>> THE TEXAS BORDER, THE LOOMING STATE BUDGET AND MISINFORMATION ONLINE--- WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT NEXT ON IVORY TOWER.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M BARBARA FOUGHT, FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

JOINING ME THIS WEEK ARE NINA MOORE, FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

ALSO FROM COLGATE IS CHAD SPARBER.

AND RICK FENNER IS HERE FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

TEN DAYS AND THE STATE BUDGET IS SUPPOSED TO BE FINALIZED.

ONE PROVISION STILL BEING DISCUSSED IS THE NEW YORK HEAT BILL, WHICH MOVES THE STATE AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO ELECTRIC POWER.

ONE PROVISION OF THE BILL WOULD MEAN NO MORE SUBSIDIZING NEW GAS HOOKUPS.

ANOTHER CAPS THE AMOUNT LOW- INCOME RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR UTILITIES •ONLY UP TO 6% OF THEIR INCOME.

THAT COULD SAVE CUSTOMERS AN AVERAGE OF $125-DOLLARS A MONTH.

LET'S START WITH THAT PROPOSAL.

CHAD, IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

>> WELL, NO.

SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO PROPOSE A BILL THAT REDISTRIBUTED $125 A MONTH FROM RICH FAMILIES TO POOR FAMILIES, I WOULD PROBABLY BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

THEY COULD SPEND THE MONEY ON WHATEVER THEY WANT, WHETHER IT'S HOUSING OR FOOD OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS BILL IS THOUGH.

THIS BILL IS A SUBSIDY FOR ENERGY CONSUMPTION, WHICH IS AS ASSANINE THINK ABOUT THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN THIS BILL.

IT ARGUES THAT ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS TOO HIGH BECAUSE IT PRODUCES TOO MUCH Co2 AND SO FORTH.

AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PRICES ARE TOO HIGH.

NO, THOSE ARE CONTRADICTORY POLICY POSITIONS.

AND SO IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE POOR, THE RIGHT SOLUTION IS TO TAX THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, TAKE THOSE REVENUES, REDISTRIBUTE IT TO POOR HOUSEHOLDS SO THEY CAN USE THAT MONEY HOWEVER THEY NEED TO.

>> RICK, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THIS?

>> SIMILARLY, I THINK IT ACE-- I THINK IT IS A BAD IDEA FOR SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REASONS.

BY CAPPING IT BY PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, AS SOON AS PEOPLE HIT THAT 6% OF THEIR INCOME BEING SPENT ON ENERGY, ENERGY BECOMES FREE.

SO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO TRY TO CONSERVE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S HOT OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, OPEN THE WINDOWS.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THIS.

I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS.

IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE POOR PAYING TOO MUCH FOR ENERGY, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT.

YOU KNOW, CHAD HAS MENTIONED SOME MAKING A CASH REDISTRIBUTION.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT MORE TARGETED, YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT USUALLY RATES-- DIFFERENTIAL RATES CHARGED TO DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS BASED UPON THEIR INCOME.

BUT HE IS RIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE CONSUME LESS ENERGY, HIGHER PRICES WILL DO THAT, NOT LOWER PRICES.

>> NINA, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THIS?

>> MY VIEW IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS ALWAYS.

I USUALLY START TO ROLL MY EYES WHENEVER MOSTLY ACADEMICS AND ELITES START TO TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE MOST AMERICANS DON'T HAVE THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR LIST OF POLICY PRIORITIES.

IN FACT, IT'S VERY MUCH TOWARD THE BOTTOM.

BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT SOMETHING SHOULDN'T BE DONE, AND PARTICULARLY WHERE NEW YORK IS CONCERNED BECAUSE BUILDINGS CONSUME MORE OR THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE GAS EMISSIONS THAN ANY OTHER PART OF THE ECONOMY.

FULLY A THIRD.

SO SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

BUT I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS AIN'T IT.

AND EVEN WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 6% CAP FOR THOSE WHO ARE LOW TO MODERATE INCOME, WHAT IS IN THE FOOTNOTES OR IN THE SORT OF RED OR SMALL LANGUAGE HERE IS THAT THAT IS POTENTIALLY CONNECTED TO A QUOTA ON HOW MUCH ENERGY CAN BE USED BY THOSE HOUSEHOLDS.

AND BUT THEN HERE IS THE OTHER THING.

IT'S THE ISSUE OF TRUST.

IF YOU ARE TELLING US THAT THIS SUBSIDY IS GOING TO BE THERE, YOU ARE TELLING US THAT, BY USING A BILL THAT REMOVES A SUBSIDY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROMISED, SO ARE WE REALLY SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE?

AND THEN WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

>> THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION, RICK, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE ALL NOW, WHO PAY ELECTRIC BILLS ARE PAYING FOR EVERY NEW CONNECTION, EVERY NEW HOUSE, EVERY NEW BUILDING.

THIS BILL WOULD TAKE AWAY THAT SUBSIDY FOR THE ENERGY COMPANIES.

IS THAT A GOOD IDEA?

>> WELL, PART OF WHAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THE NEW YORK HEAT BILL IS THE INTENTION IS TO DEAL WITH A DISCONNECT HERE.

ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE A GREATER GOAL THAT WE WANT TO REDUCE THE USE OF FLULS BECAUSE OF THE FOSSIL FUELS BECAUSE WHAT IT DOES TO THE CLIMATE.

BUT IN OUR REGULATIONS, WE ARE ENCOURAGING THE EXPANSION OF THE NATURAL GAS.

AND WHAT NEW YORK HEAT TRIES TO DO IS ALIGN THOSE.

SO BY ASKING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF TAKING THE 5,000 TO $10,000 THAT IT COST TO HOOK UP A HOUSE WITH NATURAL GAS AND MAKING ALL RATE PAYERS PAY FOR THAT, BY REQUIRING HOUSEHOLDS AND HOMEOWNERS TO FOOT THAT BILL, NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO ASK, IS NATURAL GAS REALLY THE WAY THAT I WANT TO HEAT MY HOUSE OR COULD THERE BE SOME MORE AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE.

THE SAME THING IS WITH THE SPENDING ON PIPES.

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WILL BE SPENT ON THAT.

IS THAT REALLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO WHEN WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS DISCOURAGE ADDITIONAL USE OF NATURAL GAS?

>> WELL, AND SO THIS COULD BE AN INSTANCE, TO YOUR POINT, RICK, OF THE CART BEING PUT BEFORE THE HORSE BECAUSE TWO REGULATORY AGENCIES, ONE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, THE OTHER A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, HAS PREDICTED THAT NEW YORK IS GOING TO FACE SERIOUS ELECTRICITY SHORTAGES, NOT AT SOME DISTANT POINT IN THE FUTURE BUT BETWEEN 2024 AND 22.

THEY'RE SAYING GO SLOWLY.

MEANWHILE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS A FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCY THAT IS SAYING THAT WHAT LAWMAKERS OUGHT TO DO IS TO HELP BOLSTER GAS SUPPLY IN ORDER TO MAKE UP FOR THE SHORTAGE IN ELECTRICITY, PARTICULARLY DOING PERIODS OF EXTREME COLD.

UNLESS THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED, THIS BILL COULD LITERALLY LEAVE NEW YORKERS OUT IN THE COLD.

>> THERE IS A SIMPLER ANSWER, I THINK, THAN WHAT RICK OFFERED, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE GAS HOOKUPS SUBSIDY IS AN ENERGY SUBSIDY AND TERRIBLE BECAUSE IT MAKES THE PRICES TOO LOW.

THE EASIEST SOLUTION IS YOU TAX THE BAD, WHEN IS THE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION AND THE MARKET CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS, WHETHER IT'S WIND OR SOLAR OR WHATEVER.

TO NINA'S POINT, SHE IS RIGHT, THE PROBLEM HERE IS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CAN SERVE A ROLE IS IN COORDINATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH VOLTAGE POWER TRANSMISSION LINES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THERE IS A VERY GOOD VIDEO THAT WAS PRODUCED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021 TALKING ABOUT HOW AMERICA'S GRID IS NOT READY FOR CLEAN ENERGY YET BECAUSE ALL OF THE POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR ENERGY, WIND AND SOLAR, THEY COME FROM THE MOUNTAIN STATES AND THE PLAINS STATES.

BUT ALL THE CONSUMPTION IS ON THE COASTS AND WE HAVE NO WAY OF DELIVERING THAT.

IT REQUIRES LINES THAT CROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHERE FEDERAL AGENCIES CAN PLAY A ROLE IN COORDINATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE.

>> THAT'S AN ADMIRABLE GOAL BUT WE HAVE TO GET THERE FIRST.

>> RIGHT.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE CARBON TAX, I THINK YOU, I AND A FEW OTHER ECONOMISTS ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

MY GUESS IS THAT'S ABOUT AS LONG AS THE LIST.

THERE IS NO SUPPORT, UNFORTUNATELY AMONGST EITHER REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS FOR THAT.

>> WE WILL SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR COME TO AND WHETHER THAT BUDGET GETS SET IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

TUSHING TO OUR SECOND-- TURNING TO OUR SECOND TOPIC.

ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN --- THAT WAS THE NEWS THIS WEEK WITH THE TEXAS LAW THAT ALLOWS POLICE LOCAL AGENCIES TO ARREST, DETAIN AND EVEN DEPORT MIGRANTS.

THE CASE WENT UP TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND IS NOW BACK FOR A DECISION IN THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT.

BUT THE LAW IS NOT BEING ENFORCED RIGHTED NOW.

NINA, THIS BACK AND FORTH HAS CREATED A LOT OF CHAOS IN TEXAS.

>> YEAH, PART OF THE CHAOS IS BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE WHERE WE CAN LEGITIMATELY DEMONIZE EITHER SIDE OF THIS ISSUE.

WE CAN'T HAVE THE COUNTRY CONTINUE TO GROW BY SOME TWO MILLION PEOPLE ANNUALLY WHO ARE UNVETTED AND COMING THROUGH UNLAWFUL MEANS.

AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO DO MORE.

AND IT'S JUST SORT OF THERE SITTING ON ITS HANDS.

AND SO THERE IS AN ISSUE THERE.

HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE FIX.

WE CAN'T HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH BORDER STATES, THE 18 BORDER STATES SOMEHOW HAVE MORE POWER THAN STATES WITHIN THE INTERIOR TO DICTATE THIS THING, WHO CAN AND CAN'T REMAIN IN THE U.S.

I THINK THE OTHER, REALLY SORT OF ABSURD ARGUMENT IS THIS INVASION ARGUMENT THAT TEXAS IS SAYING THEY'RE BEING INVADED.

OKAY, DOES THAT MEAN THAT HAWAII SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO PEARL HARBOR BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THAT HAPPENED IN HAWAII?

DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE LOOKING AT 50 DIFFERENT NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGIES BECAUSE AN ATTACK MAY LAND IN A PARTICULAR STATE?

SO THAT'S AN ISSUE.

BUT I GO BACK TO THE BIGGER CONCERN THAT NO INDIVIDUAL STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE FOR ALL OF AMERICA WHO CAN LIVE IN AMERICA AND WHO MUST BE KICKED OUT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'S AN ISSUE OF SUBSIDIARY WHICH I KNOW I REFERENCED ON A PREVIOUS PROGRAM.

>> TELL US AGAIN.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, ST. THOMAS AQUINAS... LOOK, IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT IMMIGRATION POLICY HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE FEDERAL LEVEL, RIGHT?

THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT THEY SERVE.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT A SURPRISE THAT LOCAL POLICE IN TEXAS ARE AGAINST THIS POLICY.

THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW IT THREATENS THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES AND THREATENS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ILL GRANTS, YOU KNOW, WON'T CALL 911 IN CASES OF EMERGENCY.

AND SO IT'S TERRIBLE.

IT HAS TO BE A FEDERAL LEVEL THING.

>> RIGHT, ALTHOUGH-- I AGREE WITH BOTH OF MY COLLEAGUES BUT I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE PROBLEMS FACING TEXAS BECAUSE THEY ARE, BECAUSE OF GEOGRAPHY, YOU KNOW, BEARING THE BRUNT OF THIS IMMIGRATION WAVE.

AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THEY BROUGHT THE PROBLEM THE LITERAL DOORSTEPS OF COMMUNITIES LIKE MARTHA'S VINEYARD, NEW YORK AND CHICAGO THAT PEOPLE STARTED TO TAKE THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY, THEN IT WAS REPUBLICANS WHO DRAGGED THEIR HEELS AS THEY MADE THIS A PAWN IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.

BUT NOW IT DOES APPEAR THAT PERHAPS THERE IS SOME COMPROMISE AND WHAT IS NEEDED ARE MORE RESOURCES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IF IT IS GOING TO BE THE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY, THEN THEY HAVE TO STEP UP AND DO THIS.

NOW, AS THE COURTS HAVE SAID, CONGRESS' FAILURE TO ACT DOESN'T JUSTIFY LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TAKING THIS OVER.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY'RE SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

FEDS HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

>> YEAH, AND THERE IS A REASON WHY WE HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM OR LONG TIME AGO MOVED AWAY FROM THE HISTORICAL MODEL WHEREBY STATES DID CONTROL IMMIGRATION RIGHT UP UNTIL 1891 WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAME MORE INVOLVED AND OVER TIME EXERCISED EXCLUSIVE CONTROL.

THE REASON THAT HAPPENED IS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BETTER POSITIONED TO OVERSEE INTERSTATE ISSUES, INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO ACT, AS I SAID BEFORE, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

BUT TO THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE, I DON'T GET WHY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ISN'T DOING ANYTHING.

I JUST DON'T GET THAT.

>> LIKE CONGRESS IS THE ONE THAT HAD THE GREAT BILL AND REPUBLICAN...... >> HANG ON A SECOND.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REVEAL PEELED OR REVOKED OR PULLED BACK ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT HAD BEEN PUT IN PLACE BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND SO THE IDEA THAT CONGRESS SOMEHOW HAS RESPONSIBILITY TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT BORDER PATROL DOES THEIR JOB IS JUST LUDICROUS.

>> SOME OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS WERE LIKE SEPARATING KIDS FROM THEIR PARENTS.

>> WELL, SOME OF THOSE, BUT NOT ALL OF THOSE WERE INAPPROPRIATE, AND WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, ALSO, THAT ONE OF THE CRITICISMS MADE EVEN OF OBAMA WAS THAT HE HAD BECOME-- WHAT WAS THE TERM THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM?

DEPORTER IN CHIEF SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS AS CLEARLY A DEMOCRAT VERSUS REPUBLICAN ISSUE AS MUCH AS IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING ITS JOB, NOT IN THE WAYS, NOT DOWN THE LINE IN THE WAYS THAT TRUMP DID BY PUTTING IN PLACE THE MUSLIM BAN, BUT GOSH DARNER, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, FOR THE THIRD TIME.

>> I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THAT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE BIDEN IS COMING FROM.

HE HAS TWO THINGS HE IS WORKING ON.

ONE IS A SOCIAL JUSTICE ARGUMENT THAT AND THAT'S ITS OWN THING.

AND THE OTHER IS THE BALANCE OF THE ECONOMIC EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT IMMIGRATION IS GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

AND HE MAY HAVE TAKEN THAT TOO FAR.

