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: Let Us Know!

What’s happening in politics that you want to talk about? Are there any burning topics that 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 be responding to a few comments here—and may even address some particularly interesting exchanges 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
New Interview Setup

On Monday’s episode, we welcomed back Vivek Ramaswamy to talk about FISA, Israel/Iran, and Elon’s war against Brazilian censorship.

It was the premiere of our new interview setup – as you can see below – which we hope you like as much as we do.

Let us know in the comments what you think!👇

post photo preview
THE WEEKLY UPDATE: APRIL 8-12
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
post photo preview
Norman Finkelstein Returns: The Future of Israel's War in Gaza
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Wednesday, April 17. 

Tonight: Many people have very strong opinions about Norman Finkelstein, but there's no denying that he is a dynamic, very independent, and highly informed commentator. He was one of the most notable victims of campus censorship and cancel culture when he was teaching at DePaul University near receiving tenure when the pro-Israel fanatic Alan Dershowitz launched a vicious and ultimately successful campaign to pressure the university to deny him tenure and drive him away due to his harsh criticism of the State of Israel and various Jewish activist groups, most notably in his bestselling book “The Holocaust Industry,” in 2000, which argued that pro-Israel activists exploit the memory of the Holocaust to shield Israel from any criticism. 

Finkelstein has always been a difficult person for pro-Israel activists to demonize and to apply their normal smear campaign against, calling critics of Israel racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, etc., etc. Finkelstein is not only Jewish, but he is the child of two survivors of Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and he often frames his criticisms of Israel as a byproduct of the universal principles he was taught in childhood by his parents, principles that were not meant to be utilized solely in defense of Israel, but rather as universal principles that no country, including Israel, should be permitted to violate. Since October 7, Finkelstein has become far more visible in the media than perhaps at any other time in his career, with the possible exception of the publication of his 2000 book. He has been, of course, excluded from mainstream corporate media but he has become one of the most influential and important voices on the largest and most popular programs in independent media. We sat down with him on Monday for a wide-ranging discussion of the Israeli war in Gaza, the possible escalation of the war with Hezbollah in Iran, the role of the Biden administration and the U.S. in fueling this conflict, how he views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally and how it can be resolved if it can, and many other topics. 

There are definitely many people who dislike Finkelstein and who are often enraged by his views. Still, there's no denying that there are few commentators on these issues more scholarly, well-read, and informative than he is. I believe that the discussion we're about to show you illustrates how true that is. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update with our interview with Norman Finkelstein, 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
SCOTUS Skeptical of Main Jan. 6 Prosecution Theory. Neocons Try to Destroy Tucker over Israel. PLUS: Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google 


Good evening. It's Tuesday, April 16. 

I actually don't believe that, but if we were, I have a good excuse, which is I spent many hours testifying before the Brazilian Congress about the country's censorship regime. So I don't think we are late, but if we were, I have a good excuse. 

Now, tonight: immediately after the riot at the Capitol on January 6, the Biden Justice Department was faced with extreme political pressure from Democrats, liberals and journalists—excuse the redundancy—to prosecute the protesters as aggressively as possible. About the protesters who used violence that day against police officers, there's no difficulty in charging them with major felonies, even though the law is applied very selectively and some violent protesters aren't charged at all. It is, of course, a felony to use physical force against the police. The problem for the Justice Department was that only a small minority of the January 6 protesters used violence on that day, while the vast majority of them, by the government's own admission, were nonviolent. But it would have been politically unacceptable for the Justice Department and D.C. prosecutors to only charge most January 6 protesters with misdemeanor counts so they faced a serious dilemma: how do we take nonviolent political protesters or even nonviolent trespassers and convert them into felons? The solution they embraced was legally dubious, to put that mildly, they decided to weaponize a 2002 law that was enacted after the Enron financial scandal, and which was designed simply to fill holes in the law that would have allowed Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, to escape justice. They took this law and decided to interpret it in a way that had never previously been interpreted or remotely understood as covering protest at the capital during official proceedings. Lower courts largely accepted this prosecutorial theory, and hundreds of nonviolent January 6 protesters were turned into felons as a result. However, as federal appellate courts began examining this theory more closely, they began to express serious doubts about the validity of this legal interpretation. Today, the Supreme Court held an oral argument on the question, and a majority of the justices were clearly hostile to the main prosecution theory used in the January 6 prosecutions. We will report on what happened at the court today and examine the implications.

 Then: When Tucker Carlson was the most popular cable news host on Fox, conservatives were almost all unwilling to criticize him. Indeed, when he was fired from Fox, several Republican congressmen ran to Axios to say how happy they were that he was no longer on Fox because now they could more easily fund wars, including in Ukraine, without the constant pressure from Tucker to encourage people to oppose financing of war—but none of those members of Congress dared to criticize Tucker openly under their own name. Instead, they demanded and were given anonymity. 

One of the few changes in Tucker Carlson since he left Fox and became an independent commentator and journalist—I would say the only change—is that he began to express serious doubts about the U.S. policy of financing Israel, paying for its military and arming and funding its various wars. Carlson has even begun to criticize the behavior of Israel itself, and in conservative Republican politics, criticism or questioning of Israel, this foreign country is still the greatest taboo. You have no idea how often I hear people who identify as America First, who insist that we have to finance and support and applaud and never question this foreign country. And so now, when it comes to Tucker Carlson, because of Israel, the gloves are off, just as they are for Candace Owens over the same issue, particularly in neocon journals and neocon writers who are now not just expressing disagreement with Carlson over Israel but are trying to destroy his reputation entirely. We’ll examine the latest article by the neocon Eli Wallach, published in Bari Weiss's The Free Press, to illustrate how and why this is being done. 

Finally: Dennis Kucinich has long been one of the most interesting and heterodox elected officials in the country at the age of 31. He was elected to be mayor of Cleveland, Ohio and then he represented that state's 10th congressional district for the next 16 years, from 1997 until 2013. He twice ran for president as a member of the Democratic Party, in both 2004 and 2008, and he expressed harsh criticisms of both of the eventual nominees, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Kucinich is now back after a brief stint as campaign manager for RFK, Jr's presidential campaign. He is now running as an independent against the first-term congressman, the Republican Max Miller. Kucinich has always had interesting things to say on issues ranging from law to civil liberties and the corrupt, bipartisan Washington system, and we are excited to speak with him this evening. We are sure that the interview will be at least engaging, even if various things he says you don't agree with. 

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
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