kinds of speech. and it appears to be in direct violation of your first amendment. the bill would impose criminal penalties for anyone who , quote, published material, advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, replacement theory or hate speech that vilifies or otherwise directed against any nonwhite person or group. i m not sure what all of it means. here to answer that much more , fox news contributor to point out tural, former dnc press secretary hosie are urist munoz with us. sir, i ll ask you first before i get to leo. you know, you ve read the first amendment to the constitution. i know you know what it says. it s pretty clear and it s unambiguous. congress shall make no law establishing a religion prohibiting free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech of the press, the right of the people to peacefully assemble. what part of that first amendment doesn t sheila jackson lee understaff? and why is it only one form of racism when there are multiple
and the fbi doesn t seem to have done a thing for the world. just breaking, by the way, just to be clear , federal investigators did interview biden s attorney who initially discovered the classified documents. you re a democrat, jonathan . i want to talk about a double standard, the rate of mar-a-lago. the fbi had already been in the room where they found, quote, the documents. they had unfettered access to that room. they said, would you mind putting a padlock on the door? the trump team complied. why the raid? why does hillary clinton have all of those documents, many more than were found on donald trump s property. top secret classified emails on servers. thirty three thousand deleted emails with bleach, but we never discovered devices destroyed with hammers and sim cards missing as well. that didn t seem to be a big deal to the media or democrats at the time. it was a big deal with donald trump. and once again, we re getting a series of excuses from democrats. is that a doub
importantly points out. but it doesn t mean that privately owned information networks or newspapers, or tv stations, or cable networks, it doesn t mean they are they have to disclose things that they don t want to disclose in the news. it s all part of the marketplace of ideas and the first amendment doesn t require news outlets to cover certain things and, you know, there are people who have been so rash even to suggest that fox news doesn t cover everything that it should. i d say it s your first amendment right to cover what you want to, and i think that applies to twitter. griff: you raise an interesting point. it was democrat congressman, ro khanna, that was sounding the alarm to twitter executives saying hey, hey, hey, wait a minute. would you support the house as james comer suggested is coming
colluding private companies to censor speech. this is a tricky situation because many people believe that the first amendment doesn t allow us to regulate the speech of private companies. but without question, we can regulate the government, and we can prevent the government from colluding with private tack on speech. but i think we should also preclude them and prohibit them from gathering up data. we can t really tell people on the internet they can collect our data for sails and for marketing. but we can tell the government they can collect that data because i don t want the government profiling every citizen. that goes against everything we all believe in as far as the foundation of our constitutional republic. laura: we know some of it that china gathers data on a minute-by-minute basis on its citizens to create these social credit system profiles of each individual. they don t let you go on a certain transportation system if
the government from colluding with private companies to censor speech. now, thia trs is aicky tricky sn because many people believe that the first amendment doesn t allow us to regulate the speech of privatpeeche companies. but without question, we can regulate the government and we can prevent and forbid the government from colluding with private attack on speech. sho but i think we should also preclude them and prohibit them from gathering up our data so we can t really tell peopleca on the internet if they can t collect our data for sales t we can and for marketing. but we can tell the government they can t collect that data becaushat datae i don t want the government profiling every citizen that goes against everything that we all believers in. as far as the foundation of our constitutional republic. we know, senator , thatf it china gathers data on a minute by minute basis on its citizens to create these social credit system profiles of each individual. they don t let you go on