RIGHT, SAYING THAT ON THE MARGIN IMMIGRATION IS GOOD IS DIFFERENT FROM COMPLETE OPEN BORDERS AND THE COMPLETE FLOOD THAT HAS COME IN.

>> IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET WHAT MONEY DOES END UP GOING FOR HELP WITH IMMIGRATION AND ANY NEW POLICIES.

WELL NOW WE HAVE TO GO ON TO ANOTHER COURT CASE.

ONE OF SEVERAL ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS NOW DECIDING.

THIS WEEK THE COURT HEARD TWO STATES ARGUE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SILENCING CONSERVATIVE SPEECH WHEN IT TELLS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ABOUT FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AND SUGGESTS THE PLATFORM FLAG OR REMOVE IT.

SO, RICK, HOW DO YOU DRAW THAT FINE LINE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT INFORMING VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT COERCING?

>> TO ME, COERCION ENTAILS SOME FORCE OR THREAT.

FOR INSTANCE, IF A MAYOR WERE TO TELL A LOCAL NEWSPAPER THAT IF THEY CONTINUE TO RUN ANTI-VAX LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, THEY WOULD CONSIDER PULLING THEIR PUBLIC NOTICE ADS AND PUTTING THEM INTO ANOTHER NEWSPAPER.

THAT WOULD BE COERCIVE.

THEY WOULD BE USING THE THREAT OF LOSS OF REVENUE TO GET SOME KIND OF CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR.

IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND OFFICES AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES AND OFTEN THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES HAVE DONE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ASKED, THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE SEEN, GIVEN THAT THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL THREATS OR COERCION OR FORCE BEING PLACE HERE.

SO I DON'T SEE THE EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THERE BEING COERCION.

JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE WHAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, TO ME, IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE PROHIBITING OR ABRIDGING THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

>> CHAD, IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHETHER THE PLATFORM WOULD HAVE DONE THAT ANYWAY BECAUSE OF ITS OWN POLICIES OR WHETHER THEY'RE YIELDING TO THE GOVERNMENT.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON HOW YOU DRAW THAT LINE?

>> I'M THINKING MORE BROADLY ABOUT HOW MISSOURI AND LOUISIANA HAVE A WEAK CASE TO BEGIN WITH AND ONE SIGNAL OF THAT IS TO LOOK AT HOW CONSERVE CONSERVATIVE 3450EDIA HAS RESPONDED TO THE CASE.

THEY'RE SPENDING LESS TIME TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS AND PROJECTING ITS FUTURE AND MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT HOW JUSTICE JACKSON REGRETTABLY SAID MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT YOUR VIEW HAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAMSTRINGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SIGNIFICANT WAYS.

SO THEY'VE SEIZED ON THIS AS EVIDENCE THAT SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS SUPPOSED TO HAMSTRING THE GOVERNMENT.

BUT ONCE THEY HAVE SHIFTED THEIR ANGER AWAY FROM A POLICY AND A LAW AND TOWARD A PERSON, IT'S KIND OF A SIGNAL THAT THEY KNOW THEY'VE LOST THE LEGAL ARGUMENT HERE.

>> YOUR VIEW ON THIS, NINA?

>> YEAH, I'M SO COMPELLED RIGHT NOW, CHAD TO COME TO THE DEFENSE OF JUDGE JACKSON JUST BECAUSE BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO GET AT IS THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T HAVE UNFETTERED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS; THAT YOU CAN'T CRY, YOU KNOW, FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER AND SO THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE THERE.

I AGREE, PERHAPS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT IN A WAY THAT GOT WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT.

BUT I WILL SAY HERE THAT GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE A ROLE IN SORT OF REGULATING IN SOME WAYS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH OUR HEALTH, INTEGRITY AND SECURITY OF ELECTIONS BUT WHEN IT COMES TO INFORMATION AND WHAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD CONSUME, THAT'S WHY I HAVE A CONCERN, BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE A VERY BASIC QUESTION OR DEBATE OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES TRUTH.

IT'S NOT AN EASY THING BECAUSE HAVE YOU TO DECIDE WHICH FACTS YOU LOOK AT?

>> OR ALTERNATIVE FACTS.

>> OR HAVING ONE'S OWN TRUTH, RIGHT?

AND ALL OF THAT.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO INFORMATION, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT HERE IS WHERE I THINK THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO SOMETHING, AND THAT IS TO AMEND SECTION 30, TO BASICALLY PROVIDE FOR LIABILITIES THAT ARE VERY CAREFULLY CONTRIVED SO THAT PEOPLE WILL THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE A COST.

>> SECTION 230 IS THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO NOT BE SUED BECAUSE THEY'RE MERELY TRANSMITTING INFORMATION, THEY'RE NOT LIKE A NEWSPAPER OR TV STATION THAT'S CREATING INFORMATION.

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT,.

AND I THINK IT COULD OPEN UP A LOT-- IT COULD BE A DIMINISHING OF SPEECH BECAUSE THE PLATFORMS WOULD HAVE TO BE MUCH MORE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT THEY PUT OUT IF THEY'RE LIMITED.

>> I WOULD RATHER THE PLATFORM SELF REGULATE OR THE MARKET SELF REGULATE THAN TO HAVE EITHER A DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION DECIDING FROM ONE... >> THEY DIDN'T DECIDE.

THEY'VE ASKED WHERE IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE REGULATED THE SPEECH ON THESE SITES?

THEY MADE AN ARGUMENTS.

NOW COULD THERE BE AN IMPLIED ANTITRUST THREAT HERE?

POSSIBLY BUT HAVE I SEEN NOTHING THAT SHOWS THAT HAS HAPPENED.

THE 3WUR7 IS ON THE PLAINTIFFS AND I THINK THEY'VE FAILED.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PLAINTIFFS.

>> THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT MONOLITHIC AND IF AN ENTITY IS FEELING TARGETED BY ONE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT BUT ANOTHER PART OF THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTING THEM, THEN THIS SORT OF ARGUMENT THAT COERCION IS HAPPENING GOES OUT THE WINDOW.

THEY'RE NOT BEING COERCED.

>> SO WHAT WOULD YOUR SOLUTION BE TODAY, CHAD?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

CAN WE GO BACK TO IMMIGRATION?

>> GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A VOICE IN THE MARKETPLACE, RIGHT?

AND THE ISSUE-- THE KEY ISSUES WERE FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT VACCINES ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD.

>> LIKE I SAID, THIS CASE IS VERY WEAK BECAUSE THEY TOOK A VERY BROAD SENSE IN THINKING GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO ENCOURAGE PRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA TO RELEASE ANY INFORMATION.

THAT'S WHERE LIKE CONEY BARRETT IS JUST MOCKING THEM, NO MATTER HOW VANILLA THE ENCOURAGEMENT IS THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO THAT?

>> LOUISIANA WAS SAYING THEY WOULD NOT, UNDER LOUISIANA COURT RULING, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY CONTACT TO ASK ABOUT CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR.

>> THAT'S A LITTLE EXTREME.

>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH GOVERNING AT THE EXTREMES.

RIGHT?

YOU COMPLETELY MISS THE MARK.

>> THAT WOULD BE BAD FOR DEMOCRACY.

BUT WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE GRADEBOOK.

IT IS TIME FOR THE Fs AND THE As.

>> THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHOWS EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN ONONDAGA COUNTY EITHER MET OR EXCEEDED THE STATE AVERAGE FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION EXCEPT THE CITY OF SYRACUSE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHICH SERVES A LARGER SHARE OF POOR AND MINORITY STUDENTS.

THE CITY'S GRADUATION RATE ACTUALLY FELL IN 2023 TO 69% DOWN FROM 2%.

WHILE WE ARE SAVING ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS, THE INTERNET, THE POLAR BEARS AND THE PLANTS.

LET'S TRY TO SAVE THE FUTURE OF SYRACUSE SCHOOLS.

>> CHAD, YOUR F. >> THIS WEEK DONALD TRUMP SAID HE HAS BEEN TREATED WORSE THAN ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE BIDEN-HARRIS HEADQUARTERS TWEETED THAT REMINDER THAT LINCOLN WAS ASSASSINATED AND THEN KEITH OBERMAN REPLIED WITH "THERE IS ALWAYS HOPE."

I AM NOT A FAN OF TRUMP.

I HOPE HE LOSES EVERY ELECTION HE RUNS FOR AND LOSES IN COURT.

BUT TO HOPE FOR HIS ASSASSINATION, EVEN AS A JOKE, HE KNOWS BETTER SO EARNS MY F. >> MY F GOES TO ARIZONA STATE, INDIANA, UCLA ST. JOHN'S, OKLAHOMA AND MY SYRACUSE ORANGE AMONG MANY OTHER COLLEGES FOR TURNING DOWN BIDS TO THE NIT OR NATIONAL INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENT.

THESE TEAMS WERE NOT CHOSEN TO BE PART OF THE 68-TEAM NCAA TOURNAMENT SO INSTEAD OF GIVING THEIR PLAYERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY IN WHAT USED TO BE THE PREMIER POST SEASON TOURNAMENT, THESE SCHOOLS HAVE DECIDED TO SULK, TAKE THEIR BASKETBALLS AND GO HOME.

BY THE WAY, WHAT MAKES THIS ESPECIALLY WORTHY OF AN F IS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF TEAMS TO 80 OR MORE IN THE NCAA TOURNAMENT IN ORDER TO GIVE MORE TEAMS THE ABILITY TO COMPETE IN THE POSTSEASON.

EXCUSE ME.

THERE ALREADY IS THAT OPPORTUNITY AND IT'S CALLED THE N.I.T.

>> LET'S LOOK FOR THE As.

NINA.

>> WELL, MY A FOR THIS WEEK IS GOING TO GO TORE BALDWINSVILLE AND FAYE FAYETTEVILLE VOTERS WHO VOTED TO MOVE THEIR LOCAL ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER WHEN MOST OF THE REST OF AMERICA WILL BE VOTING WHEN TURNOUT WILL BE HIGHER AND WHEN MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING ATTENTION.

MAYBE NOT ALWAYS, BUT MOST OF THE TIME VOTERS KNOW BETTER.

>> COLGATE SPORTS, SYRACUSE.COM RAN AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON SYRACUSE BASKETBALL, THE SUCCESS AND IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY.

VIEWERS NOW KNOW WHETHER COLGATE BEAT BAYLOR OR IN THE IN THE OPENING ROUND OF THE TOURNAMENT BUT I DON'T.

ALSO OUR WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAM IS PLAYING DIVISION 1 SEMIFINAL DIVISION RIGHT NOW.

WIN THIS AND THEY'RE ON TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP.

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL WON AN NSM I.T.

GAME YESTERDAY.

>> MY A GOES TO LIZ CHENEY, JOE MAN CHUN, DWAYNE THE ROCK JOHNSON AND THE OTHERS ON THE SCREEN WHO HAVE TURNED DOWN NO LABELS OFFER TO RUN AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

>> THEY ASKED THE ROCK.

AND HE SAID NO.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE FINDING SOMEBODY.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING TONIGHT GRAB A PEN OR OPEN THAT COMPUTER AND WRITE US.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THESE TOPICS OR WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DISCUSS.

YOU CAN SEND IT TO ANY OF THE ADDRESSES ON THE SCREEN.

IF YOU MISS THE SHOW ANY FRIDAY, CATCH IT SATURDAY AT 5:30 OR WATCH IT ANYTIME ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

GOOD NIGHT.