FREE SPEECH ISN'T FREE.

JUST ASK ELON MUSK.

AND I KNOW WHO IS NOT GOING TO WIN WOMEN BELL DONE.

GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, BEN BAUGHMAN FROM CAZENOVIA COLLEGE AND RICK FENNER, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

ELON MUSK PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS, AND NOW ONE OF TWITTER'S MOST-PROLIFIC USERS AND BIGGEST CRITICS WILL SOON OWN THE PLATFORM.

THE WORLD'S RICHEST MAN SAYS TWITTER IS THE DIGITAL TOWN SQUARE, SO RESTRICTING SPEECH ON TWITTER UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY.

BY “RESTRICTING SPEECH ” HE SEEMS TO MEAN RULES OVER WHAT CANNOT BE SAID ON THE PLATFORM.

TWITTER OF COURSE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY...BUT IS MUSK RIGHT THAT EVEN IF TWITTER CAN LEGALLY BAN DONALD TRUMP OR MTG IT SHOULDN'T DO SO IN THE INTEREST OF FREE SPEECH?

>> DAVE, I THINK PART OF THAT DEPENDS UPON EXACTLY WHAT DOES ELON MUSK MEAN WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE IS A FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTIST.

IN PRACTICE, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT DONALD TRUMP, IF HE IS PERMITTED AND DOES COME BACK TO THE PLATFORM, IS ABLE TO CONTINUE TO FALSELY CLAIM THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN THE VACCINE CAN SPREAD MISINFORMATION ABOUT IT?

AND I THINK FOR ME, THE GRAVITY OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN THIS SCENARIO, A SINGLE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WOULD ULTIMATELY MAKE THAT CALL.

BUT I WILL SAY I'M ALSO NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF A GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT IN THE FORM OF BIDEN'S NEW DISINFORMATION BOARD MAKING THE CALL EITHER.

THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

AND TO BE EVEN MORE PESSIMISTIC HERE, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE FREE MARKET IS THE ANSWER.

AT LEAST I'LL SAY THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO CHANGE WHAT WE ARE FACING BECAUSE ONCE ELON MUSK ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS PURCHASING TWITTER, TWITTER MOVED FROM A VERY LOW SPOT UP TO NUMBER 2.

DONALD TRUMP'S TRUTH SOCIAL, THAT MOVED TO NUMBER 1 AND THEN ANOTHER PLATFORM MOVED FROM 400 UP TO, I THINK IT WAS 17.

>> SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS IS THAT THE ANSWER IS MORE SPEECH OR THE ANSWER TO FALSE SPEECH IS MORE SPEECH?

DOES NOT APPLY TO SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM?

>> I THINK THAT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS FUNCTION IN THE SAME WAY THAT OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS FUNCTION ALTHOUGH OUR LAWS HAVE YET TO CATCH UP WITH THEM.

CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENED IN 2011 WITH THE ARAB SPRING.

THAT HAD REAL CONSEQUENCES IN FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENED HERE IN OUR COUNTRY ON JANUARY 6.

SO, YES, TO YOUR QUESTION, I WOULD SAY THAT TWITTER, ALTHOUGH NOT LEGALLY, IS, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERED THE SAME AS OTHER MEDIA AVENUES BUT IT CERTAINLY IS A MATTER OF PRACTICE?

>> WE MAY BE GETTING A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF OURSELVES.

NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT THIS DEAL IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO COME THROUGH.

THE MARKETS HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

YOU KNOW, MUSK HAS OFFERED $54.20 FOR A SHARE OF TWITTER STOCK.

BUT AS OF THIS MORNING, SHARES OF TWITTER WERE SELLING FOR JUST OVER $49.

NOW USUALLY WHEN THESE KIND OF TAKEOVERS ARE ANNOUNCED, THE VALUE OF THE STOCK GOES UP TO THE NEW PRICE.

BUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE TODAY ARE WILLING TO SELL SHARES OF TWITTER STOCK AT $49 WHEN, IF THEY JUST HELD ON TO IT FOR A WHILE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SELL IT AT $54.20, SUGGESTED THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE, THE SMART MONEY, ISN'T SO SURE THAT THIS DEAL IS EVEN GOING TO COME THROUGH.

>> THERE IS ANOTHER ANGLE TO THE WHOLE STOCK ISSUE WHICH IS TESLA STOCK, RIGHT?

>> YES, AND THAT'S WHY REASON ONE OF THE REASONS THEY THINK THIS PERHAPS WON'T GO THROUGH, A LOT OF PEOPLE FEAR THERE COULD BE COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO TESLA FROM MUSK OWNING TWITTER.

IN FACT, SINCE MUSK ANNOUNCED HE WANTED TO BUY TWITTER, TESLA STOCK IS DOWN BETWEEN 15 AND 20%.

AND THE REASON I THINK COMES FROM WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST INTERESTING BATTLE THAT COULD COME OUT OF THIS, IF MUSK DOES BUY THIS AND THIS IS MUSK VERSUS CHINA.

HIS IDEA OF WANTING AN UNFETTERED SPACE ON TWITTER WITH NO LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH IS CLEARLY NOT GOING TO SELL WELL IN CHINA.

SO WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

WHO GOSS GOING TO GIVE IN AND WILL THERE BE COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO TESLA WHERE IN CHINA TESLA HAS MANY FACTORIES AND IS RELYING VERY HEAVILY ON SALES OF TESLA CARS IN CHINA.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF REALLY GOOD POINTS.

RICK'S POINT ABOUT IT GOING THROUGH, I THINK, IS A GOOD POINT.

BUT A SIGNAL FROM LAST NIGHT, $5 BILLION WORTH OF TESLA STOCK WAS TOLD BY MUSK, WHICH WOULD SIGNAL THAT HE IS BEING SERIOUS ABOUT PUTTING THE $55 BILLION TOWARDS BUYING TWITTER.

TO THE POINT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH TECH, THAT HAS BEEN ONGOING ISSUE.

BUT I WILL SAY WITH THE IDEA THAT MUSK IS GOING TO TAKE THIS PRIVATE, HE IS STILL GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE FACT THAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ADVERTISERS TO MAKE MONEY AND USERS ON THE PLATFORM TO ACTUALLY BRING THE ADVERTISERS THERE.

SO I DO SEE THAT THERE ARE STILL GOING TO BE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE.

>> SO MUSK IS THE WORLD'S RICHEST MAN.

MARK ZUCKERBERG IS ONE OF THEM OWNS FACEBOOK, JEFF BEZOS OWNS THE POST.

DO WE HAVE AN OLIGARCH IN AMERICA?

>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WHEN RICK SAID THIS IS POSSIBLY NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH, THE MUCH, MUCH LARGER ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BILLIONAIRES, ABOUT RICH PEOPLE SORT OF BUYING UP THE PUBLIC SQUARE AND HAVING THE ULTIMATE SAY OVER THE NATURE OF DISCOURSE IN OUR COUNTRY.

AND DISCOURSE IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT FOR A DEMOCRACY.

I THINK IT WAS DAVID CHAPELLE WHO SAID THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS FIRST FOR A REASON.

AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS SECOND, JUST IN CASE EVERYBODY DOESN'T FOLLOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SO ABSOLUTELY WE NEED THAT.

AND IF I COULD SAY ONE OTHER THING.

I THINK AN EVEN DEEPER PROBLEM HERE IS THAT WE HAVE ALL TALKED AROUND THE FACT THAT THERE IS THIS DISTRUST OF THE PUBLIC BEING ABLE TO SORT OUT FACT FROM FICTION AND IF WE CAN DEVELOP A MORE INFORMED PUBLIC, PERHAPS IT WON'T MATTER WHO IS IN CONTROL.

>> I THINK I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT WEALTH AND POWER AND MEDIA.

BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS TRANSLATE BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP, YOU KNOW, WE MENTIONED HIS TRUE SOCIAL.

THAT CLEARLY HADN'T BEEN DOING VERY WELL.

