us together wrote a brief that the court will hopefully read the courts will hopefully read in the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuits about why it is that Trump's own statements about the travel ban and his own claims during the campaign and since that this is about a shutdown of Muslim immigration as well as statements by people like Rudy Giuliani saying that Trump had this Muslim ban and he asked him to make it legal that those all go to what we think is the central issue in the case and that's the issue in Lukumi that you can't have law that's based on that you can't try to discriminate against people based on their religion and if that's your motivation for a law even if there were other ways perhaps to craft it that would make it legal that that makes it unconstitutional so we're really pulling out that's why we spent so much time last week and you did it in such depth and with such grace looking at that case about animus because we think it's the same issue in this one as well so we have more than 45 law professors from around the country who have signed on to it from different walks of life including real superstars of constitutional law like Lawrence Tribe and Jeffrey Stone and they're all agreeing with us that this is really the basis of why the travel ban is unconstitutional that it's based on unconstitutional motivation of animus great give us an assignment you know I thought especially given our discussion today maybe we could read this very complicated but interesting case called the you seem to like it the more difficult it is and the more you can get into it and I think talking about the nuance of the First Amendment and free speech this Christian legal society case might be great for listeners so let's make the assignment Christian legal society versus Martinez a case about official student status of student group at Hastings law school great Martinez and how do we find that case the last time I told people that they could just google the name of the case Christian legal society versus Martinez and Cornell and it'll come up on that public site you could also use a public site called Oyes O Y E Z where you can actually listen to the oral arguments if you really want extra credit and I'd say one of those two two sites and I apologize to my listeners because I said if you contact me if you read I will send you a gift and I've been behind on the emails and I want to apologize to my listeners I got several emails people who read it great yeah you know what I wasn't surprised there's a nice flow to this show and we have our vegetables at the end yeah and it's I'm very satisfied with my listeners especially to the ones who are listening right now Professor Corey Brett Schneider teaches constitutional law at Brown thank you Pontiff did you learn anything from me reportage let's just make sure you reportage means reporting yes very good thank your mother too I'm a huge fan of hers thank you Pontiff love that she's talking me up thank you Pope Corey Brett Schneider let's do next Tuesday how did your show go by the way your live show people came out we did it at QED and we didn't sell it out it was 7.30 on a Saturday night we really really plugged it through Facebook and the show and we have listeners all over the world I was surprised by the number of people who showed up I have to say that it is the greatest feeling in the world to meet the listeners and it's bizarre it's not like stand up people who devote a huge chunk of their time listening to this and I thank them for that and I won't waste their time you know we just did an hour and I wanted it to be a half hour because I don't want to waste your time and my mother says don't waste the Pope's time I can't waste people's time and I definitely sense that people who came to the show were grateful that I don't waste their time but now I'm wasting their time thanking them for appreciating my time I'm from Queens and I love the idea that you're out in my home Are you from Queens? Yeah, absolutely Antonin Scalia Country Is that where he's from too? Yeah, good place and different folks come from there I guess but it sounded great I saw a few of your mentions and a few of the comics who were there and looked like a terrific show Well we want to do more live shows I want to do a live show once a week and I'd like to put you together I'd like to be on a panel together with Mrs. Methane Yeah I do remember just for the record that there was flatulence at Cambridge University Princeton University and Stanford Law School all people in all three locations had flatulence Yeah, the blow hearts the teaching Well great, thank you professor We're going to stop please stay on the line for one second Good Today's show is brought to you by Medicare for All Ask your doctor if Medicare for All is right for you Special thanks to Professor Corey Bretschneider Eddie Pepitone, Colleen Worthman and Liam McEnany Please friend me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter Please go to the David Feldman Show website We have new premium content up there for $5 a month You can gain access to all our premium content We accept all major credit cards Go to DavidFeldmanShow.com Hit the Go Premium banner and we take all major credit cards for as little as $5 a month You can support this important show which keeps getting more and more important From the show Briss Studios in downtown Manhattan that'll do it for us Cody, partner What's up Basement Master Raiders I'm Colleen Worthman You're listening to the David Feldman Show Yo, yo, yo You're listening to the hottest show on podcast I'm Liam McEnany It's David Feldman Show Right now!