Morning Wire XX
[0] President Biden delivered a speech in Poland as Russia suspended the last remaining nuclear treaty with the United States.
[1] What was Biden's message?
[2] And how are Russia and China responding?
[3] I'm Daily Wire editor -in -chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe.
[4] It's Wednesday, February 22nd, and this is Morning Wire.
[5] The city of Seattle has agreed to pay out millions for damage done during the 2020 Summer of Love when police abandoned the city's autonomous zone.
[6] known as Chas.
[7] And the Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could completely reshape the internet and open platforms and users up to lawsuits.
[8] You are creating a world of lawsuits.
[9] Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
[10] Stay tuned.
[11] We have the news you need to know.
[12] The U .S. blew through the $31 .4 trillion debt ceiling last month, and still, the White House refuses to reduce spending.
[13] If you're worried about the future of this nation's economy, you need to consider diversifying into gold with birch gold.
[14] Birch gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
[15] Text wire to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold and talk to one of their precious metal experts.
[16] Text wire to 9898998 today.
[17] President Biden spoke in Poland yesterday on the heels of a historic trip to Ukraine.
[18] In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to pull out of the last remaining nuclear treaty.
[19] Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce.
[20] So, Tim, to start, tell us about President Biden's most recent address in Poland.
[21] So President Biden was in Kiev on Monday and Poland on Tuesday as a show of support for Ukraine.
[22] The trip came within days of the one -year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
[23] Based on the speech, not much has changed in terms of policy, but Biden reiterated his administration's unqualified support for Ukraine in the war.
[24] That message was directed at Moscow, but it could also have been a warning to China.
[25] Beijing has been careful to avoid alienating Russia over the past year, And just some background, the Wall Street Journal reports that President Xi plans to visit Moscow in the near future, supposedly in the hopes of brokering a peace deal.
[26] But over the weekend, U .S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said Beijing was looking at shipping arms to Russia.
[27] China denied that, but the situation doesn't reflect well for U .S.-China relations.
[28] Keep in mind, this comes within weeks of the famous Chinese spy balloon fiasco.
[29] Now, what was the purpose of this additional stopover in Poland?
[30] Well, Poland is the closest NATO ally to Ukraine, so it was a relative.
[31] relatively safe place to give an additional address.
[32] Poland has also been an important auxiliary player in the Russian -Ukraine war.
[33] They've taken in more than a million refugees from Ukraine.
[34] So Biden's stop was partly to commend Poland for that, but he also used the moment to give more detail about his administration's policy on the Ukraine -Russia war.
[35] Here's how some of that sounded.
[36] One year later, we know the answers.
[37] Yes, we would stand up for sovereignty, and we did.
[38] Yes, we would stand up for the right of people who live free from aggression.
[39] And we did.
[40] And we would stand up for democracy, and we did.
[41] And yesterday, I had the honor to stand with President Zelensky in Kyiv to declare that we will keep standing up for these same things, no matter what.
[42] And in the middle of all that, Biden said his administration would be announcing new sanctions on Russia later this week.
[43] As you mentioned, Biden's speech was largely intended as a message to Putin.
[44] Has there been response from Russia?
[45] Well, President Putin gave his annual State of the Nation address on.
[46] Tuesday, during which he said he was suspending the last remaining nuclear treaty with the United States.
[47] The new START treaty was put in place over a dozen years ago.
[48] The terms say that the U .S. and Russia won't stockpile more than about 1 ,500 nuclear warheads attached to a delivery system like an ICBM at once.
[49] But there are plenty of critics who say Russia has long violated that treaty's terms, so it wasn't worth much anyway.
[50] But the move is at least a symbolic show of hostility on Putin's part.
[51] Here's a bit of Putin's speech translated.
[52] I want to repeat, it is they who have started the war.
[53] We have used and are using force to stop it.
[54] A year ago, in order to protect people and eliminate the threat that came from the neo -Nazi regime in Ukraine, we conducted a special military operation, and step by step, we solved the tasks before us.
[55] So Putin continues to claim that the West forced his hand in this war.
[56] Obviously, the people of Ukraine disagree.
[57] Right.
[58] Tim, thanks for reporting.
[59] Thanks for having me. That was Daily Wires, Tim Pierce.
[60] The city of Seattle has settled with those who were harmed by the so -called Summer of Love, the month -long period in 2020 when activists occupied a portion of the city, calling it Chaz.
[61] Here to discuss the settlement is Daily Wire's senior editor, Ash Short.
[62] So, Ash, tell us about this lawsuit and how we got here.
[63] So this was at the height of the defund the police movement, and activists actually forced the police to abandon their precinct station after several days of violence.
[64] Shortly after the area became a no -cop zone, businesses, property owners, and residents filed a lawsuit alleging, quote, extensive property damage, public safety dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties.
[65] The plaintiffs argued that Seattle authorities chose to actively endorse, enable, and participate in the occupation.
[66] And while the city didn't admit to any wrongdoing during the settlement, it did agree to pay $3 .65 million in damages.
[67] And what kind of damages are the plaintiffs alleging?
[68] One of those suing the city, the owner of an automotive business called car tender, claimed that an intruder spread hand sanitizer all over the premises and let it on fire.
[69] The business claimed police never responded to the scene that night despite multiple 911 calls.
[70] The business owner also said that the intruder attempted to stab the owner's son, but the son survived and was able to subdue the intruder along with the owner.
[71] Once they had done so, they say a mob of about 500 people forced them to release the man. Again, all of this occurred while Seattle PD were standing down.
[72] Other property owners claim that activists told them that, quote, if they dared to paint over graffiti, their buildings would be more severely vandalized or even burned to the ground.
[73] Those involved in the lawsuit also said that, quote, violence, vandalism, excessive noise, public drug use, and other crimes were rampant in the public park where the occupiers resided.
[74] So it sounds like the suit alleges that the city failed to intervene to protect citizens who were living in this Chas area.
[75] Right.
[76] City officials also apparently deleted a series of text messages relating to the incident, which the plaintiffs say shows the city wanted to cover up what was being said by those in charge at the time these crimes occurred.
[77] Judge Thomas Zillian instructed the jury that it could presume that the city officials deleted text messages were unfavorable to the city.
[78] The judge noted that then Seattle mayor Jenny Durkin, former Seattle police chief, Carmen Best, and other city officials deleted thousands of text messages that were sent during the month -long Chaz operation, quote, in complete disregard of their legal obligation to preserve relevant evidence.
[79] And how long did the Chaz Autonomous Zone last?
[80] Less than a month from June 8th to July 1st.
[81] First, 2020.
[82] Police finally shut it down after two people were murdered and multiple shootings occurred.
[83] In addition, it's alleged that multiple rapes and robberies occurred during the occupation without police response.
[84] Well, I'm sure it took a lot of courage for these citizens to file the suit.
[85] Ash, thanks for reporting.
[86] You're welcome.
[87] That was Daily Wire Senior Editor Ash Short.
[88] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Gonzales versus Google.
[89] The Gonzalez family sued Google saying its video platform YouTube should be held responsible in the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris, France, which killed their daughter.
[90] Their attorney argued that YouTube recommended ISIS terrorist videos.
[91] Joining us to discuss is Adam can do, but professor of law at Michigan State.
[92] Hi, Adam.
[93] So first, on Tuesday, the court was presented with arguments on both sides of Gonzalez versus Google.
[94] The plaintiffs argued that YouTube is partly liable for some radical Islamic terror attacks.
[95] What was their argument?
[96] Well, to make that argument, what the plaintiff said is that the targeted recommendations that you see in YouTube, when you, you know, you'll see in your right -hand corner, there'll be suggested videos that YouTube thinks you might be interested in because of what you've listened to in the past.
[97] The plaintiffs say that they cause this radicalization and that these targeted recommendations are the speech of YouTube itself.
[98] And that's important because to even get to the merits of their claim, they have to get over the Section 230 hurdle, which says that Section 230 protects platforms when they are simply publishing content of another person.
[99] And what 230 protects is liability of the platform that is created by third -party content.
[100] So what the Gonzalez plaintiffs are saying is that these targeted recommendations fall outside of Section 230.
[101] Google, on the other hand, are saying, oh, no, no, no, no. These targeted recommendations, then on our speech, they're simply are reorganized and represented, repackage speech of another.
[102] And if it's speech of another, then Section 230 protects us.
[103] Isn't there some merit, though, in the argument that the algorithm is an active agent, not just passive, but actively promoting content?
[104] Yes, I think there is a good argument.
[105] Certainly what the Twitter files have revealed is that their algorithms are not neutral.
[106] And I think Justice Gorsuch was pushing back a little bit.
[107] on that.