AND HE HAS A LOT OF MONEY, NOT ON MUSK MONEY, BUT I THINK WE ARE SEEING THAT THERE ARE SOME LIMITS AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT POWER MONEY CAN BUY.

>> YEAH, HE HASN'T BEEN DOING SO WELL SO FAR, BUT AGAIN, THE APP STORE FREE APP RANKINGS HAS SHOWN THAT HE IS NOW NUMBER ONE AND HE HAS SIGNALED SO FAR THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO GO BACK TO TWITTER.

AND LET'S ALL-- YOU KNOW, ADMIT, TRUMP HAD A LOT TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT TWITTER WAS AS BIG AS IT WAS, RIGHT?

>> SO, TWITTER GETS A LOT OF CRITICISM FOR BEING A CESSPOOL OF, YOU KNOW, INSULT AND INVECTIVE.

BUT IT ALSO GIVES VOICE TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE REALLY HAVE ACCESS TO GETTING THEIR VOICE OUT.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF TWRIT TWITTER, TOO.

THERE IS REAL VALUE TO THAT SERVICE.

>> AND THERE ARE OTHER PLATFORMS AS WELL, IF IT DOES BECOME AN ISSUE OF MUSK NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH SHARING THE ALGORITHM THAT BRINGS, YOU KNOW, STORIES UP TOP AND ISN'T AS TRANSPARENT AS HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO BE, THERE IS REDDIT, THEY USED IT WITH THE GAME STOP INCIDENT THAT SHUT DOWN ROBIN HOOD JUST ABOUT FOR A FEW DAYS.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS.

>> OKAY, NOW LAST WEEK FLORIDA GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS PUSHED THROUGH A BILL REVOKING WALT DISNEY COMPANY'S SPECIAL GOVERNING TREATMENT BECAUSE OF CRITICISM OVER HB 1557 —THE PARENTAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION BILL THAT CRITICS CALL “DON'T SAY GAY.

”.

REPUBLICANS TRADITIONALLY WERE THE PARTY OF BUSINESS, AND OBJECTED TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND ESPECIALLY TO WHAT THEY CALLED “CRONY CAPITALISM.

”.

WHAT HAPPENED?

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO NOT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS?

THE IDEA THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED WITH PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS.

>> GREAT QUESTION.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE OF THE G.O.P.

PLATFORM OF NOT HAVING BIG GOVERNMENT AND BEING PRO-BUSINESS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, DISNEY IS THE LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYER OF FLORIDA.

AND THE FACT THAT SINCE 1967, THEY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR 25,000 ACRES OF LAND AND ALL THE PUBLIC ROADS ON THAT LAND PROVIDING ALL THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES TO THE PEOPLE ON THAT.

THAT'S GOING TO FALL TO ORANGE COUNTY IF THIS GOES THROUGH.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT DISNEY HAS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT THAT THEY HAVE.

>> SO IS THIS IDEA, NINA THAT THE STATE CAN WITHDRAW FAVORED TREATMENT?

IS THIS SORT OF THE NEW CONSERVATISM, IF YOU WILL?

>> I THINK IT SMACKS OF THAT BECAUSE I WILL SAY THAT I'M NOT ESPECIALLY TROUBLED BY THE LAW ITSELF BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN SORT OF A BLAND WAY SO THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL SPECIAL DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED AFTER 1968.

IT GIVES THE POSSIBILITY TO BE REESTABLISHED AFTER JUNE 1, 2023 AND IT ONLY AFFECTS FIVE DISTRICTS, BUT TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS THAT THAT WAS MOTIVATED BY AN INTEREST IN PUNISHING THE C.E.O.

OF DISNEY FOR CRITICIZING THE DON'T SAY GAY BILL.

THAT'S A PROBLEM.

AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY REVERBERATE BEYOND FLORIDA BY SIGNALING TO CORPORATIONS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT WADE INTO POLITICAL WATERS.

