Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
Ohio Train Disaster: How Corruption and Greed Created Catastrophe, w/ David Sirota
Plus: Hawley's New Social Media Law
February 15, 2023
post photo preview

Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Tuesday, February 14, 2023. Watch System Update Episode #41 here on Rumble. 


In this episode, we take a look at Senator Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican, who has long supported the conservative view on culture war issues, that parental rights are sacrosanct and that it should be parents, not the state or school bureaucrats, who decide what American children learn about social, cultural and religious debates and how they learn about them. Yet this week, Senator Hawley has introduced a new law that would deprive America's parents of the right to decide for their own children when and how those children can start using social media and replace that parental decision-making power with a blanket rule from the state that bans social media from allowing any children under the age of 16 to use social media, even if their own parents believe they are ready to use it. We'll examine the values in conflict as a result of Senator Hawley's bill and whether it can be reconciled with the banner of parental rights, which the American right has been waving as part of the culture wars. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now. 


Monologue:

Many of the most inflammatory culture war issues over the last several years have involved fights over what children should and should not be taught in public schools about highly contested questions regarding history, race and gender ideology. But a related dispute is whether communities and parents are acting recklessly – or even endangering children – by allowing them to attend so-called drag shows or read books about LGBT history and how to understand their own gender. 

When these controversies began receiving significant public attention a few years ago, conservatives – often led by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis – waved the banner of parental rights. They objected to children being taught – or indoctrinated with – highly disputed beliefs about social issues. Aside from arguing that schools should focus on teaching students the traditional subjects they need to advance in their education and prepare themselves for the adult world – English, mathematics, science, geography, chemistry, algebra and the rest – opposition to much of the curriculum centered on the view that the responsibility to decide what children learn about political and social issues – and how they learn it – should rest with parents and not with school bureaucrats or elected officials using the force of law. 

In March of last year, Governor DeSantis published an announcement on his official website under this title: “Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education.” The announcement emphasized that value over and over – parental rights - in announcing, in the governor's words, that he had signed

House Bill (HB) 1557, Parental Rights Education, which reinforces parent's fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children”. 

The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students and requires school districts to adopt procedures for notifying parents if there is a change in services from the school regarding a child's mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. 

The Bill builds on the Parents’ Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in Florida last year, and as part of Governor DeSantis’ Year of the Parent focus on protecting parental rights in education. 

Parents’ rights have been increasingly under assault around the nation but, in Florida, we stand up for the rights of parents and the fundamental role they play in the education of their children”, said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Parents have every right to be informed about services offered to their children at school (Florida Governor’s Office. March 2022).

As that passage demonstrates, the banner of parental rights has been the one most frequently waved by conservatives in these culture war debates. It is the parent's right to decide what social, cultural, and religious influences their kids are exposed to – or not exposed to – and not the role of the state and its educational bureaucracy to decide that for the parents. 

Yet, now, Josh Hawley, the Republican senator from Missouri, who has been an outspoken advocate of the right's views in many of these culture war issues, often waving the banner of parental responsibility and parental rights himself, has introduced a bill this week that seems to me to do the opposite. That bill would deny parents the right to decide when and how their children can use social media and instead transfer the responsibility to make that decision away from the parents and onto the state. 

As Fox Business reports today about this bill, 

Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a pair of bills aimed at protecting kids online – one that would implement an age requirement for social media usage and another that would study the harmful impact of social media on children. The first bill titled the Making Age-Verification Technology Uniform, Robust and Effective Act (MATURE Act) […]

He went out of his way to create this acronym: MATURE Act

[…] would place a minimum age requirement of 16 years old for all social media users, preventing platforms from offering accounts to those who do not meet the age threshold (Fox Business. Feb. 14, 2023). 

Hawley’s other measure, titled The Federal Social Media Research Act, would commission a government report on the harm of social media for kids. That study, according to the senator's office, would examine and “track social media's effects on children over 10 years old.”

I don't think anybody objects to a study to understand how this technology that is still quite new in our lives and continuously evolving – social media – is impacting the nation's children. I don't think many people would object to that; I know I wouldn't. The question of the other bill, however, I find much more difficult to grapple with, which is the idea that there should be a minimum age that applies nationally, to every community, to every state, and to every family, that prohibits any children under the age of 16 from using social media – even if you, as the parent of your children, conclude that your children are ready and able to use social media at the age of 13 or 14 or 15 with whatever guidelines and limits you decide are necessary for them to do that. 

Under this bill, Josh Hawley is taking away the power for you to decide for your own children at what age they are able to use social media and replacing your decision-making power with that uniform minimum law from the federal government that says that it shall be illegal in essence, for social media companies to remit children under the age of 16, to use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and the rest. 

Before delving into what I think are some interesting and difficult questions raised by this law, let's listen to Sen. Hawley himself at a hearing today in the Senate in which he defends his own bill and has an exchange with the witness he believes illustrates the need for it. 

