Deplatforming and Defamation: Free Speech on Social Media

PantsuitPolitics.jpg

Topics Discussed

  • Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial

  • The Coup in Myanmar

  • Moment of Hope: The Momnibus (Black Maternal Health Package)

  • The Deplatforming of Donald Trump

  • Social Media and Free Speech

  • Defamation Lawsuits Over Election Fraud Claims

  • Outside of Politics: Framing Britney Spears

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

THE MOMNIBUS

FREE SPEECH AND SOCIAL MEDIA

FRAMING BRITNEY SPEARS

Transcript

Sarah: [00:00:00] You know, they rejected the idea that we could regulate the internet, like broadcast because broadcast is scarce and it's owned by the people and then the internet isn't scarce and it's, it's massive. Okay. Yeah. But we were also anticipating constant competition on the internet and that the users would be able to like go into their browsers and decide what kind of content they were going to see in a way that's not available to you with broadcast television or didn't used to be, but like, that's not where we're at. That's not where we ended up. What we anticipated to be the case with the internet is that competition in the market would answer some of these problems for us.

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth, 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

[00:01:00] Hello everyone and thank you so much for joining us for today's episode of Pantsuit Politics. We're going to think a lot about speech today. We're going to talk about the former president being banned from Twitter and the impact that's had, where legislation might be going around social media companies and speech, and litigation filed by voting technology companies against Fox News and Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. So lots of speech talk. 

We'll do a few news updates before we get into that. And we have a beautiful moment of hope today that I'm so excited about. Before we dive in, if you're not subscribed to the Pantsuit Politics newsletter, I really want you to get on that because you're missing out.

We had such a great letter from RG on friday. She is in Canada and was giving us a perspective from someone who grew up in Alberta now lives in Toronto on the Keystone XL pipeline. And it's that kind of community discussion of issues that I think makes our newsletter really special. So go to PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. We'll put the link in the show [00:02:00] notes, scroll down to that purple box, put your email address. And you'll hear from us only one time a week. And we think it's really great content. 

Sarah: [00:02:08] So as this episode comes out on Tuesday, February 9th, it will be the first day of former president Donald J. Trump's second impeachment trial.

I was listening to the new podcast, Third Degree on the Impeachment Trial. I was just like, no, this is not an annual thing for you for you, young people. This is not a thing we do every winter where we just roll out articles of impeachment and go through another trial although it's starting to feel like that this is unprecedented that a president would be impeached twice.

It is the first time we have had an impeachment trial on a former president. And we have seen previews of what both sides arguments will be. The house managers will argue that president Trump, the money quote that everybody keeps pulling is singularly responsible for the events on January 6th. They are planning on using a [00:03:00] lot of emotional evidence to lay out what really happened on January 6th, to pull everybody back there and to argue that Donald J Trump, our former president was the one who incited the insurrection that led to all this violence. 

And then of course, on the other side, we have Trump's team arguing that this is an unconstitutional process, that you cannot impeach a former president and really, really leading into the process argument along with many Republicans, including our Senator Rand Paul who filed a motion to dismiss the impeachment based on that argument and was joined by 45 of his fellow Republicans in that process argument. So I think we have a good idea of some of the main arguments, but I don't think this is all over and done and we know exactly how it's gonna play out.

I think this is a little bit of a wild card. What do you think? Am I being too optimistic? 

Beth: [00:03:54] I think so, because I do believe that there's something so unique about the [00:04:00] factual component of this trial and the fact that as one news outlet put it this morning, I think it was Axios. You know, the reality is that all of the people listening to the evidence here are also witnesses.

And that just puts this in a unique posture. Everyone is still dealing with trauma from this event. And so I think people are going to be more open-minded than it might seem at first glance. Maybe not everybody, but some people I'm interested to see how quickly the legal arguments are dealt with and kind of process wise, whether they argue those motions the way that you would in a normal court, where if you're arguing, you don't have jurisdiction, usually have to deal with that before you get to the facts. Right.

 But it's the Senate and they can do whatever they want to. And so I think the procedure for this trial is going to be as important as anything and I'm watching for when those procedures pass and we can actually read what the plan is, um, for setting up the arguments.

Sarah: [00:04:56] Yeah, I think you're right. I think the idea that so many of [00:05:00] these people were truly intensely affected by the events on January six, especially members that were like on the house floor. And I think you saw a preview of that in the debate over removing Marjorie Taylor Green from her committees. Like you just saw the intensity of emotion.

And I think you'll see that same level of intensity and that same level of emotion during the impeachment, because it's not some removed legalistic argument about what happened in Ukraine, right where we're, we're learning all these new players. It's the members of Congress that we know your fellow colleagues talking about not only what happened, what happened to them, but what happened to you. And I just think that changes the game a little bit. 

And there's a part of me that wonders with, you know, Liz Cheney's ability to retain her leadership [00:06:00] position and her pretty forceful argument on Fox news over the weekend that she stands by the moral and ethical arguments for removing Trump if the political calculation has changed because at the end of the day, you know, we've, we've talked about this a million times. The impeachment trial is, uh, you know, in the boat, on behalf of the, particularly the senators, it's a political calculus, it's a political act. And I'm just wondering if they're looking around and saying, man, my political calculus has changed. We're looking at this, this real division within the Republican party. 

And so do we embolden him to continue to maintain his control over the party and maintain his influence or you know, do we take this moment where we don't have to worry about tweets, where we don't have to worry about judicial nominations, where we don't have to worry about legislation because he's no longer in power and continue to remove any path forward for [00:07:00] him inside the party?

I mean, I can't, I try to really think pragmatically about the choices these people face and I can't fathom how you wouldn't look at that and say, Yeah, this is our shot. Like Liz, Liz Cheney is calling us and arguing that like this isn't just the moral and ethical thing to do. This is the right political thing to do.

Beth: [00:07:19] I hope that's right. I've talked about this a lot on the Nightly Nuance, which is our member's only Patreon podcasts that we do Monday through Thursday nights. I am frustrated by the discussion of what's good for the country around this impeachment trial and the, and particularly the idea that you hear from both Democrats and Republicans in certain corners of the parties that it's good for the country to just get this over with quickly.

Hmm, kind of this idea that it's proforma ,it's necessarily partisan, even though it in fact was a bi-partisan impeachment. I think it's really good for the country to sort through in a very public way for what I think should be the first of many times what happened [00:08:00] on January 6th. This was not a thing that it's good for the country to move past quickly.