>> SO IT'S A FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEM, RIGHT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ISN'T THAT WHAT CITIZENS UNITED IS ALL ABOUT, THAT A CORPORATION... >> I THINK IT IS THAT PROBLEM, BUT ALSO HERE, WHAT GOVERNOR DeSANTIS TOOK ISSUE WITH WAS A STRING OF STEPS THAT WERE TAKEN BY DISNEY, ALL OF WHICH HAD TO DO WITH DIVERSITY, RIGHT, BEYOND THE DON'T SAY GAY BILL.

THIS SPAT BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM EXTENDED BACK FARTHER SO I THINK THE ISSUE IS THE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE STATES, ESSENTIALLY PENALIZE CORPORATIONS THAT TAKE LIBERAL STAPSES.

STANCES.

>> THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, YOU KNOW, OUR TAX CODE IS LITTERED WITH INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES THAT ARE GEARED TOWARD INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CASE, I MEAN ON THE ONE HAND YOU CAN SAY WHAT FLORIDA GIVETH, FLORIDA CAN TAKETH AWAY.

WHAT IS UNUSUAL HERE IS USUALLY THE RETRIBUTION ISN'T SO PUBLIC.

AND I THINK THAT IS SORT OF THE POINT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE DeSANTIS THINKS THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO COME ABOUT EVENTUALLY.

THERE ARE ALREADY DISCUSSIONS AS TO WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO SURVIVE IN THE COURTS AND HAS BEEN MENTIONED WHO IS GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT ONLY THE SERVICES BUT THE DEBT THAT DISNEY IS TAKING AS PART OF RUNNING THIS SPECIAL DISTRICT?

THIS COULD PRESENT A HUGE BURDEN ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THAT AREA.

SO I THINK HE MAY BE POSTURING, PLAYING TO HIS BASE, KNOWING THAT ULTIMATELY THIS IS NOT GOING TO COME ABOUT.

>> BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE COUNTIES THAT BEN MENTIONED, PICK UP THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR COVERING THOSE 80,000 EMPLOYEES AND LET'S REMEMBER ALSO, THAT DISNEY, YOU KNOW, PRODUCES SOME 70 BILLION IN REVENUE.

SO THIS CHANGE WOULD MEAN THAT IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY, IF A PERSON HAS A HEART ATTACK ON DISNEY PROPERTY, IF THERE IS A FIRE, THAT NOW THE LOCAL COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HUGE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE.

>> THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO GO THROUGH.

I DON'T THINK THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO TAKE THIS ON.

I THINK HE KNOWS THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH.

>> BUT WHEN YOU SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH, IT HAS BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF IT.

>> I GOT YOU.

>> SO CORPORATE AMERICA HAS BOYCOTTED CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED.

INDIANA A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, THERE WAS AN ISSUE AND COMPANIES DIDN'T-- THE NCAA DIDN'T HAVE THE BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT THERE AND GEORGIA, A FEW YEARS AGO, I THINK DEALT, A BIG DELTA A BIG EMPLOYER IN GEORGIA CREATED A RUCKUS.

THEY DIDN'T LIKE A POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT THERE.

AND THIS IS JUST THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, IS IT NOT?

WHY SHOULDN'T STATES BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR?

>> WELL, THEY DO-- LAST WEEK THE PANEL TALKED ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNOR DECIDED TO GIVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE BUFFALO BILLS IN ORDER TO BUILD A STADIUM THERE.

SO AS I SAID, THIS PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IS SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES ALL THE TIME.

AGAIN, USUALLY NOT IN QUITE THE WAY THAT DeSANTIS DID IN THIS CASE.

>> I THINK ANOTHER LESSON HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WISE FOR CORPORATIONS TO BE SO ALL IN WHEN IT COMES TO THE CULTURE WARS AND TO POLITICS BECAUSE HERE DISNEY WAS SORT OF DAMNED IF IT DID AND DAMNED IF IT DOESN'T.

IT WAS BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE BECAUSE WHEN IT DID TRY TO SORT OF BE MORE INCLUSIVE, IT WAS ACCUSED OF NOT BEING INCLUSIVE ENOUGH BY THOSE ON THE LEFT AND THEN BEING TOO INCLUSIVE BY THOSE ON THE RIGHT.