(Video 12:44)

Sen. J. Hawley:  It wasn't until Carson was a freshman in high school – was about 14, I would guess – that we finally allowed him to have social media because – this is what caught my attention – that was how all the students were making new connections. Could you just say something about that? Because that's the experience, I think, of every parent. My kids are, my boys are ten and eight, and they're not on social media yet. But I know they'll want to be soon because they'll say, “Well, everybody else is on it.” So, could you just say a word about that?

 

Witness:  Yes. Thank you. We waited as long as we possibly could, and we were receiving a lot of pressure from our son to be involved. I think – and I hear this a lot from other parents – you don't want to isolate your kid either. And so, we felt by waiting as long as possible, talking about the harms – don't ever say anything that you don't want on a billboard with your name and face next to it, that we were doing all the right things and that he was old enough. He was by far the last kid in his class to get access to this technology. Yet this still happened to us.

 

Sen. J. Hawley: Yeah, that's just incredible. Well, you were good parents and you were a good mother. Incredibly good mother, clearly. This is why I support and have introduced legislation to set 16 years old as the age threshold for which kids can get on social media and require the social media companies to verify it. I heard your answers.[…]  I just have to say this, as a father myself, when you say things like, well, the parents really ought to be educated. Listen, the kids’ ability and I bet you had this experience, the kid's ability to figure out how to set what's on this phone. And my ten-year-old knows more about this phone than I know about it. Already. What's going to be like in another four years or five or six years, like your son?

 

So, I just say, as a parent, it would put me much more in the driver's seat if the law was “You couldn't have a phone. I'm sorry you couldn't get on social media till six”. I mean, that would help me as a parent. So that's why I'm proposing it. Parents are in favor of it. I got the idea from parents who came to me and said, Please help us. You know, please help us. And listen, I'm all for tech training. It's great. But I just don't think that's going to cut it. So, I've introduced legislation to do it. Let's keep it simple. Let's just, let's put this power in the hands of parents. I'd start there. 

I'm really confused by that last part where he said, “let's put the power in the hands of parents,” because what he's doing is clearly the opposite. He's taking away the power of parents to decide when their own children can go on social media or not. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
28
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Watch Tonight's Monologue

Due to a connection issue, our stream was cut short tonight.
You can find the entire episode below.

We apologize for this technical difficulty - thank you so much for your continued support.

00:43:24
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
WEEKLY WEIGH-IN: How Was The News Cycle Last Week?

What’s happening in politics that you want to talk about? Are there any burning topics you think Glenn needs to cover? Any thoughts you’d like to share?

This post will be pinned to our profile for the remainder of this week, so comment below anytime with your questions, insights, future topic ideas/guest recommendations, etc. Let’s get a conversation going!

Glenn will respond to a few comments here—and may even address some on our next supporters-only After Show.

Thank you so much for your continued support through another week of SYSTEM UPDATE with Glenn Greenwald!

post photo preview

Merry Monday memes:

I’m sorry but I disagree with you on your take on Hamas. If free speech includes violent attacks, destruction of property, and preventing serious students whose costs are astronomical, I can do without that aspect.
I do believe that atrocities were committed on October 7 th.

post photo preview
Russia Gains in Ukraine as Another Media Hoax is Revealed, PLUS: The Media's WH Pageant & Latest in Speech Crackdowns
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Monday, April 29. 

Tonight: When Russian activist Alexei Navalny died in a Russian prison in February, it was asserted over and over by the U.S. media and U.S. politicians that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered him murdered but did not mean that metaphorically—that because Putin presides over a country where dissidents are in prison, unlike the United States, it meant that he bore ultimate moral responsibility for his death. No, they meant it literally. They were asserting that Navalny died because Putin ordered his murder. 

As we reviewed at the time, none of those claims made sense. Navalny died just days after Tucker Carlson interviewed Putin in his first interview with a Western journalist in more than two years and right as the $60 billion package that Biden had requested for Ukraine appeared to be permanently stalled in the GOP-led House. Why would Vladimir Putin, in the midst of all of that, order Alexei Navalny killed while he was already incommunicado in prison? And why would he then hand the West a major propaganda weapon to use against him? But none of those questions mattered. In fact, it was claimed that only Kremlin propagandists would even ask them. 

As we have seen ever since Russia became Public Enemy Number 1 in the United States when Democrats blamed that country for Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss, the U.S. government and its corporate media servants assert anything and everything about Putin without the slightest regard for whether it's true, and even more so, regardless of whether the claim even makes basic sense. That's because, again, nobody can question any claims about that country, the world's largest nuclear power, without instantly being maligned as a Kremlin apologist or a Kremlin asset. That Putin ordered Navalny’s murder was treated as an unquestionable fact by the U.S. corporate media.  

As it turns out, this claim was completely fabricated. The Wall Street Journal reported late last week that even the U.S. intelligence community now admits there is no evidence of Putin's involvement in Navalny’s death. This hoax, just the latest in a long line designed to manipulate the American public into drowning in anti-Russia animus and even wanting war with them, was exposed as Ukraine continues to retreat and Russia continues to expand its control of that country in that war that is still ongoing.