And I think presenting the evidence as we understand it today and the evidence specifically tied to the power of the president of the United States in influencing something like this is really significant and whenever someone says, well, we shouldn't call witnesses. That wouldn't be good for the country to drag this on.

I think what do you mean by good. And what do you mean by the country? Who are you talking about when you say that? Because I think it's more significant and more important than any other topic. I can imagine having an evidentiary hearing in the United States Senate on. 

Sarah: [00:08:38] If I'm playing devil's advocate, I can understand that the reality is this is not only our path to justice and responsibility after the events of January 6th, you know. The criminal investigations continue, uh, the criminal charges continue. I hope that the reporting that the FBI is looking into a Rico case means that we [00:09:00] will see people higher up that weren't necessarily plopping their big old boots all over Nancy Pelosi's desk, but whose fingerprints are certainly all over this thing are held criminally liable.

 Not to mention, we haven't seen any sort of, you know, civil liability, which I believe will probably come as well, but it just feels like even if there are other avenues of accountability available to us is incredibly important that we see our members in the Capitol hold people responsible for those events on January 6th. 

Beth: [00:09:38] You know, I've tried to really think about this from a legal perspective and to put back on the training that I received as a lawyer at a very good firm that could make intelligent arguments about almost anything. And for me, the inescapable conclusion, as it relates to the question of impeachment of that political accountability for this [00:10:00] president, is that if he, at any point had said, you know, I lost the election, it wouldn't have happened. 

And I don't know how you get around that. I don't know how you convince yourself otherwise, if you're trying to say he didn't cause this, in a political sense. I'm not talking about a criminal trial for incitement, but in a political sense, when you think about the responsibilities of the president of the United States and the clear foreseeable path that events from the election to January 6th took, if he had at any moment said I lost the election and it was fair. This would not have happened. And that answers the question for me. 

Sarah: [00:10:50] Well, moving from the attempted coup at our Capitol to the successful coup in Myanmar, we spoke about the events in Myanmar in great detail on Friday's episode. And we wanted [00:11:00] to give an update because over the weekend, the people of Myanmar filled the streets and protested the coup, called for democracy.

It's said that this is one of the largest protest in the country's history, particularly since the saffron revolution in 2007. You see members of the international community, including Pope Francis, condemning the military coup and calling for democracy and a return of the par the duly elected members of parliament.

And I, you know, what I thought was really interesting is in the middle of the pandemic, you see citizens not just filling the streets, but a lot of health co-workers and a lot of people on the front lines saying, I'm not going to participate in this government. I can not do my job under this government. So if you need my truly essential skills, then we need the democratically elected government put back in power. 

Beth: [00:11:46] It shows incredible bravery too, because the recent history of Myanmar is a Testament to the military's willingness to take civilian lives in very brutal ways. And to see people insisting on the democracy that this country has [00:12:00] worked so hard to try and build is inspiring. 

And I think it's another reminder to us in the United States and other more developed democracies, not to take what we have for granted, not to get casual about our interest in authoritarianism or martial law or the kinds of things that are floating around our Facebook feeds all the time here.

Sarah: [00:12:22] So before we move on to talk about de platforming and defamation, Beth, you have a moment of hope you're very excited to share. 

Beth: [00:12:29] You're excited about the momnibus. Okay. Usually I don't like cutesy congressional names, but I'm here for the momnibus. There is a set of 12 bills being rolled out. The title is colloquially the Black maternal health package, and it's led by representative Alma Adams of North Carolina and Senator Cory Booker, who has stepped in for Senator Kamala Harris, who was part of this package the first time it was introduced in March of 2020.

 The Black maternal health caucus in the house is a [00:13:00] bipartisan group. It's led by representative Adams and representative Lauren Underwood of Illinois. And we don't have the full package yet, but us news reports that it includes proposals on investing in community-based care for Black mothers, improvements to maternal health data collection, improvements in maternal health outcomes for incarcerated mothers, supportive programs around mental health during the postpartum period, examining policies on continuing health insurance coverage, including Medicaid for up to one year postpartum.

 It will include a bill that has a companion in the Senate from Senator Elizabeth Warren called the Maternal Health Pandemic Response Act that would require the CDC to publicly post more information on pregnancy and birth around COVID-19 and to dis-aggregate that data by race and ethnicity.

It would establish a task force on birthing experiences during the pandemic and promote research on using vaccines during pregnancy, [00:14:00] it would include an, a vaccination act to increase immunization and protect the health and safety of babies and their moms and fund education about vaccines. And then there is a climate change component.

There was a study about air pollution and heat exposure and a linkage between those two things and preterm birth, and this act would call for a hundred million dollars to fund programs aimed at identifying climate risks for pregnancy in the postpartum period and providing support during that period and the mitigation of exposure.

So this is a very comprehensive look at maternal health in the United States, which is in such a dire straights compared to where we ought to be in terms of the Western world. We have a bipartisan consensus that this is needed. Back in October, Senator Booker actually worked with Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee to introduce the Doula Act, delivering optimally urgent labor access for veterans affairs.

That was going to pilot a [00:15:00] program, encouraging the use of Doulas in the veterans health administration. That's an interesting partnership of human beings, and I think it's really exciting to see this truly like bipartisan statement that families and children matter at a time when a lot of the government's response to COVID-19 might make one question, whether families and children actually matter. So I'm really excited about this. 

Sarah: [00:15:25] You know, maternal health is notoriously complicated, and I think it is very easy to see alarming statistics on particularly Black maternal health and, you know, fall for the argument or get in your own head about socioeconomic standing and, um, geographic differences and all the different components that do matter a great deal when you're talking about maternal health outcomes, but I think why this legislation is so hopeful and why it is so much [00:16:00] needed. 

There was a research study and the results were released pretty recently. And it just, for me, I think cut through all the noise on this issue in such a profound way. It was researchers in Florida and they found that although Black newborns are three times as likely, three times as likely to die as white newborns, when the doctor of record for Black newborns, primarily pediatricians, neonatologist and family practitioners was also Black, mortality rate as compared with newborns was cut in half, cut in half. And to me like that is so profound. 

Now this is just an, you know, this is just an association. Like this is a correlation, not causation, but I think like there's just no way to look at a statistic like that and think something is going on. Something that we have control over that is not so big and complex and filled with so many inputs that we can't get it real [00:17:00] solutions that save the lives of mothers and babies very quickly. The fact that there is a Black maternal health caucus is a moment of hope, much less that there putting together packages like this.

Beth: [00:17:10] Well, and I think all that complexity you just talked about is the reason that 12 bills is not too big. And we're going to talk more about this on Friday. We're going to examine lots of the proposals out there about child tax credits, Mitt Romney's plan on, um, American families. But I thought about, uh, David French's piece that he wrote over the weekend about how to be pro-life in Joe Biden's America when I was reading about this package.

 You know, w anything that aims to make pregnancy birth and the postpartum period safer and a better experience and healthier for both parents and children is really important to that cause. And so I'm excited. This feels innovative and overdue, but forward-looking in so many ways, not just reacting to the crises. [00:18:00] Uh, and I really appreciate all of the people who are working hard on this 

Sarah: [00:18:03] Next up. We're going to talk about Twitter and Facebook and Trump and Smart Madik and just all the things.

So as this episode is released on Tuesday, February 9th, we are officially one month out from Twitter banning former president, Donald Trump. Um, Facebook, Instagram, and I think even more importantly, many of the infrastructure sites of the internet, like Shopify also banned president Trump and his campaign.

And, you know, I was interested to talk about this with you because I think when it first happened, it was just such a relief and it remains an incredible relief to not have this man and his chaotic noise [00:19:00] in our social media feeds, you know, we saw pretty quickly researchers coming out and saying like we saw a 75% drop in misinformation and just the, the fuel that he adds to the fire of misinformation and conspiracy theories to have that fuel source cutoff was such an immediate emotional release and still was let me say this, you know, unequivocally at the beginning of this conversation, the right thing to do.

 I do not want president Trump back on Twitter ever, ever. I think he should remain D platform because his rhetoric and narcissism remained and will continue to remain a threat to our Republic. And I think having a conversation about the power of social media companies two deplatform a sitting president, and what that means, and the impact of that is important. Not because there's some [00:20:00] massive free speech violation. But because it does speak to the power of the platforms. And I do think that's a really important conversation to have.

Beth: [00:20:08] I've been thinking a lot about what these platforms are, because in one sense, as a user of Twitter, And I'm a user, not a customer, right? I don't pay for Twitter, but I am part of the model that pays for Twitter as a user, as we all are, who are on the platform and generating content. So as a user of Twitter, my experience is materially better without president Trump on the platform. It truly is when I open up my timeline, it is different now that the entire ecosystem, or at least the one that I chose to put myself in.

So there's another variable in this equation, but the ecosystem that I choose to put myself in as a Twitter user is no longer driven, almost exclusively by the former president. And that is a bonus [00:21:00] to me. I like that. But Twitter, as a company has to decide one, does it care about my user experience? And does it care about the experience of users who would say the opposite, that Twitter doesn't have value for them now that the former president isn't there and that conversation seems normal for every kind of business on earth, except Twitter.

 McDonald's is an enormous multinational corporation. Right. But we understand intuitively that McDonald's is looking for ways to make the customer experience better and that they have to choose which customers they care the most about. And that's why McDonald's appeals more to kids and families. Then, you know, single people who are looking to get some work done and have a hamburger, right. And we get that. 

We get that you segment by your population and that you try to enhance the experience for the population you zero in on as your best target and social media complicates that in so many different [00:22:00] ways. And I have to say that looking at how complicated it can become when you start thinking about it gives me sympathy for what Facebook has done with its oversight board that we talked about last week, but it makes me strongly prefer Twitter's approach of just deciding things and deciding them themselves and accepting the fallout and moving on.

Sarah: [00:22:21] Well, I mean, I think the value to the user is also an important moment to talk about the value to the company. Look, I'm happy Twitter did it. And also I think they should have done it long, long before they did. They made a lot of money like their company's stock value increased dramatically under president Trump's term. Right. It became the place to hear what the president of the United States had to say. And, you know, I think that you can't deny that and you can't deny the fact that all of these companies either [00:23:00] deliberately ignored as, as in the case of Facebook, I would argue, um, or, you know, sort of twisted or reinterpreted or what other sort of verb you want to use as it became impossible to ignore the impact of what was going on.

And they let it get all the way to January 6th, to where he was, you know, openly inciting violence against our seat of government and trying to overturn a free and fair election. You know, it feels a little bit like a problem we shouldn't have had, like, I don't think it's good that they have enough power as platforms to, you know, have this impact on the president of the United States.

And also like that's a problem we should have never gotten to in the first place. Like we should have never gotten to the point where he needed to be de platformed. And, you know, I, I think it's easy here on after super bowl, Sunday to Monday morning, quarterback them. But, you know, it wasn't like [00:24:00] everybody was clueless as to what could happen.

There were plenty of people saying this is dangerous. This is what's happening. People are getting radicalized on these platforms. They're getting radicalized on YouTube. And yeah, I think there's a certain component of, you know, when you do platform these groups, right? Like Q Anon, you know, like far right extremist.

They'll find other places, but there's also a sense of like, we know that Q Anon spread on Facebook. Like it wasn't, it started on eight Chan, but it spread on Facebook. You know, the radical right has always existed, but they radicalized at a much greater rate on YouTube. And, you know, I think there's just this sense of like, you can't eliminate it, but they, because of the size of the platform because of the power that comes with that size.

 They virally, I don't know if that's a word I've just made it up, but like, you know, they just spread it so much more quickly and they ignore the impact of that spread for so long until we had to get to a point where they were de [00:25:00] platforming a sitting presence 

Beth: [00:25:01] and de platforming is such a strange word to use because, you know, Saturday night live referred to the president this weekend as former social media influencer, Donald Trump.

And it was funny. But it was also revealing because when you say that he's been de platformed that's bananas, he has tons of platforms. It's just his chosen platform that was, you know, taken from him and lots of other platforms following along that I think he cared a lot less about. And then we listened you and I to, Ezra Klein's podcast with Yuval Levin.

And he was talking about how in his perfect world, Joe Biden would not be on Twitter and neither would most journalists. And I sat with that argument for a while because my experience on Twitter is largely defined by journalists. That's why I'm there. And I also kind of begrudgingly agree that it doesn't do great things for news and politics for the most part.

And it creates a [00:26:00] lot of intermedia conversation that has very little value outside of the media, but tends to drive the conversation outside the media too. And so all of this swirls around the question of like, what are we trying to do here? And if you get to a point where you think while the real answer is greater regulation, which probably leads to shrinking some of these companies and shrinking the user base.

 And then you think back to the original arguments for these companies, which is they have value because so many people are here. You know, I just continue to get lost in what's the point of all this. We have created this ecosystem that can do tremendous good. I've seen it, but that clearly does tremendous harm. And I don't even know how to work my way through the cost benefit analysis anymore because it's become so complicated and so esoteric. 

Sarah: [00:26:55] Yeah. I mean, I think that the problem is there is a benefit. [00:27:00] The power comes in the size of the platform and the benefit comes in the size of the platform. And then the same way that I don't begrudge Beyonce, the ability to get on Instagram or the ability to release our albums solely through social media. And I think that that is a positive progression. 

Like I do think that it is a form of media and he was de platformed from it. You know, like I understand that he can go and call reporters, but I also understand that there is value in being able to speak without the filtration. Right. You know, we've talked a lot about like the frictionless aspect of this that you can do it without these layers.

And sometimes that's good and sometimes that's bad. Sometimes we need the layers. It makes the content better. It makes the audience better. It reduces the ability to you sort of use it for your purposes or to speak to particular people and to rile them up in a way. Right. But it's also got a [00:28:00] benefit.

Like you don't get, look, I've been a public servant at a very low level, and it's frustrating to have to go through media that filters and messes with every single thing you say. That's a reality, right? Like they're not, they're not presenting the message in the way that you want it presented, like it's this constant battle.

And look, you see it even with the Biden administration and some of the back and forth Jen Sockies had with the press during the press briefings. Like there is an aspect of like, I can say what I want to say without you deciding what I want to say. That is positive. And that the benefit of that comes from the power and the size of the platform.

And so it's like sort of baked in, in a way I don't think we ever really foresaw, right. I was listening to Interesting Podcast and they were talking about, you know, section two 30 of the Communications Decency Act and the Supreme court case that came after it, Reno versus ACLU. And like, they were just talking about, you know, they rejected the idea that the internet that we could regulate the internet, like broadcast because [00:29:00] broadcast is scarce and it's owned by the people, um, and the internet isn't scarce and it's, it's massive.

And I. I think that's accurate and I get it. And also it feels like, okay. Yeah, but we were also anticipating, you know, constant competition on the internet and that the users would be able to like go into their browsers and decide what kind of content they were going to see in a way that's not available to you with broadcast television, or didn't used to be, but like, that's not where we're at.

That's not where we ended up. What we anticipated to be the case with the internet is that competition and the market would answer some of these problems for us. And it didn't, it didn't. What we have is these massive tech monopolies and these companies with an enormous amount of power equal or greater to the power that broadcast television used to have. And no real ability for the user to say, well, I don't like Facebook and the way Facebook handles some things I'll go somewhere else. 

You know, [00:30:00] we all feel that you can't go somewhere else. And that's true for Donald Trump too. He can't go somewhere else. He can't go to Parlor if for no other reason, then also Parlor got deplatformed in a way. And not because they have a right to, these companies get to do whatever they want. The free speech we should be concerned about really is the free speech of the companies, right? It's not the free speech, free speech does not assure you the right to be on Facebook and it, but it certainly assures Facebook to decide what speech it wants to have on its private platform.

And so, like, it's not, I don't think it's free speech, but I think there's like a competition thing that we were not anticipating when we were writing the communications decency act or we were debating Reno versus ACLU that the competition will solve it. Well, it didn't. And now we have these massive platforms that the size is the market. And we don't know how to regulate that because we've decided, well, it's not like broadcast media, like the past. Well, okay. If it's done, that's not going to work, then we're gonna have to think of something else. 

Beth: [00:30:54] I think a tricky part of all of this is that we don't have the competition and yet we [00:31:00] still have the divisiveness. You don't have the competition among all these platforms to choose where you want to go. But the platforms themselves through algorithm, let you select your own reality within them. Right? And at the same time, the old medium broadcast television has turned into streaming platforms and infinite choices.

And so we also don't have like the unified community viewing there that we used to. And so you're being funneled into like one place online, but within that one place, tiny ecosystems of other places. And you can watch anything you want to any time on TV. And so there isn't really, you know, we have all this conversation about the public square.

I'm not sure there is a public square at this point. There are lots of other squares carefully created based on user preference. 

Sarah: [00:31:53] I think a lot of what we're talking about here is content moderation. You know, de platforming is [00:32:00] is the word we're using, but what they're really doing is deciding what content they want allow on their platforms.

And there's a sense that like, there's a lot of us who would like, what is technically free speech removed from the content, which is what we do in broadcast television, right? It's not, like we say, everybody has a right to go on TV and say whatever they want. We have regulations in place that say it might be free speech, but it can't be on the broadcast.

And, you know, I think. What we're bumping up against is like, a lot of us would like removed from the internet. What is technically legal and free speech. And I think when they were battling with this in the Supreme court, you know, back in 20 years ago and everything was freaking different, that's what they were trying.

They were trying to protect that speech is a heavy burden on speech, right. We don't want to make the internet at a place where people. Can't go and can't exercise. They're democratically assured right? To free [00:33:00] speech because we're trying to censor them. I mean that the communications and decency act we're mad at section two 30, but the other sections of that act were kind of bananas.

When you think about it now, they were going to punish people, put them in jail for online speech that was into decent or a patently offensive. Now I'm not surprised the ACLU sued, but I just think that now. You got a place where people are like, no, I do want people to go to jail for things they posted ontheinternet.

 I mean the New York times had that insane article about this one woman basically out there ruining people's lives, posting total and complete lies, ruining people's online reputations, and they just had little to no recourse beyond massive and expensive lawsuits. And I think most people look at that and say, that's wrong. You should go to jail if you go online and just lie patently about other people's reputations and ruin their lives. 

But we decided, you know, looking at it at the beginning that, that wasn't going to [00:34:00] work. And I think now it's time to say, well, we get it, but there's like some legal and free speech that we don't want to allow to live unfettered on the internet.

I mean, I think that's the problem, right? Is that that's what most people want at this point. And then the providers are saying, well, how exactly are we supposed do this? 

Beth: [00:34:18] You think most people want to have censorship of certain forms of speech on the internet by the government. 

Sarah: [00:34:26] I think most people want censorship of certain kind of speech on the internet, but I don't think we've decided if we want the government to do it or Facebook to do, because there is a, there's a weird thing where like, Well, if Facebook's doing it, it feels like it should be the government, but then the government's in this very difficult space of like, but that is free speech that is legal and free speech to go on and, you know, be pro anorexia or proud boys or whatever, you know, there's some speech that's limited that if it's criminal and violent and this, the platforms go after it.

But I think we're all looking around going [00:35:00] like, well, that wasn't quite good that wasn't quite getting it. Was it right? 

Beth: [00:35:02] And so something like anti-vax really brings that into relief and public health. Crisis 

Sarah: [00:35:09] Q and R and all 

Beth: [00:35:09] that stuff. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it's interesting when you ask the question, like, how is that supposed to happen?

Twitter and Facebook are on kind of different paths in thinking through whether you eliminate the content creator or you restrict the content. So Twitter takes down accounts, right? Like you, you put the offensive stuff out and the account ends up going the direction. At least so far from the Facebook oversight board seems to be taking the least restrictive action possible.

So, not only do we not take the whole account down, but maybe we just take the post down. Maybe we don't take the post down. Maybe we just add context to the post, but there seems to be this sense on the Facebook side that you want to keep all of the users [00:36:00] and only restrict the content when you absolutely have to.

And that's again, where I think Twitter has the better approach of saying like, no, the content creator has to go. If the content is consistently. Content that is deserving of private 

Sarah: [00:36:15] censorship, but that's such a hard thing because Facebook is so based on your actual identity where I think Twitter is much more free flowing as far as like what your account can be.

You know what I 

Beth: [00:36:27] mean? I do. I also think the former president brings this into relief because the former president's saying stop the steel come to DC on January six is going to be wild. Would be a completely different thing than if I posted that. So are we talking about the content or about the account behind the content and that person's scope of influence in deciding what goes and what stays, what gets a warning and what doesn't, that's 

Sarah: [00:36:54] interesting, you know, we're seeing attempts.

In the Senate, most recently, [00:37:00] Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar and Mazie, Hirono introduced the safe tech act and it's, it's seeking to add a layer of clarity to that section two 30 immunity that provides content providers and the third party hosts with immunity. So you don't ha you can content moderate and still maintain that immunity.

And then, you know, you're not in trouble for what's published on your platform. Right. And so they're trying to add in. Some areas where you would be held responsible wrongful death suits, you know, these sort of vulnerable consumers from scams or fraudulent products. I think this is very interesting.

There also would not bar suits under the alien tort claims act, which would allow survivors of the genocide and me and Mar to bring cases against the platform in the United States. And then you have Europe trying to do the same thing in a much more expansive way. So they're adding all these categories, illegal goods.

You know, transparency as far as how the algorithms are working online advertising, and then they have this other component where they're specifically addressing these gatekeepers. They're not just making rules for [00:38:00] everybody because that doesn't make sense at this point. Right. That's what we were trying to do in the beginning.

I think that's one component of this that hasn't made sense. Like we're trying to apply these rules across the board when, you know, if we just eliminated section two 30, there are so many like. Small list serves are like school sites. Like they would, they couldn't possibly take on that liability. Whereas a Facebook is going to be much more capable and able to address something like that.

So that, that doesn't make sense to apply it across the board. And I think that's what Europe is trying to do. Like they have these gatekeepers and it's to ensure that the tech giants operating in Europe. Do not prevent new service tools companies from entering the market based on this additional liability.

Right. And I think that, that, I think that's part of what needs to happen here is we need to stop pretending, like everybody's the same when we have Facebook and Twitter, Instagram, all these giant media [00:39:00] platforms and. Figuring out how to do that. I mean, I don't know, I don't have the solution, but I think that that at least has to be part of it.

And then there's also like, you know, civil groups out there trying to get at, okay, what do we, what do we want if we're going to have to depend on the Facebook and the Twitter is to do it for now, what are the principles? There's a group called the Santa Clara principles where they're trying to find like a mutually agreed upon legally sustainable approach.

And there's this very much built on like, The number of posts, notice of removal of posts and appeal process. If your post is removed and sort of getting at some of that transparency, but I don't think we've come to the, the final conclusion of like, who should actually be doing this. If we do have to depend on.

The gatekeepers to moderate this content, which they're doing now. And I think they get better and better at, we won't even talk about like the issues with the impact on the actual humans doing this content [00:40:00] moderation, but, you know, trying to figure out okay, if they're going to do it, what are the principles?

Are these just self-regulating or agreeing to the, basically the employees inside these tech companies to put the pressure on them, to do the right thing? Or do we want the government to step in and say, we're going to let you do it, but these are the rules and regulations for how you do it. 

Beth: [00:40:17] And then what's the enforcement mechanism, because I cannot imagine that the vast majority of American citizens think that the cost benefit analysis of government regulators watching internet content.

Would make sense for us as a country. Like I personally, if we have to replace the tech companies, doing this moderation with the government doing this moderation, I just I'd rather call it, you know, I don't need Facebook anymore. I would just rather call it. So I think it, a hard question is what does this mean?

And the most realistic answer given the sheer volume of content is what gets enforced to the court system, which always [00:41:00] has an inequitable component. Because who understands the court system and their rights and it well enough. To get into that system who has the time and the resources to get into that system who can hire really good lawyers in that system.

You know, there's always going to be an inequitable component to how, what happens with any modification of section two 30. Plays out and we get a taste of that. 

Sarah: [00:41:24] So you say, we know one of the answers is smart mannequin dominion. 

Beth: [00:41:27] Yeah. We get a taste of that in lawsuits that are proceeding against more traditional forms of media, because they can't do this with Twitter and Facebook yet Smart Madik and dominion have filed truly massive lawsuits.

About claims related to the election. And before we get into these lawsuits, I want to just say one thing in response to a few emails that we got between the election and the inauguration, you know, we had people saying to us things like, I hear you saying that the election was fair, but like, why aren't you engaging with the evidence that [00:42:00] it wasn't.

Okay. My first response is that you cannot prove a negative. We could spend hours on this podcast, talking to you about all the ways that we do not believe the election was compromised, but ultimately, if you are inclined to believe the election was compromised, no, one's going to talk you out of that because a negative can't be proven, but the second reason really comes to fruition in these lawsuits.

There is a consequence to talking about speculation. Real people got hurt, real companies were damaged. And I think these lawsuits do a really good job of saying. On any platform of any size, any content creator needs to be careful about talking about things that they know are false. We've gotten into this space where people just want to say, well, some people are saying this and therefore it's news worth discussing.

And I think that's really unethical, but I also think these lawsuits show that it has consequences. So. [00:43:00] Let's talk about smart medic for a second. Sarah, can I just tell you how beautiful the first paragraphs of this complaint are? I just want to tell you the first, I just have to read it to you. Okay. This is filed in New York state court against Fox corporation, Fox news network, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

And they begin the earth is round. Two plus two equals four, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for president and vice president of the United States. The election was not stolen, rigged or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable defendants have always known these facts.

They knew Joe Biden and Kamala Harris one, the 2020 U S election. They knew the election was not stolen. They knew these truths just as they named the earth is round. And two plus two 

Sarah: [00:43:48] equals. They should have added our phrase. You cannot wake up those who are pretending to be asleep. 

Beth: [00:43:53] What's so lovely about this just from a legal perspective is that this is a complaint.

So the defendants have to [00:44:00] answer every single allegation of the complaint. So they are going to have to write something like admitted. The earth is round and two plus two equals four denied as to our knowledge that the election was not stolen or maybe not. You know what I mean? Like they have to, to specifically contend with these facts and how they understood them as a news organization. And I think that's really genius on the part of the people who framed this complaint up. So the Smart Madik suit says the defendants were disappointed in the election results and they needed that. So 

Sarah: [00:44:34] That's a fun quite a word to use.

Beth: [00:44:36] They needed a versus evil story to keep capitalizing on the popularity of the president. The point of these lawsuits is that this has all been grift. It has just been about continuing to make money from an audience and to give that audience a villain was essential and they couldn't find one. So they picked these voting companies that no one had ever heard of before [00:45:00] and Smart Madik makes the point throughout the complaint that all it did in the 2020 election was provide technology to Los Angeles County. That's it? Nowhere else in the country. It's not part of Dominion. It's tech wasn't licensed in other States. It was not part at all of the controversial States. Los Angeles County, which went like 71% 

Sarah: [00:45:21] I was gonna say every, somebody  had hacked Smart Medik on behalf of Trump. It wouldn't have mattered in Los Angeles County and it certainly wouldn't have mattered in California.

Beth: [00:45:30] Right. That was entirely consistent with past elections and Smart Madik says, you know, what's really frustrating for us is that Los Angeles County. Biggest County in the country was a great place to use our technology and build a case study of our success. People who use the technology were very satisfied with it.

They had all these surveys where people really liked it. And instead of being able to walk away with an even better pitch to future clients, Smart [00:46:00] Madik gets dragged through the mud on Fox news every day. And they talk about how Giuliani and Sidney Powell made up this story so that they could go out and raise money.

Sidney Powell, just ask people for money for her defending the Republic company and Giuliani was selling cigars and supplements and fraud protection online because they were just attention generating machines during this period. And they say, you know, this did more than just make them money and jeopardize our survival.

The story undermine people's belief in democracy, the story turned neighbor against neighbor. The story led a mob to attack the U S Capitol defendants started a fire for selfish and financial reasons, and they cared not for the damage. Their story caused to Smart Madik its officers and employees in the country with this action. Smart Madik says enough. 

Sarah: [00:46:52] I think that's the harshest part to me is, you know, in 2016, [00:47:00] before Donald Trump's base had become what it is today, maybe you could claim ignorance, but at this point to not understand the incredible physical threat you were placing anyone related to these companies under, by talking about them this way. And by, you know, Not implying that his base should come to the defense, but you know, explicitly saying here's who our enemy is, go after them, to me is just, Oh gosh, it's just so hard to refute.

Beth: [00:47:38] And it happened, their customer service lines were jammed with death threats, a 14 year old child of one of their companies officers got a very scary phone call. Oh, my gosh, customers were reevaluating their contracts, their investors and other vendors were reevaluating their relationships. They [00:48:00] have had to invest in increased security for their office spaces. I mean, this has been very real for Smart Madik and they say, you know, our brand was introduced to most people as like a communist socialist, counting votes, changing votes kind of organization, the opposite of what we're trying to build. We are going to have to spend years trying to overcome the reputational damage from this.

Sarah: [00:48:26] Right? Because they don't want to just be a liberal hero. They're a voting company, right. They want to be able to be hired in red and blue States. And so even if they're a hero to blue States for this lawsuit and for anything else that still eliminates like half the dang States where they might be able to sell their machines.

Beth: [00:48:40] And that's what they say in, uh, 16 counts that requests $2.7 billion. That the damage to us is real. It's substantial. It's long lasting, and this complaint is filled with receipts. It's 276 pages long, and it's photograph after photograph of [00:49:00] Sidney Powell talking to Lou Dobbs of Rudy Giuliani, talking to Maria Bartiromo. There are transcripts of those conversations.

There are pictures of. Tweets and of online articles where Fox reran this content. To me, one of the most significant details in this complaint is that Fox news did not even try to contact Smart Madik until November 16th. Wow. They ran, according to the lawsuit, 24 false statements on three TV broadcast, four online news reports and five social media posts before anybody even reached out. And that tells you that the programs involved in this lawsuit are not trying to do news. 

Sarah: [00:49:42] Nope. I mean, do they even have fact checkers on staff? I'd love to know that surely they did Lou Dobbs before he was canceled, even have a fact checker on staff.

Beth: [00:49:51] And, you know, the lawsuit just goes through the fact that like they had volumes of information available to them. Public records, searches would have [00:50:00] confirmed how much of this was not true. They just didn't want to know it because it wasn't part of the good story. This is a very persuasive complaint. And what I think is important for you all to know who are contending with people in your family, who believe all the stuff that they've heard from Lou Dobbs and company, is that this complaint is made in court.

Smart Madik didn't write an op-ed about this. They walked into court where you have to promise that what you're saying is true, where you have to demonstrate that you will have evidence to back up what you're saying, and that has not been true in the press where this entire lie about election fraud has been propagated and Dominion makes that point.

So Dominion sues Giuliani, personally, and Sidney Powell personally. And in those lawsuits, Dominion points out that Giuliani walks into court and says specifically that the Trump campaign does not [00:51:00] allege fraud. When he has to prove it, he says, no, no, we're not talking about fraud. But then he goes to news conference after news conference and says fraud.

Right. And so, you know, it's just, it's all happening in plain sight that this group of people decided there is a lot in it for us to keep people stirred up about this and they did. And maybe you have all kinds of conversation about whether that can happen on Twitter and Facebook and parlor and wherever else. But the rubber meets the road when you have damaged the reputations of private companies, and there are real economic damages. There's no question that Smart Madik and Dominion have standing to bring these lawsuits because they were in fact injured by this conduct.

Sarah: [00:51:49] Yeah. I don't think there's any debate. I will say this though. I am encouraged. I think they lay out their case decisively. I think they will [00:52:00] probably win. It will be awhile. I think that the impact you can already see with the cancellation of Lou Dobbs show. And also, I don't think this is a solution to everything we were talking about in the first part.

Beth: [00:52:13] For sure not. And there are going to be legal issues in these suits. I don't think it's a slam dunk. I don't know that they get the billions of dollars that are being sought here. I would not be mad if they did. I think they probably deserve it given the way they have just been trashed during this election irreparably with lots and lots of people.

I think you're right. If I'm a Republican secretary of state, There's no way I can hire one of these companies to run my election, even if I'm certain that they're the very best now and that's tragedy. I do think it is important and in some ways I think this is the most important work that's being done to deal with the fallout of all of this, because it it's so clearly illustrates what the stakes were for everybody [00:53:00] involved.

And remember this comes on the heels of Fox settling a case with Seth Rich's parents after this really long, painful period of certain hosts on Fox telling viewers that Seth Rich had been murdered for political purposes. 

And I think the more that you have these companies saying to massive media conglomerates, if you say you do news, you're going to have to do news here. And if you don't do news and you hurt me in the process, there's, there's a consequence for that. I think that helps.

 And I think it helps the people trying to figure out what to do with section two 30 in the social media companies think through, okay, if our work ultimately results in lawsuits. Lawsuits are the best mechanism to enforce what we would like to see on the internet. Seeing what those lawsuits could look like is a really important guiding light to drafting that legislation. 

Sarah: [00:53:55] And to close out this conversation in case you needed any more [00:54:00] confirmation for how we should all feel about Fox news, that settlement had a stipulation that the parties could not speak openly about the settlement until after election day. So just. Let us leave you with that delightful tidbit about how, not just the party speaking on these channels, but the channels themselves understand the impact of their decisions.

Beth: [00:54:33] Sarah what's on your mind outside of politics. 

Sarah: [00:54:36] Well, you already said, I mean, we're going to talk about Brittany. Okay. 

Beth: [00:54:39] I was talking about Brittany Spears, so we both watched over the weekend, the New York times, FX, Hulu Framing Brittany Spears. I felt as I was watching it, that I had been perfectly targeted by age and demographic to be sucked into every detail of what they had to share with [00:55:00] us about the conservatorship that Britney Spears has been under for so long. It was mind blowing to me how long this has been going 

Sarah: [00:55:07] on. So I think there is the issue of like Brittany herself and the conservatorship. That is, you know, it's really important. I think that, I thought that the most insightful person was the lawyer. She tried to handle, who kept, kept saying, we just don't know what we don't know.

We don't know what Jamie Spears has filed as far as mental and health records that keeps the court maintaining this conservatorship. I also thought was pretty damning on the conservatorship system overall, considering like she's paying everybody's lawyers under this system, but you know, for me, the most impactful, especially like you said, because of our age and because, you know, Britney Spears is as old as we are.

She is another 1981 baby, continuing the theme of this year, that 1981 was the best year to be born in. [00:56:00] And so you know, I feel really invested in and weirdly responsible. Like I have this tic anyway. I don't know if it's a tick. I would argue that it is the moral and ethically proper posture, but I feel very, like I said, like responsible, it's how I felt watching, Finding Neverland.

It's how I feel every time I watch and I'm sad all over again about the death of Whitney Houston. It's how I feel about Amy Winehouse. Like I just feel that there is a component of what fame does to people that. All of us have to sort of reckon with, I think it's really, really important. And I think this the way that they formulated and sort of walked you through her career and watched the way she was treated in the media is something that we all have to face. Every, you know, if you are our age or even surrounding our age and you were alive and sort of an adult in [00:57:00] 2007, when she had her fall apart, And you weren't clicking and following and watching and seeing all this come through and like with bated breath, like, I don't know.

I don't believe you. Like, I think we all were. And I think that's like what they sort of demand we reckon with is the way we all were like, Oh my God, she did cheat on Justin Timberlake. She's the worst or she's white trash or whatever the, you know, pejorative crazy ,hysterical words we use to describe her, to describe Whitney Houston when she was having her fall apart, to describe Amy Winehouse, to describe Paris Hilton, who we now know had enormous trauma as a child, as a 17 year old child. Monica Lewinsky, the whole thing, like we just, it just feels like it's this very condemnation of the system that we all participate in and participated in at the time.

Beth: [00:57:50] A hundred percent, my main takeaway watching this was thinking about how my childhood was tearing people down for sport. Like that was the dominant activity in our culture. And [00:58:00] seeing Brittany Spears sitting there with Matt Lauer, you know, it just, it just made my blood boil.

And the other thing I thought about that really created a new sense of responsibility in me was watching women who are my age now talking about how much they despised her, because she created this desire to be sexy in their daughters. Um, you know, looking at women who are probably in their forties and I'm coming up on 40 as we've talked about a lot here on podcasts and probably more this year, but, you know, just thinking about how they were sitting there talking about her when she was still a child in such.

Sarah: [00:58:42] Like the wife of the governor that she wanted to shoot her.

Beth: [00:58:45] Yes. Yes. Instead of seeing her as a child as well, thinking only about their own children, honest to God if our generation does nothing else, let us see the childhood outside of our own children. 

[00:59:00] Sarah: [00:58:59] I think about the nuts that like that's the gender component of that. Think about the race component of that with Tipper Gore out there campaigning against all the rap lyrics. Completely, you know, like, yeah.

Like there's just so many aspects of the part where I about fell out where I almost had to turn it off and walk away is when they used her as a family feud category. Brittany Spears lost this year. I thought, what are you kidding me? I mean, it's how I still feel about Barbara Walters asking Monica Lewinsky who's going to want to bring Monica Lewinsky home to meet their mother?

 Like that, those moments where we're like, can you not see that this is a human being? And you know, I think I, you know, feel responsible. I don't know if responsible is the right word for it, but like, because I've always felt that way. I, you know, One of the, uh, famously one of the first fights I ever got in with my husband was cause I was like basically defending Julia Roberts because she became famous at such a young age. And I think that's a huge part of this [01:00:00] too, is like, you just cannot fathom it's you cannot consent to fame as a child.

You can barely consent to fame at like 30, much less 18 or 16 or 15 God. How young was she when she got into the Mickey mouse club and like to say like, well, they know what they're getting into or like they get all these benefits is just so messed up. They're human being, even if they did like they're human beings, like how can we not see that these people are suffering?

I just think about the way fame on the level we particularly like saw and experienced growing up, just decimated people, not a single one that didn't suffer from addiction or you know, just massive traumas and exploitation and sexism and racism. And it's just, it just feels like we're looking we're, we're surveying this land and [01:01:00] seeing trauma and casualties in every corner and still what chasing fame on Instagram?