>> BUT DeSANTIS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOT NECESSARILY PUNISHING OR DISFAVORING THEM.

THEY'RE TAKING AWAY A SPECIAL RIGHT THEY HAD ALREADY GIVEN THEM.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE?

>> I THINK ABSOLUTELY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, DeSANTIS HAS NOW SUBJECTED DISNEY TO THE CONTROL OF THE STATE.

IT'S NO LONGER SELF GOVERNING.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE GOVERNED BY STATES IN THE WAY THAT MAKES IT MORE SUBJECTIVE TO THE ADVICE SIS TUDS OF POLITICS.

>> THE DISNEY LOBBYISTS ARE HARD AT WORK TRYING TO UNDO THIS NO DOUBT.

NOW I DON'T KNOW WHO THE MEN'S CHAMPION WILL BE AT WIMBLEDON THIS YEAR BUT I DO KNOW IT WILL NOT BE DANIIL MEDVEDEV THE ALL ENGLAND TENNIS CLUB HAS BANNED PLAYERS FROM RUSSIA AND BELARUS OVER THE INVASION OF UKRAINE.

THE TENNIS TOURS OBJECTED TO THE DECISION.

RUSSIAN SOCCER PLAYERS, SWIMMERS, FIGURE SKATERS AND TRACK ATHLETES HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM EVENTS THIS YEAR.

TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD WE HOLD RUSSIAN CITIZENS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INVASION?

>> GOOD QUESTION, FIRST OF ALL WE ARE ALREADY HOLDING MANY RUSSIAN CITIZENS RESPONSIBLE BOTH THE U.S. AND EUROPE HAVE FROZEN AND EVEN TAKEN CONTROL OVER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ASSETS THAT BELONG TO WEALTHY RUSSIANS.

BUT TAKING IT TOO THE ISSUE OF ATHLETES IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M A HUGE FAN OF DANIIL MEDVEDEV, BUT STILL, I BELIEVE THAT WIMBLEDON IS JUSTIFIED IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

LET ME ADDRESS THE TWO COMPLAINTS THAT ARE USUALLY GIVEN ABOUT THIS.

FIRST, DISCRIMINATORY.

YES, IT IS DISCRIMINATORY.

THEY ARE SINGLING OUT ATHLETES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED THAT LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT IS WAGING WAR ON UKRAINE.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS KNEE JERK REACTION TO THE WORD DISCRIMINATORY THAT IT IS ALWAYS BAD OR NOT JUSTIFIED.

BUT THE OTHER ISSUE IS A FAIRNESS ONE HE HAS SAID THIS IS UNFAIR TO RUSSIAN TENNIS PLAYERS.

I WOULD SAY WHAT ABOUT THE FAIRNESS TO UKRAINIAN TENNIS PLAYERS IN WHICH THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM.

THEY'RE FORCED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO COMPETE AND PUT BEHIND THEM THE FACT THAT THEIR COUNTRY HAS BEEN INVADED, IS BEING BOMBED INTO SUBMISSION, THAT THOUSANDS OF THEIR COUNTRY MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE BEING KILLED, MILLIONS MORE ARE BEING FORCED TO FLEE THE COUNTRY.

THINK ABOUT THE PRESSURES ON THEM.

ADD TO THIS, THE POSSIBILITY WHICH HAS ALREADY OCCURRED ON THE WOMEN'S TENNIS TOUR, THAT THEIR OPPONENT IS RUSSIAN.

SO THE RUSSIAN ATHLETE GETS TO ENJOY THE PRIVILEGES AND THE BENEFITS OF BEING IN OUR SOCIETY AND EARNING A GOOD SALARY, WHILE THE UKRAINIAN ATHLETE IS BEING FORCED TO NOT ONLY COMPETE BUT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON IN THEIR HOMELAND.

I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO THINK MORE ABOUT THE FAIRNESS TO THE UKRAINIAN ATHLETE.

>> LET ME BUILD ON THAT BECAUSE IN OUR EFFORTS TO HAVE PUTIN AND HIS INHUMANE WAR IN UKRAINE, IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT WE ENCOURAGE ALL HUMANE PRESSURES AGAINST IT.

AND THIS INCLUDES SPORTS.

OUR ATHLETES THAT ARE PLAYING IN COUNTRIES SNEER PLAY THEY'RE PLAYING WITH THE FACT THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY MURDERING CITIZENS.

YOU HAVE RUSSIAN CITIZENS MORE LIKELY WHEN THEY SEE THEIR ATHLETES ARE NOT ABLE TO PERFORM ON THE WORLD STAGE, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO ASK ABOUT THE PROPAGANDA THAT'S BEING PUT FORTH TO THEM.

>> I THINK THAT REALLY IS THE CRITICAL POINT HERE BECAUSE SOME OF THE CRITICS HAVE ALSO SAID THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO END THE WAR.

OF COURSE IT'S NOT GOING TO END THE WAR.

THAT'S NOT THE GOAL.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER SORTS OF THINGS; NAMELY THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED, THAT IT COULD HELP TO RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS IN RUSSIA ABOUT THE REAL SORT OF GOALS AND NATURE OF THIS WAR.

I THINK IT NECESSARILY BUTTRESSES THE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON RUSSIA.

BUT I THINK IT ALSO SORT OF DENIES PUTIN THE ABILITY TO HAVE ANOTHER FEATHER IN HIS HAT OR MORE BRAGGING RIGHTS.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIAN ATHLETES, I'M HARD PRESSED TO SEE, AND RICK HAS ALREADY POINTED THIS OUT, I'M HARD PRESSED TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RUSSIAN ATHLETES AND THE OLIGARCHS WHO HAVE HAD THEIR HOMES, AND BANK ACCOUNTS SEIZED AND POTENTIALLY PUTIN'S ALLEGED GIRLFRIEND WHO MIGHT SUFFER THE SAME FATE.

BUT IN THIS CASE, I WOULD SAY THAT ATHLETES ARE SYMBOLS.

SYMBOLS OF THEIR COUNTRY.

AND FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, THEY, UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE INDIVIDUALS, ARE FAIR GAME.

>> SO DO YOU THINK THEN THAT BOATED OF YOU ARE PRETTY STRONG ON THIS, THAT OTHER TENNIS TOURNAMENTS, FOR INSTANCE LIKE THE UNITED STATES OPEN, THE U.S. OPEN IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, THEY SHOULD DO THE SAME THING?

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT IS NOT THE PLAN AND THE FRENCH OPEN?

>> THEY SHOULD CONSIDER IT ALTHOUGH UKRAINIAN ATHLETES HAVE SUGGESTED A COMPROMISE AND THEY ARE NOT AGAINST BLANKET ELIMINATING ALL RUSSIAN ATHLETES.

THEY HAVE ASKED THAT OR SAID THAT IF A RUSSIAN ATHLETE COMES OUT AND PUBLICLY STATES THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF RUSSIA WITHDRAWING FROM UKRAINE, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM-- >> THAT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO PUT THEM DIRECTLY IN THEIR LEADER'S CROSS HAIRS.

>> THEY WON'T LIVE TO TELL MORE ABOUT IT.

>> BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THEY DO BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY.

BUT THAT IS AT LEAST A COMPROMISE.

AND IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ATHLETES LIKE ALEXANDER WHO HAVE BEEN VERY VOCALLY SUPPORTING PUTIN, AT LEAST UNTIL THE WAR IN UKRAINE.

SO WHY NOT HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS PAST SUPPORT OF PUTIN?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE NHL NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE STAR FOR THE WASHINGTON CAPITALS, GREAT FRIEND OF PUTIN AS YOU SAY.

A LOT OF RUSSIAN PLAYERS ARE IN THE NHL.

SHOULD THE HOCKEY LEAGUES BAN THEM NOW?