[108] And he's saying, look, on one hand, how do you use their algorithms?
[109] Some of the analogies that came up in the argument were, well, is it just like a book display in a bookstore where we just set out books?
[110] Justice Gorsuch was saying, well, these algorithms are not so neutral as Google likes to say they are.
[111] And if they're not neutral, then, you know, they seem to fall out of section 230.
[112] Right.
[113] So where would that line be drawn in a situation like this?
[114] Should it be drawn by the Supreme Court?
[115] Is this the kind of thing that, as Justice Kagan suggested, should actually be drawn by lawmakers in the revision of Section 230.
[116] This is the job of the courts.
[117] I mean, I really do believe so.
[118] The court can definitely draw the line and say, look, when do the algorithms reflect the platform's own judgment, their own moral values, their own desired message that they wish to communicate?
[119] In which case, Section 230 doesn't protect it.
[120] If it's just like Twitter, the old algorithm of Twitter, which is just putting up tweets in a chronological order, you know, that's not their speech.
[121] They're just putting information off.
[122] I mean, this is the sort of fact -sensitive determination that I think courts are really good at.
[123] Number one, number two, you're not going to see anything out of Congress.
[124] I think big tech has enough control of that place so that reform is very unlikely.
[125] They've been trying it for 15 years and they've not been successful.
[126] I think one of the big problems in this case is that Section 230 law has been built in this pattern that we see in this case, which is you have sort of clueless plaintiffs bringing forth these crazy theories of liability.
[127] And then in response, the court reads the protections on the platforms over broadly.
[128] And, you know, there is a problem with the breadth of Section 230C1 protection.
[129] Justice Thomas has recognized that in a recent statement concerning denial of certain in another opinion.
[130] And I think there is a real concern here that the court might use this opportunity, almost, you know, foot demure, to adopt a very platform for friendly interpretation of Section 230C1.
[131] What did we learn from the justices' questions yesterday?
[132] Did they give any signals about which way they might rule?
[133] They seem very confused.
[134] And I think understandably, because a lot of the argument went off on just what you were talking about.
[135] When does an algorithm become the speech of the platform?
[136] When is it simply transmitting other speech?
[137] On one hand, we have this narrow question of whether targeted recommendations are speech.
[138] And if there's speech of the platform, they fall outside of Section 230.
[139] And then we have the broader question, which is, this is the first time the court ruled on Section 230.
[140] And any statement it makes will have very big ramifications.
[141] Now, we've got another case today, Twitter versus Tamna, which likewise cites terrorism statutes and claims that algorithms recommending content constitutes speech by the platforms.
[142] Why are these two cases so significant?
[143] So Tamna involves more directly the question of whether or not this sort of assistance that the platforms are.
[144] are doing by suggesting videos or providing other sort of social media -type services constitutes aiding and abetting under the terrorism statutes.
[145] These cases are significant in two ways.
[146] The first way is the immediate question of whether or not targeted recommendations and the other sort of things that platforms do constitute aiding and abetting of terrorism.
[147] If they do, then the platforms will be subject to a lot of more liability and it will have interesting ramifications on how they actually do their business.
[148] I think the even broader question and the question that's important for people who care about free speech and the power of big tech is whether or not the court will use this occasion to expand Section 230 protections to beyond simply protecting platforms for statements of others to protecting platforms efforts to arrange, organize and promote content.
[149] And I think if the court does the latter, that could be a very dangerous thing for free speech in America.
[150] Well, a lot on the line in these cases.
[151] Adam, thanks for joining us.
[152] That was Michigan State Law Professor, Adam Ken Doob.
[153] Another story we're tracking this week.
[154] The Georgia State Grand Jury, which was investigating election interference in the 2020 election, will recommend indictments for several people.
[155] The indictment remains sealed, but the jury foreman hinted at a long list of targets.
[156] Thanks for waking up with us.
[157] We'll be back this afternoon with more of the news you need to know.
[158] If you love your morning coffee while you're listening to the show, you have to check out Black Rifle Coffee.
[159] They're constantly coming out with new roast to try like their most recent.
[160] Beware the Delaware roast.
[161] Black Rifle Coffee is roasted by a veteran -led team of brilliant coffee graders here in the U .S. Go to Black Riflecoffee .com and use promo code wire for 10 % off your purchases and your first coffee club order.
[162] That's BlackRifelcoffee .com.
[163] code wire.
[164] Black Rifle Coffee, America's Coffee.