Like it just, and I don't think that's the same type of fame, but you know, to me, like, I can't. I can't see how we don't have some real reckoning to do, particularly around like pop stars and that the fame, when it is you and not, you're not playing other people. I often say, like, I feel like we should submit Madonna to some sort of like deep, psychological study that she has come out mostly in one piece considering how famous she was at such a young age. Same for Taylor Swift, man. 

Beth: [01:01:40] I'm just not sure that there's any age where you can consent to the kinds of things that Brittany Spears has gone through, but especially not at the age that she was. And I. I just think like, gosh, there were so many people who should have been protecting you. And, and I think some of them really tried, you know, you got a glimpse of some people who you could tell, loved her [01:02:00] in this documentary.

Sarah: [01:02:01] Well, I think there's also just like the sexualization piece. Cause I, I just finished Jessica Simpson's book and it's fascinating. Like how there lives intersected in so many ways. Like, I mean, basically Brittany got Jessica space in the Mickey Mouse Club. Like Jessica kind of like got up there and panicked, but it was really like her space and she lost it to unlike Christina Aguilera.

And you know, they're out there asking Brittany Spears, is she a Virgin? That was like, they were obsessed with that with Jessica Simpson because she was, you know, pretty um, out about her identity as a born again Christian, and like how important this was to her. We saw that play such a role in there, her marriage to Nicholas Shay and the role, the reality show Newlyweds.

And it's just like the, the sexualization of these girls and the willingness to speak about it, to talk about it, to, to sit there and ask a 17 year old girl, if she's a Virgin, I mean, you didn't, and it trickled down [01:03:00] in so many ways. I mean, in the ways that we would, and still do, we'll talk about like what teenage girls choose to wear, you know, in schools.

I mean, that was such a big deal when I was growing up, like, were you wearing a short skirt? Were you wearing the spaghetti straps? Like just all of that, like is so wrapped up the misogyny in the way that she was treated and the way that her sexuality was just public fodder because of, I mean, I mean, because of, in some ways, because of the sexualization of, in her songs, for sure. But it's just so gross watching her on star search, like a little girl with a bow in her hair being asked if she has a boyfriend, it's just the grossest man.

Beth: [01:03:39] And it lingers on, you know, my girl's elementary school handbook says you can't wear spaghetti straps. You can't wear sleeveless shirts. I think like if you look at a five-year-old in spaghetti straps and think there's something sexual about that, the problem is not the clothing. Like what is wrong with you? 

[01:04:00] Sarah: [01:04:00] Well, there's all that good stuff on the internet too about like the way girls little girls clothes cut. Like in the difference, the way that the genes are and the way they fit. I remember one woman, I can't remember who it was, did a great, like sort of take 10 of the target and she's laying them over the tops of boys' clothes and is like showing the difference in the way just the, the garments themselves are cut.

You know, I just, I feel, I think that that's such a cultural down and also I just left so heartbroken for her and so sad that she's still stuck in this place, that we still don't really know how she feels about anything. As somebody who has been such a presence in my life for sure. I mean, I wasn't like going to see her on tour, but it's like, you know, Brittany Spears is Brittany Spears.

It's like a verb, you know, I just, I can't. And that we still really don't understand her. I think that was what so, so entrancing and engaging about Jessica Simpson's memoir is like, because she really did open up and you felt [01:05:00] like, Oh, this person that's like, I've been reading headlines about like, I really get to hear her side of it.

And like, I think that's really empowering and to be Brittany Spears to be about to turn 40 and still people do not understand you, you have not been able to speak and be who you are, who I mean, and who you are is like, forever affected by all of this. I mean, I, and I, you know, it just makes me so sad. It just makes me so, so sad for her.

Beth: [01:05:27] Yes. I'm sorry, Brittany. I just feel like we all failed you and I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. And I, I don't even know what the right outcome is in this situation, but it seems pretty clear to me that someone who is capable of performing at the level, she is still capable of performing at is also capable of having a say over her own finances and decision-making and the image that she wants to present to the world. And I am so sorry that she is being stripped of those rights. 

Sarah: [01:05:55] I mean, I really feel like maybe we should get Madonna involved if she has to have a [01:06:00] conservator, can it be Madonna? Who else would understand what Brittney Spears has gone through on the list that she has besides Madonna, who is now older and wiser? Like, I don't know. Can we get, can we call in Madonna? That's that's my helpful suggestion. 

Beth: [01:06:14] I think it tells you a lot about her mental state. She's not asking for Madonna. She's asking for a bank. She, this is a smart savvy human being. And I just, I just feel terrible, terrible about what she's been through and about all the aspects of culture that I am a part of that that made her life this way. It's just awful. 

Sarah: [01:06:40] And it's just, or that, to me, like, you know, I'm not a huge Britney Spears fan, but I am a massive Amy Winehouse fan and I'm a massive Whitney Houston fan. And I would be so sad if I never heard their voices or I never had those albums, they affected me. They were a gift. And also it's not worth it. It's not [01:07:00] worth it. I still, I wish Amy Winehouse was still alive and we never knew who she was and we never heard her voice and that would be a loss, but it would be worth it. And the same for Whitney Houston. 

Beth: [01:07:10] Well, thank you for joining us for this wide ranging conversation, but I think in a way it all rolls together when you think about like, what is the responsibility attached when we speak, when we put our opinions out there, when news organizations and entertainment companies blend purposes, what is the responsibility attached to that? 

And you know, whether you're talking about the US Capitol or Dominion and Smart Madik voting machines or Brittany Spears, there is a real consequence attached when we just float our opinions out in the world. It's something we take really seriously here as we sit down to record every week. We know that you all take it seriously as you're listening and thinking about these issues with us. And we are grateful and we hope for more of that in the world.

We'll be back with you on Friday to talk among other [01:08:00] things about the child tax credit proposals floating around until then have the best week available to you.

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Sarah: Alise Napp is our managing director. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Sarah: David McWilliams. Ali Edwards, Martha Bronitsky, Amy Whited, 

Janice Elliot, Sarah Ralph, Barry Kaufman, Jeremy Sequoia, Laurie LaDow, Emily Neesley,  

Allison Luzader. Tracey Puthoff,  Danny Ozment, Molly Kohrs, Julie Hallar, 

Jared Minson, Marnie Johansson. The Kriebs! 

Beth: Shari Blem, Tiffany Hassler, Morgan McCue, Nicole Berkless, Linda Daniel, Joshua Allen, and Tim Miller. 

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.

Alise NappComment