>> I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY ALL RUSSIAN ATHLETES SHOULD NOT BE BANNED FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT WE ARE ALREADY MENTIONED.

IF YOU ARE IN FOR A POUND YOU ARE IN FOR A DOLLAR.

>> IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WITH THAT WE WILL GO TO OUR AS AND Fs.

NINA, WE WILL BEGIN WITH YOUR F. >> THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SOUTH LAKE TEXAS WENT FROM BAD TO WORSE THIS WEEK.

FIRST AN ADMINISTRATOR ADVISED TEACHERS TO TRY TO BALANCE THE SELECTION OF BOOKS BY ADDING SOME THAT OFFER AN OPPOSING VIEW ON THE HOW FAST.

BEFORE THE HOLOCAUST BEFORE THIS, THE DISTRICT FELL THROUGH ON RESPONDING TO A VIDEO SHOWING WHOIT STUDENTS CHANTING THE N WORD.

THIS WEEK THEY DECIDED TO INCLUDE IN THE TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT A CLAUSE, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE THAT REQUIRES TEACHERS TO NOT DISPARAGE, CRITICIZE OR DEFAME THE DISTRICT.

ONE HAS TO WONDER WHAT COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

>> BEN YOUR F. >> FOR A FAILED FLUSH.

THERE IS A WOMAN WHO ACCIDENTALLY DROPPED HER CELL PHONE IN A HOLE IN AN OUTHOUSE.

SHE TRIED TO RETRIEVE IT WITH A DOG LEASH WHICH DIDN'T WORK.

SHE THEN TIED DOG LEASHES TOGETHER TO TRY TO SUPPORT HER AS SHE REACHED IN TO TRY TO REACH HER PHONE.

SHE FELL HEAD FIRST INTO THE TOILET.

SHE HAD TO CALL 911 AFTER 15 MINUTES OF UNSUCCESSFULLY GETTING OUT.

THEY RESPONDED AND WERE ABLE TO GET HER OUT.

>> SHE CALLED 911 FROM HER PHONE?

>> SHE DID GET HER PHONE.

>> RICK, YOUR F. >> MY F UNFORTUNATELY GOES TO THE UTICA OBSERVER-DISPATCH.

TUESDAY MORNING I OPENED MY NEWSPAPER AND READ A LONG ARTICLE ABOUT HOW TWITTER HAD DECIDED TO TALK TO ELON MUSK ABOUT BUYING THE COMPANY.

UNFORTUNATELY THE DEAL HAD ACTUALLY ALREADY TAKEN PLACE THE DAY BEFORE.

I THEN WENT TO THE SPORTS PAGE TO CATCH UP ON LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL SCORES WHERE I FOUND THE RESULTS OF HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE ELMIRA AREA, NOT THE UTICA AREA.

I KNOW LOCAL JOURNALISM IS STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE AND I WANT TO DO MY BEST TO HELP SUPPORT IT, BUT THE UTICA OBSERVER-DISPATCH CAN AND MUST DO BETTER.

>> QUICKLY As.

>> WASHINGTON POST-OP ED USED THE OCCASION OF MADELINE ALBRIGHT'S FUNERAL TO TALK ABOUT HER GRATITUDE FOR THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER REVERED AMERICANS WHO WE CAN BE GRATEFUL TO FOR THEIR DETERMINATION TO PUT COUNTRY OVER PARTISAN AND OR PARTISANSHIP AND PERSONAL CONCERNS.

>> MY A GOES TO THE FAMILY WHO ARE TREASURE HUNTERS.

THEY RECOVERED A SAFE IN A RIVER FOR 22 YEARS, TRACKED DOWN THE OWNER OF THAT SAFE AND RETURNED $25,000 WORTH OF AUSTRALIAN MONEY.

BEING HONEST AND GIVING BACK IS MORE REWARDING THAN TAKING.

>> RICK.

>> MY A TO JOHN STEWART REWARDED THE MARK TWAIN PRIZE FOR AMERICAN HUMOR, THE HIGHEST HONOR IN THE FIELD.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS, YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER," HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.