Thanks to House Speaker Mike Johnson, who spent years claiming he was opposed to more aid to Ukraine until he completely changed his mind and united with the Biden White House as he did on several other issues, the U.S. is now sending another $60 billion to a war that even Ukrainians are increasingly recognizing is futile and are refusing to fight in it. The propaganda served its purpose, though, of having the U.S. prolong this war, but the steep price being paid by Ukraine and by the American people continues to grow. 

Then: Each year, the White House press corps gets dressed up in gowns and other finery to attend a gaudy, sleazy, ostentatious gala at the White House that would embarrass Marie-Antoinette. They embarrassingly hobnob and pose with celebrities and with the White House, including the president, the person who they supposedly cover so adversarial, all while they showered themselves with praise and various awards. The primary function of this spectacle is that it reveals the true role of the U.S. press corps. They are eager members of the royal court, courtiers of it. This year was no different, and we will show you the lowlights that were particularly revealing about our current press corps. 

Finally: we have an update on the report we did last Thursday night regarding the nationwide crackdown on free speech and political protest all over college campuses in the United States, all to shield Israel from criticism and activism against its war. Columbia University today warned students that unless they immediately cease protesting the war in Gaza at the encampment that they created, they will be formally suspended from the school starting today and subject to arrest by the New York Police Department. All this despite there being no reports of any physical violence or physical assault that emanate from that campus. We will tell you about the latest in analyzing implications.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Campus Crackdown on Protests, PLUS: Interview with Columbia Student Protesters
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Thursday, April 25. 

As many of you undoubtedly noticed, we have not had a new show since last Thursday —a full week. That is because last week I contracted a lovely and chic and glamorous mosquito-borne virus called Dengue that is really quite debilitating. Only yesterday did I begin feeling vaguely human again, and it's been killing me not to be able to report on and analyze the numerous significant events over the last week. So, I am thrilled to be back, even if not yet fully 100%, in order to delve into as much of it as we can.

Beginning with tonight: the last seven months in the United States from October 7 until now, ranks among the greatest and most successful periods for the pro-censorship movement of any era in the United States. In years between the bipartisan ban or forced sale of TikTok, a topic we will cover another night, and the massive nationwide and long-planned crackdown on-campus political speech and protest in the name of protecting Israel. It is almost impossible to overstate how sustained and damaging this coordinated attack on core free speech rights has become. 

Supporters of Israel decided years ago that they must focus on American college campuses. One of the few prominent sectors of American life where Israel criticism and pro-Palestinian activism have been permitted to thrive. It also, by the way, thrives on TikTok, which is by all accounts a major reason that this ban, which has been lingering in Washington for years, suddenly picked up so much bipartisan support and has now been signed into law by President Biden. The reason that this country's most fanatical Israel supporters, the Ben Shapiros and Barry Weisses of the world, have been so obsessed for years with college students and college campuses is not that they are impassioned in genuine free speech activists—that's just the branding—and any lingering doubt about that should have been permanently dispelled since October 7. 

Instead, their obsessive focus on colleges is because the pro-Israel movement has understood that the greatest threat to pro-Israel consensus in the United States emanates from college campuses, in particular, their grave fear that the call to boycott and divest from Israel or to sanction it will have the same type of success as enjoyed by the movement of the 1980s on which it was based: activism to force divestment from South Africa as a means of weakening that apartheid regime. 

The desire to gain control of the range of permissible speech in American academia, and particularly the effort to ban Israel criticisms as anti-Semitic racism has long been brewing. October 7th was merely the much-awaited accelerant. As a result, one now sees Israel supporters of all types—neocons, Republicans, conservatives, pro-Israel, and Democrats—foaming at the mouth to weaponize racism accusations and police powers to silence Israel's critics. All of the most tawdry neocon tactics are on full display, including the equating of war critics with being “pro-Hamas”—and that has been fused with the embrace by much of the pro-Israel right of all the classic laughable theories of censorship over the last decade, namely, claiming that protests against Israel's wars have veered into racist hate speech, that words and slogans are themselves violence, and that they make Jewish students feel unsafe and thus must be forcibly silenced and punished. Never mind that Jewish students themselves compose a non-trivial, often significant segment of these pro-Palestinian protests on virtually every major American campus where they are found.

At bottom, this is not a complex question. If the First Amendment's free speech guarantees anything, it protects the right to protest and denounce the American government's decision to finance a foreign country's military and then arm and finance its highly destructive war. And it is precisely that right that is now under sustained and serious assault.

Then: there has been much that has been said about the protests taking place at campuses all across the country, particularly this week at Columbia University in New York. Tonight, we will speak to two of the students who have been actively participating in and helping to organize these protests: Jon Ben-Menachem, a Jewish PhD student, and an undergraduate student, Mohammad Hemeida, both of whom have been among the early leaders and organizers of the protest. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
THE WEEKLY UPDATE: APRIL 15-19
Weekly Newsletter

We are pleased to send you a summary of the key stories we covered last week. These are written versions of the reporting and analysis we did on last week's episodes of SYSTEM UPDATE.

—Glenn Greenwald

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals